The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Do stay at home mums deserve special treatment?
|
What does it take to get Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to agree? Try stay-at-home mothers. In response to the Productivity Commission’s draft recommendations on a national maternity leave scheme, Gillard has promised that the Government wants to “support new mums, whether they are in or out of the paid workforce”. Tony Abbott was out of the blocks early on Tuesday, decrying the PC’s recommendations as “discriminatory”. Whether the Government has the fiscal capacity to take on a $500m pa scheme of the type recommended by the hardheads at the PC isn’t clear given our economic circumstances, but that’s another matter. It seems that the meaning of “discriminatory” — and from the rugged individualists of the Coalition, yet — has now been extended to the notion that if one sector gets anything, then everyone else should get it as well. And the issue is rendered even less clear when we’re talking about “mums and bubs”. It’s not so long since Brendan Nelson almost broke down in tears declaring that every mother loves her baby and any means-testing of the baby bonus was a direct insult to motherhood. So let’s be blunt. Stay-at-home mothers don’t deserve a single cent of maternity leave support beyond what is available through existing welfare arrangements — and even those should be means-tested. The biggest benefit of a national maternity leave scheme would be to encourage more women into the workforce. The PC estimated that the scheme would result in an average increase in lifetime female employment of around six months. It doesn’t sound much, but across the entire workforce that will provide a useful boost to Australia’s workforce. Regardless of any temporary effects of a recession, we’re running out of workers. We’re already importing them as historically high rates via our immigration program. There’s still not enough, both in high-skill industries and even low-skill industries like horticulture. Every time you can’t get a tradesman, or have to wait weeks for a medical appointment, or wait ages for a government department to process an application, it’s because people can’t get enough staff. And it’s not just inconvenience — while we might all like the higher wages that come from a tight labour market, across the economy that’s an ongoing spur to inflation and higher interest rates. A recession will fix that temporarily, but the long-term direction is against us. We’re not making people as fast as we used to anymore, and we’re about to hit a workforce wall with the retirement of the baby boomers. Increasing the participation rate for women is one of the keys to fixing this. We’ve done an okay job in the last few decades but women’s participation rate is still well shy of men’s, by more than 10%.
It should be a lot closer, both because men are playing a greater role in their kids’ early development, and because women are going into the workforce. Any attempt to also reward stay-at-home mothers as part of maternity leave scheme will directly undermine the benefits of such a scheme by increasing the incentive for women to remain out of the workforce. We’re still stuck with a welfare system that, thanks to John Howard’s 1950s view of the world, treats stay-at-home mothers as deserving of special treatment. Further increasing the financial rewards for stay-at-home mothers will exacerbate that misdirection of taxpayer funding, particularly in an environment where we’re going to have to start picking and choosing what we want governments to fund. Thanks to the likes of Abbott and Howard, however, we’re unable to have a serious debate about maximising our participation rate without it being infected with cloying nonsense about the virtues of stay-at-home motherhood. The Government will find it politically difficult to adopt the PC recommendations, assuming they remain unchanged in its final report. But any parallel assistance for mothers who refuse to join the workforce will defeat the key benefit of a maternity leave scheme. This isn’t about motherhood, this is about the economy. |
|
|
17 Comments
For those who think my views reflect an absence of parental experience, alas, I have a family.
There seems to be a theme in the anti- comments here that you’re either properly looking after your kids by staying at home or you’re in the workforce and anyone who wants more women in the workforce is therefore ignoring The Kids and saying parenting is not real work. The figures suggest, in fact, that most families manage both parenting and paid employment. Again, the issue here is whether we provide incentives for mothers to remain at home or encourage them to work - at whatever level is appropriate given the age of their children and their family circumstances.
But I suspect I can say that till I’m blue in the face and parenting fundamentalists will still complain I’m attacking at-home mothers. Stay at home mothers are great. I just don’t believe in giving them even more money than they get now.
My partner is a stay-at-home mum and would love to work but she can’t. Why? Because she’d have to wait months to get our son into childcare.
Bernard, you ask why state-at-home mums should be rewarded with paid maternity leave equivalent to working mums. Are they being rewarded? Aren’t they just being treated equally?
A better question to ask is why should stay-at-home mums be punished with no paid maternity leave.
Love the “begetting”, JJ Jeans. Very biblical.
Isn’t parenthood an option on lifestyle? It’s a role and responsibility you take on by choice. It’s not mandatory to breed. And I’ve never understood why we need to support parents beyond a basic means-tested child allowance, the education system, health and the myriad of child-related care, services and programs. How you parent is again optional. Stay-at-home, balance parenting and the workplace or share parenting with family, extended family and friends or paid professionals. It’s a personal choice on how you manage the outcomes of your decision. If I want further education I pay for it or merit-based study or work off an internship. In other words I forfeit to achieve or gain. Parenting as a way of life not all of us choose but all of us appear to have to subsidise.
Cathy, I’m sorry you can’t see the purpose in debate on this topic. You should speak to Bernard about why he initiated the debate, but I think your economic analysis is full of holes, as is your sense of social equity. I am intrigued by the theme that underpins your posting, ie.that parents, usually mothers, who are at home, are not in “the workforce” I suppose you mean that their activity makes no contribution to productivity and/or they are not remunerated for their work. This is so shortsighted! The begetting, raising and education of children is a priceless and essential contribution to the country’s collective wealth. To-days kids are tomorrows teachers, plumbers, doctors, journalists, etc. Numerous studies have ‘costed” the work done by stay-at-home parents in the millions of dollars.
So this is not a debate about the merits of deciding to have a child but a debate about the the contribution parents working ( usually very hard! ) at home are making to the society of which they are members and why they are to be treated differently to parents working outside the home.
You MAY complain about the confusion of singular and plural in my previous comment, however.
This isn’t about money. It’s not about the economy. It’s about respect. It’s amazing how many people in our modern materialistic society disparage stay-at-home parents (OK, most are mums) as ‘not paying tax/not contributing to the economy’. Several talkback callers (admittedly not our best and brightest) have been using this line in the past couple of days. Instead of calling daytime radio shows, don’t these people have jobs to do? Ever spent even a day looking after young kids? I’d take the paid tax-paying employment every time. Stay-at-home mums do a bloody difficult, valuable job (yes, job). It’s also interesting to note Julia Gillard has changed her views on the stay-at-homers since the May budget. Beware the wrath of the stay-at-home mums, Bernard.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Budget-08/20080516-Labor-ignore-stay-at-home-mums.html
Who will pay the superannuation levy for the stay-at-home mums?
Will the working partner be assumed to be her employer?
Bernard I challenge you to come to my house and care for my children.
Eva what ever happened to women supporting women?
As a mother I clearly have a vested interest. As someone who consciously chose to stay at home even greater interest. As a humanitarian I believe we all have an interest in raising our future. At the moment the decision to stay at home really is a no-brainer. I can fight to reclaim a job to my Post-Graduate level of education that recognises my family commitment (try that one) or I can work in the poorly paid but flexible retail/hospitality industry. I can try and find quality childcare (again not an easy task).
Whilst at home caring for my children I make muffins, but I also work as a volunteer in the community sector (ironically working to improve policy affecting women and children). I find my unpaid work very challenging (sometimes days I would gladly walk-out). I know however that on balance I am doing the best thing for everyone concerned (including me). Until there is a considerable culture shift (that acknowledges the pressure of the unpaid-paid work juggle and the value of working mothers) educated women will continue to work well below their capacity.
Muffins and nappy changing muddles along with writing the odd grant application or policy document. For me raising our future and helping improve our community (as a volunteer) beats the hell out of ‘settling’ for a dodgy but flexible job, putting up with substandard child care and living on junk food because I was too damn tired.
I would love to combine my unpaid/paid work, but entrenched misogyny prevents this.
Bernard Keane: Precisely! How can any economy underwrite every lobby group that whines for money? As for Tony Abbott; he wouldn’t know his own cock if he fell on it. At the rate these groups get assistance we will arrive, one day in the future, at a featureless landscape, barren, dry and withered. There will be people living in small groups, underground. Like the miners at Cooper Peady. The first thing a traveller from a distant galaxy will come across will be an ancient farmer, cap in hand, asking for money to alleviate the drought, and blaming the previous government.
