RUDD AND ABBOTT OVERLOOK STAY-AT-HOME MOTHERS
BABETTE FRANCIS, June 12, 2010
Children will suffer discrimination based on the workforce
status of their parents if the Rudd Labor Government’s draft paid
parental leave (PPL) bill is enacted. PPL would give families on two full-time
incomes an average of $2,000 more per pregnancy than single-income families
who get the baby bonus. I, along with a number of like-minded pro-family
activists, gave evidence on the subject recently to the Senate Community
Affairs Legislation Committee on the “exposure draft of the Paid
Parental Leave [PPL] Scheme Bill 2010”.
In our evidence we urged amendments to the bill to eliminate discrimination
against single-breadwinner families where a dependent spouse chooses to
be a full-time homemaker. We protested against the stated objective of
the bill (and of feminist submissions), which was to increase women’s
“attachment to the [paid] workforce”. Whatever happened to enhancing
attachment to babies and family?
Administrative costs
Equal funding for all mothers paid via the baby bonus would save businesses
the costs of being the “government paymaster” — administrative
costs for small businesses would be high under the bill. However, feminists
are determined to make businesses “pay”, even though the money
comes from taxpayers, so that PPL looks like a “work entitlement”
rather than “welfare”. Stay-at-home mothers who receive the
baby bonus can then be demoted to being a lesser breed on “welfare”.
Mothers in paid employment already benefit from taxpayers subsidising
the child-care industry. It is noteworthy that the Rudd Government has
cut the number of new child-care centres from 264 to 32. It has found
that, as in Norway, child-care centres are not economically feasible.
We emphasised that, rather than encouraging or economically coercing mothers
into paid employment and putting their infants into institutionalised
care, mothers should be enabled to care for their pre-school children.
The current epidemic of obesity and the rise in allergies probably have
their origins in the artificial feeding of infants instead of breastfeeding.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that infants receive
only breast milk for the first six months, and encourages breastfeeding
for two years. This reduces the incidence of respiratory and gastric infections.
Senator Judith Adams (Lib, WA) requested more data on Australian breastfeeding
rates.
We pointed out how official gross domestic product (GDP) measurements
notoriously overlook the value of women’s unpaid work, e.g., if a
woman bakes a cake at home, only the ingredients are counted, but if she
bakes the cake in a shop, her wage is also included. This statistical
omission gives policy-makers the wrong impression that women are somehow
unproductive if they are not in paid employment. Employer groups which
have declared their support for PPL because they need more workers are
short-sighted — PPL will not boost Australia’s fertility. It
is the stay-at-home mothers who have larger families than career women.
The United States and Australia are criticised as being the only developed
nations without PPL, but their birth rates are higher than most European
countries which do have such leave. More women in paid employment means
a further reduction in the birth rate and will aggravate the shortage
of workers in a decade or so.
Senator Mark Furness (Labor, Qld) asked in response to our assertion that
PPL was discriminatory, why the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
did not consider the Rudd Government’s PPL bill discriminatory. I
replied that the AHRC has several ideological biases. For instance, despite
the evidence of ultrasound, AHRC office-bearers refuse to acknowledge
that a child in the womb is an individual. On a charter of human rights,
the AHRC has been out of step, not only with the community, but even with
Federal Labor party-room and recent NSW Labor premiers. Further, the AHRC
is not sympathetic to the traditional family.
An unexpected kindness after we concluded our evidence was when Senator
Claire Moore (Labor, Qld) spoke to me expressing her sympathy on the loss
of my husband, Charles. She remembered the last time we gave evidence
to the Senate, when Charles had been with me, and she knew how much I
missed him.
Abbott’s scheme
Some unexpected confessions have come from Opposition leader Tony Abbott,
whose scheme for six months’ PPL by taxing big business was opposed
by business groups and us. We said that his scheme was worse than the
Rudd Government’s bill. On ABC television’s 7:30 Report, Tony
Abbott said that not all his verbal statements could be relied on, only
his scripted policies. Let us hope that his six months’ PPL scheme
falls into the former category.
The Melbourne Herald Sun reported on May 17 that several National Football
League stars in the USA have offered to donate their brains to science
after their deaths so that the effects of concussion can be assessed.
Tony Abbott was a boxer, and perhaps he might consider making a similar
donation.
Babette Francis, B.Sc. (Hons), is national coordinator of Endeavour
Forum Inc. She recently gave evidence, representing
Endeavour Forum and assisted by Carolyn and Geoff Mongan of Canberra,
to the Senate community affairs legislation committee
on the “exposure draft of the Paid Parental Leave [PPL] Scheme Bill
2010”.
|