Families put last in move to cut Paid Parental Leave
18 December 2015
ACTU

The Turnbull Government’s Paid parental Leave will lower family incomes forcing many parents to choose between putting very young babies in childcare, or women - and some men - stepping out of the workforce.   :(

The $968 million cut will mean a huge strain both financially and emotionally for families struggling to juggle family and work commitments.
This will especially hit low and middle income earning families with the average taxable income of Paid Parental Leave recipients at $47 thousand.

Quotes Attributable to ACTU President Ged Kearney:

“The cuts proposed by the Government reject conventional wisdom about the best outcome for babies and the economic benefit of keeping women in the workforce.

"The amount of paid time at home will be capped to when the baby is just four months old rather than the four months being a minimum.
Unions, parents and health experts recognise that we need 26 weeks paid leave plus superannuation in order to care for young babies and support future generations.

Women will be forced to choose between caring for their babies and paying the bills and undoubtedly many will leave the workforce which is not what we want.

Unions are dismayed by the move and will not accept any cuts to the minimum Paid Parental Leave entitlements.
The current system is working well and 18 weeks at the minimum wage is a very modest scheme by international standards with 26 weeks being recommended for infant and maternal wellbeing.

The Government has taken the easy road of cuts rather than clamping down on superannuation concessions and other tax loopholes that favour high income earners and multi-national companies.”   :(

I don't suppose you're interested crookie that there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits.

How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?

Yeah, let us see more women leave the workforce, lowering demand even further, that is how we will grow the economy! The austerity keeps killing the economy but still the Libs keep applying austerity.

They would save $170Bn over the forward estimates by removing the tax exemption for superannuation but they can’t take from the wealthy, can they? Not neocon ideology!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:23am:

Yeah, let us see more women leave the workforce, lowering demand even further, that is how we will grow the economy! The austerity keeps killing the economy but still the Libs keep applying austerity. They would save $170Bn over the forward estimates by removing the ax exemption for superannuation but they can’t take from the wealthy, can they? Not neocon ideology!

You attacked Abbott over his planned paid maternity leave scheme and now you're attacking Turnbull over cuts to the scheme that is currently in place. I think you're a little biased against this government.

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:49am:

I don't suppose you're interested crookie that there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits. How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?

My father worked three jobs at one point - no PPL or the like back then in the 80's.

And what aspect did I dislike about abbott’s PPL thought bubble my indoctrinated little friend?

When you look at the ultra high spending of the current shambles, the zooming debt and deficits even in the absence of a huge crisis—who the hell can like this govt? Only the indoctrinated, the brainwashed like YOU!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:28am:

And what aspect did I dislike about abbott’s PPL thought bubble my indoctrinated little friend? When you look at the ultra high spending of the current shambles, the zooming debt and deficits even in the absence of a huge crisis—who the hell can like this govt? Only the indoctrinated, the brainwashed like YOU!

That ultra-high spending you refer to was locked-in (Abbott-proofed) by Gillard and Rudd. Since 2013 the Coalition has been trying to reign in Labor's irresponsible, reckless & unsustainable spending only to be blocked from doing so. Typical vintage Labor - make a mess and then make it impossible for the next guy to clean it up, thereby making them lose votes so Labor can get back in. Only problem - Turnbull is going to wipe the floor with Shorten next election.

ANMF (Vic Branch)
DEC 19 2015



The ANMF (Vic Branch) have today urged the Senate to reject Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s revised Paid Parental Leave cuts, which take around $6600 from Victorian nurses and midwives who are new mothers.

Under the changes Prime Minister Turnbull announced to the Coalition’s PPL model this week, a Victorian nurse or midwife would continue to receive their employer funded paid maternity leave (ie 10 weeks) & the Commonwealth scheme would only top up the PPL to a maximum of 18 weeks. For the majority of Victorian nurses and midwives that means a loss of 10 weeks PPL received from the government.
Despite improving on Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s controversial scheme, Prime Minister Turnbull’s PPL model still removes around $6,600 from Victorian nurse and midwife new mothers when compared to Australia’s existing PPL model.   

