Govt. wants to sponsor pregnancy

the big impact i see is that businesses will consider twice before employee a female of "breeding" age. many medium to small business just can't afford to pay someone the full wage plus entitlements not to be there for five months, while they also have to pay someone else to fill the role.

and what happens to the maternity leave they've been paid if the woman decides not to return to employment after the months are up - or returns for a month (if compulsary) and then leaves.

i don't mind paying maternity leave but think 5 months is too long for full pay. should have the option of 1 month full pay, 2 months 1/2 pay etc etc.
 
I say keep the baby bonus. The effect maternity leave will have on small businesses and the economy isn't worth it.

Th maternity leave is also income and is therefore taxed so you won't see much if you are on the highest tax bracket. It also affects FTB. All the the lil things the article fails to mention. I think the maternity leave payment wille nd up being cheaper for the government than the baby bonus.

People seem to forget the baby bonus is for the baby. Unfortunately some people abuse the system and spend the money on drugs and the baby suffers. You can't say well it's your choice to have a baby so deal with it. Whether the choice is right or wrong, the baby should not be made to suffer and having the baby bonus will at least help in the first year. Honestly $5k doesn't get that far.

Even if I never wanted children, I don't mind my taxes going to a baby bonus. I think it's great. When I tell my friends in other countries about the baby bonus, usually you get a good reaction. That says a lot of about what a wonderful country we live in.

I have a lot to be grateful for. We went through many attempts of IVF and it's a scary thought that if we lived elsewhere, well I may never be able to have kids and wouldn't be able to afford IVF. It's so affordable in Oz because the government subsidises 50% of the costs, you have the medicare rebate and PHI. My cousin is currently doing it in the States, she was undecided for years and is now 42y.o. One cycle, 1 chance will cost her AUD$25k. For frozen embryo transfer (FET) (which is really straight forward), 1 transfer additional $5k or 2 transfers for $7k if you have enough frozen embryos. In Oz, an FET costs $500 and you can claim 05 of that from medicare if you've reached the threshold.

Rudd is definitely trying to short change us again just like he did with the child care rebate where many parents have proven that they are worse off. That was an absolute disgrace. My husband's centre lost so many kids coz famillies just didn't have the cashflow to pay upfront and claim back each quarter, especially famillies with 2+kids at $65 a day. what's the point of the mum working?
 
or bring in maternity leave and get rid of most of the family benefits.

why a couple on $130,000/yr need family benefits, i'll be damned. there should be a cutoff point of the average wage and pay the money to the kids schools to fund fees and excursions.
 
Lizzie, my sister in law in UK totally ripped off the government and she's so proud of it and tells everyone.

She wasn't working when she found out she was pregnant and she went and found her job with the NHS as a nurse and did not tell them she was pg. You have to work for 6 mths to be entitled to maternity pay. So she just qualified. She got 9 mths of paid maternity leave and she quit her job after that and just went casual working 2 days a week for another hospital.

Some people will say, wow she's clever, good for her, why not? but I have a conscience. Maybe I'm too nice. I got offered a job and was due to start when i found out I was pg and called up my manager. Obviously, she appreciated my honestly but that she would have to offer the job to someone else. I also know that I wouldn't be that reliable being pg, being sick, scans etc i guess maybe because my mum was a business owner so I can see both sides.
 
lizzie said:
the big impact i see is that businesses will consider twice before employee a female of "breeding" age. many medium to small business just can't afford to pay someone the full wage plus entitlements not to be there for five months, while they also have to pay someone else to fill the role.

and what happens to the maternity leave they've been paid if the woman decides not to return to employment after the months are up - or returns for a month (if compulsary) and then leaves.
Click to expand...

Hi lizzie, yes this is what I was trying to get across. Thanks for expressing it so eloquently as opposed to my elephant in a china shop approach, hahaha.

lizzie said:
i don't mind paying maternity leave but think 5 months is too long for full pay. should have the option of 1 month full pay, 2 months 1/2 pay etc etc.
Click to expand...

I also don't have an issue with paid maternity leave (as long as it's justified). Something like say, 1 week for every year of employment, with the money coming out of the employee's pay or something. Maybe their wages are garnished at say 5% when they return. If they don't go back to work within a specified time period, they are required to pay the money back some other way. I'm not saying I have the answers, but I just refuse to get behind such an initiative as it stands.

Note also that people who take this don't get full pay, they receive the minimum wage as stipulated by the Govt.

Mark
 
Its funny that the Rudd govt are anti-baby bonus but are pro-tax funded maternity leave.

Arent both things a payment from the government to the mother?

Doesnt the baby bonus actually benefit the lower income earners more than maternity payments, which are paid at (or pro-rata of) income, meaning the less you earn, the less you get?
 
paid maternity is discrimination against women who choose not to work, and have taken financial steps to stay home and care for their children.

at least with the bb all women got it regardless (or at least until it was means tested).
 
lizzie said:
the big impact i see is that businesses will consider twice before employee a female of "breeding" age. many medium to small business just can't afford to pay someone the full wage plus entitlements not to be there for five months, while they also have to pay someone else to fill the role.
Click to expand...

Exactly! ... if I was a business owner, I would choose my employees carefully so I didn't have to subsidise the breeding program.
 
lizzie said:
or bring in maternity leave and get rid of most of the family benefits.

why a couple on $130,000/yr need family benefits, i'll be damned. there should be a cutoff point of the average wage and pay the money to the kids schools to fund fees and excursions.
Click to expand...

