Until 1987, more men than women were students of higher education. Now (2011 ABS figures) of all women aged 15-64 years completing a non-school qualification, 42% were enrolled in a bachelor degree, compared with 37% of men.

I believe on this basis, the husband (or man) in a family, should be able to get Tony Abbott's paid parental benefit - not just a woman. Particularly if the women has a better job, with higher qualifications and is earning more money.

This would mean the woman could stay in her job and the man would stay at home.

The problem however is socially, men are seen as unsuitable to look after a baby, do the shopping, cooking and cleaning (as a house husband) by many in our community. The idea is literally laughed off. Why?

Nathan,

"The problem however is socially, men are seen as unsuitable to look after a baby, do the shopping, cooking and cleaning (as a house husband) by many in our community. The idea is literally laughed off. Why?"

I don't believe it's laughed off. There are plenty of men doing those things. I know personally three single dads who have "run a household" extremely well - and others who do it as a matter of course in the normal scheme of sharing the load.

I'll just add that, as a woman who breastfed both her children, it was much easier for me to actually nourish the child by being in the physical vicinity of the baby in order to do it.

Not the whole story.

>>...the husband (or man) in a family, should be able to get Tony Abbott's paid parental benefit - not just a woman<<

The law as it stands specifically allows for payment to "the primary carer of a newborn or recently adopted child."

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/parental-leave-pay/eligibility-for-parental-leave-pay

So de jure, gender non-specific.

Although, as Poirot points out, the de facto position is that it is more likely to be gender-specific, since women are significantly better suited to breastfeeding than men, and newborns are more plentiful than adoptees.

The question still remains, though, as to why it is necessary for the taxpayer to fund this activity at all. The more reliant on government largesse we make individuals, the more entitlements they will crave, and the easier it becomes for governments to employ social engineering in their policies.

Pericles,

"The question still remains, though, as to why it is necessary for the taxpayer to fund this activity at all. The more reliant on government largesse we make individuals, the more entitlements they will crave, and the easier it becomes for governments to employ social engineering in their policies."

Like this...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/childready-abbott-government-examines-how-to-boost-parental-competence-20141104-11gfn7.html

Dear Nathan,

Nobody, male or female, should get a special parental leave, paid or otherwise, because making and rearing children is no different in principle than any other hobby.

I'm surprised this idea comes from you because you should know better than others how much this hobby harms the environment. While it should definitely not be made illegal, it should not be encouraged either.

Hi there NATHANJ...

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I believe there should be no paid parental leave for anyone. I think it was PERICLES who stated, there has to be limits to what governments continue to hand out from the public purse. Further, to have children is a decision for a married couple to make, therefore it should be funded by that married couple, not by the poor ol' taxpayer.