This figure is based on pay and conditions shared by around 60 per cent of Victoria’s nursing & midwifery workforce.
The majority (90%) of nurses and midwives report financial reasons as being the key factor behind a decision to return to work following maternity leave*.
The new model continues a retreat from the Coalition’s promises to Australian parents prior to the election, when the Liberal opposition stated 18 weeks of Commonwealth provided paid parental leave was simply not good enough.
Mr Abbott’s model would have meant only enrolled nurses and starting registered nurses could expect any assistance from the Federal Government. The rest would be left to foot the bill themselves.
A combined total of 18 weeks of leave is still far removed from the World Health Organisation’s recommendation of 26 weeks as the minimum standard for mother and baby to successfully bond.
In addition, the ANMF is sceptical that $35 million will be sufficient to cover all new mothers, given that the previous Gillard scheme operated at $1 billion.

ANMF (Victorian Branch) Secretary Lisa Fitzpatrick said nurses and midwives should not be short changed by the Federal Turnbull Government.
‘Just a few years ago the Coalition was telling working Australian mums that they deserved much more than 18 weeks of Commonwealth provided parental leave. They’ve gone against their promises and the maternal health recommendations of the World Health Organisation.
‘While this PPL model is better than Mr Abbott’s drastic revision earlier this year, make no mistake, Mr Turnbull’s plan for PPL still represents a huge loss for working Victorian nurses and midwives who want to have a family.’

ANMF (Victorian Branch) Secretary Lisa Fitzpatrick said nurses and midwives should not be short changed by the Federal Turnbull Government.
‘Just a few years ago the Coalition was telling working Australian mums that they deserved much more than 18 weeks of Commonwealth provided parental leave. They’ve gone against their promises and the maternal health recommendations of the World Health Organisation.   :(

Isn't this the same government that came to power with an iron clad commitment to a very generous unaffordable PPL scheme ?

Now that have not only broken their promise on their scheme but want to cut back on the current payments ?

Unbelievable, you can not get any lower or show less integrity than that.

Hello Senate - time to do your job again and tell these grubs where to get off.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

Hello Senate - time to do your job again and tell these grubs where to get off.

So when they propose a generous PPL you want it blocked and then when they propose cuts to the existing PPL scheme you want that blocked. Biased much?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:30am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: Hello Senate - time to do your job again and tell these grubs where to get off. So when they propose a generous PPL you want it blocked and then when they propose cuts to the existing PPL scheme you want that blocked. Biased much?

I don't want you to drink to much alcohol but I don't propose you ban all alcohol either .... :D :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:33am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:30am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: Hello Senate - time to do your job again and tell these grubs where to get off. So when they propose a generous PPL you want it blocked and then when they propose cuts to the existing PPL scheme you want that blocked. Biased much? I don't want you to drink to much alcohol but I don't propose you ban all alcohol either .... :D :D

Clearly you could do with a ban on alcohol and whatever drugs you're on.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:23am:

Yeah, let us see more women leave the workforce, lowering demand even further, that is how we will grow the economy! The austerity keeps killing the economy but still the Libs keep applying austerity. They would save $170Bn over the forward estimates by removing the tax exemption for superannuation but they can’t take from the wealthy, can they? Not neocon ideology!

Been endemic high un-+ under-employment since the mass introduction of women into the workforce, along with a fragmentation of working hours and conditions to suit them.

I can see a valid argument for a woman staying home with the kids until they are big enough to fend for themselves.  There is no lower income since she continues to share the income of the other half of the (once) family unit, and Super at the end of the day has been done to death already.

The simple reality is that women CANNOT 'have it all' and must apply reason at some stage in their lives.

Feminism and governments have one hell of a lot to answer for here....

wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:40am:

Families put last in move to cut Paid Parental Leave 18 December 2015 ACTU The Turnbull Government’s Paid parental Leave will lower family incomes forcing many parents to choose between putting very young babies in childcare, or women - and some men - stepping out of the workforce.   :( The $968 million cut will mean a huge strain both financially and emotionally for families struggling to juggle family and work commitments. This will especially hit low and middle income earning families with the average taxable income of Paid Parental Leave recipients at $47 thousand. Quotes Attributable to ACTU President Ged Kearney: “The cuts proposed by the Government reject conventional wisdom about the best outcome for babies and the economic benefit of keeping women in the workforce. "The amount of paid time at home will be capped to when the baby is just four months old rather than the four months being a minimum. Unions, parents and health experts recognise that we need 26 weeks paid leave plus superannuation in order to care for young babies and support future generations. Women will be forced to choose between caring for their babies and paying the bills and undoubtedly many will leave the workforce which is not what we want. Unions are dismayed by the move and will not accept any cuts to the minimum Paid Parental Leave entitlements. The current system is working well and 18 weeks at the minimum wage is a very modest scheme by international standards with 26 weeks being recommended for infant and maternal wellbeing. The Government has taken the easy road of cuts rather than clamping down on superannuation concessions and other tax loopholes that favour high income earners and multi-national companies.”   :(