May as well make throw in the asset test whilst you are at it. They do it for the aged pension and other centerlink benefits.

Edit.. According to the Herald Sun this morning stay at home mums get 5k, working mums get 10k. The baby bonus will no longer exist. Men get 2 weeks worth at a tad over 1k. You ca elect who gets the 14 weeks, if the man does then the woman gets the two weeks. I also read that the scheme is applicable for same sex relationships also. Also this scheme is in addition to any maternity schemes provided by your employer. I think I get at my work 13 or 14 weeks paid and this would be a bonus on top of it. Employer is only required to pay super contributions to the government scheme.

Def small businesses will be the ones to suffer if anyone does.
 
1. As a business owner if one of your employee's who has been there for 12 months gets preggers you have to hold her job for 12 month...that has been around for years.

2. The government is the one who will foot the bill for paid maternity leave.

So how is anything different for small businesses than it was a year ago.

I'm lucky enough to work for an employer that pays 6 weeks maternity leave once you have been there for 2 years, plus is very family friendly, lets you work from home or return on reduced hours. Why they appreciate how hard good well qualidied staff are to train. I think there are 100 women at my work and 10 men so they would want to be family friendly.

Not that maternity leave would help me, I've got 3 kids and am done with all of that.
 
As a small business owner, if there are two women, with equal experience and skills, one who is in the midst of bearing and raising a family, the other who is quite clearly past that stage, who am I going to employ?

From my reading, the Government is not going to fully fund paid maternity leave.
 
Novar said:
Exactly! ... if I was a business owner, I would choose my employees carefully so I didn't have to subsidise the breeding program.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've always wondered this. As someone who plans to become a business owner one day, I ask myself what I would do in such a situation. Personally, I see the 'employer required to pay superannuation' bit as another issue that makes it harder for women between the ages of 18 and 40 to find employment. I mean, technically no one is supposed to discriminate based on such issues, but let's stick to the real world here, shall we?

BC, I wanted to ask you - you mentioned that you would pay 50% to an employee who had taken 6 months off work to raise a child. Now, while this is admirable, how are you going to afford it? I mean, you're paying someone else to take over the role while this person is away and now you are paying your employee 50% on top of that. What if they don't come back?

I'm just wondering how long you plan to stay in business if you did this? I mean, we're talking about tens of thousands of dollars, if not more here.

Mark
 
For what it's worth, I think the main problem is as lIzzie says. Employers are going to discriminate against female employees. Small businesses are going to cop the brunt of it and I think 5 months is way too long.

Another problem I have with it is, alot of working Mum's that REALLY need it, work in part-time or Casual postions. This proposed Maternity Leave will benefit NEW mothers and not those who have already had a child, are about to have another and are probably only working part-time and possibly need it more.

In after thought -The fact that women get more, I think, is only natural....like giving birth. Not to mention the fact that for some reason, nearly every mother I know did not breast feed their children for some reason or another. Whether this was becasue of work commitments, not enough milk, or they just couldn't do it becasue they leave the hospital far too soon, is another debate. :)


Do we all finally agree that the Baby Bonus is fairer?:confused:

Regards JO
 
Seems there might be a big demand for the over 35 ladies from here on in.

Wonder what new legistation that will bring into effect?
 
I'm really hoping that they don't make this into legislation. As a female of child bearing age its hard enough already - despite making it quite clear that when I do have kids my husband will be the one staying home not me. This is somewhat helped by the fact that one of the other females in the office is taking longer as annual leave than I would be gone, and the guy in the position above me has had more time off work in the last six months than he's been at work (health and family issues). Still, really not liking having to make it clear that I don't intend to take large amounts of time off in order not to be discriminated against.
 
On one hand I like the idea of paid maternity leave. I might even be fortunate enough to benefit from it some day.

As a small business owner however, I'd have a lot of trouble paying for staff to raise children. My response would be to either hire women past the stage of child bearing or employ them on a casual basis so they would be easier to move along if the time came. It's unfair and discriminatory, but small business doesn't have quite the same cash flow as the government.

This also raises a question. As a business owner, would I be entitled? I'd probably be back at work the day after the birth, but I just wouldn't pay myself for two weeks, then I'd pay myself more later.
 
lets change change the rules and make it madatory for men instead of woman to stay at home for at least 6 months from the birth of each of their kids...

Lets not forget the males part in making the child, why is it a women's issue, in most cases i'm sure for every woman that benefits from maternity leave there is also a male benefitting from the same.

Plus 2 weeks paid for men...now how cool is that, 2 weeks off and not even a single contraction or day of morning sickness.
 
letiha said:
So thats roughly 55,000 women taking paid maternity leave per year. Have you worked out what the beenfit is of these women remaining in the workforce instead of taking time out and not coming back.

Or what the cost is to the economy of not having these women work. Would love to see those figures.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. If all these women decided to give up work, those whose husbands are on less than 75K or thereabouts (obviously alot) can then claim the baby bonus, family payment A and family payment B.

A large percentage are collecting several thousand $ a year just on family payments, year in year out, without contributing much tax wise. You don't ever hear people complaining about that :confused:.

My understanding is these women that gain on maternity leave payment lose the baby bonus; hardly a windfall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top