Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Pay Mothers a Wage

Push to give more paid leave for mothers

So heres the the thing.

Theres this 'its about time' paper produced by a government sponsored agency HREOC. They can send you a copy for free.
It was set up by pru goward when she worked with WEL members to try to get women more money.

The strategy was to associate women with carers and caring with raising children.
Pay more money to victims and heros sort of thing.

Now the government is actually thinking about it.

It goes like this
Pay women 12 months maternity leave.
Its 'all about working families'.
Now the mantra has changed - it used to be 'all about the children' but as we have seen that does not work when due to a one night stand a young single mother can choose to make a baby, keep the money and kick the father out.

Anyway I say why not allow all women to get 12 months every time they have a baby - so women are encouraged not to work and just make more babies?. We all need babies don't we ? Its every womans right to be supported while she choses to have a baby isn't it? Thats what taxes are for aren't they?

BUT WHY STOP THERE. After all there are lots of creative and productive pursuits that we all (not just baby makers) can participate in and BE PAID WHILE WE DO IT.

How about:
  1. All people who adopt a child are entitled to 12 months paid leave for each child they adopt.
  2. Anyone who tried to make a baby and failed should be entitled to 2 months paid leave
  3. Anyone who wants to volunteer to care for the frail or elderly should be paid at the same rate for 12 months as their regular paid job

and more

  1. Anyone wanting to write a book, do research or progress humankind should be paid 12 months (at a time) for each product
  2. Anyone who creates anything that is seen to be a good thing should automatically be given the equivalent of 12 months paid leave for each good thing.

Any other ideas?
Why is the government so restricted in its thinking - I know they focus on baby making women - but what about the rest of the community?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
If the mother chose to return to work would the father then be entitled to maternity (parenting)leave?
Would that make men happier if that was on offer?
And as far as a man and a woman in a 1 night stand lets go back to the old days, when you had to get married because you were pregnant. Maybe that is why the divorce rate is so high today.
Maybe they need another angle - increase the population by immigration of people with skills. I agree with paid maternity leave but unfortunatly it can be abused in the way you mention. How about granting it to couples in a serious relationship who plan a family and register their intention. That way there is less incentive to just produce for money and those who fall pregnant "unintentionally" won't benefit. A bit big brotherish but it will ensure a child is born who is wanted by a stable family not for financial gain.

Oh and point 2 has a serious flaw - 2 months for every failure? I'd work, practice making babies (fun!!) and "fail" to reproduce and take the time off work and be paid for it…..  :lol:  :P

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
i was shocked to see peter costello encouraging australians to have more children, why? because everybody thinks that in order to keep the economy growing you have got to have a growing population.
what are the costs of adding more people to australia, a country that is already overpopulated because the demand of each australian is so great.  

For justme - see its about handing money out - in general and as monaro points out - for baby making.
And I don't know what makes 'men' happy. I only speak for myself. As far as one night stands - that has been covered in one of the other forums but we have contraception, vaginal douches, morning after pills and safer abortions for people who KNOW that having a baby IRRESPONSIBLY is the WRONG THING to do.

The other thing - when I was raising my babies the time I spent at home, changing nappies, playing, feeding, going on excursions was simply wonderful. I also cooked, shopped, did all the washing (cloth nappies), worked in the vege garden, dishes, cleaned the house etc - in fact it was relaxing, pleasant and easy I could sit with a cup of coffee reading the paper while my children played and amused themselves on the floor with stuff.

Itwas so pleasant and easy I can't understand why anyone would think they should be 'paid' for such a fundamental rewarding and essentially self indulgent time?

Ok I know some people have really challenging babies - but for the vast majority of people - babies are simply wonderful.

So maybe if the government paid me 12 months pay every time I wanted to indulge myself in my thing that would be great. I don't have a fertile womb but maybe we could worship another part of my person ?? Maybe my brain or something else.

I think this 12 months government funded indulgence really should be extended. After all the 'its about time" thing focussed on carers (gosh weren't they sucked in) yet no-one is proposing that  people who look after disabled, sick, elderly, mentally ill, disadvantaged, children at risk, foster carers, etc etc should get paid 12 months wage at level are they???

Maybe we could erect a new monument near parliament house - The title would be 'Celebration of fertile wombs'

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon, can I ask how long you stayed home with your babies? Where you the full time carer for the entire time your children were young?

