I think the $150k max is a bit irrelevant, if its aimed at casual and lower income earners. I can't see many workers in the higher end of the bracket taking it up, unless they were short of annual leave. And workers in the middle range would have a reduced take-home pay for that fortnight.
But I think the $150k threshold is the same for FTA/B so I think its just a generic threshold.
Sorry, i don't think its ridiculous, annual leave is precious and $1212 (less tax) plus baby bonus is far better than a kick in the teeth!
wow.. they are giving money for people to take leave?
Thats awesome. when we had DS, my DH had to take 4 weeks off as I was in intensive care.. no money whatsoever!!!
and at the time we were broke.
I think any money is helpful.. and to be honest, its quite a bit of money..
Wow, I think it's great. DP is self-employed, when he took 3 weeks off post baby, we had no income. We were especially frugal leading up to DD birth, as the time off was important to us.
We are in a low income bracket, and $600 extra a week would have been fantastic.
I think it is better than nothing. My kids Dad wasn't even allowed to take time off from work when they were born. Not even as holidays.
I think it's fantastic! Such a step in the right direction to recognising the role of the partner in those critical first few weeks (because of course it isn't always going to be the father in every situation), it will be invaluable for some people in creating a bond, reducing incidences of PND, etc.
OP, I think there are loads of people in regular, higher paid employment who would also benefit from this. For example, my DH was a fridgie when we had our first bub and luckily he was born in the middle of winter. If he had been born in the middle of summer there is no way his work would have granted any paid annual leave as this is the busiest period.
Similarly, teachers are in a higher income bracket but often can't take paid leave at any time except school holidays. So they often need to take unpaid leave to have a significant amount of time at home with a new baby.
There would be loads of situations where taking paid annual leave isn't an option, and the payment is especially helpful for those in casual or self-employed situations.
It is not intended to replace an income, but supplement it. Like any government assistance, it's there for those that need it and not for those who don't. We don't need it this time around, but I'm so glad it's there if we did and it's there for those who do.
I feel very blessed to live here.
Well, I think it's a great idea.
My DH gets no paid holidays as he works casually. So it would actually benefit us.
And we get no other government benefits (because I work full time), so I'm all for it
from a dad to be's view , i'm taking 2 months off (just over 3 weeks of time is AL, the rest unpaid) I've only been in my job for a year (had last xmas off) so I need to have 5 weeks un paid. with the crappy wages we're on (im a spare parts storeman and my wife works in childcare) I've been saving my butt off (basically what money I was saving to build the drag car I've been building, is now going to cover my 3 weeks un paid) plus the dad and partners pay out . my wife has a paid parental scheme in her job so she's doing half pay for a year.
DH isn't taking it but taking 3 weeks a mix of annual leave and rdo time which he has saved up.......I also don't see the point in him taking if we can afford to do it another way. Why take the money if you don't need it. We have definatly been saving in top of that so I guess if your going to have a baby than you should expect that you need either need time up reserved or savings to cover dads time off......not expect the government to pay for it.
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!