Abbott's message to mothers: get to work

The Drum

Updated May 16, 2014 11:57:24

Photo: The message is clear: When your children get to primary school, ladies, it's back to work with you. (iStockPhoto)

The stay-at-home mum had quite the heyday for a while, but Tony Abbott has turned his back on the band of women his party once championed, writes Annabel Crabb.

The federal budget is haunted by the ghost of a woman. Over the past 10 years, her image - once proudly prominent in the Howard government's budgetary priorities - has faded from the pages of the national fiscal document. How fascinating it is that the man most widely thought to be John Howard's ideological successor, Tony Abbott, should be the one to give her that final push towards the door.

She is the Australian stay-at-home mum.

She has captured the imaginations of male leaders, off and on, for years. Paul Keating soliloquized about her in his maiden speech in 1970. "In the past couple of years the Government has boasted about the increasing number of women in the workforce," the young backbencher told Parliament. "Rather than something to be proud of, I feel it is something of which we should be ashamed."

It was 14 years ago, in 2000, that Mr Howard first introduced the Family Tax Benefit (B) payment, which was designed to assist households where one parent went out to work and the other stayed home to look after children.

The then prime minister's view was that stay-at-home mums were the forgotten women; ineligible for paid maternity leave, immune to tax breaks because of their historically unpaid status, yet providing a valuable service to the nation.

These days, 60 per cent of families with children under the age of 16 receive Family Tax Benefit B. It costs the nation $5 billion a year.

But last night's budget changed things. Only families on less than $100,000 will be eligible for it now, rather than $150,000. And once a family's youngest child hits six years of age, it cuts out altogether. These two measures alone save the budget more than $3 billion over four years, and isolate further a woman - the stay-at-home mum - who has been going out of fiscal favour for some years now.

"Staying at home should be a parent's choice, but there are limits on how much support the taxpayer can give," was the Treasurer's comment last night.

The message was clear: When your children get to primary school, ladies, it's back to work with you.

The stay-at-home mum had quite the hey-day for a while there. Four years after Family Tax Benefit B, when John Howard's nervous system was crackling with the fissile combination of booming company tax receipts and an existential terror, he announced a lump sum payment to all new mothers, regardless of whether they worked or not. The Baby Bonus was not means tested. It went to mothers who worked full-time, and those who did not work at all.

But over the years, the Baby Bonus was nipped, tucked, means-tested and in the end, even Tony Abbott cooperated in its abolition.

In its place is Mr Abbott's new model - a generous paid parental leave scheme designed to encourage and reward women who work, but take a small amount of time out to have babies.

The Paid Parental Leave - should it survive the rigours of the Senate and the dark scowls from the Prime Minister's own colleagues, many of whom privately loathe the measure - will only be claimable by women who have been in paid work before having their babies. The six-month payment covers a generous period of bonding with the newborn, but does not encourage mum to stick around at home indefinitely. It offers nothing at all to stay-at-home mums.

And as of last night, the family tax assistance system has stripped away more support from this band of low-profile, largely unrepresented Australian women.

Of all the fascinating reinventions Tony Abbott has undergone over the years, nothing is quite so intriguing as the way his legislative taste in women has changed. When he was sworn in, pledging to assist "women struggling to balance work and family", it confirmed what his epiphany on paid parental leave had already suggested; the model Abbott mum is now an employee, not a homemaker.

Annabel Crabb is the ABC's chief online political writer. View her full profile here.

Topics: parenting, family, budget, federal-government

First posted May 14, 2014 12:27:21

Comments (288)

Comments for this story are closed.

Professor Rosseforp:

14 May 2014 12:45:11pm

Great idea to get the women back to work.
One question: has the government reserved special jobs for them, or do they have to struggle to find a spot in the 500,000 jobs that are waiting for the dole bludgers?
You know the 500,000 unemployed who are going to be forced to take a job -- I didn't hear mention in the budget speech about where those jobs are, but the government must know, because in 12 months anyone who is still on the dole is going to be shipped there and forced to do one of those jobs.
If anyone hears, could they let me know? Thanks.

Alert moderator
- tom e:
  
  14 May 2014 1:16:20pm
  
  And if they're aged 50 or more and not in receipt of the dole or disability benefits, potential employers won't get the new $10,000 grant for employing them. Yet another big barrier for employment.
  
  Alert moderator
- virgil:
  
  14 May 2014 1:27:22pm
  
  Professor it is madness to be encouraging parents back into the workforce ASAP when there is already a high enough level of unemployment (particularly youth) which is very likely to get worse. If anything we need to be thinking about job sharing and lowering our aspirations (try that one at your next BBQ).
  
  Parenthood is one of the most difficult & important jobs there is and governments are encouraging people to not do it properly.
  
  Alert moderator
  - John51:
    
    14 May 2014 2:26:38pm
    
    Virgil, with all the cuts to family payments many of these mothers are going to have to get a job to make up for the loss of those payments. As you say the problem is I do not see where they are going to come from.
    
    I hope they were not thinking of going to university to get the skills to go back to work. Because on top of paying off the mortgage or for their rent I am not sure how they are going to be able to afford to.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Lotus:
    
    14 May 2014 2:27:49pm
    
    Mothers that go back into paid work are usually part time workers who often job share. An absence of 5 years from the workforce can make it difficult to find work. This is why many women go back to work and (shock! horror!) and put their children into childcare. With one third of marriages ending in divorce it makes good practical sense to keep your skills up.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Alfie:
    
    14 May 2014 3:06:03pm
    
    Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for your choice to have a child?
    
    It is about time that someone addressed this nonsense.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Karen:
      
      14 May 2014 4:31:23pm
      
      Hi Alfie,
      
      The taxpayer should be assisting parents because one day those children they are raising will be paying the taxes that support you in your old age. You know. Pay for your hospital visits, pension, police force, roads...etc.
      
      Alert moderator
    - GrumpiSkeptic:
      
      14 May 2014 4:52:42pm
      
      Alfie,
      
      Judging by your past posts, I assume that you are a conservative supporter. Now, if that is so, then you are a "flip-flopper" when push comes to shove.
      
      Remember the "world's greatest treasurer" Peter Costello? Well, some ALP mobs claimed Paul Keating was. But anyway...Mr. Costello saintly told us ...
      
      "One for mom, one for dad, and one for the country?"
      
      I bet you cheered him for his foresight and generousity then ?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alfie:
      
      14 May 2014 5:22:02pm
      
      You assume too much.
      
      I am a conservative, but I have never supported parenting payments, baby bonuses or the PPL.
      
      Just as I am sure there are things about Labor policies that you might not agree with.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Nina:
    
    14 May 2014 3:07:06pm
    
    I think the good professor was pointing out the flaw.
    
    Alert moderator
- Gary:
  
  14 May 2014 1:29:10pm
  
  I say sod the bludgers. All they have to do is ring one of their rich mates and get them to arrange a $200,000 part time board position.
  
  That option is available to everyone isn't it? Not just to the North Shore private school educated residents?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Sir Bill Bored:
    
    14 May 2014 3:00:24pm
    
    I'd like to answer that Gary but I don't remember
    
    Alert moderator
  - brad:
    
    14 May 2014 3:00:30pm
    
    Or you could learn a trade, re-skill or innovate something. But that option is only available to people with brains.
    
    Alert moderator
    - GJA:
      
      14 May 2014 3:23:45pm
      
      Of course everyone's got the time and money to go learn a trade or new skill. Everyone's capable of creating a new Iphone app they can monetize. That new invention is just sitting in their brains waiting for them to act.
      
      Where's yours?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Brad:
      
      14 May 2014 3:53:44pm
      
      Excuses Excuses GJA. It's always easier to just throw up your hands and let other people sort out your problems isn't it?
      
      Alert moderator
    - bobtonnor:
      
      14 May 2014 5:04:52pm
      
      due to a severe disability i had to retrain, i now have two degrees and an advanced diploma and a normal diploma, i cant get work, i want it, does this mean im a bludger? or are you just a simplistic fool with simplistic questions?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dani:
      
      14 May 2014 5:29:30pm
      
      Brad
      
      Youre just trolling. To get into a trade you have to have someone agree to apprentice you. Re "innovate something" -how hilarious. The appointment to a part time position on a board for $200,000 is more realistic, even if you aren't from an exclusive male private school.
      
      Alert moderator
- barsnax:
  
  14 May 2014 1:29:17pm
  
  My observation is there is plenty of work out there if you want it. Unfortunately the term "job snob" is alive and kicking in Australia.
  
  Taxi driving, cleaning, hospitality, carers etc the list goes on but for some Australians this work is beneath them and they'd rather whinge, stay at home and put their handout for welfare.
  
  I say good on the government for weeding these people out.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Marty:
    
    14 May 2014 1:56:49pm
    
    I know a couple of people who are the epitome of the dole bludger , but they are certainly in the minority . I also know a plenty of people who are taking whatever work is available in our area (rural) they do fencing, spud sorting , rousabout/shed hand in shearing sheds , pick and shovel jobs , pretty much anything that will bring them some coin , Job snobs may exist but they are nowhere near as prevalent as you make out . To remove any form of payment for 6 months is plain wrong , then again if you starve them and remove any handouts they will then be prey to the bosses when the LNP remove minimum wage provisions , get ready Australia we will end up with the working homeless just like the good ol US of A
    
    Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 2:23:54pm
      
      I imagine "dole bludgers" get found out very quickly in rural areas Marty.
      
