Left Right Out - The Ideology Obsession

March 22 2018When I was a nipper, I remember there was always…

Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and Surveillance Capitalism

Whether it creeps into politics, marketing, or simple profiling, the nature of…

Day to Day Politics: Can you help me?

Thursday March 22 2018In 2016 I wrote a series of articles about…

Loneliness - A Hidden Suffering of the Modern…

Media ReleaseOver recent times we have built cities that lead to isolation,…

The Ease of Accusation: The Skripal Affair

The policy of responding to assassinations on British soil is a near…

Day to Day Politics: Nationals are dying a…

Wednesday March 21 20181 The junior partner in the Coalition, the National…

Birmingham Compares Catholic Education To Judas; By Implication…

Now, as someone who's taught in public schools, I was all set…

Just WHO controls the conversation (of left-wing politics)?

There was a moment, it is written, when Julius Caesar stood on…


Personal Choice and Economic Reality; Paid Parental Leave

By Eva Cripps

Paid parental leave is contentious. Parents get fiercely protective over their right to reproduce. Non-parents get angry about subsidising ‘personal choices’. Politicians turn it into a populist game which divides the community.

First it was the baby bonus. Then Labor copped flack in 2011 with its paid parental leave scheme. People were outraged at Prime Minister Abbott’s lavish 6-months-at-full-pay policy. Now the Government’s Mothers Day backflip on Paid Parental Leave has again thrown into the spotlight, the right of a woman to have access to tax dollars on the birth of her child.

All the while, men and women are busy horizontally dancing and more babies are born.

This is reality. This is fact. It is not going to change.

No amount of protestations over whether having children is a personal choice, an essential need, a basic instinct, or a duty to society will stop men and women producing babies.

Like it or not, society as a whole pays the price for the emerging generation.

Just like every other ‘personal choice’ or ‘basic right’ or ‘duty,’ all taxpayers provide a subsidy. Federal funds are spent on road infrastructure, used by people choosing to live and travel in that area. Federal funds go to businesses, boosting the profits of the individual business owner. Federal funds buy war planes and submarines, whether the community approves or not. In each case, every tax payer funds it, whether or not they personally benefit.

But when women are attacked for accessing federal funds to help provide financial support in the first crucial months of a baby’s life, it has a nasty vibe.

Because parenthood is not just about women. It is about families. And communities.

Society depends on reproduction to survive.  This is reality. It is unavoidable.

Social Services Minister Scott Morrison’s recent accusation that new mothers have been ‘double-dipping’ on paid parental leave is simply outrageous.  Supporting families, supporting parenthood, and supporting new mothers and fathers makes economic sense.

The benefits of a paid parental leave scheme far outweigh the costs.

The former Government’s scheme intended for women to access both employer and federally funded schemes, if available, for very good reasons.


Poor health costs Australians billions of dollars every year. Mental health, in particular, is a massive problem for Australians. It costs over $28.6 billion a year to support people with mental illnesses.

Provision of paid parental leave is not just about women.

Studies conducted in 2012 show that 1 in 20 fathers are diagnosed with depression either before or just after their baby is born in Australia each year.

This is huge and it is a real problem.

You may not have children, but you will almost certainly work with someone who does. If that person is depressed, it will affect you. Depression results in reduced productivity, increased absenteeism and increased costs for the business. Lost productivity alone costs Australian businesses more than $310 million a year.

This in turn places enormous pressure on other employees. Workplace stress costs Australian businesses over $10 billion a year.

1 in 7 women suffer from postnatal depression and 1 in 10 suffer from anti-natal depression. Poor parental mental health affects the health and wellbeing of infants and children. Severe stress during pregnancy has the same affect a foetus as alcohol or drug use.

Yet many in society expect families to either save up a huge amount of money (at least $15,000 to cover 6 months at the minimum wage), or return to work (in some cases before a baby has had its first vital immunisations) rather than  be provided with financial support.

Either option puts enormous pressure on parents and prospective parents, with negative health effects on the whole family. Which costs the taxpayer.

‘Having babies’ does not ‘cause’ depression.

But financial hardship is a well-recognised and established factor.

The World Health Organisation recommends women spend the first 6 months at home with a new baby.  This is important for the mother’s health and the baby’s health. Babies should be exclusively breastfeed or bottle fed until 6 months of age. Babies form crucial bonds during this time with their primary care-giver. Their future security, good attachment to people and self-worth is dependent on a positive, caring and nurturing start. A babies’ capacity to be a well-functioning and useful member of society as an adult is dependent on a good beginning.

The former Liberal Party’s paid parental leave policy acknowledged this with its proposed 6 months of full pay for working mothers. Labor’s scheme accounted for employee paid leave by offering mothers 18 weeks on the minimal wage. In combination with the average 9.7 weeks of maternity leave provided by employers, this afforded them a possible 6 months at home caring for their child.

Independent reports show that since the introduction of Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2011, health outcomes for mothers and babies improved and workforce participation for women increased.

This should be celebrated.