I fail to see how you arrive at the idea of for ever importing skilled workers. as being a good idea. Why can’t we produce them ourselves? Some day, in the future, when you appreciate that Melbourne and Sydney have a population of 9 million people- making Victoria a coast to coast housing estate-I hope you will arrive at the conclusion that the term Populate and Perish had some merit.
John J - its got nothing to do with motherhood being denigrated nor parenthood. Individuals choose a particular lifestyle to suit themselves or a partner and jointly or individually work to sustain that lifestyle. If you don’t join the workforce it adjusts to supply and demand. According to IR experts the workplace expands and contracts for all sorts of reasons. No one is inferring stay at home parents, male or female are anything more than that. There are no badges for being a parent or being childless. We have a workforce of men and women - their sexual productivity has no bearing on their workplace productivity. I can’t see the purpose of debate on this topic???
If this comment appears twice I’ll be most unhappy.
Two things:
1. I don’t write the headlines, as I’ve explained previously, and I too complained about the superfluous apostrophe.
2. I don’t recall urging that all mothers work full-time. The definition of employment is 1 hour a week. Between that and full-time there’s a variety of possible balances between employment and childcare by both parents and external providers. All of them are better than a stay-at-home mothers whose skills atrophy while the economy cries out for workers.
How many kids do you have, Bernard?
Because, Alex, there’s nothing for them to be on “leave” from… duh.
And Jessica, you’re very welcome. Or were you being sarcastic when you thanked me? In which case, yes, put your child to work sweeping chimneys or selling matches. We need more productive workers and taxpayers, especially in low-skilled occupations. Failing that, I understand kids taste delicious baked with some paprika and a little chicken stock.
Sarcasm - it’s SOOO hilarious.
Thank you Bernard, for putting me right on this issue. I had not seen, that by staying at home to raise my own children and not farming them out to an underpaid childcare worker in our overstreched childcare system, that I am not contributing in a positive and responsible manner to my own children’s welfare and happiness, but in fact I am a leach on society who should be out in the paid workforce earning a living and thus a right to government support. So not only do the tax dollars I earned while in the workforce not count anymore to helping society, but until I am working again instead of taking responsibility for raising the 2 kids I brought into the world, I don’t deserve a cent of help! I always find it ironic that women who do choose to return to the workforce when they have had children (or, whose circumstances mean they don’t have a choice) that they are paid doubly - once for the job they are doing and once by the system of income support in which their childcare - the means most working parents use to be able to work- is heavily subsidised. Those of us who are in a position/ make a choice to stay with our kids get little or no help to do so. So, if I want an eighteen year old just-graduated childcare worker (many of whom are lovely and devoted to the children in their care) to be the one to share my kids’ milestones, tears, drawings, steps and smiles, then I get compensated for that choice. If I want to be there myself to raise my kids, I don’t. Fair? But,I’d better get back to work because people can’ find the staff they need. Only one problem - I am not a doctor, a tradesperson or a public servant. Should I therefore change careers when I return to the workforce? In fact, should we get the kids into an early trade instead of childcare/school? Perhaps my six-year old who is simply wasting her time in Prep learning to read and write, could reduce the waiting lists for a plumber. And my 2 year old could be an ace horticulturalist - just show her the weeds
I am half of a childless couple and sorry folks, but sick of being expected to pay for other people’s life choices.
Either a couple budgets properly and to do it or they don’t. Why should taxpayers (the government isn’t some faceless patriarch with a bottomless wallet IT IS THE TAXPAYERS) pay for your decision to have children?
If we want to make women between the ages of 20 and 45 unemployable, then by all means - - let’s also dump the burden of other people’s choices on business owners. Sheesh!
”..for mothers who refuse to join the workforce..” You could have really driven home the point, Bernard, by referring to the harm they are doing to the “motherland “or the “glorious revolutionary struggle’!