Hi Sally,

Two things firstly – you probably need to think beyond your immediate hip pocket when deciding who to vote for, and Kevin and Tony may both change the offer on the table between now and election day!

However – in purely parent-related money terms right here and right now, I’ve asked Bruce Brammall for some advice. Bruce is the author of Debt Man Walking. He is also a financial planner, columnist and parent. This is his take on it:

“I can understand why the money thing is top of mind when you’re planning your first bub and expecting to take an extended break to spend early critical time with your child,” he says.

“When it comes to politics, paid paternity leave is an unusual one, I’ve got to say. The Coalition, surprisingly, seems to have out-Labored Labor. The following two policies almost seem to be attached the wrong party. But the following is not a misprint. I repeat, NOT a misprint:

The baby bonus has been dumped for working parents. In its place, Labor has just introduced to parliament its paid parental leave scheme. This will be 18 weeks of pay at the federal award minimum. Therefore, if it becomes law (and given the recent track record of Rudd Government policies, it might not), Australians will be eligible for about 18 weeks worth of pay at approximately $570 a week. In total, that’s approximately $10,260. The scheme will be totally funded by the taxpayer. For those primary carers who are not working, they will continue to receive the baby bonus.

Tony Abbott’s parental leave is far more generous if you’re looking just at the dollars. You will earn 26 weeks at your normal rate of pay (with a cap at a salary of $150,000). So the maximum here is obviously $75,000. Just a little bit more generous than Labor’s $10,260. But wait, there’s more. They’ll also kick in a further 9% of your what you receive to your super fund. This scheme, however, is going to be funded by a “great big new tax” on Australia’s largest 3200 businesses.

Rudd’s policy is now making its way through the parliament, with the possibility it could be in force by January 1. Even if Abbott wins the election, he might not be able to get the policy started immediately. If it’s just a dollar figure you’re after, then the answer would appear to be the Coalition, so long as you’re earning more than about $20,500 a year.”

Hi Justine

My understanding is that you will have a choice from Labor about the Baby Bonus & that it is not dumped at all. Are you able to check/confirm?? What about those of us not working at the moment?

Thats what I was gonna say... So if you arent currently working you get nothing?

I had read that if you are not in paid employment eg SAHP then you receive the baby bonus in fortnightly payments if you are in paid p/t or F/T work then it is the new paid leave policy

I was quite certain that if you did not work at all, you would still get the baby bonus.

I'd vote Green regardless. Bigger issues than the money in my pocket.

Forget about how much money you will end up with in your pocket and vote for whoever you think is going to create the society that you want your child to grow up in.

Those that don't fill the work requirements of the new scheme will still get FTBs and The Baby Bonus. To say it has 'been dumped' is ridiculous and misleading. I agree that when voting for someone you should look past the first 18 weeks of your babies life and who will pay you more.

The thing to consider as well is that although Tony's proposition is much more generous - it is just that, a proposition and I think it was just words to sound better than Labor. It isn't even a draft policy so even if you vote Liberal, by the time they draft a policy, put it through Senate etc it will be at least 12 months away. So don't vote for Tony because you think it sounds better! By contrast, the opposition has said that at this stage they won't block Labor's plan though the Senate, so as long as Labor win the election it will all go on January 1st.

The best site I've found for answering questions and putting all those silly myths to rest about employers paying it etc is this site through the Family Assistance Office :
http://www.familyassist.gov.au/news-and-up...ave-scheme.html

I think focusing on the baby bonus etc or paid maternity leave is too narrow.

Who will provide the best resourcing to health, education and law and order, housing affordability, climate change etc etc.

Your babies are only babies for a short time.

Yes, I'm sorry, what I should have added to Bruce's answer is that the baby bonus is only scrapped for working Mums. If you are not working then you will receive the baby bonus. If you ARE working (at least the equivalent of one day a week) then you will come under the new scheme.

If you currently work for an employer who offers paid maternity leave, then this scheme is in addition to that one (the government is confident that employers won't reduce their existing leave entitlements; I remain to be convinced on that point over the long term).

Why would you get paid maternity leave if you're not taking leave from work? Do you want paid sick leave too? Rec leave?

yup! Our EB Agreement is up in June 2012. You can bet the new offer will not have our current 16 weeks fully paid maternity leave in it!

I think there is one other factor which has been overlooked. Yes the baby bonus and paid maternity leave is great but we just had our first child and will be looking to have our second in coming years.