Instead, mothers have been labelled as ‘double-dippers’ and accused of rorting the system.

Today’s economy is based on two incomes. For many families, with rising costs of living, it is simply not possible to save up enough money to completely cover a whole lost income while a parent is at home looking after a newborn (and while it’s predominantly women, some men are primary carers too).

Arguing that men and women should not have children until they can afford it ignores basic biological reality.

Having a child is not like starting up a business. A woman has limited choice about when she can ‘have a go’ and start a family.

There is a small window to establish a career, buy a house and build up a wad of savings, before a woman reaches the grand young age of 35, when the risks and complications associated with pregnancy and childbirth increase.  By the time a woman reaches 44, she has only a 1-2% chance of falling pregnant naturally.

The average age of a female business owner is between 35 and 44. It’s not realistic to expect women to wait so long to start a family.

Times have changed. The one income family is not feasible for most couples. People who had children a generation ago and say they ‘managed to have babies without paid parental leave’ are ignoring reality. Communities have changed. Grandparents, relatives and neighbours are no longer available to help – they are too busy working themselves.

Today’s society gives rise to the perfect conditions for increased postnatal and antenatal depression in both men and women. This comes at a huge cost to the taxpayer and businesses.

It makes economic sense to support parents. It makes economic sense to take steps to improve health outcomes from infancy. It makes economic sense to provide new mothers with financial support to assist them to spend the first 6 months at home with their children.

It does not make economic sense to divide society with outlandish, inflammatory and incorrect claims that women are ‘double-dipping’ by accessing work and government paid parental leave schemes.

The reality remains that men and women will continue to have babies. Personal choice or not.

Eva Cripps is a freelance writer with a keen interest in legal, social justice and community matters. She has a Bachelor of Laws degree with First Class Honours, and is currently in the final year of studying for the Bachelor of Social Science, majoring in Social Justice and Behavioural Science. She’s also a mother to two young children and lives in Tasmania.


  1. roscoe

    what really rubbed it in was it was all announced on mother’s day of all days. I personally think it was intentional

  2. Pingback: Personal Choice and Economic Reality; Paid Parental Leave – Written by EVA CRIPSS | winstonclose

  3. Loz

    This is a government that does nothing worthwhile for the good of our society. Their remarks about the parental leave payments are quite disturbing, their lack of interest in the violence against women is quite disturbing, their cuts to women’s refuges is quite disturbing and the fact that they only have only two female government ministers is quite disturbing.

  4. kerri

    Not only is there a small window of biological opportunity that makes delaying pregnancy problematic but also we have a Government intent on lumbering young people with a huge education debt and unaffordable housing. As you would know Eva, studying is not cheap these days. Unlike the days when I attended Uni (around the time many of the present government attended) when education was free thanks to our most altruistic and fair of PMs Gough Whitlam. Today a degree is expensive and under the nasty care of Christopher Pyne due to get worse. I seriously worry about young people of the next few generations trying to get ahead. Their degrees will keep them in debt throughout the normal period of marriage or at least home ownership and thereafter childbearing. The Abbott Government clearly doesn’t care for the physical, financial or mental welfare of anyone who does not fit their assessment as “women of calibre” ie; rich!
    They have now delivered a triple whammy to anyone wishing to get ahead or as Joe says “Have a go” at a better job through Education. HECS debt. Unaffordable housing. No PPL. Of course he has angled his “Have a go” message to small business because poorer people don’t deserve anything better than small business. Speaking as one for whom, the Education gift from Gough has me now in a position where these concerns will not effect my children, I am seriously concrened for a future with ingrained youth poverty and young people with no hope. And they womder why ice is so popular?

  5. Florence nee Fedup

    Dutton took bulk billing in Medicare, claiming it was only a safety net. Wrong, was important part of Medicare from day one. A mechanism to make it universal and have some control over cost.

    Morrison takes the five year old PPL, claiming that the gvt arm was only in place as a safety net. Another lie. Gvt PLL was based payment to be complemented by industry PPL. Aim would be for more women to see PPL as part salary package. This has occurred I believe.

    Yes, government partnership with industry. Yes, sharing cost between government, industry and mother. Good outcome, one could say.

    Sort of fits in with Howard’s mutual obligations.

    We have similar outcomes with private medical insurance and Medicare.

  6. diannaart

    Could someone explain to our government that we all started out as dependent little babies – that is part of being human, it is what humans do – calling this primal activity a lifestyle choice is nothing less than rampant stupidity.

    I can only shake my head, that our leaders think they arrived on planet earth as fully formed adults (so long as they keep their human skins on) – which I am not ruling our by the way…sheesh.

  7. Terry2

    Speaking Points are distributed to Liberal ministers on a daily basis by Peta Credlin and are delivered uncritically and without thought or analysis.
    That’s why you had the likes of Cormann and Frydenburg talking rorts and double dipping even though their own wives had done exactly as other mothers throughout Australia : all within the law and all legitimate entitlements legislated by government.

    The talking points have now changed and you will probably hear no more about double dipping.

Leave a Reply

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: