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.

Today it takes two incomes (usually) just to keep
a family afloat. Therefore if someone stays home
to look after children (at least in the child's -
early formative years) then I totally support paid
parental leave to help (be it for the male of female
of the family). And I think our attitudes need to change
regarding the way we look at child-rearing. Children are
this country's future and are worth the investment of
taxpayer's money. Governments spend enough on other
things that some of us may consider a "waste."
An investment in children I don't regard as one of them.

Yuyutsu,

I brought this issue up because recently my brother and his wife have just had their second child. I can't tell them what to do in that area. If I do I'll get in a lot of trouble with my parents. However I brought up the issue of the house husband - and it was 'laughed off' by my brother - however I was being serious about it.

His wife gets paid maternity leave at present, because she has better skills education wise, and as a result a better job. So she is able to stay at home and look after their two children - and be paid for it.

I was quite offended by my brother laughing off the idea - as I was being serious - and felt why should there be discrimination (female versus male) like this in 2014?

NathanJ, there isn't discrimination in this area.....as the paid parental leave can go to either mum or dad.
Obviously your brother just doesn't fancy staying home with the baby, and that has nothing to do with discrimination.

I know a couple of house husbands who do a great job, but I would suggest that most men are quite happy not to stay at home with the kids...

Suseonline,

Tony Abbott's scheme for paid parental leave hasn't been approved by parliament yet, so it is not in place.

"but I would suggest that most men are quite happy not to stay at home with the kids..." This is an assumption, (that some have) not a fact.

Under my brother's work - paid maternity isn't even part of the picture, it would not even be approved by his employer or be taken seriously - because he is male. In fact I think a lot of people would think the idea was silly - and as a result a lot of men would not take it up.

I (personally) think it is a good thing if we can break down barriers between parents and scrap stereotypes in 2014.

Parents connecting with their child in their earliest years is vital - for a good future. Putting them in childcare for long periods of time isn't always the best option.

Nah men should not get paid parental leave, after all isn't it taking equality too far.

This isn't about equality. There's other issues
to consider. To list just two:

1) Get to know your baby - together.
The bond you'll form will last for life.

2) After giving birth mothers are healing -
physically and emotionally - adjusting to their
new role, new baby, new schedule, having a partner
around to help comforts and helps - especially
in their sleep deprived state.

NathanJ, we've been over this before.

>>Tony Abbott's scheme for paid parental leave hasn't been approved by parliament yet, so it is not in place.<<

But there is already a scheme in place, and operational, as you can see here:

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

Furthermore, as Suseonline pointed out, "there isn't discrimination in this area.....as the paid parental leave can go to either mum or dad".

So what, exactly, is your problem?

Nathan's problem is once he decides something is wrong he won't accept the facts pointed out to him that prove otherwise.

Nathan is too judgemental for his own good and equates everything in his personal life (as he sees/interprets it) as an indication of the conditions throughout society... in this year of 2014. There also seems to be a tendency to use hearsay rather than solid evidence to prove his point.

ConservativeHippie,

"Nathan is too judgemental for his own good and equates everything in his personal life (as he sees/interprets it) as an indication of the conditions throughout society... in this year of 2014."

As of course this applies to no one else - including yourself, that being taking a high moral ground. Its a very clever debating technique by the deniers of an issue, with other people having to defend their credentials.

If you actually read the details put out (linked to the Centrelink page) - you will find there are a lot of holes in it, and special requirements that need to be met for the benefits listed.

And I know this because I read details for example, when I get a document or agree to something online. I don't just sign the contract or click the button - without knowing what I'm doing.

For example on eligibility: You have to meet the Paid Parental Leave work test - which includes terms like "may" for example. This is not something definite, and not every person will reach every piece of criteria, with this type of wording.

I was also listening to ABC radio yesterday on the topic of equal opportunity (with the Equal Opportunity Commission) in relation to women who are pregnant or just had children. It can be difficult to remain in work and the home at the same time, because you cannot be guaranteed your employment. Small business can also find it difficult to take on that persons job casually or part time - and then have to find another person as well to fill a gap in a service required for their business to operate.

This was raised as a point of concern by the commission - not me, so ConservativeHippie, you might like to know that - and public taxes pay for the Equal Opportunity Commission in Australia.

Hi there

I agree with your opinion o sung wu, i also think that Why organization or tax payers funded for those children who already have good earning parents.

You do talk nonsense sometimes, Nathan J.

>>You have to meet the Paid Parental Leave work test - which includes terms like "may" for example. This is not something definite, and not every person will reach every piece of criteria, with this type of wording.<<

The word "may" is used only twice in the work test document, and on both occasions is used to encourage people to look more closely:

"You do not need to be working full time to be eligible for Parental Leave Pay. You may meet the work test even if you:
- are a part time, casual, or seasonal worker
- are a contractor or self employed etc. etc."

And:

"You may still meet the work test if you are self employed.
You can include your hours of work, even if the business is not generating any income, providing you are undertaking the work for financial reward or gain"

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

Anyone who finds this discouraging or confusing probably deserves support of a very different kind.

I don't think you have approached this subject with any form of rigour or disciplined thinking. You certainly haven't remotely persuaded me that there is any kind of problem whatsoever with husbands and paid parental leave.

When this subject was first raised on OLO there were questions raised. One answer during a political interview as to why introduce 'paid parental leave' was 'to allow these women to maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed.' That did it for me. No no no. This was part of Abbot/Hocking budget that saw sooo many cuts to the needy. How could they possibly justify this? Unless of course the couple/ individual qualifies for assistance.
I agree with Yuyutso and O sung wu.