Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Paid Maternity Leave

A PRE CHILD Support initiative - ie money paid to support PRE Chldren - government (taxpayer) funded

So Pru Goward was upset that the Rudd Government has not yet implemented Maternity leave for all women in all types of jobs.

I can understand the government's concern. Who pays - the small business or the taxpayer?

Can a small business afford to pay a part time worker (and most of them are) maternity leave?

Where does this all fit with paying women to stay at home, giving women more super and the other inspired initiatives coming out of the government sponsored policy areas.

Either way its yet another potential baby creation system (like the baby bonus) all about giving women money to have babies (men and fathers not required)

Yet I can't help thinking that maybe if they concentrated on building healthy relationships between men and women there would be better outcomes for everyone - less relationship breakdown, more children born to happy households, less social problems, better health, etc. A better use of the child support concept.

Yet the dilemma for the government is that if there is one sector of the community which has expectations of handouts, government money and support - it would have to be the women and mothers. It has became so ingrained that I am sure the government fears the potential damage a group of angry people could cause.

The CSA system, Family law (superannuation and other changes), Family bonus, Family Tax  and now this - are all designed to give women money. Hell of a problem for the government - they no longer have the ability to mount an argument for not continuing to give money to one group. Fairness, equity, sense - all out the window - even damage to fathers, children etc - all no longer seem to matter.

Yet - children will once again be unintended victims (don't government's love a victim?) born on the back of promise of money rather than a promise of a father and mother who will support and look after them.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Personally I think paid maternity leave better than the baby bonus - one would think the mothers at least were helping themselved by HAVING a job to get leave from in the first place. I would say trash the bonus and bring in paid maternity leave using the savings.  :P

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
I agree with Jadzia. I have no objection to single mum's per se - I was one!

I do have a problem with women that see it as a career. The less benefits you get as a single mum, the more incentive there is to work.

There are a lot of benefits with paid maternity leave, one being, keeping trained workers in the work force.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 


Jon Pearson said
Yet the dilemma for the government is that if there is one sector of the community which has expectations of handouts, government money and support - it would have to be the women and mothers. It has became so ingrained that I am sure the government fears the potential damage a group of angry people could cause. (Emphasis added.)
Jon. This is an example of the type of ALL statement that might get you labelled as sexist.  You have made numerous other comments like this.  Over time a pattern is discernible.  (As you know, I first raised this with via a Personal Message (PM) earlier in the month and advised/recommended the use of qualifiers, rather than ALL-like statements.  It is noted that you have chosen not to use qualifiers in this instance.)

There is some truth in what you assert.  There ARE many women, with a sense of entitlement, who do expect to get paid for both sex and babies - they have whores' hearts and a belief that the world owes them a living.

That said, NOT ALL women are like that.  There ARE many good women who seek to live in partnership with men and lovingly raise healthy and happy children in stable families.

To me, it is not so much women as the ideology of feminism that has raised the Robin Hood call of "robbing from the rich (men) to give to the poor (women)" - in their eyes - to seek and to justify one group living off the work of another (based on their jaundiced view of history and sense of entitlement that men have to pay for years of allegedly not being nice).  But not everyone - every woman - agrees.  Many women are not feminists, don't hate men and don't believe men owe them a living.

And women have no monopoly on the view that they should be paid for everything.  There are many men who are dole bludgers too, they just don't (can't) use children to justify it.

Speaking of others, let's look at your comment with two words changed:
Don Appledaughter said
Yet the dilemma for the government is that if there is one sector of the community which has expectations of handouts, government money and support - it would have to be the Aborigines and migrants. It has became so ingrained that I am sure the government fears the potential damage a group of angry people could cause.
Again, there is SOME truth in this statement too (in that SOME do have such a sense of entitlement), but perhaps that truth could be expressed with more consideration and care as to how the message might be understood by a broad and mixed audience - such on a forum like this.  Likewise with your original statement.

Don might have also pointed to a sense of entitlement in those groups (neatly expressed in the Midnight Oil lyric "time to pay the rent"!) and discussed that underlying belief and how it originated, grew and operates today and who was behind it.  He might have wanted to follow the money, as 'they' say.

Now I realise this is only one example and your first inclination will be to reject my observation and to argue the toss and attempt to justify yourself.  But you have asked for such examples to be highlighted, and with you, being you, you couldn't help yourself and it didn't take long.

