paid maternity leave - yep

So from what I've read in the paper today, this is what's happening;

* It's happening
* It will be 18 weeks of paid maternity leave (just over $500 p.w. for 18 weeks) plus two weeks of paid paternity leave
* it will be as well as, not instead of, the baby bonus.
* only mothers meeting certain work criteria will be eligible, which is the issue people are upset about. The West Australian was unclear about this, but basically it said that if the pregnant woman is working at least 10 hours 12 months before having the baby, she gets the payment. But i'm sure there must be more criteria than that.
* If the mother doesn't meet the work criteria, the father doesn't get paid paternity leave.

I have several problems with this. Firstly, why the heck is there different info from different places?! I just want straight answers! Secondly, the paternity leave being dependent on the mothers maternity leave criteria is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG and I don't like it one bit. NOT HAPPY. I don't think it's fair that some people get more money than others when the cost of having children is the same for everyone, and I would've thought that women who DON'T meet the selection criteria (because they didn't work or didn't work enough) would be more in need of the money than women who worked through their preg . . .

Does anyone know exactly what's going on here?

Bugger, I posted and it went to a 'this page cannot be displayed' so I wrote another thing and posted it, cept the original one had already posted so now there's two things saying different things! Sorry, everyone.

I want to add as well that I think making business pay for it will lead to prejudice against women of childbearing age in the workplace, that businesses just won't hire them so they don't need to pay the leave.

i would say that it's waaaaaaaaaaaaay too early for the papers to "confirm" anything - it will be budget dependent, and the budget isn't until May next year!

media hype about these things honestly *****s me to tears! if it doesn't come direct from the government (ie, appearing on FAO website or similar) i'd take it as media INTERPRETATION of suggestions put forward - not FACT


for what it's worth, the productivy commission website are showing this as a DRAFT and is open to public comment up until November 14, so NO, it's NOT confirmed at all

ah good, thanks. I'd be pretty unhappy if this was the final arrangement

if you google productivity commission maternity leave, you can link to the report - it's HUGE

one thing i noticed just on reading one section, is that it's NOT a case of getting paid parental leave PLUS baby bonus (maternity allowance or whatever title) - it's either or. baby bonus equivalent stays tax free, parental leave is taxable. if you're eligible for mat leave from employer, you won't get paid parental leave (so it's not a double up) - but you can choose to have the baby bonus equivalent. the paid parental leave will reduce FTB eligibility as it's taxable

now, i read three pages - that's it - and i can assure you it's a hell of a lot more complex than the papers are portraying! so i suggest, unless you're prepared to read the whole thing, and comment appropriately (fact, not emotion), that we just wait it out! this is by no means the final call on what will happen

I agree Briggsy's girl...I googled it and read the first 35 pages...I stopped at this as there are 317 pages! It is very interesting reading and does cover a lot of things. But..it is exactly what it says...a draft...for people to read and submit their suggestions...this could be changed and drafted numerous times before the final draft is submitted and a decision is made.

It does address it's reasons for offering the paternity scheme to working mother's only...it is well written and makes sense..but it also points out that stay at home mother's will still have a financial gain.

So, if interested and want to comment...best you read the document. Can never believe what the media states!

Nothing is confirmaed yet. And I wouldnt believe the papers anyway- too much speculation. Briggsy's Girl is spot on. it has to be passed at the budget which isnt until May next year and then IF it is passed then it probably wont start until July 09 (start of financial year). Knowing our goverment I doubt this will be the final plan. There wil be alot of negotiating, arguing, etc before anything is changed.