Saltpeter, as is the case with many posters, you seem to have forgotten one VERY CRUCIAL party within this scenario, the employer.

Most small businesses are on their knees and, I suspect that if not for the finacial commitment they have made, not to mention the assets theynhave tied up, many of these would simply throw their hands in the air and say it's all too hard now.

Furthermore, we have the likes of Qantas makimg noises, on top of the knowledge that we are loosing ALL THREE of our car manufacturers, and what do combined governments do, they impose yet more disruption and costs on an already buckling sector.

It's just plain crazy, because like most things in life, having children is a personal choice, and whether some other country does it or not makes no difference what so ever as the one thing that is dwindling here in this country is the care factor about the employers, as they after all are what makes most things possible in the first place, as they take thenrisks to provide the jobs, FOR A REWARD of cause.

However, we are now seeing the results of wha happens when the risks outweigh the rewards, yet we fail to head the warnings. Just plain crazy.

Give people an affordable way to fund their own PPL with tax incentives I say.

Everyone.
It all comes back to:
"WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S BABY?"
After all I never participated in making the thing in the first place but I am to be punished just as though I did.
Isn't that 'Child Support'
let them take it out of all their accumulated entitlements or maybe have a weekly pay deduction to build a maternity leave bank that they pay into themselves for their own benefit.
LEAVE ME OUT OF IT.

Saltpetre,

The aim of such conditions was never to improve the lot of infants, nor for that matter to increase fertility. It was feminist inspired and directed to increase number of women in jobs (participation) and to increase women's share of the economy (economic participation). -Although many men wryly say that their wages cheque goes direct to a woman's handbag and women control and perform the lion's share of the spending of income.

It is about equality of outcomes aka 'equity' for women in all areas of life, which goes much further than equality of opportunity. It isn't really equality of opportunity at all, but 'positive' affirmative action to achieve 'equity' outcomes. Where 'equity' has its feminist PC meaning.

Now as I have been saying, others can debate the ins and outs of that and whether the Australian public has ever been consulted on it (which is doubtful). Because what I am on about is whether the 'solutions' are solutions at all or more likely, policies that further advantage an already advantaged elite of educated, middle class women. An elite who have been riding the gravy train for decades and in some cases for their entire working lives.

If we really wanted to improve the participation of women in the workforce there are other things to try, one being to encourage them into apprenticeships in the trades. Another to encourage employer sponsored child care and so on.

OTB, if, as you say, this is an attempt to increase women in the workplace, I fear it will back fire big time, simply because it makes employing women more unattractive, knowing you will have to fund not only their PPL, but their replacement as well should they choose to have a baby.

This brings me to another area of consideration, what if the replacement turns out to be better suited to the employer, what then?

The other problem with the PPL,scheme, current or Abbotts, is that I believe a return to work, post leave, is at the discretion of the worker and, that can cause issues with staffing, especially if the employer misses an opportunity to secure a well suited replacement, simply because they couldn't commit.

I am afraid the whole system has too many what ifs and, given that creates uncertainty, this uncertainty can cause women to be overlooked for roles.

Chrisgaffe,
Back on page 5 you asked if someone could tell you who pays for PPL and as yet you do not have a straight answer.

Now I am not sure but it appears that public servants have PPL now and what the current debate is about is that PPL should apply to the private sector as well.

Maybe OTB can clarify the situation for you, as he seems well versed on the issue.

I get the feeling that taxpayers are now paying the PPL for public servants. Not surprized but still disgusted as with the baby bonus.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/politics/35814-delivery-of-abbott-s-paid-parental-leave-hits-a-budget-bump.html#

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay

Re federal Public Service,
Fair Work Act2009
Paid Parental Leave Act 2010
Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973