My ex used to say exactly the same thing as you concering how easy it was to stay home with them, however when I worked full time (leaving home at 9am and coming home at 10pm) I found that the house was tidy, floors cleaned, dinner cooked, kids happy etc just like you said. My reality when I was home full time with them was hectic and never ending. Yes rewarding in many ways but certainly more exhausting than being in the workforce.

Please note I am NOT denying your experience when you stayed home, I'd just like to know more to understand your thoughts better.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
The problem is that Australia has become a welfare state, the majority of people have their hands out, from the baby bonus and now to this.  If people looked around, there are employers that have good working conditions including paid maternaty leave.  People over extend themselves finacially, they do not look ahead.  

Why doesn't the government scrap the baby bonus and rename it the maternity bonus.  

I had a plan that took over 30 years to come to fruition and what happened, a leach tried to put their hand out and nearly succeeded.

Is their any provision in the proposed maternity leave schemes that if the couple decide for the mother to go back to paid work just after the birth of the child and the father stay at home and look after the new born to pay him one years paternity leave…  I know quite a few women who would prefer that option.
As maternity relates directly to mothers perhaps a less gender bias term could be used that could incorporate males in it.

I remember running across an article where a western European country does this with great success.

Changing dynamics where gay male couples are allowed to adopt, mother who chose to raise a child singularly, parents who adopt as well as others should in this day and age see less concentration on maternal names and a better choice of associated reference name.

You would have to wonder who would be fronting the money's to cover that year and if companies could insist on contracts that demanded that a " no pregnancy " clause for the time of the contract etc.

It does become blurred and confused  from the days when people had less need for consumer goods and more need to provide for a simple life for their families, where you were lucky to have a lounge suit and T.V. in a lounge room and a games room was an add on shed.

I'm don't really understand why the government insisted on buying votes with it's policies concerning hand outs, I'm sure before this people actually saved to manage having children and did with out all we are accustom to, the baby bonus was a healthy child and maternity leave was the hope they would hold your job. The introduction of CSA of course would benefit the " kids " but for those unfortunate enough to need benefit support and not receive CSA there is no substantial increase of assistance.

So yes it's all a bit of false economy put in place to increase people spending money on things they don't need whilst kidding themselves that it is being used on the children.

There are of course some winners out of it all, bottleshops, the tobacco industry, various fast food companies, oil companies and various other forms of companies involved in our extreme modern day living.

It could well be one of the best earners out for those genetically chosen.

Land a $140 000.00 P.A. job and fall pregnant with in 6 months, time off sick etc possible 3 months then a year off come back to work possibly pregnant or close to it and then off on same path.

This could give a young couple who want a couple of kids in close age proximity two and a half years in a very good position, and yes I know extreme figure but even at $45 000 P.A. it's not bad.

I think it all lies in consumable produce and how much comes back to the government for a minimal output.

Could be wrong though.
The idea that you get a skills, , job, a future, stability etc - because you want to raise a family - seems to have gone out the window. Apparently everyone else has to support people who want to make babies - whether they work, save, have planned anything, are committed etc etc  - or not.

When i had my children 50/50 I worked 12 hours a day one week and then 5 hours the next so I could take the kids to school and pick them up. Silly me I should have swanned around at home expecting government handouts. Too late now (and I don't have womb).

Heres another idea - lets create a thing called a MANS BONUS. Its aimed at encouraging men to have anything to do with women - commit, form a relationship (support etc). For every relationship longer than 2 years (just enough for family law and assets grab to kick in)  - men can be paid one years salary tax free. This would encourage men to work and get involved with women. Thats what we want isn't it ??

The government just does not seem to have enough gender based ideas!!

Not so much as a 'thinktank' as 'tanked thinking'

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I would like to see the option of putting a small amount away each week, with a co-contribution (like super) but for parental leave.

Both men and women could have it and it would allow a one off payment, or a wage suppliment while you were on leave.

You need some sort of payment, because it is very difficult to attend work up to 2 weeks before due date (even in a hassle free pregnancy) and you cannot get childcare for a child less than 6 weeks old.

Here's an interesting trap happened to a friend of mine… she was on unpaid maternity leave (can be up to 12 months) work asked her to "come in for a few days to help out" she said sure. Because she did this, she could not go back to maternity leave, because she had technically returned to work. She was not happy and took other leave instead.