Labor has changed the Medicare rebate so to go private and use an obstetrician you are massively out of pocket. Instead of the 75% rebate which we got we would now receive something like $450 so would have been out of pocket approx $5,500.



How that works I have no idea??? The obstetrician managed my wife for basically 9 months and made it a breeze for her. Private health only covers the associated room costs. Suddenly the incentive for top cover comes into question.



I was one who thought Labor was there for the so called Working Family but have grown increasingly jaded.

Hi jeromepc - I think this is what you are referring to when you say that obstetrics will cost you more - the government has imposed an upper limit on what it will pay for some services.

I think you should be saving for your baby and not relying on what the government is /may/might provide you.
As you are in the planning stages, plan to save right now, so you can comfortably make any transition that you need to make as a family.
In the end , I think both parties will end up with very similar policies and whatever they are peddaling at present will most likely not be the form that is implemented in the end.

The government also provide full pregnancy, birth and post-natal care for FREE through the public health system jerome.

Totally agree with the posters who commented that voting based on your own short-term hip pocket is really just that: short-term thinking. There are soooo many other considerations.

The bill going through the senate this week has amendments dealing with the protection of currently offered family leave entitlements. Those worried about employers creeping back on entitlements should write, or better still call their senators (especially the non-Labor ones) today to say that we expect their support for such protections. Having said that people should not vote narrowly on issues of immediate self-interest Victorian voters would do well to read and remember Family First's Senator Fielding's comments on the issue which are completely bizarre: something about family leave encouraging drug-addicted women to have abortions to collect the cash. Crazy. And he has a vote in the senate. I would think that better employers will continue with their current entitlements and be happy to pay them out alongside the taxpayer leave. Just goes to show that it is always a good idea to look seriously at potential employer's family leave policies before we agree to work with them.

Another thing worth noting is that the Labor bill is means tested only on the woman's salary so it is hardly a means test really given that so few women earn over $150K. And the leave can be shared between partners too. The safety net of baby bonus + family allowance for those out of the workforce or not meeting the admittedly quite soft work test ensures the system is not just another case of middle class welfare and seems to fairly protect the women in the community and other lower paid sectors.

I'm a little disappointed that super was excluded by the current bill. However, it is quite a conservative attempt at implementing something that is a first for us as a nation and recognises the economic importance of us contributing to the problems of an aging economy. It seems to have been worked through with all relevant parties over the last year or so and has a very good chance of success. The opposition is just triangulating policy at the last minute and I would agree that they never would have come up with this on their own.

I just wanted to add a thanks to Justine and Bruce for the article on what is a hugely important issue for the future of parenting in Australia.

I think this article says it brilliantly: 'It ends Australia's status as one of only two first-world nations without such a scheme'

Paul Kelly's take on paid parental leave

Sorry, but I must be direct and say that I simply cannot understand how you can be focused on immediate short-term dollars. I have just returned to work after 12 mths unpaid maternity leave. We borrowed money so that I could spend this time with my son, as a result of which we are in debt and will be for some time. I do not care. This is a child. Focus on what sort of society you would like for your child. I for one feel that the ALP have their faults but certainly have far more vision and rigorous, substantive policy than the Coalition, especially a Coalition lead by Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey. I will be devastated if faced with a return to the sort of society encouraged during the Howard years - one focused on short-term opportunism, competitiveness and fear of outsiders and minority groups. The ALP have been criticised for failing on climate change policy - the Coalition under Abbott does not even believe in climate change. The ALP deserve at least another 3 years and hopefully with better numbers in the Senate so they can get some policies through.

Is anyone else just really scared of Tony Abbott becoming pm?
Seriously he just seems evil and makes me feel sick to look at him. Not for any reason in particular, but I just have a feeling of dread when I see his slimy face...

We have saved and expect to pay our own way, and structured ourselves so I can have at least a year off work. I strongly believe this should be the case for everyone, save and plan for your children.

I also think that if your not working, or a tax payer, then paid maternity leave should not apply. Government support should rather come in child care subsidies to encourage women back into the work force. I don't believe in the B/B - I would rather see a strong across the board maternity leave scheme for working women, and some sort of paid P/L for dads. That way women could work in all businesses, without the stigma that at a certain age they are unemployable because they will need time off to have children.

I'd also like to see a rebate for PHI for those who choose touse the private system after all if we all the PH system would clasp if all women chose to be cared for in public hospitals.