      My comment was more about the fact that in the city I live in there are always jobs available in certain industries.
      
      The fact that some people complain that they can't find work says to me that they can't find work in the field they are trained in.
      
      Well I'm sorry but I've been down this path myself and I would serve someone their breakfast, pack a supermarket shelf or clean a toilet rather than be on the dole.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sir Bill Bored:
      
      14 May 2014 3:04:29pm
      
      Having read your rather laborious factually incorrect response Barsnax, have you ever thought that some people may not have the ability to do some of the jobs you have listed? Didn't think so, yet you label them dole bludgers, how narrow.
      
      Alert moderator
  - darthseditious:
    
    14 May 2014 2:05:47pm
    
    Taxi driving eh? 12 hour shifts, low pay (lucky to get $50 per shift), unruly, rude and, on occasions, violent passengers. Is it any wonder it's not one of those jobs that people are lining up to do. Oh, yes, unreliable taxi owners should also be added to this list of job hazards for drivers. I worked in the industry, I know.
    
    Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 2:52:56pm
      
      True darthseditious...taxi driving is not everyone's top choice of jobs but it was only one of the choices I mentioned.
      
      Or are you saying it's better to be on the dole than earn a modest wage.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      14 May 2014 4:41:25pm
      
      I am pretty sure that there are not 500-1,000,000 jobs for more taxi-drivers, shelf stackers or toilet cleaners.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dani:
      
      14 May 2014 5:32:02pm
      
      Rather than being guaranteed a "modest wage" taxi drivers can end up out of pocket for their shifts. Less opinion, more facts please Barsnax.
      
      Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 5:47:16pm
      
      Have you ever driven a cab Dani? You want facts. I drove cabs for 12 years and I can count on one hand the amount of times I was out of pocket. The cab owner may lose money and there were nights I'd earn very little but you always made up for it on the weekend. That's if you weren't robbed or the customer didn't do a runner.
      
      I think your all missing the point here. Taxi driving is just one of quite a few industries that are always looking for employees.
      
      If you want a debate on the pros and cons of the taxi industry then perhaps Annabel will do a story on it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ann:
      
      14 May 2014 2:56:13pm
      
      I'm not sure if it's happening in Australia, but I know at least in some countries, taxi drivers are so poorly paid they pretty much have to tax cheat to get by. Is that really an industry someone is being a "job snob" to turn down?
      
      Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 3:34:41pm
      
      Taxi driving seems to be two dirty words on this post Ann.
      I've driven cabs and yes there is a lot of black money in the industry. It's been cleaned up a lot since my day as a driver and it's not as bad as some on this post make out and they certainly make more than $50 a night on weekends.
      
      Job snob to me means any person who refuses to take work that is below their expectations or their perception of their own worth.
      
      Why should my tax dollars go to paying someone with an arts degree to sit on their bum all day?
      \
      If the government can force these people off their collective backsides, back into work and OFF WELFARE then more power to them.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sharra:
      
      14 May 2014 4:44:20pm
      
      I remember being unemployed with an honors degree in history and a teaching qualification. I also remember the hostility of employers asking my why I was applying for a job I was seriously over qualified for. I never got the job of course. I was in real trouble when the casual teaching jobs dried up and was on the dole for years before being helped by a job skills program. They do not exist any more. The program helped me get a low paid clerical assistant job but at least it was work.
      
      I never gave up trying to find work but I was devastated when I finished uni and found that I was regarded with contempt by some employers. These people do NOT sit on their bums enjoying life on the dole. There is NO fun in struggling to pay bills and by food. I was just lucky that I could still live at home but even then we struggled to pay the bills. NO ONE enjoys being poor, and it is even harder to cope with when you have been brought up in a comfortable middle class family.
      
      Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 5:36:55pm
      
      I used to work with a woman who had an Arts degree majoring in photography. We both earned the same money but she got $70 a week less than me because of her HECS debt.
      
      I asked her once 'what's the point in doing a 4 year university degree and racking up a huge HECS debt if you don't get employment in your chosen field at the end of it'.
      She angrily told me to shut up and that I sounded like her father.
      
      That was in 2006. She is now a very successful photographer with 3 employees. She told me recently that it was the 10 years of doing data processing, waitressing, car detailing anything that gave her the money to buy the equipment she needed to start her business.
      
      My point is there is always, always something you can do. At the moment traffic control is the big thing. Can't get enough of them in Brisbane. Get a forklift ticket. Warehouses are always looking for people.
      
      You can't be over qualified for hard work.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Markus:
      
      14 May 2014 4:59:31pm
      
      And is taxi driving a good job for my daughter?
      
      Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 5:38:46pm
      
      Probably not (why is everyone obsessed with taxi driving) but the hospitality industry may be a good start.
      
      Alert moderator
  - MT_Syd:
    
    14 May 2014 2:09:12pm
    
    yes yes barsnax
    
    the taxi drivers could drive us to a better future, while the cleaning ladies sweep the lowlife (people not on boards) aside
    
    straight from the young lib playbook
    
    tally ho, old chap
    
    Alert moderator
  - awake:
    
    14 May 2014 2:09:53pm
    
    Or run away from responsibility totally and live in Asia on your pension - with little helpers wearing little.
    
    Alert moderator
  - RegH:
    
    14 May 2014 2:10:13pm
    
    Ahh, the good old crack down on the dole bludgers call. I don't know where you live, but I have known many young people who have tried and tried to get jobs and not succeeded. Rather than leading a life of bliss while bludging on the dole, many become depressed. Currently there are over 700,000 unemployed and the Abbott government hopes to add another 16,000 public servants to the tally. Add to that the thousands from the car manufacturing industry and associated suppliers who will be coming onto the job market. As of the end of May, job vacancies stood at 130,000. That means at least 500,000 people in Australia have no chance of getting a job. This is reflected in falling participation rates. Your observations are in stark contrast to the facts.
    
    Alert moderator
    - marg1:
      
      14 May 2014 4:45:06pm
      
      Agree with you Reg and also watch the crime rate climb with starving, poverty stricken people out there. The ideologues in power have no idea what the real world is like.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Nell:
      
      14 May 2014 4:57:49pm
      
      Our chief economists have clearly stated that the biggest threat to our national economic status is not government debt but the elevated levels of household debt.
      
      Yet this fevered government acting in a frenzy of calvinistic fervour are arranging to force young people and mothers of six year olds to work or learn while acquiring a debt to the government that will accrue compounding interest until paid.
      
      If that mum is already a mortgagee, cannot get paid work then she will have little choice but to engage in a TAFE or University course that will increase her debt burden.
      
      If the indebted young person or mum of the young cannot get work to work off the debt at the end of their studies, then what? What is the current data on graduate employment from both these types of institutions. Universities are to be given the go-ahead to raise their fees. There can be up to 30% unemployment from some courses and it is not always clear in a dynamic economy who will be the winners at the end of their studies.
      
      Agree with your assessment RegH. The timing of these changes are set to create a perfect storm of household debt in an environment of an increasing cost of living. Wonder what Treasury modelling has been done on that?
      
      Alert moderator
  - pwrighter:
    
    14 May 2014 2:14:57pm
    
    Really? Then how about trying out for one of these jobs yourself? You will likely find that even for such jobs a qualification or experience is required. Someone laid off from an office job can not just stroll into this kind of work. Not to mention that a person's existing skills decay the longer they work outside their area of skill. Try putting street cleaner as a recent entry on your CV.
    
    Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 2:42:08pm
      
      I drive a bus pwrighter. I laugh at the above comments because I've done all of those jobs I mentioned at one time or another.
      
      I'm a worker and I'd rather earn $18 an hour as a casual cleaner than be on the dole.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sir Bill Bored:
      
      14 May 2014 3:08:14pm
      
      So as a bus driver, you are fit, can see, have an advanced driving qualification, can make decisions, are aware of hazards and display public relations skills. Now go and tell that to the "dole bludgers" as you call them that may not be able to do those things. Next please.
      
      Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 3:44:30pm
      
      Very true Bill. I have all of those skills and I learnt them through being a taxi driver, a cleaner, a shelf stacker etc and having the humility to do those jobs when times got tough.
      
      Life experience is a qualification as well Bill.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sir Bill Bored:
      
      14 May 2014 4:38:49pm
      
      Barsnax, My son is unable to do virtually any of those things and is on the dole. He wants to work but no one will have him. Is he a dole bludger snaxs? See, self righteous people like you make me sick frankly. Good on you for working, I do, his mum does, both of us since we were 17. My son would love to clean toilets.
      
      Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 5:13:37pm
      
      Once again Bill I was only quoting the term "dole bludger" from Marty's post.
      
      For me the term "dole bludger" relates to my youth when I was working and some of my mates were surfing. It seemed like a good life until you went out and I'd be buying the beers or shelling out the smokes.
      
      What was really annoying was the black money they earned as part time brickies labourers that never seemed to last when it was their shout. That is the definition of a dole bludger to me.
      
      I feel sorry for your son that he is unable to find work but that doesn't give you the right to call me self righteous. I've worked hard for everything I've got and I stand by everything I've posted.
      
      Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 4:41:42pm
      
      Actually Bill it was Marty's post who made the dole bludger remark. I was simply quoting him.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Grover Jones:
      
      14 May 2014 3:09:38pm
      
      Hear, hear! I'm with you barsnax. WHen it comes to the difference between my kids and wife starving, and my dignity, then I choose my kids and wife not starving. Hence I'm workiung where I am. It's well below me, but the work is quite easy, and the pay is decent. Better than living on the street.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Leo:
      
      14 May 2014 4:45:48pm
      
      I know a couple of job seekers who would be quite happy to be working for $18 an hour - after struggling to survive on unemployment benefits. Borrowing from family members to supplement the meagre amount paid by centrelink is essential, so if, after six months, they still can't find a job, they won't have any savings to see them through a further six months. (for luxuries like rent, food, medicare co-payments and the like).
      
      Just too cruel.
      
      Alert moderator
  - John51:
    
    14 May 2014 2:30:29pm
    
    I presume you can point to that list of all those hundreds of thousands of jobs.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Monica:
    
    14 May 2014 3:14:26pm
    
    Here's a funny thing:
    When I had kids I thought, "I know! I'll study while I'm home looking after them! That will keep my skills fresh and give me something extra to put on my CV when I look for work."
    
    Now I have a MA Professional Writing - and a set of skills that are in high demand. But only if you can work full time and paying for before and after school care isn't cheap. I also have an extra $14k in fee debt which will take a significant chunk out of any wage I earn.
    
    So excuse me if I don't head down to the local supermarket and stack shelves, earning minimum wage that will barely cover my existing expenses let alone pay for childcare and repay my fees. And that's assuming I can get a job when I'm competing against school leavers who only have to be paid 80% of the standard hourly rate.
    
    Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 4:51:04pm
      
      But Monica do you receive welfare? If you don't then fair enough, hold out until the right job comes along but if you do receive welfare and there is work in your local area stacking shelves or cleaning for example, why should my tax dollars go towards you sitting at home? Why don't you go and work?
      
      You can't have it both ways. That's why the country is in a mess because government after government gives welfare to people who don't need it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - jb-baby:
      
      14 May 2014 4:53:28pm
      
      Kudos to you for managing to combine caring for kids and study. It's a huge task when they're small.
      
      And you're so right about the full time work thing. You have to fight for spots in child care and school care, and then find flexible hours to get to it all and not go insane or broke, or both!
      
      I job-shared for years and found it incredibly productive as the boss got two brains for the price of one. If only more could see the light and offer flexible work.
      
      Alert moderator
  - GJA:
    
    14 May 2014 3:26:13pm
    
    You're quite right. Lots of jobs as cleaners or taxi drivers, although it's shift work, and you don't always get to pick your shift. In fact, lots of cleaners are by the nature of the job working nights, which will be swell for those mums, won't it?
    
    The two-income family should not have to be the default model. We cheat our society by making it so.
    
    Alert moderator
  - maureen:
    
    14 May 2014 4:05:00pm
    
    if I was a young guy just left school and average schooling the job would be for me "Truck Driving". The average age of truck drivers is 50 plus. Young ones are not interested. Food, petrol and such all are delivered by trucks. It can only expand.
    
    Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 5:02:03pm
      
      This won't be popular but the Army teaches its recruits these skills. Heavy vehicle, forklift and plant equipment licences, logistics and computer skills. Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor, lawyer or politician.
      
      If the Abbott government is serious about its infrastructure plans then they are going to need an army (no pun intended)of skilled workers to carry out these projects.
      
      Maybe have a policy if you are between 18 and 25 not employed or in education for 3 months, a 2 year stint of National Service would be appropriate.
      
      I look forward to the beating I'm about to get.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Chuckles:
    
    14 May 2014 4:54:50pm
    
    The term job snob doesn't just apply for those applying for work, I've been turned down employment for entry level positions and have been told, "sorry you are over qualified you will just get bored and leave" when I have asked why I didn't get the job.
    
    Alert moderator
- Sotapanna:
  
  14 May 2014 1:39:43pm
  
  "has the government reserved special jobs for them"
  
  Yes the government has work for them.
  They, the subsidized under 70's and the youths will all be employed on the chain gangs constructing the Infrastructure Prime Ministers roads.
  As they may not currently have the skills shovel training and heavy lifting training will be offered at a cost.
  Should anyone not stay on the line, they will experience the financial wrath of the government and need to harvest grass to feed their children. Just as it is in North Korea?
  
  Alert moderator
- Aussie Roadster:
  
  14 May 2014 1:43:05pm
  
  Going to need a lot of 10am to 2pm jobs now.
  
  Better off not increasing the PPL and paying the funds set aside for it into daycare. Or, we could just remove paying people to have kids & cover daycare for working parents (at least we'll get some money back from their taxes).
  
  There still will not be enough jobs for the kids-at-school mums (& dads).
  
  Alert moderator
  - barsnax:
    
    14 May 2014 2:12:27pm
    
    Why not be really radical and allow mums (or dads) to take their kids to work. I'm a bus driver and some of our drivers bring their kids to work. Plonk 'em on the front seat and drive around all day although this is not recommended for those in the mining or sex industries.
    
    Alert moderator
    - sdrawkcaB:
      
      14 May 2014 2:40:48pm
      
      Sitting in a bus day in, day out. What a complete waste of a young persons day.
      
      Alert moderator
    - barsnax:
      
      14 May 2014 3:04:38pm
      
      Some people may not be able to afford day care sdrawkaB. Some people have personal situations that differ from what you think.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Nina:
      
      14 May 2014 3:11:44pm
      
      Do the insurance companies know about that?
      I assume your suggestion that people bring their kids to work is primarily based on sound educational theories, right?
      
      Alert moderator
    - GrahamD:
      
      14 May 2014 3:32:22pm
      
      >although this is not recommended for those in the mining or sex industries.
      
      Plenty of people in poorer areas provide on the job training in the "fornication Consultany" and "Street Pharmaceutical" industries.
      
      I predict that these will also be growth industries in Australia.
      
      SO what's your problem with Mining. I thought kids would love a remote controlled truck!
      
      Alert moderator
- Roy:
  
  14 May 2014 1:48:45pm
  
  The at home mum will go to work and in turn they will employ the unemployed men as babysitters.
  
  Alert moderator
  - AussieRoadster:
    
    14 May 2014 3:55:03pm
    
    Can I employ my at-home wife to be an at-home babysitter? Would be nice to be able to claim a tax deduction for childcare to do that (or just income swap as many other countries do without issue).
    
    Alert moderator
- John51:
  
  14 May 2014 2:21:10pm
  
  Professor, aren't we going to need more than those 500,000 jobs. After all it is not only the unemployed. It is the ones on the disability pension and the aged pensioners as well.
  
  As for the stay at home mothers I have not quite figured out where they are going to get their jobs from, or what line they are going to have to stand in to get them. And going by this budget I don't think this government knows where any of them are going to come from either.
  
  And going by the increases to the cost of getting higher education and the skills for the 21st Century economy. I am not sure how many of them are going to be able to afford to get that higher education and skills to get those jobs. I can see it getting to where you are going to need rich parents for that.
  
  Who knows maybe all those roads are to be built the old way with the pick and shovel. And just think how many jobs can be created if we have people on the sledge hammer breaking up rocks for the gravel. As for other jobs I have not seen anything in the budget to show where they are coming from.
  
  Alert moderator
- the yank:
  
  14 May 2014 2:49:21pm
  
  "Treasurer Joe Hockey would not rule out the possibility of holding another election if the budget measures were held up."
  
  OH please, please, please, ...
  
  Alert moderator
- Rob:
  
  14 May 2014 3:12:28pm
  
  Prof- not only does Merlin Hockey want to force women back to work-but also the disabled= the old- the young-the students the 500,000 currently unemployed and possibly the hundreds of thousands which are under employed.
  
  But can you and others see the strategy behind it all? I recall the previous Chairman of the US Federal Reserve admit he wanted to create a pool of unemployed so as to keep costs down and make US Banks and Corporations more "competitive" that is -more able to make even bigger profits.
  The fact that there will not be enough jobs to go around and those that are will not pay a livable wage is part of the Government's evil strategy.
  And what will compound the evil in this country is that thanks to the last LNP Government our households have the largest levels of household debt in the world.
  
  This is the most evil-deceitful-divisive-incompetent Government in our history. Collectively it reminds me of a religious teacher we had at school. He was such a a frustrated individual, so consumed by anger and suspicion that it drove him to take a perverse delight in exercise cruelty on his pupils.
  I think the RC into child abuse reveals the mind and heart set.
  Bring on a double dissolution!!
  
  Alert moderator
- rag:
  
  14 May 2014 3:51:34pm
  
  Capitalism dictates, thou' shalt not hath less than 5% unemployed, ever.
  
  That govts relentlessly attack that very 5%, a device of their own deliberate creation is beyond jaw dropping.
  