I expect there will be more but I'm hoping you will see the gist of what I am saying and try and understand the intent and spirit, such that you will try to be less likely to use ALL-like statements and more likely to qualify them and to explain your position.
I think too much money is handed directly to women (and young girls) for children and family matters. Governments hand money directly through the family court, CSA, baby bonus (usually paid to women), Family Tax Benefit (usually paid to women), maternity leave (usually paid to women). This analysis is based on reading the budget papers, Centrelink reports, CSA reports, Tax office stats, ABS stats, family court judgements,etc over many years.

There is no concept of a father having a part in any of these decisions other than as a person who donates sperm or provides money.

For example - an alternative would be to only pay males for the baby bonus - this would ensure that they agreed with the baby being created in the first place. Ditto for maternity leave.

The only groups being disadvantaged by that proposal would be the deliberately single mothers or lesbian couples using a sperm donor - and maybe they should be treated as an exception?

While there is always going to be sensitivities around generalising or categorizing groups designated under the discrimination act - paradoxically the government has ensured that these groups MUST always be specifically mentioned, analysed and reported on as groups BY LAW. While these discussions can always be discussed in terms of how much a victim these groups are - if the government then provides money and support for these groups (to address the "victimisation" and hence improve things) - by law they need to demonstrate how by spending large amounts of money and redistributing wealth the conditions of the designated "Groups" have been improved.

Paradoxically (as well) by reporting these things can ALSO be actually seen as "victimisation" or possible discrimination - leading to the absurd position of never being able to discuss the huge amounts of policy, money and other initiatives involved in improving people (who we cant talk about) who have problems (which we cant talk about) who are given money (which we cant talk about) to improve their conditions ( which we cant talk about) to make their lives better (which we cant measure or talk about) which can make the lives worse for groups who are not designated under the discrimination act (guess who - which we cant mention, measure or talk about).

Anyone following this?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
What would be fair and equal is no baby bonus, but paid maternity and paternity leave.

The whole purpose of having money at this time is to allow you to lighten you work responsibilities and to spend the formative months with the child.

If both parents had this time, it would lead to a lot of understanding of the role of parent and allow for bonding. Courts would no longer be able to pedal the concept of "attachment" to one primary carer. Men would not have to fight tooth and nail to get overnight care of a young child.

If $5,000 is all that stands between you and having a child, I would suggest you cant really afford to have one.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Good point - if a HANDING MONEY OUT policy is the thing you need to help you decide to have a baby or not then THATS A PROBLEM.

What these and related policies do is continue the trend of devaluing the family unit as an economic and social force - instead substituting it with the cult of individualism - hand money to an individual in a particular circumstance.

People assume a whole lot of circumstances (e.g. happy married couple) which simply do not have to exist.

I disagree with paid maternity and paternity leave for everyone. I suggest that if large employers WANT to attract staff then they may want to add it as a condition of service- maybe for long serving staff who have and interest in working and supporting the people they work for - But to suggest that ALL EMPLOYERS should do this I think is not fair to them.

I also think that handing large amounts of money out from TAX also needs to be carefully considered - especially if it leads to a decline of the family unit, a dependence on government money and the creation of babies for the sake of the money into to unsustainable households.

Lets try another thought example - why not reduce the costs of health, education and transport to and from schools and hospitals - so that raising a child becomes easier.

Another one - why not pay everyone who works more money so they can afford to have more children (and take leave without pay or m/paternirty leave if they work for an employer who provides it) if they want to.

Or another one - why not provide free clothes and food for children in the first 4 years of their life.

So many ideas and possibilities which don't involve HANDING MORE MONEY TO A SPECIFIC GROUP.

the reality is that most women do not work, of those who do 50% of those work part time anyway and most women work in lower paying jobs (Not because they are discriminated against but because it represents their skill, desire to work and personal circumstances).

Many of these women will have a ongoing single male partner so if they as a unit wont to have babies maybe they need to ensure they are viable enough to do that. What role does government have in this - does anyone really think the baby bonus was good idea? (apart from the policy dudes who thought of it)

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough


I recall that back in the 1960's, a working man could afford to pay off the mortgage and car and still pay for the family. This was because the tax system was so gearing that children gave a big tax break. It was not uncommon for a working man with two kids and a stay at home wife to pay very little or even no tax. The whole economic model was based around this.(one wage earner) Today the economic model is based around two wage earners.

The only way a system of paid maternity leave will work is if the state pays most of the cost.