At such a sleep deprived time in your life, it's hard to know the in's and out's of everything.

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. 
Perhaps in addition to that Artemis, something along the line of HECS to allow payment after rather than before.
I think the biggest problem is a years paid for maternity leave.

Rather than reduce expectations and live with in your means it appears to be just another way of meeting wants and luxury.

I have friends who can't afford to buy a house but they have cars worth $140 000 they are paying off, $20 000 + entertainment systems and all the other bling.

It becomes a situation of just throwing money at people but I guess this is the way we have to go to keep the country running in a commercial society.
In property matters there is no basis for determining as to whether a woman who goes out and leaves the children in hired help hands is more or less worthy of 75(2) factors than another who is fully engaged.
Seems that woman need to focus on ensuring their contributions are evaluated on a more value based scale. Justice might be better served.

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
In terms of what money means and why give it to people:
  1. So they can clothe feed the child? (not much required there)
  2. House the child (well we needed a big house to put our stuff in)
  3. Stuff

I lost my houses and now rent because of CSA and family court so I have little personal sympathy (or as much as the systems shows to me) for people who 'have to buy' the house of their choice.

So I am not sure even if there is a need to maintain the same level on income at all times.

The constant flow of money into the banking & retail sectors so seems to be defined as 'the economy'. Any slight distruptions to that flow seems to be dangerous to 'the economy'. I hope Australia doesn't follow the path of the USA - where when the hards times hit bush handed out billions of dollars as presents so consumers could keep spending. Now with the oil crisis I understand their is a push for governments to subsidise petrol consumption.

This spending and consumption thing seems a bit skewed to me. Why not go without few things for  few months when raising a baby? Now with subsidised care and other things.

As far as the constant focus on giving money to anyone for baby making - why all this government (my) money to one select group . Plenty of us other people don't get anywhere the attention that the 'mother' lobby gets - in services or direct payments.Governments should not sponser baby making - they should foster and environment where people feel encouraged to form healthy relationships and WANT to bring children into the world - not because ones randoms sex but because of hope and sense of commitment and expectations for the future.(or so i think)

Last edit: by Jon Pearson


 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

a life of crime

Jon,
back in 2000 when i received custody of my two girls, my ex vowed that she will never pay child support, so what did she do - have a one night stand, had a baby, Father unknown on birth certificate and was rewarded by the govt with the baby bonus for her action.

To this day she does not work to avoid paying child support, i am told by a good neighbour of hers that it wont be long before the next child is born [one for the country(Costello)]

She has a 6 year old son who knows no father, HOW WRONG IS THAT!!

I have concerns for the future of society (whatever that means). The collectiveness which is the non- individualistic. Not based on a pure survival of the gene pool but also a quality and aspirational thing.

Encouraging, what I would judge as the lowest and meanist start in life, - particularly when there is no reason to do so - is less than we could do.

There will always be people who need help but why does this government encourage and breed the needy? There must a limited number of politicians who lack the insight to see the impact of their social agenda? (he says with a plaintive and somewhat whiney voice) . Of course there will always be those 'damaged' people in power who use their position to implement their 'reforms' - but surely even they must, as they mature, see some 'whole view' and gain some insight?


 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Agree
For me governments intervene too much, give too much money to certain causes and individuals.
As a result whole sectors of society do not understand consequences and expect to protected physically, financially , medically and every other ly.

When its evenly spread it may be ok (I am still thinking about that one) BUT i would suggest
MEN HAVE LEARNED THE CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE AND HAVING CHILDREN - and the governments, their systems, the law, the police, the media, the courts - have constantly re-inforced this to men (every day). Men who have been through this have learned and many of them have grown (because of this). So many people in Australia are being DENIED the growth opportunities by being given government support all the time. People don't tend to value what they are given for nothing.

The CONSTANCY model - i.e. children must have same standard of living after divorce - is absurd. This notion seems to be an underpinning notion of governments. Lifes ups and downs are important for developing experiences and character. Most men over the last 35 years experiences the huge consequences after divorce. Why did the government seek to protect others?
Was it the victim model?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
OK how about a little bit of a spanner in the works. I recall the results of a study/survey regarding happiness in relation to country. The results were basically that the poorer countries were happier. Vanuatu being the top country then.
I'd throw out money, well more correctly greed, as money is just a tool of greed.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets