Browse > Home / Blogs, Editor / Paid maternity leave misses the mark

Paid maternity leave misses the mark

Posted on October 4, 2008, 10:10am

Where are the voices of reason challenging the union movement’s push for paid maternity leave?

With federal and state Labor Governments entrenched it seems there are few people prepared to challenge the notion that women should be paid to nurture their infants.

The Australian newspaper reported recently that a large number of middle class Australians receive more welfare than they pay in tax.

That’s because the government already forks out a considerable sum through various benefits such as Family Allowance, childcare rebates and the baby bonus.

It’s reached the point where people might reasonably question why they should work at all.

Stay at home, do nothing, receive welfare and get a Health Care card.

There is little incentive to actually contribute anything to society by working when the more you earn the fewer benefits you receive and the more taxes you pay.

Now the unions and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd want to pay working mothers for doing what mothers have done free of charge since time began – raising their children.

Only those who have been in the workforce for at least 12 months would be eligible under the proposed scheme, which would cover the self-employed, contractors, part-time and casual workers.

Mothers who choose to stay at home because they believe it is the right thing to do are disadvantaged. “Home duties” are relegated to something ignoble.

Little thought appears to have been given to the cost impact on business and the reality that women of childbearing age will find it harder to win coveted jobs.

MICHAEL GOREY

Tags: , ,  

Comments

4 Responses to “Paid maternity leave misses the mark”

  1. Jason Virgo on October 4th, 2008 2:34 pm 1

    I wonder how much your income actually is michael, that is absolutely rediculous. I agree that there are a lot of people out there cheating the system and bluding off the tax payer. And that the system should be changed. But my family gets stuff all incentives from the government, even though i live 500km from home.

    If we want our children to be brought up properly we need to support women because you know if my mother was to give up her job (to focus on bringing up children) our family would struggle to live on one wage.

    I think you should focus on abusing the bludgers that never get a job, not the hard working ones that (rightfully so) put their children first for a couple of months in their hardworking lives.

    Shameful article.

  2. Michael on October 5th, 2008 9:04 am 2

    Jason, I have no problem with welfare payments going to those in need. I can think of better ways to spend taxpayers’ money however, than giving it to mothers to stay at home with their infants.

    And why should a working mum receive $10,000 while a stay-at-home mum only receives $5000? Neither should receive anything, in my opinion. Having children is not something you should expect to be rewarded financially for.

    My income is irrelevant to this. I have benefited from the baby bonus though for two of my four kids (when it was $1000). I didn’t ask for it and I don’t agree with it.

    Here is a link to a recent article in The Australian about middle class welfare and the tax disincentive to work: http://cli.gs/796Lvj

  3. Ebony Jackson on October 5th, 2008 4:58 pm 3

    Recently I was waiting at the bus stop, began chatting to a young woman who excitedly disclosed she was almost 5 months pregnant, but was having a tough time of it paying for groceries etc.

    She also said she had a 7 year old at home too. Politely I continued to chat and learnt she is eagerly looking forward to the baby bonus payment, it will help pay for groceries, pay TV, magazines for her to read.

    She also said her boyfriend couldn’t wait for her baby bonus, and it was the reason why she became pregnant again.

    During our conversation she told me she had never worked, did not finish school, her boyfriend is unemployed, her parents lived on welfare, and her 7 year old child was fathered by a previous boyfriend.

  4. Adam Naiova on October 7th, 2008 7:09 pm 4

    Claims that such a scheme would discriminate against stay-at-home parents are incorrect. Such a scheme merely seeks to redress the bias in favour of single-income households that developed in family assistance during the Howard Liberal Government. Such bias included Family Tax Benefit Part B, available to wealthy single earner families, but not to lower-income two-earner families.

    Whist it is fair that single-income families are supported generously; it is only fair that if we support the decision of families to have a parent out of the paid workforce for several years, we should also have a policy allowing mothers 18 weeks leave after the birth of a child before returning to work.

    This policy is from the Productivity Commission, who main objective is to look at ways to increase economic productivity. One of the greatest challenges over the next few decades will be the ageing workforce. Economic prosperity will rely on increasing workforce participation. One of the key ways for this to occur is to increase mother’s workforce participation.

    Furthermore, seeing as this scheme only puts us six weeks ahead of South Africa and Ecuador, I hardly believe that the predominately taxpayer-funded program will prove an overly onerous burden on business.