  Alert moderator
tsj:

14 May 2014 12:47:37pm

A piece that needed to be written. Thank you Annabel.
And let's not forget that most modern of phenomenons: the stay-at-home-Dad!
A choice to be a stay-at-home-parent is, especially when there term is prolonged beyond school age for children, is not one taken lightly or as a deliberate alternative to working. It is usually due to the decision that it is what is best for the family's needs. And even more commonly, because the children may have special needs.
With projected cuts to FTB and disability payments, and also to single parent payments in recent times, these families are right in feeling more than a little discriminated against.

Until this government introduces a taxation method and means testing for welfare based on 'household' rather than 'personal' income, the relative unfairness of the current Australian system will perpetuate this obvious discrepancy. One income families in particular are the new secret underclass in our society, given the current system, even when they earn as much as $100K per year.

Alert moderator
- cameco96:
  
  14 May 2014 1:40:06pm
  
  Tend to agree with this. Perhaps more genuine choices could be made by people if one income households had double the tax threshold and all governmnt payments were ceased? Sure less revenue for goverment but less outgoings also. Would probably not stop anyone working if they wanted to.
  
  Alert moderator
Ted:

14 May 2014 12:52:55pm

I have been puzzling over this for some time. Does Tony have a genuine dislike of homemakers or does he just not think?

With one and a half people unemployed (UB + DSP) one would think it might be a good idea to provide an incentive not to have two income families while some have none.

Years ago we had child endowment, small but paid to all. Why not do the same now? An affordable benefit (say $18,000) paid to all irrespective of work.

Where are the Nationals protesting about the disadvantage to farmers' wives under the proposed new arrangements?

Alert moderator
- Where's Tony:
  
  14 May 2014 1:18:42pm
  
  Stay at home Mums. Are these the women in our society who take full responsibility for the upbringing of their young children, the women who sacrifice that extra wage to be hands on in the nurturing and moral welfare of the kids they chose to have.
  If so, I salute each and every one of you, the best thing you can do for the country is be a decent and proper mother to them, every child deserves this.
  I am all for choice but suggesting that yours is wrong is contemptible. Hold the line, what you provide to your children and the future of this country is beyond anything that money offers.
  I hope you all had a wonderful Mother's Day, you've earned it.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Emma:
    
    14 May 2014 5:29:27pm
    
    Thank you, I was beginning to feel like a pariah.
    People also seem to forget that a lot of stay at home mums do all the volunteer roles that keep schools etc. running on budget.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Where's Tony:
      
      15 May 2014 9:06:52am
      
      You're welcome, Emma and you are absolutely right about volunteer work.
      Never, ever let anyone make you feel like a pariah, bring your kids up to the very best of your ability, heaven knows we only have them for a short time before other influences come into play. What you have instilled in them before then can have a lasting influence on their future character, all of us benefit from that.
      Have a wonderful, fulfilling day.
      
      Alert moderator
  - whatif:
    
    15 May 2014 7:36:49am
    
    Stay at home mums have been the back bone of Australia for a long time, kids didn't run rampant and were brought up to have some standards, why because mum was there to chastise them, today with no one at home kids run rampant stealing cars and breaking into homes and shops, they are on drugs and think they are tough till they get caught and end up in places no child should, so don't condemn stay at home mums, they do it tough, with budgeting and everything else, but the rewards are usually well behaved kids,
    
    Alert moderator
- Bev:
  
  14 May 2014 1:37:16pm
  
  " an incentive not to have two income families while some have none"
  
  We used to have an arrangement where women who got married had to quit work. The reason was quite simple. Women who held a job were taking work from men who were supposed to support their families and since there was no welfare if a man was not working the family starved. Fair or unfair? Depending on your point of view. Feminists decided it was unfair and lobbied to get women out of home and into work whether they wanted to or not. Naturally business decided it was great to have an over supply of workers so it became an employers market (wages down). The government looked at all the extra tax payers and agreed it was wonderful to have all those extra tax payers. Naturally the price of houses, cars etc. rose to the point where two incomes were needed to pay for them because they could (probably would not of happened if women did not work). Me? I'm fence sitting as to whether it was good or bad for society.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Caffettierra Moka:
    
    14 May 2014 2:12:17pm
    
    "We used to have an arrangement where women who got married had to quit work". No we didn't. Never ever. Don't talk rubbish.
    
    I seem to recall that in the public service (the old-fashioned public service that the Libs have spent 40 years dismantling) if a women married, she resigned to let another woman take up 'women's work'. Other women went on to life-long jobs as nurses and nuns without displacing a single man.
    
    If 'feminists' (whoever they are) did anything it was encouraging women who had already raised their children to adulthood to think about re-entering the workforce. My mother did in the 1980s - without Germaine Greer or Betty Friedan dropping in to 'force' her to do so. How many men were displaced by that? Zero.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Kerrie:
      
      14 May 2014 2:53:48pm
      
      Im sorry to rain on your parade but women were forced to resign when they got married but that was also in the days when it was legislated that women earned a percentage of male wages for the same job (I think it was two thirds or three quarters). I will point out that my own grandmother hid her marriage from her employer until she got pregnant so that she could continue working at a department store.
      
      As a feminist I would like to see equal pay and job opportunities so that women are forced into the homemaker role.
      
      As a reluctant unemployed mum I would remind readers that stay at home mums aren't deemed to be "unemployed" and cannot access any support to find work, get training, or set up a business let alone access benefits or healthcare cards. Without knowing the federal economic benefits it would be nice if my husbands income was taxed as household income, as others have suggested.
      
      Stay at home parents also have more time to do tuck shop, excursions, coaching, fundraising etc that benefit all kids.
      
      Alert moderator
    - GJA:
      
      14 May 2014 3:30:01pm
      
      It wasn't government policy for women to be forced to resign. It seems now that it is policy to have a two-income family, however.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Suzanne:
      
      14 May 2014 3:03:37pm
      
      The "marriage bar" continued in the Australian public service until 1966. Single working women were
      obliged to resign on the eve of their wedding. A version of this existed in private companies as well, and indeed my own mother had to leave a job she loved for a major Australian company when she married. This rule meant that many talented women were excluded from work and were at the financial mercy of their husbands (as my own mother was). For some, having a family was the pinnacle of their achievement, and good luck to them. For myself, I am glad that when I was ready to contribute as a professional, no stupid, bigoted law prevented me.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Concerned:
      
      14 May 2014 3:04:03pm
      
      Actually women DID get forced out of the workforce years back once they married and got pregnant. I remember going to a number of leaving parties for women in workplaces in the early 1970s. Basically once you started to "show" when you got pregnant, that was it and you had your leaving work afternoon tea. Heavily pregnant women in the workforce was an almost unknown phenomenon right into the '80s. But then there were also lots of "women's" jobs back in those days. The huge typing pools in offices being one of them in the pre-computer days.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Caffettierra Moka:
      
      14 May 2014 4:03:33pm
      
      "As a feminist I would like to see equal pay and job opportunities so that women are forced into the homemaker role"
      
      I am assuming you mean 'are NOT forced'.
      
      In spite of the 'arrangements', there was no legal force to them. No legislation in force said; "Married women are not permitted to hold jobs". And Australia signed the UN Convention abolishing discrimination against women, this was not a 'feminist' inspired strike at the patriachy. Australia, at least, had legislated for equal pay by 1972 and maternity leave was already available to commonwealth public servants in 1973.
      
      I can only note that the late Benazir Bhutto was able to be Prime Minister of Pakistan (an islamic nation) for 5 years AND managed to have three children during her time in office. What would some of the brave souls here tell her? "Well, traditionally women in your country just sit down and shut the hell up - why are you taking the job away from a man?"
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ted:
      
      14 May 2014 6:59:18pm
      
      Sorry Caffettierra, your'e wrong. As a young male at 19 I was surprised in 1966 to gain my first promotion by taking the job of a women who was forced to resign upon marriage. I actually tried to avoid this but the law was the law.
      
      In case my initial post above was deficient, one of the things I was saying was that being a homemaker should be highly valued. For some reason Abbott does not. 1 1/2 million etc (typo).
      
      Alert moderator
    - Caffettierra Moka:
      
      14 May 2014 8:01:39pm
      
      She was made to 'retire', if she hadn't what law was broken? The Marriage Law of 1961 does not say a single thing about working, before or after marriage. I can't access the proper law materials online to check what the laws would have said in the 1960s, but I assume that there is no black-letter law requirement. There may have been in the award or contracts of employment, but that is not the same as 'the law of the land'.
      
      For most of the last century wages for Aboriginal workers were fixed at 2/3rds of a white mans. This went on till 1965, but even then the increases took years to implement. Aboriginal workers on reserves in NSW and Qld were deliberately underpaid up to the late 1980s!! It took a court action in 1999 to get their lost wages back. Some of the people involved had been robbed blind since 1975! So, even when the laws did require equal pay and opportunity it was not given.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Lucy original:
      
      15 May 2014 12:43:09am
      
      Caffettierra Moka
      You are wrong.
      I was at school in the country town of Orange in 1939/1940/1941.
      My teacher in Fifth Class, Miss Allen, secretly married the 4th Class teacher in the Boys School, Mr Lancaster. As a special favour, I was told, but sworn to secrecy, because if the marriage came to be known Miss Allen would lose her job. The NSW Education Dept. did not employ married women.
      Shortly afterwards, when I was in 6th Class, Mr Lancaster joined the RAAF and went to war. Miss Allen was then able to announce that she was married and had become Mrs Lancaster because, out of necessity, the ban on employment of married women had to be dropped.
      (Just for the record, Mr Lancaster was shot down, missing in action, and I believe never came back.)
      