The company I work for offers maternity leave as well as paternity leave! The turn over of staff is very low. It is a large media company.

Anglo Saxon countries tend to lag way behind their Scandinavian cousins!

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Lets go back to that model then Monty and get rid of all the handouts - the people who would benefit from that would be those who WORK for what they have and then reap the benefit of reduced tax for families.

This would go a long way to getting rid of the handout mentality of many.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Tax wise, there used to be a thing called "Income Splitting" which you could do with your spouse up to a certain amount. It also meant they could work, but you would still only be able to split up to that certain amount.

In my current circumstance, that would be very handy with a semi-invalided partner on a low income, with massive monies paid to see his child.

This was phased out, and replaced with a tax break for a low earning spouse (to memory).

No, I do not think large payouts to an individual are wise.

The bonus was not a good idea as all that happened was people hiked up the cost of private obstetrics and baby equipment. It may have settled now, but that's my impression from when I had my 2nd and the bonus was about $3K.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
LifeinSight said
If we were to take away the benefits and go like the Americans, then we will end up with a very poor uneducated working class society with higher crime, bigger prisons and the death penalty.
Certainly we could go that way, however could we also go other ways? Perhaps those realising this would seek to get out of the situation, especially if it become a societally expected way, but the American way, is not the only way and perhaps those like yourself, who see the error of the American experiment could be the ones to pave the way to another destination.

There is another lot who perhaps don't deserve or abuse the payment, not a majority I would think, but extremely annoying. These are the likes of those who started a thread in another forum entitled "You want to see what I spent my baby bonus on?". The explanation being:

P.S. I'm not in favour of the Baby Bonus being a monetary bonus, vouchers and the same with CS, at least to some extent. I do see that in theory giving help to enable anyone in real need is a great thing, bit so often money is not the example. Weren't overseas aid charities running with this idea some years ago?

Perhaps time could be a more precious gift and as such I fully agree with re-allocating the bonus, but not to maternity or paternity leave, but parental leave.

However I would also feel for those who are not parents, perhaps they should also have a slice of the cake, this could make the whole thing more acceptable to what was recently reported as a move by some toward voicing their opinion that they felt discriminated against for not being a parent.

Baby Bonus and Maternity Leave are just another symptom of modern society

I think this discussion about baby bonuses and paid maternity leave is hiding true issues because modern society is about hand outs and what can I get for nothing and not what can I give back, and you cannot blame specific groups or genders.

Like it or not if something is on offer many people will take advantage of it, whether it be a baby bonus or something else and there tends to be very little thought about 'hand back'.

Are not many of us guilty of doing this in different ways and then think we can point the bone at someone else?

I will give two small examples concerning this site and the 'hand out' issue.

- How many people come here to post and voice their opinion because it is 'free' and a 'hand out'?

- How many even think, 'where does the money come from to keep this site going?'

- How many people actually think about 'hand back'? And are putting something valuable back into this site?

I belong to one of the groups on this site and I watch guys constantly take advantage of the helpers time and money without either a thought, or much thought, about a 'hand back' and that to me is as bad as someone expecting thousands of dollars 'hand out' for having a baby.
Over the past decade the return of tax collected to persons regardless of their needs has distorted the framework which gives cohesion to our community.

There are so many payments that only a review will allow future payments to be better targeted.

When payments are targeted at tax payers only, the bias has seen an evolution of parental vote buying process, rather than a real consideration as to what is best for all children.

Turning what exists into a more purposeful system will require time. As changes are effected the collateral damage of those changes need to be known.

Those whom allow themselves become dependent upon the tax payments of others sentence themselves to a quality of life not always of their choosing. As a society there is equity in allowing all children an opportunity to realise their potential.

A measure of one's self is the extent to which one is self reliant and responsible for one's actions. A self honest assessment allows each person to appreciate their own worth and live with that perception.

The role of a volunteer and those who help others unconditionally brings merit to people.

Life is conditional and adapting to changes can be challenging.

To expect a free ride is not ideal, to give freely of one's self and help others allows one to be a contributor, rather than just a taker.

Sharing one's experiences and learnings is generally cost free. Those who are able shall give to this site and the self-generous people behind the screen who give many hours freely.

Each of us knows how we can support others. It is not egocentric to do so and need not be judged in that vain.

