COSTLY CHILD CARE OR FREE MOTHER CARE
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
The best child care available is time with Mum. Time spent in those formative years with Mum can never be replaced and that’s just one of the reasons Abbott’s PPL is a shocker with more holes than a crumpet.
I know I’m a troglodyte but I have never asked my wife to work when our children were young or needed care, no matter how broke we were. And at times I have worked three full time jobs to ensure that always happened.
But that was pre-Whitlam when fathers were breadwinners and mothers were caregivers. Those times have gone forever... that beautiful mother-child relationship has given way to family finances, socialist ideology, latent female “liberation”, perceived equality and that awful stigma of “housewife”, but there is no way I’ll win that argument, so I’ll just accept it, I’ve lost.
Simply shifting funds from paid parental leave to child-care does little to solve the gaping holes in Abbott’s signature policy.
Productivity measures aren’t effected by encouraging women OUT of the workforce with attractive “making babies” payments.
Those babies will be a drain on the public purse in education, health and related services, child-care and, until they get a job, unemployment benefits... and if they make it to uni there’s an even bigger drain!
So, if the PPL was introduced in another 20 years’ time, that would still be too soon. It’s rubbish, it’s unaffordable, it’s open to rorting and it’s economically retrogressive.
The most unfair part of this PPL involves the mother who has gone without to be able care for her own child and who will take no part in this largesse when she has another child because she has chosen not to work in the interests of her first child!
The very mothers the PPL should be assisting are the very same mothers who are left completely out of the loop... the mothers who don’t have a job because they happen to think the mother-child relationship happens to be more important!
And it is those mothers who aren’t a current burden on government-subsidised child-care!
But hang on! Under this PPL scheme, a woman planning on pregnancy would be stupid NOT to gain full employment first! Otherwise she will not be paid to spend time with her new baby!
So, what does the employer do then? Replace her, and hope she DOESN’T return to work, or tell his new employee she will be redundant if the mother DOES decide to return?
And there is no guarantee she will return, there is no agreement to say she must. How is your “productivity” looking so far, Tony?
Abbott’s explanation is that private enterprise needs to keep up with the Public Service, hmmm. Keep up with the Public Service? Please tell me you’re kidding! The Public Service doesn’t care how much it forks out in parental leave entitlements, but the private sector does.
And this will be a permanent disincentive to the private sector employing females of child-bearing age. “Productivity” looking any better yet Tony?
I wonder how Joe Hockey feels having to defend this PPL farce when he’s copping a hammering trying CUT costs?
Don’t tinker with it Tony, get rid of it, it’s costing a fortune in political capital, it’s never going to get past the Senate and your own Party thinks it’s a bloody joke.
If you really need a social legacy to be remembered for then find something that makes a little more sense.
If you persist with this, the only person who will give you a kiss is Peta Credlin and she’s not even in your Ministry!
... or is she?