Simple answer - PPL only applied to those with a genuine need...... argument ends.

It should never have been a silver lining for fat cat women to breed and actually prosper from it..... at what point is enough enough?  We live in a society governed by greed and self-interest...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1450472833

What you are effectively doing by offering extra breeding cash to women is paying them a higher rate of pay for the same job.... next time the old saw of "women only get 78% of the wages of men comes along" - an issue demonstrably destroyed by women working 78% of the hours men work - I'll add that into the equation...... and we'll all see that all these extra goodies actually constitute a higher rate of pay for women.

This has to stop...... equality and common justice dictate that this must be so....

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:30am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: Hello Senate - time to do your job again and tell these grubs where to get off. So when they propose a generous PPL you want it blocked and then when they propose cuts to the existing PPL scheme you want that blocked. Biased much?

The Coalition came to Government telling the public the current PPL scheme introduced by the ALP was inadequate and to get woman of worth back into the workforce Abbott's PPL policy was essential for the economy....Now we are being told the ALP policy is not only adequate it is the new maximum for PPL not the minimum....How do you justify this complete backflip and change of policy from this Government...Where they lying then or are they lying now???

:-? :-? :-?

It's a different govt phil. In reality they're not bound by previous plans thank god.

I repeat what I said before: "there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits.

How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?"

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:30am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: Hello Senate - time to do your job again and tell these grubs where to get off. So when they propose a generous PPL you want it blocked and then when they propose cuts to the existing PPL scheme you want that blocked. Biased much? The Coalition came to Government telling the public the current PPL scheme introduced by the ALP was inadequate and to get woman of worth back into the workforce Abbott's PPL policy was essential for the economy....Now we are being told the ALP policy is not only adequate it is the new maximum for PPL not the minimum....How do you justify this complete backflip and change of policy from this Government...Where they lying then or are they lying now??? :-? :-? :-?

Women of worth generally make enough to take a few months off, especially since their old man makes at least as much..... no need for PPL for fat cats at all....

How anyone imagines that getting women back into the economy is any more 'essential' than simply retaining employment levels regardless of gender, is beyond me.  At what point are men less capable than women, or at what point is another woman less capable of most jobs? 

Worth is as worth does - my old ma down in Green Bow allus said.... and the artificial allocation of 'merit' in the public service, as a salient example, based on gender - always was a failed policy of exclusion and disruption, and has lead us to the myth that because women cop unfair promotions and employment prospects in some areas, they are somehow 'better' at that work, when men have done the work for generations already.

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:07pm:

It's a different govt phil. In reality they're not bound by previous plans thank god. I repeat what I said before: "there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits. How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?"

I have children and never received one cent in PPL....I did not support Labor's PPL but accept it was much more equitable than Abbott's PPL policy....My argument is that the Coalition went to an election proposing a very generous PPL scheme and argued it was essential for the economy....Now that same Government  (despite your denials) is telling us the scheme introduced by Labor is to expensive....So where they lying then or are they lying now???

:-? :-? :-?

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:07pm:

It's a different govt phil. In reality they're not bound by previous plans thank god. I repeat what I said before: "there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits. How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?"

The more the government gives - the more power it has to take it back - and thus the more power it has to hold control over you as an individual and treat you as a vassal of the State, while also enhancing its opportunity to raise taxes, which again is an exercise in establishing control over the individual and even of calculated oppression via the route of ensuring that few, if any, out there have any cash with which to dispute with the government.

This policy thrust crosses all 'party' lines, and creates a government of the people, but not by the people or for the people.......

Government should rightly only be creating the environment in which all can flourish - not giving handouts.

It's ok for a single parent to draw an income from the tax-payer indefinitely until the child turns 18 but it's somehow evil for a working parent to get leave from employment for a fraction of this time?

That ye olde politics of envy coming to the fore yet agin.........  :(

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:07pm:

It's a different govt phil. In reality they're not bound by previous plans thank god. I repeat what I said before: "there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits. How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?"

The ALP tried to argue that a minority Government forced them to change their election commitments to negotiate with the senate and form Government....The Coalition rejected this and claimed any broken promises where a sign of a poor governance and a minority Government was no excuse for broken promises....Now you claim a change of Prime Minister removes any obligation to keep election commitments and they can change what ever policy they want....Where they lying then or are they lying now???

:-? :-? :-?

Swagman wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:28pm:

It's ok for a single parent to draw an income from the tax-payer indefinitely until the child turns 18 but it's somehow evil for a working parent to get leave from employment for a fraction of this time? That ye olde politics of envy coming to the fore yet agin.........  :(

I agree Swag....The Coalition have no excuse for such double standards and rhetoric which changes with every budget!!!

>:( >:( >:(

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:30pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 1:07pm: It's a different govt phil. In reality they're not bound by previous plans thank god. I repeat what I said before: "there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits. How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?" The ALP tried to argue that a minority Government forced them to change their election commitments to negotiate with the senate and form Government....The Coalition rejected this and claimed any broken promises where a sign of a poor governance and a minority Government was no excuse for broken promises....Now you claim a change of Prime Minister removes any obligation to keep election commitments and they can change what ever policy they want....Where they lying then or are they lying now??? :-? :-? :-?

In reality without a majority in the Senate all election promises and or mandates are voided..... :-?

Thank heavens for the good people in the senate.   :)   

wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

Thank heavens for the good people in the senate.   :)

.........trashing democracy for 100 years +

Swagman wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 1:30pm: bogarde73 wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 1:07pm: It's a different govt phil. In reality they're not bound by previous plans thank god. I repeat what I said before: "there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits. How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?" The ALP tried to argue that a minority Government forced them to change their election commitments to negotiate with the senate and form Government....The Coalition rejected this and claimed any broken promises where a sign of a poor governance and a minority Government was no excuse for broken promises....Now you claim a change of Prime Minister removes any obligation to keep election commitments and they can change what ever policy they want....Where they lying then or are they lying now??? :-? :-? :-? In reality without a majority in the Senate all election promises and or mandates are voided..... :-?

Is that only when a Coalition Government is in power because you certainly did not give Julia Gillard the same benefit of circumstances....How can the Coalition argue a more generous PPL is essential for the economy and then argue it isn't....Where they lying then or are they lying now???

:-? :-? :-?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:30am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: Hello Senate - time to do your job again and tell these grubs where to get off. So when they propose a generous PPL you want it blocked and then when they propose cuts to the existing PPL scheme you want that blocked. Biased much?

I never asked for the senate to block Abbotts PPL scheme. Where do you get these silly ideas ?

Julia didn't have a majority in the HRs

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 2:30pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:30am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:03am: Hello Senate - time to do your job again and tell these grubs where to get off. So when they propose a generous PPL you want it blocked and then when they propose cuts to the existing PPL scheme you want that blocked. Biased much? I never asked for the senate to block Abbotts PPL scheme. Where do you get these silly ideas ?

So the Senate does what you ask does it?  :D

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:07pm:

It's a different govt phil. In reality they're not bound by previous plans thank god. I repeat what I said before: "there wasn't any PPL back in the good old days, or child care, or family benefits. How did people come to be so dependent on govt for arranging their family affairs?"

Every single person in the Turnbull government went to an election standing behind the Liberal party policies and commitments presented at the election, they are all bound by those arrangements.

There is no new government - the next new government will be in 2016.

Swagman wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 2:31pm:

Julia didn't have a majority in the HRs

Yes - she had to cop it all ways.....

Swagman wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 2:31pm:

Julia didn't have a majority in the HRs

So what the Coalition does....She also did not have a majority in the Senate....What is the Coalitions excuse for arguing one policy before the election and then changing their rhetoric completely once in power....The lies and miss representations of this Coalition Government are stacking up Swag...Where they lying then or are they lying now???

:-? :-? :-?