At a time when the poorest are getting hit hard in a whole range of ways, and lots of these people are working poor, not just sitting on benefits, it only seems fair for spending to be frugal. Put the limit to 30k for 6 months, then see where our budget goes in the next few years. If we are doing well then we can look at moving it again.
If we are supporting propagation of the species, then surely it should be for everyone, especially the working poor? PPL is still way ahead of FTB and BB so there are big incentives.
Last edited by delirium; 10-06-2014 at 08:25.
I find this whole topic mind boggling. To me it's about ensuring fairness in a system that has been anything but. Bear in mind that "fair" doesn't mean everyone gets the same thing. It means everybody has the same opportunities.
However a woman on 100k and more a year will get a lower payment.
So I don't understand the argument that millionaires are being given incentives to have a baby when they lose income.
As a high income earner, paid parental leave offers me no incentive to have a baby or to return to the workforce. I'm able to have leave by using annual leave, long service leave and the 7 weeks my employer offers of paid mat leave.
I do not believe that the Government has a responsibility to assist me to have leave other than what's already in place and I believe that on my income I should not need assistance from the government.
However I would support the provision of additional and more affordable child care places because to me,that provides far more incentive to return to the workforce and would have longer lasting impact.
I agree FTM34 that child care is more of an incentive to return to work than receiving ppl and I am by no means a high income earner.
I agree @firsttimemum34 it's not the gvt responsibility, it's the employers.
IMO all employers should offer paid maternity leave to their employees, it should be part of mandatory benefits just like AL and SL.
All employers would put money in a funds based on a percentage of their payroll and then would draw from this fund when the needs arise.
There was some talk in the media after Joe Hockey said in an interview they were considering legislation to prevent employers topping up PPL (so preventing top ups so employees are no worse of than they are now). This would leave people in my workplace worse off. Currently my workplace offers 6 months full pay/12 months half pay (no cap vs capped coalition scheme) with super (>9% vs standard 9% for coalition scheme). That's without accounting for the 17 weeks @ min wage that most people would qualify for on top if that.
I would have thought legislating against employees being able to negotiate better terms with employers goes against Liberal philosophy, but maybe not? I'm wondering if that clause will be challenged if they do run with it? Surely if an employer wants to fund payments to employees to help attract or retain workers, that's their business?
Certainly in the field I work in, I would earn lots more working for a private company. The only perks that my employer could offer were a higher rate of super and generous employer funded PPL. The union has to renegotiate those terms every time the agreement comes up anyway. Take away the benefit of the current PPL and they have little to offer in order to attract good people (dare I say "women of calibre" ;-) ) to the enter or stay in the workplace.
Last edited by clbj; 10-06-2014 at 17:44.
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!