Helping others yields more than words can encapsulate. Try it, it feels good.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
Conan Actually makes a good point.   :offtopic:

Although trying to steel the thread of the topic from baby bonus to freeloaders of the Government and freeloaders in general, this I don't think is a Government Site and statements elsewere say there is no goverment financial support, maybe that has changed.

A Guest said in reply to Conan "We live in a highly organised society and have laws that impact on most decisions we make in regards to how we live our lives." I agree we are SUPPOSE to have Laws that impact on most of our decisions, but when Judges refuse in allow us to enforce those Laws we have decisions to make regarding the Judges and Parliaments decisions CAUSED BY Judges refusal to enforce the Laws made by Parliament and the Constitution.

The Baby Bonus as most of us know is a joke on the unsuspecting and the weak of mind that have grown up in a SES of government support. That is a household reliant on the dole Newstart SPP, or the like thinking.

The wealth of a country, is in part, dependant on the percentage of young to those on the pension, which I would think is the founding thought behind the Baby Bonus. Our ageing population out numbers our youth therefore our ability to support and sustain of aged, that is us in our latter years.

Like drugs babies produce employment, both increase the need for medical services from Hospitals down to the local GP. Both increase the need for police and the Courts(FamCA)(enforcement of the law on each in their own right, the parent regarding the baby). Unlike drugs, babies feed both the need for all drugs, good and bad, housing and employment to name a few essential needs.

Yes, an ever increasing circle or bubble which raises the question of is this second period of baby boomers the one that is going to cause Australia to take the final step from being the Lucky Country to USA number 2?

Do the unemployment figures suggest we are at a time of good numbers of workforce to aging population and the Baby Bonus is required to balance the projected figures of imbalance coming?
No-Justice said
Conan Actually makes a good point.   :offtopic:

Although trying to steel the thread of the topic from baby bonus to freeloaders of the Government and freeloaders in general, this I don't think is a Government Site and statements elsewere say there is no goverment financial support, maybe that has changed.
Actually Conan did veer slightly off topic but kept it within range of handouts and because this is Hyde Park Corner it was let go.

No it is not a Government site and there is no Government financial support for it.

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
Amongst other things LifeInsight said
LifeInsight said

If a decision is made to have a child because the government is encouraging us then it is in the best interest of the country and thus something is given back to the country. Maternity/Paternity payments are there to help people to keep their employment whilst giving time to their family when they most need it. It also allows employers to keep valuable employees.
For some reason this poster posted variations of this post Twice as a Guest and did not use his user name. The usual plausible excuse for this is 'forgot password'.

Guest posts cannot be viewed until a moderator has validated them and if validated are still subject to other moderators approval.

Nevertheless some points are worth responding to and I will do so later.

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
One thing I have noticed is that some Aboriginal leaders have expressed dismay at the lack of progress in their communities and some put that down to the handout mentality. They express a strong desire for self-determination, respect (self and others) and opportunity. This is a theme expressed by other groups who are considered disadvantaged as well.

Quite clearly some people have realized that constantly handing money out is not the answer. Lately this government is talking about infrastructure and neglect of it. I think this concept can be translated into SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE and its neglect.

It's been tinkered with, adjusted, made more complex etc etc - beyond repair.

People will have babies and look after them when the family unit is right and their conditions (where they find themselves ) is right - happiness, safety, health, job opportunity, education, A FUTURE and some sense of being valued by society.

We need to value EVERYONE (fundamentally) - handing money to some DOES NOT help that.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
LifeInsights posts under his own name and as a guest raised some points which I believe are worth responding to.
LifeInsight said

If a decision is made to have a child because the government is encouraging us then it is in the best interest of the country and thus something is given back to the country. Maternity/Paternity payments are there to help people to keep their employment whilst giving time to their family when they most need it. It also allows employers to keep valuable employees.

I don't believe anything is for nothing and giving back is not always optional. If you are drawing Newstart payments - then you are expected to give something back by looking for employment.

Every time a purchase of goods or services is made then something is given back by paying GST and keeping someone else employed. Given this, there are people out there who do expect society to keep them.
When Conan came in and veered slightly off topic the point he appeared to be making was that many people take and do not give back willingly. The point you made about 'Newstart' illustrates this as there is an expectation of reciprocation in exchange for this money.

Nobody is asking for money on this site but there are visitors and users who go far beyond the bounds of reasonable.
LifeInsight said
Regarding this site - the very fact that a few people are giving their time posting to keep forums alive is a fairly big contribution.
I think you misunderstand the nature of this site and are regarding it as basically a forum. The forum is just a part of the site. Comparisons with other sites which are either basically either forums or contain some information gives an idea of the entirely different breadth of this site.