      Your knowledge may go back to the 1980s. But if you go back to pre World War 11 you will find that Bev is right.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Ann:
    
    14 May 2014 3:01:58pm
    
    As a woman myself, I am sitting on the fence with you Bev. While it was great that women were given choice in the beginning, now it has become no choice once again. There is no choice not to have two incomes, unless you are going to live in the bush on some small subsistence farm. I am happy for my fellow females who are happy pursuing their careers; I am sorrowful for my fellow females who would above all like to care for their children and cook their own meals from scratch. My own mother was not well educated and if she had been in my generation would certainly have faced a life of part-time jobs, struggling to juggle children and work, instead of a life supported by her university-educated partner, going to overseas countries and pursuing her own interests. I am envious of her.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Suzanne:
    
    14 May 2014 3:11:00pm
    
    "Feminists decided it was unfair and lobbied to get women out of home and into work whether they wanted to or not". Bevan, your wording as usual is slanted to bag out feminists. What feminists actually did was demonstrate why the marriage bar was morally wrong in that it kept women financially dependent upon men and prevented them from contributing their intellect and labour to our society and to their own betterment and intellectual stimulation. Those who prefer to stay and home and look after their children should certainly have that right. But those who want to work should be able to as well. Removing the barriers to women contributing is an unambiguous good, so get off that fence.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Bev:
      
      14 May 2014 7:06:09pm
      
      That is Beverley not Bevan thank you.
      
      Still on the fence because I can see good and bad from the present arrangements.
      
      "it kept women financially dependent upon men"
      
      We have substituted Government for husband when it comes to dependency.
      
      My grandmother outlived two husbands had 5 children, taught in the school my great grandfather founded and also ran a camping ground. My mother did go to University after we were teenagers to study history. I worked and had 3 children so it is a mixed bag.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Suzanne:
      
      15 May 2014 9:43:02am
      
      "We have substituted Government for husband when it comes to dependency."
      
      This is an outright falsehood. The majority of women are not dependent upon welfare (even if quite a few have received some through the family benefits system). Being financially dependent on a man is EXTREMELY dangerous, and yet it was mandated for my mother's generation and earlier. I have never been in this situation myself, nor have I ever depended upon the government. In fact, several men have been financially dependent upon me in times past, but that was out of their laziness and selfishness. I totally take care of all my own needs and expenses, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Bev:
      
      15 May 2014 12:28:31pm
      
      Agreed not all women but there are a large number of women who are, many not of their own choosing but a significant number who choose to be welfare recipients.
      
      " Being financially dependent on a man is EXTREMELY dangerous"
      
      An over the top statement since for most of history women and men have lived a cooperative existence. Necessary given that the family was the only welfare unit for everyone men, women, children and relatives and most lived in extended families. The nuclear family being a recent change which does make people more vulnerable.
      
      Alert moderator
  - GJA:
    
    14 May 2014 3:31:57pm
    
    Feminists did not "lobby to get women out of home and into work whether they wanted to or not". They did lobby to make it possible for women to keep their jobs when they got married or pregnant and continue to lobby for equal pay for equal work. You've got some twisted ideas about feminism.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Bev:
      
      14 May 2014 7:11:07pm
      
      The feminist line has not really changed very much from this:
      
      Simone de Beauvoir
      
      ?No woman should be authorized to stay at home
      to raise her children. Society should be totally
      different. Women should not have that choice,
      precisely because if there is such a choice, too
      many women will make that one.?
      
      Many feminists sneeringly call mothers who stay home "breeders", "rabbits" etc. so I don't see much change in feminist policy.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Caffettierra Moka:
      
      14 May 2014 8:12:47pm
      
      You can dredge up any sort of quote to confirm any bias you want. If you think that feminism is "not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians" [Pat Robertson, 1992] then you want to leave the lives of women in the hands of nutjobs like Boko Haram who have a neat plan from 'God' for what women should and shouldn't be.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Bev:
      
      15 May 2014 9:53:50am
      
      Feminism was never about equality it was about privilege for some women at the expense of all others and yes it is anti family (anti father actually). The rest is a rant. There are an awful lot of women working in drudge jobs because they have to rather than what they want which is to be full time mothers. Feminists tell us it is about choice. Some choice for the great majority of women! Precious few really have choice.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Katie:
      
      15 May 2014 10:00:39am
      
      As a feminist, my brand of feminism is all about choice. I believe women and men should have the same variety of choices in their lives. They should be able to get a job they are qualified for and interested in without gender norms dictating their options. They should have equal opportunities to stay home and raise their children to be productive and engaged members of society. To say that your one quote dictates all of feminism is very misleading; the definition of feminism is wanting equal rights for women.
      
      I don't think wanting people to see women as human beings just as much as men is that great an ask, to be honest, and it continues to baffle me as to why people are so against the concept everywhere I go.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Neenabeena:
    
    14 May 2014 7:33:23pm
    
    Hi Bev Fine when your husband supported you and didn't leave you bash you or use all the money (he had full control) for beer and gambling. Fine if you were happy and didn't need a degree and intelligent conversation, Excellent if your husband remained alive. I took fence sides years ago Men forfeited the role of steward when they took their role and use it a s a power to exploit and belittle. Good men are everywhere and dont need to be the bread winner any more they can be themselves, and as loving and wonderful as they were back then. bad men are less powerful it is just so many young bashed women dont know it.
    
    Alert moderator
- Keith Lethbridge Snr:
  
  14 May 2014 1:39:35pm
  
  G'day Ted.
  
  I certainly agree with you that one family member in paid employment while the other cares for children, is an excellent arrangement. Many would disagree, & I'm not arguing against them.
  
  My preference, however, is that government pays me nothing & takes as little as possible from me. Certainly, we need to pay jointly for shared essential infrastructure & services, but by paying for family support we risk creating dependence. We also create a burden for those who choose not to have children & those who are more thrifty than others.
  
  In those circumstances, what might happen is that society becomes addicted to "things", rather than family & society values. People will demand more & more from government, even when we are obviously living beyond our means.
  
  I wouldn't want to see that happen.
  
  Regards,
  
  Cobber
  
  Alert moderator
  - Ann:
    
    14 May 2014 3:03:29pm
    
    There is no "burden" for those that choose not to have children. It's society's burden to create the next generation. You can't shrug if off just like you can't shrug off society's burden to create a stable, peaceful environment. Too many people are wringing their hands looking at each and every small tax and public spend, trying to find the ones they ideologically don't agree with and so should cut out. Suck it up and support the society you live in, princesses.
    
    Alert moderator
- Sue:
  
  14 May 2014 1:45:26pm
  
  Why should people be paid to have children? Help the unemployed and underprivileged by all means but many who receive the Family Tax Benefits are far from those categories.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Ruth:
    
    14 May 2014 4:28:16pm
    
    Quite. It astonishes me that many think that having children is both a right and something others should help pay for.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      14 May 2014 5:01:51pm
      
      Which party did you vote for - Howard and Abbott's Liberals - the ones who increased family payments, introduced the Baby Bonus and now the insane PPL for women of calibre?
      
      Alert moderator
    - PollyPocket:
      
      14 May 2014 9:59:33pm
      
      Exactly Ruth! I was taught that we make our own way in this world and pay for ourselves. We cannot have children, so that makes paying for others to procreate an even harder pill to swallow!
      
      Alert moderator
  - Stuffed Olive:
    
    14 May 2014 4:53:18pm
    
    Well Abbott is having a two way bet - taking some benefits away but introducing his insane PPL. Can you figure that out and then comment again in light of the new reality.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Sue:
      
      15 May 2014 10:35:31am
      
      I don't agree with either policy. Like Ruth I was brought up with the belief that I am responsible for myself and any dependents. As a result I have put saving money for the future for when I'm not working before luxuries and luxuries include things such as holidays, movies, meals out and alcohol.
      
      I saw a woman on TV standing in her kitchen with new European appliances and granite benchtop complaining about how much of a struggle it would be without the family payment from the government. Maybe if she hadn't spent so much money on her fancy home she could afford to pay for her own kids rather than expecting me to.
      
      Alert moderator
- Sotapanna:
  
  14 May 2014 1:48:15pm
  
  "I have been puzzling over this for some time. Does Tony have a genuine dislike of homemakers or does he just not think?"
  
  No need to stress about this, he "does he just not think".
  The lack of a rational in his thought processes is a fascinating study.
  
  He has turned his big effort for Aboriginals on his head with a $500 million cut.
  That funding possibly goes to the PPL elite where Aboriginal women rarely ascend to?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Lotus:
    
    14 May 2014 2:35:57pm
    
    Excellent point - it will be the most marginalised members of society that are going to be unfairly impacted by this budget. It has been very poorly thought through, most likely because Abbott has so few women to advise him.
    
