PETER COSTELLO: What Wayne Swan won't say in his 2013 budget speech

[Nemo30]

I think you've got your wires crossed Mooze. She wasn't 'deserate' to care for the child, she just wanted to get home Thursday night as opposed to Friday morning.

The child's condition worsened as the week went on, so she asked for a pair on Tuesday. She wanted an early minute so she could catch the last plane from Canberra to Sydney. She working all day. If she hung around for the Budget Reply, she wouldn't have been home until Friday morning. I hardly think it's an unreasonable request.

And a mum who wants to be with a sick child is a negative stereotype? I think that's a bit harsh Mooze. Best you get the facts before going on another rant.

Because the distance from Canberra to Sydney is huge - couldn't possibly have found another way home Thursday night? Please! She spent more time talking to media over it than it would have taken her to hire a car and drive home.

I'm with Mooze - all a stunt to make the opposition look family unfriendly.

 

[Blueberry]

And I find it interesting that the response of the difficulty this member faced in juggling her career and her family was met with "maybe she should quit" under rather then "maybe she should lobby for better support/childcare/etc to enable her to work.

 

[Nemo30]

And I find it interesting that the response of the difficulty this member faced in juggling her career and her family was met with "maybe she should quit" under rather then "maybe she should lobby for better support/childcare/etc to enable her to work.

She is paid (a lot) to represent people in parliament. She should be there.

If she can't be there, she shouldn't have the job. end of story.

Her personal situation is a matter for her to work out.

 

[Blueberry]

You say the same when people take time off for funerals? When they themselves are sick? Maybe they should just quit too?

 

[Nemo30]

The Chief Minister of the ACT had a baby while she was a Minister. At the time I thought how terrible, if she was going to take time off to have a family, she shouldn't have stood for election. However she did not miss a beat - she was back at work almost immediately. Although I dont like her policies, I find her quite inspiring from a working mother perspective.

 

[weg]

And I find it interesting that the response of the difficulty this member faced in juggling her career and her family was met with "maybe she should quit" under rather then "maybe she should lobby for better support/childcare/etc to enable her to work.

What do you propose? The child was at home with father, not hospitalised. It had been sick for days prior and she chose not to go.

She could have brought the child to Canberra with her if she wanted to as well, but chose not to.

Child Care is excellent for PM's in Canberra. Some have been know to bring the child into the chamber (not that there's any need for it).

I think you're buying into something that was nothing to start with.

No lobbying required!

 

[Mooze]

Maybe this could be split off into a seperate thread as we're getting off topic.

If you choose to "juggle" family and career there will be times when you are able to go more full on in career mode than in family mode. If you want flexibility, one parent needs to take a flexible role - parlimentarian is not one of those roles, just as CEO, CFO, Chairman etc are not in large companies. In this specific case it was also stated that there had been grandparents assisting and available for care as well. (not everyone has that availability admittedly, but that's part of what you weigh up when you have a child and consider your roles).

As a taxpayer I'd expect that any woman or man taking on this role as an elected member and knowing all that it entails (ie requirements to be present in Canberra at specific times, often without the ability to take time off or be flexible for your child or any other reason) would have considered the implications of trying to do both and realised there will be times when you can not be with a sick child. Given she had the child after being elected, it comes down to making a choice and possibly quitting given the requirements of her role. If she didn't want to quit she needs to put her role first.

What's worse is that yes this was done as a political stunt to make the libs look bad (which stupidly enough they assisted with) - so whilst she's succeeded there, she's set women trying to gain senior roles back many many years.

In regards to funerals - are gender neutral and only have a limited impact (ie you go, you either go back to work or take the day off). It's not creating an ongoing level of unreliability which is what occurs when women have kids, a senior role, and try to be primary carer.
In regards to personal illness - it would be expected that if someone had an ongoing illness which caused them to be unable to meet the requirements of their role they would either step down or be fired if they could not manage around the requirements of the role.

 

[Blueberry]

What do you propose? The child was at home with father, not hospitalised. It had been sick for days prior and she chose not to go.

She could have brought the child to Canberra with her if she wanted to as well, but chose not to.

Child Care is excellent for PM's in Canberra. Some have been know to bring the child into the chamber (not that there's any need for it).

I think you're buying into something that was nothing to start with.

No lobbying required!

They don't allow sick children with high fevers in childcare. A nanny maybe?

I'm not buying into anything in this case. As I said, everything has been twisted on both sides. It is a distraction and not much more at this point.

I'm saying I want women like her (although preferably of the Liberal persuation) in parliament. I'm saying that in order to achieve equality we need more mothers and women in parliament. And yes, occasionally they have to take care of others during work hours. I would rather give her a little flexibility and keep her as a minister, than for her to say it's all too hard and quit.

By denying her that flexibility, you are discriminating against her as a parent (as I said, Dad could have been required back at work too after several days off, or at the point of pure exhaustion where he was unable to care effectively for the baby)

 

[weg]

How would this case have been different if the MP was a male and it was the mother at home looking after a sick child? Would we be discussing it?

In that scenario would it be a good or bad thing that the mother at home has taken time off work - whereas you worry that the man might need to return to work??

If the child is sick and there isn't anyone other than the parents to care for it then one of them takes time off - each couple decides who.

It has nothing to do with support/discrimination/poor government policy/childcare availability.

 

[Nemo30]

I could be wrong, however my understanding is that the husband is actually a stay at home dad - he took time off work specifically to raise the child.

 

[Mooze]

They don't allow sick children with high fevers in childcare. A nanny maybe?

I'm not buying into anything in this case. As I said, everything has been twisted on both sides. It is a distraction and not much more at this point.

I'm saying I want women like her (although preferably of the Liberal persuation) in parliament. I'm saying that in order to achieve equality we need more mothers and women in parliament. And yes, occasionally they have to take care of others during work hours. I would rather give her a little flexibility and keep her as a minister, than for her to say it's all too hard and quit.

By denying her that flexibility, you are discriminating against her as a parent (as I said, Dad could have been required back at work too after several days off, or at the point of pure exhaustion where he was unable to care effectively for the baby)

On the equality point - until we actually start empowering Dad's to be primary carers, rather than having the expectation of the mother will be the one doing the primary care/making decisions for the kids no matter her career it doesn't matter how flexible we make work. The unconscious (and for some conscious) discrimination against women starts much earlier due to the expectation that when they have kids they'll be the ones going flexible/taking time out. It also affects many women's career choices as they often choose more flexible work to be the primary carer as there is a perception that men can't be equal parents/homemakers. (check out many TV ads - Dad's bumbling, gotta live up to mum's expectation etc - it's also a perception that exists in real life - when I told my work I was planning on returning quickly there were questions of family support and which day care - then almost horror when I said husband will be stay at home dad, despite them thinking he's a lovely guy etc - the concept of a father being SAHD and being effective/good at it doesn't enter peoples minds, and is way down the list in terms of what could happen when a baby comes into a family).

Some roles will never be, and should never be flexible due to level of responsibility. Minister, Prime Minister, CEO of large company (or any highly senior role in a large company) are amongst those roles. Whilst overall representation of the population in Parliament would be great in terms of women, men, LGBT, those with kids, childless etc - it's still a full time non flexible senior role that requires a level of attention and diligence that is not able to be applied when you are a primary carer.

 

[Mooze]

How would this case have been different if the MP was a male and it was the mother at home looking after a sick child? Would we be discussing it?

In that scenario would it be a good or bad thing that she's taken time off work - whereas the man should be back at work??

If the child is sick and there isn't anyone other than the parents to care for it then one of them takes time off - each couple decides who.

It has nothing to do with support/discrimination/poor government policy/childcare availability.

From what I've been told (and maybe another PS or Hansard reader knows otherwise) but except in a case of imminent death it's never been requested in a budget week.

In terms of general workforce - no probably not, as if there's a SAHD/M (Nemo's post) and grandparents available to assist with caring and it's one of the most important (if not the most important) weeks at work they wouldn't take time off.

If the father is a SAHD it makes it all the worse - she's essentially saying he and the grandparents can't be trusted to take care of the child whilst sick.

 

[Nemo30]

I could be wrong about him being a SAHD - I thought I read it earlier in the week, however I've just read something else saying he had taken time off work.

Either way, the child was being looked after.