I worked for a small business who were unable to afford any sort of leave entitlements for my mat leave despite being there for 2 years. To the point where I very much doubt they will ever want or be in a position to hire a woman of child bearing age again. I was made redundant at the end of last year, accepted another position before the holidays and found out I was pregnant on NYE. My new company let me go at my 3 month review...unfair but not illegal. .

Vote for the person who is going to bring about long term solutions to issues, not the short term $$$ such as the B/B or that ridiculous GFC stimulation package which will be spent in a heartbeat.

I agree with this. Even if I actually believed Abbott would deliver the parental leave scheme he's outlined, there's no way it would be a major part of my decision making.

Thne baby bonus is NOT scrapped for working mums under Labour - you will have a choice of one or the other

Yes, he ignites the same feelings that I have for clowns, not a happy one!


Um, you do know that it was the Liberals who brought in such things that you oppose to vehmently like the Baby Bonus, Family Tax benefits, the CCB and CCR that are in place now?

I think people don't realise how monumental KRudd's Paid PL scheme actually is and what an achievement it will be. If you go back and read the commentary that came from the Liberals for the 10 years before Labor you would see how little they thought of parents being paid to spend time with their children short-term. If nothing else, Kev can be proud to be the man who succeeded in this important implementation.

It passed! It passed!

Even if most of the expectant mums on EB at the moment might miss out due to the 1.1.11 start date, it is a brilliant thing and only a couple of decades late.

Congratulations to all of our politicians who worked hard to pass this into law and a curse on those who either did not support it or who would never have supported such a thing in the first place (despite what they might have belatedly promised as a bit of last-minute politicking).


Premmie29weeks -- the income cutoff of $150k is for the primary care giver. So, on this occasion you can park your outrage as your probably will qualify. Sorry to inform you, but in any society households earning three-times the average wage are considered advantaged and are often excluded from welfare payments such as these. This time, you are included. I would ask you to reflect on how people of advantage often make harsh judgments about the majority who have much less at their disposal in terms of saving for time off work, for their kids' basic needs. I'm also perplexed at the sort of thinking that is behind 'my tax dollars paying for people who... [insert relevant 'are not like me' comment]'. I'm set to be a later-in-life parent who did not think she would ever have kids. I, however, have never begrudged a single tax dollar of mine going to the health, welfare and education of children and have always voted for parties who see that funding these areas is an absolute public good. And I'm no saint, I'm just pretty normal I think. This scheme will cover all those women who like yourself have been unfairly treated by business owners. I think that is cause for celebration, no? I would observe that many smaller business owners who claim hardship when it comes to behaving in both a legal and fair way towards their employees sure do drive some fancy wheels. Wishing you a calmer day.

I believe that Rudd has done this country a great service, and I wasn't saying for a moment that I disagree with the scheme. Good on him, I still dislike him but for once I'm nodding my head and smiling rather than cringing.

The reason I am peeved by the B/B is that under the Liberal government it was not means tested, this government brought about the means testing. And given the program became means tested before the M/L was through parliament - it made it look like couples who were on a combined income of 150K or more, which I might add is far from wealthy were being "punished" for their sucess. Yes we both are on decent incomes, but we are far from wealthy, and we've definately made sacrifices to be able to afford for me to stay home with bub number one due in Sept. Handing out a huge single cash payment to new Mum's was never a good idea, I'll admit the Liberals did the lazy thing to bring it in. But it was across the board and relieved some of the financial pressure in place of a M/L scheme. I would rather as today see an across the board M/L scheme

I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent to assist those who are less fortunate in our society, or being contributed to health, welfare, schools, hospitals.

And in this case I guess I've been unlucky in terms of timing of the pregnancy (though that was never a factor in our decision making) and the redundancy came at a particularly bad time, because any new emplyer wasn't going to react kindly to a new employee announcing a pregnancy so soon.

Anyway didn't mean to sound angry this new scheme is a great start...

So over seeing this same ridiculous comment over and over... and over.
Unless your electorate is a safe Greens seat (which there aren't that many) then your vote will go to Labor. If that's what you want, great. If not, then you should probably educate yourself a little more on the voting system in this country.



Couldn't agree more.
People like this peeve me right off, because they are usually the ones with excessive mortgages, fancy cars, designer clothes.
Yet they feel hard done by because they won't get 10k paid leave from Krudd. What a joke.
Sorry, but when you're making $150k a year (combined or not) then what the hell is a $5k baby bonus to you??? REALLY??
(Besides an extra 50 inch 3D LCD)

Think about others, families on a single income of 30/40/50k a year who bust their a$$es to pay a mortgage/rent and just to deliver food to the family every week. Your life's not that bad.