    Alert moderator
MJLC:

14 May 2014 1:00:17pm

Because "mums and dads" are allegedly the font of all wisdom and suppository (sic) of all virtue (sort-of the modern day Australian equivalent of poets and philosophers), I have to assume those stay-at-home mums who voted Coalition last September actually want this to occur. They must have done - this is, after all, a "government of no surprises".

As such, I thank them for their selfless deed. Well done to all concerned.

Alert moderator
Hubert:

14 May 2014 1:02:14pm

It's all well and good to tell stay at home mums to go and find work, but where are the jobs?

Alert moderator
- Sadmum:
  
  14 May 2014 1:35:15pm
  
  And if you are a mum who was a public servant before having baby...double whammy!
  
  Alert moderator
Karen Tipler:

14 May 2014 1:07:18pm

This assumes that there are jobs and childcare available for women. It is probably just as well that second income earners are not usually counted as unemployed, or the unemployment figures may actually start reflecting the real state of the nation.

Alert moderator
- MT_Syd:
  
  14 May 2014 2:11:31pm
  
  maybe stay at home mums should register for the dole, and after six months they could be allowed to look after their kids as a form of work for the dole community service
  
  until they get a real job of course
  
  Alert moderator
Hmmm:

14 May 2014 1:11:37pm

I am a stay at home mum who works hard at home. Husband works - paid work. I home school my kids and keep the household moving. I take a money burden off the state government by home schooling my kids, I am raising responsible respectful citizens, so they will not be a burden on society down the track. I lost FTA B in the budget - so be it, sometimes things have to be cut - but government don't tell me I'm better off back at paid work while I have children and teens under my roof. I am more valuable to my children at home. Government can belittle me for what I do, but my family thanks me. Paid Parental leave should go if we are all going to take a hit so should PPL.

Alert moderator
- Lotus:
  
  14 May 2014 2:31:42pm
  
  PPL= Paid parental leave
  
  Alert moderator
  - Sir Bill Bored:
    
    14 May 2014 3:17:39pm
    
    Re read the post from Hmmm Lotus, that is what she is saying.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Hmmm:
      
      14 May 2014 3:47:27pm
      
      Thanks Sir Bill - could have worded it a bit better / very rushed typing .... a bit annoyed when I wrote that note. Glad you understood !
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sir Bill Bored:
      
      14 May 2014 4:41:18pm
      
      My mum stayed at home Hmmm but is was bit before two incomes were needed. I would love every kid in Australia to have that same opportunity. Good on you, you have my support.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Paulh:
    
    14 May 2014 4:20:41pm
    
    Are people even aware that thousands in the public service already get similar ppl schemes to the one Abbott has proposed , also the majority of these Alledged high earning females not only pay more than their fare share of tax but also have no plans to have children or take up the scheme. The hypocrisy and scaremongering is becoming offensive.lets target AbbottAbbottAbbott and completely ignore other facts like Labor raised retirement to 67 without any consultation or warning to the public where was the outcry ,labor cut family concessions no outcry,labor wasted billions on mismanaged policies and failed gesture policies,they still refuse to allow the carbon tax to be scrapped yet where's the outcry,where's the faux shrill indignation.talking about lies,forget the carbon tax lie, labor and swan not only forecast a surplus they informed us they had achieved a surplus,yet 5 years after the gfc they were still giving money away and hadn't completed stimulus projects, they also forecast a $12 billion budget deficit yet achieved a $43 billion deficit blow out where's the outcry.what short memories these progressives have
    
    Alert moderator
- Keith Lethbridge Snr:
  
  14 May 2014 2:59:32pm
  
  G'day Hmmm.
  
  Well done & well said!
  
  Regards,
  
  Cobber
  
  Alert moderator
Stephen:

14 May 2014 1:16:20pm

Quite frankly I think the country would be a lot better off the government encouraged a parent to stay at home and look after their children. I am sure education standards would rise, youth crime would become lower and the unemployment rate would drop. They could simply allow the working partner to lodged a joint taxation return, so if they were earning $100k a year, each partner would simply be taxed at $50k each.

Alert moderator
- Grover Jones:
  
  14 May 2014 3:16:00pm
  
  You kn ow, I think you're right. Have a look at the crime rates in the poor US cities where women are not only working and trying to raise children, but working two and three jobs because minimum wage is so damn small. There could well be a correlation.
  My wife works one to two days a week, and I work early in the day, so I can be home within an hour of the older kids getting home from school (the youngest is still home full time). It works out great for us.
  
  Alert moderator
Lotus:

14 May 2014 1:20:48pm

What Mr. Abbott has not factored in is the lack of before and after school care for working mothers. We have a serious shortage in Sydney at present. Ditto for childcare for the under 2's, which makes the PPL a complete waste of money. You can't work if there is no childcare.

Alert moderator
- virgil:
  
  14 May 2014 1:52:56pm
  
  "Childcare for under 2s" - just reading that makes me feel sad!
  
  Alert moderator
  - Lotus:
    
    14 May 2014 2:19:45pm
    
    Why does it make you sad? Childcare centres provide socialisation skills and far more educational activities than any stay at home mother can provide for her children. Both my boys have had wonderful experiences at childcare. For single working parents it is a necessity of life. Not everyone has someone to financially support them and the kid/s.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Ann:
    
    14 May 2014 3:05:34pm
    
    A serious career woman won't even take off 6 months to spend with that baby. Yet somehow it was better for her to have one than some poor yobbo who will probably raise it into a bogan like itself. So much implicit judgement about personal worth.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Stephen:
      
      15 May 2014 9:38:36am
      
      A serious career woman (parent)....Perhaps it is time that people wanting to have children need to make the decision,,,career or family,,,I dont think you can have both.
      
      Seriously when it actually comes down to it,,,I dont think too many "careers" amount to much compared to being a parent.
      
      Alert moderator
  - jane:
    
    14 May 2014 4:10:08pm
    
    Some people do not have the luxury of been able to stay at home for two years after their child has been born. maybe food and a house over childrens head is valued more. Maybe we sould not be so judgemental.
    
    Alert moderator
- Dave:
  
  14 May 2014 2:03:00pm
  
  Isn't Mrs Abbott a manager in the child care sector? A sector which, on these figures, is going to need some pretty serious expansion in the not-to-distant future?
  
  And the PM says we shouldn't have a federal ICAC.....
  
  Alert moderator
Keith Lethbridge Snr:

14 May 2014 1:20:58pm

G'day Annabel.

Thanks for your article.

The message I get from the budget is slightly different from the message you apparently heard. I see it as: "If you plan to have children, please also plan to be able to support them." That seems to be a reasonable notion. The world might owe us a living, but don't count on it ever paying up.

The old "nuclear family" was a social & economic unit. It served those purposes quite well in many circumstances. One parent raised children while the other brought in sustenance. (The choice of "who did what" was up to them.)

Somewhere along the line, it was decided that both parents should go out & gather sustenance while the State took responsibility for raising children. Good luck with that theory. I suspect it will lead to a lack of social cohesion, dependence, disappointment & a widening of the gap between wealthy & poor.

Who can tell?

Regards,

Cobber

Alert moderator
Jay Somasundaram:

14 May 2014 1:23:52pm

A person in a house with children isn't working, is that it?

Alert moderator
Stusrt:

14 May 2014 1:25:53pm

"The message was clear: When your children get to primary school, ladies, it's back to work with you."

Is this not a good mesage? Why should taxpayers support stay at home parents whose kids aren't at home?

Alert moderator
- Stephen:
  
  14 May 2014 2:39:47pm
  
  Explain how the taxpayer is supporting someone who stays at home.
  
  Alert moderator
  - tgs:
    
    14 May 2014 3:05:30pm
    
    Family Tax Benefit B for starters...
    
    Alert moderator
    - GJA:
      
      14 May 2014 3:37:27pm
      
      A repayment of taxes already paid.
      
      Alert moderator
- Jez:
  
  14 May 2014 3:08:28pm
  
  Because the wealthy require very little fom society allowing them to invest, whereas ordinary folk need more to get by, but are restricted by the excessive demands of investors who end up investing in the most parasitic forms of wealth generation (think high frequency trading' privatisation of state assets, etc). This is what the mutually beneficial investment opportunities compete against.
  
  This situation leads to a succinct answer to your query - society has no needs that require fulfillment from these parents, or there wouldn't be five people for each job vacancy.
  
  Now I ask you - where are the jobs? WHO will be the consumers for these jobs? Are you willing to accept smaller returns on your investments to provide the extra demand REQUIRED to generate these jobs?
  
  Alert moderator
- Ann:
  
  14 May 2014 3:11:02pm
  
  Well, firstly, there is still a gap between when children get home from school and when adults get home from work. Depending on commute that could be about 4 or 5 hours. That's a lot of time for a 7 year old to be alone at home. Should a 7 year old have their own housekeys? Oh, they should be looked after by someone else for pay? What if you can't find someone to do that? What if it's too expensive?
  
  Even regardless of the issue above, having someone at home "keeping the house" usually means they are cooking proper meals rather than buying ready-made food which is the order of the day if you look at supermarkets... it's hard to even find many of the rawer materials any more. That leads to better health outcomes for the whole family and reduced health costs. Don't you want that?
  