The forums contain a wide variety of postings with requests for help, responses, information and personal opinions however it is not the forums which are keeping the site alive. The forums are an adjunct to the main purpose of the site.

Contributions to forums are always sought however there are always more than a few posts which are entirely either off topic or outside the range of the site activities. People tend to view forums as part of a response of users but if postings are 'away' from the sites direction they do not provide a contribution, they tie up moderators time which is better spent on other site activities.
LifeInsight said
Regardless, if these few people did not do what they do then this site would not be what it is. Also if the people who put this site together did not do so then we would have nothing.
Correct, it is only the very selfless work of a group of individuals who have put this site together and are developing it that has taken it to its present stage. It is worth noting that this site is not considered 'complete' and perhaps less than 50% of its final features are in place. The site will not be considered in opening form until June when it will be promoted. At present it relies on word of mouth.

The site's current high success rate is indicative of the fact that the developers and designers have 'got it right'. For a non completed site its 'hit' rate is astounding. Recently another group (which is Government funded) was talking of their hit rate of 10,000 per month and were quite shocked to find that FLWG was averaging 30,000 hits per day. Another established organisation that promotes heavily and is recording 150,000 per month was surprised to find that FLWG was averaging six times more hits.  Although these numbers might sound large they will be nothing compared with what is expected when other groups come on board and when the site launches. Of interest is that the largest majority of 'hits' are occurring in the web areas and not the forums.
LifeInsight said
The existence and relevance of this site depends on both the creaters and participants.
Correct, however it the direct feedback from individuals and groups that are tending to control the relevance of material. Post material is analysed to find what is missing and new areas that need development.
LifeInsight said
About the use of this site I found this:
What does it cost
Membership to the Family Law WEB Guide is free. However, some of the groups and communities within this site have a nominal membership fee, or ask for a donation. Once you have become a member of the Family Law WEB Guide you may apply to join any of these groups. All of the Groups and Communities can be found in the Community section.
If this site is having financial problems then I'm sure the relevant powers will do something about it but this site is a portal to access other formal groups that do charge fees etc…
The emphasis is on 'nominal' and in no cases does this cover the cost of providing the services. Some of the Communities rely on large cash injections from small numbers of people and I have no doubt this was one of the points Conan was alluding to.

I am not certain what you mean by 'relevant powers' as the only relevant power with large funds is the government and as much as many Government departments trawl this site they are not providing it with financial support.
LifeInsight said
However perhaps you could give us some examples of what you would consider appropriate and or valuable for someone to put back into this site?
There are any people providing direct and indirect support and I will give just two 'named' examples. MikeT is providing a very great deal of time working on the CSA calculator which is a site resource. Monteverdi is not only providing property information but is working with the developers on a project for newly separated Fathers.

There are many others working on other projects. What this site needs more of is 'current' reference material which will go into the Libraries, Wikis and Catalogues being developed. Because these can be searched by ISYS by topic and relevance these materials will be easier to find rather than wading through the forums for relevant information. A great deal of information is being sent direct to group leaders and site admin's for inclusion in these areas.

Two areas that will require large amounts of time and participation are the Wiki and the reference library. The reference library in particular will use the ISYS engine to search on 'relevance' in Judgments rather than the ad hoc process that 'Austlii' provides. On average this means that each judgement requires abut 30 minutes of coding time.

It is topical articles, the Wiki and 'hands up' for Judgment coding that will require time in the next few months and will be valuable to this site and some regular posters have already raised their hands for these tasks.

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
LifeInsight said
Sorry for the short post Sisyphus but I got to get to work - I had to reset my browser the other day and when I hit the usual button to get to this site, I was not signed in automatically. When I did have some free time later in the day, I decided to change the post. Will have a good read of this tonight. Thanks mate.
Sounds right, forgot the password and posted as a guest TWICE. Strange that guest posting is different from normal posting as you have you enter a security code, very plausible, in the legal use of the word.
SO …

Creating babies - money - families - parenting  - legal consequences etc.

Another idea - what about making all primary school buses free (within area), providing free food (fruit bread), free (no co payment) health checkups for children at primary school.

This will encourage people to feel that even if their financial circumstances are dire - their children can get food, be educated and healthy.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets