It is a weird position for me to find myself in having this conflicting opinion being a female in a professional industry fighting for people's rights, but here I am heh.
I am totally 100% supportive of paid maternity leave. It allows parents to stay home with their children, for what is quite a short time anyway (4 months if you are relying solely on commonwealth PPL). I actually think it should be 6 months minimum. It's good for the economy, good for the population, etc. We are all raising future taxpayers after all. I don't think subsidising child care centers and encouraging women back into the workforce straightaway is necessarily the best option -it should be a valid, feasible, doable choice if women want to stay home with their babies.
The baby bonus, well I don't know how I feel about that. I see its value for many people, eg SAHMs, etc. but I do feel young, unemployed, drug addicted bogans use it as another reason to breed and I know a fair chunk of it has been spent on drugs, alcohol and plasma screen tvs. I think there should be a disincentive for bogans to have more kids, not an incentive.
I think we just have to look at Sweden that pays 15 months I think? PPL and not surprisingly has the highest bfing rates in the world around 75% from memory at 6 months? Of course PPL wouldn't be the only factor (they have an awesome health system with free LC's as well).
But there are lots of benefits beyond just making having kids that bit easier.
I'm definitely for it.
Definitely for it. Not sure from an employers perspective on paid leave as it could kill small businesses. But the government ppl definitely. We work, we pay our taxes. Why shouldn't we get something when there are people out there who just go and get pregnant every year so they can get paid more by the government while never having worked a day in their life.
Does every business pay for their employees? Or only certain business's? My cousin/secretary for our business is 6 weeks pregnant. Im sure i could not afford to pay for her and another person who i will have to hire once the baby comes
I'm definitely for it.
I'm 22 and because of PPL we can afford to have a baby now. My sister threw herself into her career through her 20's so they could be comfortable enough to have a child later. She's now 35 and going through IVF as she couldn't fall naturally; much of the expense of her current treatment is covered by Medicare (per treatment, I think she's about $300 out of pocket with Medicare paying around $4,700). Meaning its cheaper for Australia if people have children earlier in life and don't have to worry about age as a factor.
Also, there are plenty of people who make the choice not to work and live off welfare. I think it's only fair that working people receive some govt funding as well.
I'm for it for all the obvious reasons that previous posters have mentioned. There is a difference between using it for some support when having children and taking advantage of it as I'm sure some people try to do but this could happen to government payments in any way not just maternity/paternity payments or those directly related to having children. I think it's a good thing that families have this help in a time when living costs are rising and many families are struggling. It means that more parents can enjoy their children instead of having to rush off to work as soon as they are born and you know what? Some people still have to do that (and also some want to which is fine too if that's what they want)
I see it as a step forward
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!