  Having a parent who is not trying to unwind after work also gives the children a chance to spend more quality time doing homework or interests together. You'd also be mad to suggest the stay at home parent doesn't create a stronger bond with their children. How many people who had working dads and home mums have a stronger bond with their dad than their mum? Not many. That's not just because they came out of mum's tummy.
  
  Alert moderator
LMW:

14 May 2014 1:29:33pm

I can't believe that we are allowing ourselves to become tax generating machines for govt to waste our hard earned $'as it wishes messing it up along the way and family life is going down the drain.

The task of bringing up children is one of the most important ones that any person can have in our society yet it now (as far as the govt is concerned) is just a second rate job you do after you have gone to work to pay your tax.

The saying "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" must now now include " the trouble is the hand has been stopped rocking the cradle" (because he/she has GONE TO WORK) and look at the mess we are getting ourselves into.

And by the way a recession in Canberra after last night- bring it on!

Alert moderator
- Desert Woman:
  
  14 May 2014 2:07:48pm
  
  Are you aware that Canberra is populated by quite ordinary people who live their lives just like you and I? The pollies migrate in and out when parliament sits, only two federal politicians actually live there, apart from the PM who MAY live there after the Lodge is finished. I know you are angry but your aim is off.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Paulh:
    
    14 May 2014 4:25:32pm
    
    I think you forget Canberra is mostly populated by the public service,yes the bloated beaurocracy established and Exagerated by labor policies, one where thousands work in the dept of health and the dept of education for example yet it's the States that run schools and hospitals.jobs that supply a service for the public are justified but bloated beaurocracies are not, waste is waste, we all pay for the waste especially us tax payers
    
    Alert moderator
    - sdrawkcaB:
      
      14 May 2014 5:27:55pm
      
      30% of the workforce satisfied needs.
      In here is simple foods, housing, clothing.
      
      40% of the workforce satisfy wants.
      In here is hospitality, nice clothes and houses, manicures, pedicures and all other similar cures etc
      
      5-7% must be unemployed or else the elite become minutely subservient to the masses.
      
      That leaves 23-25%.
      
      The current idea is to occupy them with needless regulation.
      
      So, do you have an alternative? You do realise unemployment running at 30% equals civil skirmishes and sometimes war if a leader with enough charisma comes along.
      
      You also must realize industry, even if at zero tax, cannot employ many more then they currently do. Full throttle industry still leaves about 20% that must be found something to do with their day.
      
      Its a problem but I think blaming the people who are public servants is not the answer. Better would be to blame the twit that invented neo-liberal economics.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Desert Woman:
      
      14 May 2014 9:07:27pm
      
      SdrawkcaB yes, it is economic rationalism that is to blame here, a theory for which there is no empirical justification. This govt has swallowed it whole, just like the American Tea Party. Those who deride 'public servants' forget these include the fire fighters, the police, the teachers and the researchers who come up with the ideas that underlie their fancy new phones and their new medicines. Public servants are also those who devise the policies and regulations that keep their families safe from corporations that endanger their families by cutting corners to increase their profits, e.g. adulterating their food. I think a world free of public servants may not be the utopia they imagine.
      
      Alert moderator
- sdrawkcaB:
  
  14 May 2014 4:25:01pm
  
  How to retire the cheapskates way.
  
  Its one of many such books but there are ways to not be a biological unit of production that at rich man can leverage to the tune of 5 and 6 times your income which the government takes 40%.
  
  Don't get angry. Get smart, get reading, and most of all, get off the treadmill.
  
  This budget effects me only in petrol and even at that I am a less then 5000Km a year person.
  To help is the Rudd handout which is still sitting in my bank account.
  
  Alert moderator
whohasthefish:

14 May 2014 1:30:06pm

I guess the 'wind vain' that is our PM will change once his girls have babies to look after. Remember this idiot 'gets women'.

As far as dads are concerned, well they are just a money making machine that pays for everything included defacto mums to look after their kids while real mum washes someone else's dishes to help dad pay for the defacto mums. Great outcome for our kids M Rabbott.

The younger Paul Keating was right. It is a shame on us all that in our country, one wage alone can no longer pay the bills. It is, as dictated by government, now a societal wrong for a parent (mum or dad) to actually look after their own children. Once upon a time a 'latch key kid' was a bad thing, now a necessity.

To paraphrase : "Ask not what you can do for your family, ask what your family can do for the government."

Totally absurd policies from a totally absurd government.

Alert moderator
- Dave:
  
  14 May 2014 2:00:59pm
  
  I can't see Abbott surviving this politically without a pretty handy backflip in the coming weeks.
  
  What do we know and understand about Tony Abbott's vision for the nation? Conservative families including a fair proportion of stay-at-home mums (not to mention virginal daughters) was surely one thing we were fairly sure about with Tony. That is disappearing with these FBT changes.
  
  Before we know it he'll just be a cardboard cut-out of his former self, running harsh economic rationalism or robotic public relations line depending which audience he's speaking to. A sort of less intellectual Kevin Rudd.
  
  Is that what he wants for himself?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dove:
    
    14 May 2014 2:33:15pm
    
    Dave, I think not. Abbott is a master of starving the media and his political opponents of oxygen through his highly effective say-nothing strategy as both opposition leader and now PM. The government will find it easy to change topic, choke debate and basically help the country to forget all about it. This leaves the ALP in opposition to try and keep this issue alive to the next election, but I don't think that will happen. They know that for all their politicking, they will keep most of the changes in this budget. Shorten, or whoever leads them in two years is hardly going to run a campaign on undoing anything of substance. This is why their focus has been less on the merits of the budget and more on whether or not an election promise has been broken or not.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Dave:
      
      14 May 2014 3:10:18pm
      
      Interesting points Dove. I want to say you're wrong but I can't find any particular detail you've suggested which, of itself, seems incorrect in any way.
      
      So you're reckoning a visionless say-nothing whinge loudly opposition leader gets to be a visionless say-nothing deflect the issue PM, and the visionless say-nothing opposition leader we now have will be unlikely to capitalise on the whole charade.
      
      It's not good, is it?
      
      Alert moderator
    - sdrawkcaB:
      
      14 May 2014 5:30:29pm
      
      Dave, I drew the same conclusion after reading Dove as well.
      
      It does not bode well at all.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Ann:
    
    14 May 2014 3:12:44pm
    
    I'm pretty sure his family-friendly act to conservatives was all a facade, just like most of his out-and-out lies. It's fairly clear that his true ideology is all economical.
    
    Alert moderator
Jane2:

14 May 2014 1:36:01pm

All for the Tax B changes. It is not right that the two income family that have to pay for childcare get their benefits cut earlier than the one income family that gets the free healthcare from a stay at home parent. Doesnt make sense either!!!

Alert moderator
Taff Mike:

14 May 2014 1:39:02pm

I'm a 1970s ten pound Pom and it's always struck me that the Australian Government doesn't really want us to have babies - they consume medical and educational resources and take absolutely ages to grow up into worker fodder. Far easier to put an ad in the Cardiff Western Mail (as in my case) or the Mumbai Times and planeloads of workers arrive the next week. I came here as a licenced steelworks rigger and it saddened me to see many quite capable Australian men my age relegated to jobs far below their capabilities, working as council labourers whatever, as locals were way down the list for training or higher education in those days, to which we seem to be returning.

Alert moderator
Sue:

14 May 2014 1:43:20pm

I have no issues with the concept that staying at home to raise the kids is a choice but why should I as a taxpayer subsidise those who make that choice. Why should I subsidise anyone with a household income of $100,000 or more who has children? If you earn that much then you can pay your own way. Sure you may have to forego that extra latte or that granite benchtop. People seem to have forgotten what is a luxury and what is a necessity, spending their money on fancy houses and on smartphones, overseas holidays and then happily sticking their hands out for assistance from others.

Alert moderator
- Ann:
  
  14 May 2014 3:14:59pm
  
  Sue, darling, if they spend no money on frivolous things, those businesses will go under.
  
  I am a saver. I don't spend money. I literally wear my clothes to pieces. It ensures I have a very comfortable savings pocket and most people would describe me and my husband as very economically sensible.
  
  I also know if the whole world was made up by people like me, the economy wouldn't work. We need people who live paycheck to paycheck, we need people who spend all their money on useless tat, or capitalism. doesn't. work.
  
  Alert moderator
Deborah:

14 May 2014 1:44:56pm

For women who can afford nannies to do the heavy lifting this is great. I'm guessing Joe Hockey's wife finds it easy to combine working and motherhood.
Unfortunately this is not the case for most families. Children have to be out of bed, dropped at daycare by 7 am so mum can be at her paid workplace to commence her "real" job. She can then leave at 4 or 5 pm to pick her children up from daycare and take them home and then commence her second unpaid job. Most of that income can go towards childcare and other associated costs for the privilege do working.
Once she may have been lucky enough to have grandparents to help but now they also are expected to remain in the paid workforce.
This is madness. There should be be assistance via our taxation system for both type of households.

Alert moderator
- Ally:
  
  14 May 2014 4:09:08pm
  
  It's interesting that you're talking about "most families" but fail to mention a father. I would suggest that "most families" include two parents and if the woman is working AND still doing all of the household chores, you're doing it wrong.
  