 

[Blueberry]

On the equality point - until we actually start empowering Dad's to be primary carers, rather than having the expectation of the mother will be the one doing the primary care/making decisions for the kids no matter her career it doesn't matter how flexible we make work. The unconscious (and for some conscious) discrimination against women starts much earlier due to the expectation that when they have kids they'll be the ones going flexible/taking time out. It also affects many women's career choices as they often choose more flexible work to be the primary carer as there is a perception that men can't be equal parents/homemakers. (check out many TV ads - Dad's bumbling, gotta live up to mum's expectation etc - it's also a perception that exists in real life - when I told my work I was planning on returning quickly there were questions of family support and which day care - then almost horror when I said husband will be stay at home dad, despite them thinking he's a lovely guy etc - the concept of a father being SAHD and being effective/good at it doesn't enter peoples minds, and is way down the list in terms of what could happen when a baby comes into a family).

Some roles will never be, and should never be flexible due to level of responsibility. Minister, Prime Minister, CEO of large company (or any highly senior role in a large company) are amongst those roles. Whilst overall representation of the population in Parliament would be great in terms of women, men, LGBT, those with kids, childless etc - it's still a full time non flexible senior role that requires a level of attention and diligence that is not able to be applied when you are a primary carer.

I'll fully agree with you on the first point. (another failing of the TA maternity leave scheme is that it is not a parental leave scheme - failure all over really) .

I do believe that the role of minister of parliament has to be flexible in order to allow a cross range of representation. This not only applies to parents/women, but also religion. If somebody requires to go and pray, or have a certain day off work, then to deny that means that you are excluding those groups from parliament and therefore a voice.

(and again I will say, I'm not talking about this specific case. Just generally)

 

[Crabnet]

I do believe that the role of minister of parliament has to be flexible in order to allow a cross range of representation. This not only applies to parents/women, but also religion. If somebody requires to go and pray, or have a certain day off work, then to deny that means that you are excluding those groups from parliament and therefore a voice.

(and again I will say, I'm not talking about this specific case. Just generally)

There is flexibility normally.
What has happened during during the current term of a hung Parliament is that Tony Abbott has specifically instructed his manager of business to be especially draconian on the granting of pairs.
It comes from his belief that he was robbed of the last election and he wanted to create a perception that this Government was dysfunctional. That's why he has been uncooperative in other matters of Government associated with the committee process.
It suits him politically to turn parliament into a toxic environment. If anyone wants to have a go at an MP for not turning up or being absent from sittings they should turn their attention to Bob Katter because he's hardly there.

 

[Aaron_C]

What has happened during during the current term of a hung Parliament is that Tony Abbott has specifically instructed his manager of business to be especially draconian on the granting of pairs.
It comes from his belief that he was robbed of the last election and he wanted to create a perception that this Government was dysfunctional.

Here we go. AbbottAbbottAbbott.

 

[weg]

(another failing of the TA maternity leave scheme is that it is not a parental leave scheme - failure all over really) .

It is a industry funded paid parental leave scheme. It's called the Paid Parental Leave Scheme.

Either parent can take this leave.

 

[CHAOS]

It is a industry funded paid parental leave scheme. It's called the Paid Parental Leave Scheme.

Either parent can take this leave.

Only if their workplace supports it. Under my husband's EBA father's get 2 days paid Paternity leave. The gov doesn't tell his employer they must give him 14 weeks leave so he can access this parental leave scheme.

Women sometimes don't have a choice but to take the more flexible role because of the lack of support or recognition of fathers in the workplace.
A female can have a child, take maternity leave, and return to work part-time. A father even though the wife has the child is not afforded the same flexibility - to return part-time for a set period to care for his children. He has two choices work full time or resign.

 

[weg]

Only if their workplace supports it.

I was referring to the new scheme - TA's scheme pays the entire period to the father if he nominates himself as the primary caregiver.

If not he get 2 weeks paid leave.

The workplace is lawfully obliged to give parents this leave. The paid portion comes from a levy that is charged to big business.

The employer will not pay directly from their revenue.

That's my understanding of it.

 

[Crabnet]

I was referring to the new scheme - TA's scheme pays the entire period to the father if he nominates himself as the primary caregiver

Yes, that's the proposal. The father can take the leave but it's paid at the mothers rate. Another baby bonus scheme that will eventually be paid out of general revenue.
But IMHO if they really wanted to find a way to enable women to return to their roles they should consider the cost of child care. We had four children so found it more cost effective to hire a nanny but that still meant the economic advantage of returning to work was slim.
By the time you work out take home pay after deducting childcare costs and forgone welfare benefits and family tax benefits sometimes you might as well stay at home if income was your main driver.