I've removed those parts of the comments....since people seem to feel they are out of line.

I do not feel hard done by, but I do feel that if you are going to put together a payment designed to assist families and women specifically stay home for those first couple of months then it should be across the board. Especially since up until now there has been no universal paid leave scheme for mothers in Australia.
Ben01 - We don't have a huge mortgage, don't drive flashy cars, or wear designer clothes. We're both university educated, and own and work in small business. We've worked hard to get to this position and to be honest while its easy to judge - you don't know us. You may also find that it's the wealthiest Australians who are the most generous in terms of their time and money for charitable causes. ,

I agree with the Greens comment, you are essentially voting Labour unless it's a safe Greens seat, which there are few across the country.

I stand by the original comments though, there are a number of issues you should vote on, not just the short term gains in terms $$$>

I don't feel that this the the forum to be giving instruction on the various Australian electoral systems, but I really can't help myself. How I wish we would seriously teach civics in our schools.

There are no safe Greens seats. In the history of the party, there have only been a handful of lower house Greens elected in single-member electorates, all in state seats I believe. Currently, the most successful seat for Greens was the seat of Melbourne at the last election where they polled around 20% from memory. This time, they are likely to do better.

Preferential voting systems allow the voter to choose the flow of votes. Bob Brown, on PM the other day, specifically ruled out Greens specifying preference flows in the next Federal election. This means that they will most likely not print out how to vote cards dictating preference flows. They have been polled at 15% and pundits assume they are actually picking up loads of conservative voters given Abbott's retrograde position on significant environmental issues. These former Liberal voters are unlikely to preference Labor. The assumption that a vote for Green is a vote for Labor is a misnomer. Greens have voted against the current Federal government numerous times during this term (ETS anyone?). Lesson over.

Prem29 -- I'm happy to know that you are in support of the new system. It's great, innit? I've no problem that you find Kevin Rudd repugnant, many people do. I've no problem with a robust political debate either, as long as it is based on discussion of policy. I do have a problem with the political culture that has evolved over the last 10 years or so that involves easy victimisation of the vulnerable, and/or those who have enjoyed success. I don't doubt you have worked hard, but my fall-back position on this is that without doubt the hardest working segment of the world's population are African women and they are also the most disadvantaged. Same goes in our society: there are so many hard-working people who never catch a break, and yet they often do not appear to be as bitter about their circumstances as many successful Australians I come across.

As for generosity, while Australians are statistically very generous at times of crises (think Victorian bush fires, Tsunami), the ueber-wealthy in Australia as a group have a terrible reputation in terms of their contribution to society given the generous tax benefits of charity on offer. Similarly, our governments have scaled back on international aid significantly over the last few decades. Any party who significantly reverses this trend would be one I'd encourage people to vote for. After all, as mums and expectant mums in one of the richest countries in the world we should be bringing up kids who will be more generous to those less advantaged than themselves.... wherever they might be in the world. Sometimes I think our politicians need reminding that there are many of us who are motivated by things other than our own immediate advantage (and I include you and I in this, Prem29, even though we are probably not going to agree on much else).

I worked before I had DD who is now 2 and I'm due with my 2nd in a couple of weeks - so do you feel I shouldn't get support for #2 because I chose to be a SAHP until my youngest is 18 months old? I see the B/B as paid leave for my working partner, since he doesn't qualify for anything as I'm the "at home" parent and do need his support in the first few weeks.

If the stigma for employing women of breeding age was that great then very few women between the age of 18 - 40 would be employed

To answer the question from PP...

What I meant is that in the place of the B/B the mother's partner should receive some sort of paid paternity leave also funded by the government, subsidies for child care, and tax breaks given combined income is now less, given one partner is not working. That way organisations can choose to make up the shortfall between the government scheme and the partners salary. Much like this system is intended to work.

I've experienced the stigma first hand...maybe thats why I feel the way I do. I've been to interviews where the interviewer has been more interested in my engagement ring, and wedding band than my experience. I've been asked what my husband does for a living and my age, and how long I've been married in interviews. Maybe in larger organisations there is less of a stigma, but small business unfortunately tend to look at the costs rather than long terms benefits of retaining women after they've had children.