  Alert moderator
Deborah:

14 May 2014 1:45:12pm

For women who can afford nannies to do the heavy lifting this is great. I'm guessing Joe Hockey's wife finds it easy to combine working and motherhood.
Unfortunately this is not the case for most families. Children have to be out of bed, dropped at daycare by 7 am so mum can be at her paid workplace to commence her "real" job. She can then leave at 4 or 5 pm to pick her children up from daycare and take them home and then commence her second unpaid job. Most of that income can go towards childcare and other associated costs for the privilege do working.
Once she may have been lucky enough to have grandparents to help but now they also are expected to remain in the paid workforce.
This is madness. There should be be assistance via our taxation system for both type of households.

Alert moderator
Diane:

14 May 2014 1:46:16pm

I think it is very clear that stay at home mums already have a job. Good on you all, for providing your children with the best form of child care there is, no doubtedly at your OWN expense!

Alert moderator
- Sir Bill Bored:
  
  14 May 2014 3:20:46pm
  
  Spot on Diane and well said
  
  Alert moderator
- Where's Tony:
  
  15 May 2014 9:22:00am
  
  You said it all in two simple lines Diane.
  If Stay at home mums were given the basic wage for time invested in their children and husband, let alone the hours that many volunteer to their kids schools, we'd all be living in clover.
  
  Alert moderator
NinjaAussie:

14 May 2014 1:50:49pm

Well if people are bleating now watch out if they get re-elected! Might be worth voters having a really close look at the LNP/Conservative vision of society at large. Essentially their view of nation starts with the premise "foot on neck at all times" Can't wait for the second installment. Oh and you can rest assured no such medicine for "them and theirs".

Alert moderator
Sadie:

14 May 2014 1:55:21pm

As a stay at home mum who is also a home educator (my children do not receive any funding for their education, unlike other privately educated children) a distance education supervisor, a part time university student and volunteer, removal of FTB B feels like a slap in the face.

One the one hand, providing care for our younger children is devalued and seen as something to outsource. On the other hand, with the proposed changes to unemployment, we are being asked to be the safety net for our adult children 30 and under.

The message is very clear. Your worth as a parent to society is negligible except in terms of providing a financial safety net for those whom the government has washed their hands of.

Shame.

Alert moderator
- Helvi:
  
  14 May 2014 2:19:09pm
  
  I feel for those stay-at-home mums. The family car takes hubby/dad to work. Mum has no car, no babysitters, no money, no relief, no adult company...
  Husband pays more for the petrol, so less for everyone in the family...
  
  The only relief will be four litre cask of the cheapest wine, the mum is depressed but can't afford to go to the doctors. How would she get there, by walking for miles pushing the pram...
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dave:
    
    14 May 2014 3:58:56pm
    
    "The only relief will be four litre cask of the cheapest wine"
    
    Close Helvi, the tories are back so in true Dickensian fashion we're going for gin. Mothers' Ruin for everyone!
    
    Alert moderator
Joccy:

14 May 2014 1:59:02pm

Availability of child care, the cost of child care vs an hourly wage. School hours 8.20am until 3.20pm, everyone's looking for a 9am to 3pm position, what happens during the school holidays or when your child is unwell? Parents helping at school, P and C, canteen duties, uniform shop, school excursions, cross walk attendants, raising funds for school equipment, support a reader programme, all these volunteer positions, maybe the government can make them paid positions?

Alert moderator
- Ann:
  
  14 May 2014 3:17:00pm
  
  More likely children will just be expected to cross roads unattended and read their own darn books. Canteen prices will of course rise to be a reasonable price in relation to what the market can bear, in accordance with capitalist prophecy.
  
  Alert moderator
clete:

14 May 2014 2:01:30pm

The determination of ABC writers/commentators to criticise EVERYTHING this government does, or says, is now getting to the laughable stage.
Many media female commentators, only very recently, accused Abbott of wanting to take Australian women back to the 1950's. The old "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant" accusations were bandied around readily.
Now that Abbott has made it clear he wants to create better opportunities for working career women (who want to) to return to the workforce, he's being criticised for it.
Yes, I was disappointed in the funding cuts to the ABC!! They weren't deep enough!!!
If I find the political views of News Ltd, Fairfax, or any other commercial media outlet are unbalanced, I can elect not to spend my money there.
On that basis, the ABC news/current affairs department funding should be cut by over 50% to compensate for those taxpayers whose views are never aired in a balanced way.

Alert moderator
- whohasthefish:
  
  14 May 2014 3:16:45pm
  
  ..and yet your views get a guernsey here and so does the IPA's (whom are now openly critical of Abbotts dishonesty), or Peter Reith, (who now find it necessary to make excuses for Abbotts dishonesty), etc... Your argument is lost due to the actual facts, hey, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story eh....very Liberal of you.
  
  Have you ever read an article from Bob Brown on News Ltd Media?
  
  The very fact that YOU, I, Abbott or Shorten do not get to DICTATE who contributes to the ABC is proof of its balance. For evidence of the ABC's honesty and integrity. Abbotts hate of it is enough for me.
  
  Alert moderator
- Sir Bill Bored:
  
  14 May 2014 3:24:24pm
  
  Look, do us all a favour and stop coming here. If you want Murdoch press and MKR on every channel then support them. I don't. I want ABC and SBS, Annabel Crabbe and Co.
  
  Alert moderator
- DCO:
  
  14 May 2014 3:49:38pm
  
  clete,
  
  the central point of this article was to demonstrate yet another inconsistency in Tony Abbott's stated positions. He will say whatever is necessary at the time for any given audience. He will then deny and deny and deny that he tells lies (except once, but was he telling the truth then? - a real moral conundrum).
  
  What was written here is factual and can be checked. Murdoch is free to report the same findings if he chooses.
  
  If he chooses not to report the facts of Abbott's failings, then his media service is sub-standard. If you're dissatisfied with biased coverage, I'd recommend that you stop wasting your money on sub-standard Murdoch material, or even better, exert your consumer rights and demand of Murdoch that the stuff he sells meets consumer affairs standards of quality.
  
  Incidentally, the ABC charter requires balanced reporting. That means that in a city with the ABC service, and three Murdoch outlets pushing the neoliberal bandwagon, then to provide balance the ABC needs to publish three anti-Abbott articles to balance the three pro-Abbott articles from Murdoch. I wish the ABC would just get on and do that, rather than tying itself up in knots in case it offends rusted-on neoliberals, who will not be satisfied anyway until only one view is available to the public.
  
  Alert moderator
- Paulh:
  
  14 May 2014 4:29:52pm
  
  Well said,the left leaning abc,appears to condone shorten and Labors waste and mismanagement, they condone the labor lies and spin, they appear to applaud the facts that labor has no alternative, they ignore the facts that our debt rose faster than 17 OECD nations including Greece and Spain, they ignore the fact that we had an election and labor lost.basically they have lost the plot and are in denial.will the abc ever supply an evenly balanced view, I doubt it
  
  Alert moderator
spuffy:

14 May 2014 2:02:16pm

I am an even worse SAHM- I am sole parent SAHM. I honestly and truly believe that my children are better off with me working part time, and actually being around for them. It is an ideological push to have all parents working all of the time. I would rather have less money, but more time with my kids, while I raise them.

I live in a small, country town. I volunteer, I tutor for free and I work 2 jobs casually - and I study. In my small town I have family, I have community and my children have security. These budget measures mean I will have to leave my town and find a full-time job elsewhere. There are no full-time jobs that fit in with the kids, unless you are a teacher. I considered teaching, but I think it is a vocation, not a means to an end for a single mother- we need passionate teachers, not 'ho -hum' ones.

Australia is not just an economy, in my town we have community - this country will be divided into the haves and have-nots. My kids have only one parent - why should they be left alone in the home for hours? (or in the school holidays - weeks) This is crazy.

I am a flag-waving feminist, you want to work and put your kids in care - that's fine with me. But I don't share Mr Hockey's values. Creating a compassionate and valuable member of society (on many levels) is my aim.

Alert moderator
- Dave:
  
  14 May 2014 3:20:21pm
  
  Working two casual jobs puts you outside the Liberal Party definition of stay-at-home-mother. Where's the hot pie cooling in the window? I bet you're not even wearing a pinny.
  
  In Toryland, sole parents aren't exactly smiled upon. Just ask Cory Bernardi.
  
  Alert moderator
- Why oh why:
  
  14 May 2014 5:16:51pm
  
  Don't think of teaching. My partner is a teacher and she works far longer hours than I did as an IT Executive - for no extra pay. She is dedicated to her students which is why she works until 10 every evening and most weekends. And the pay is pitiful consiudering that she is developing our future.
  
  Alert moderator
DISAPPOINTED:

14 May 2014 2:02:41pm

RE - FAMILY BENEFITS
Its not as though a parent whose youngest child has turned six has nothing to do.The same family commitments & chores remain.If both parents are able to be employed and maintain the household - good.However,not every family will be in the position to that.
Re - THE PM & THE TREASURER
They misled the Australian public with their pre-election spin.They have penalised many those who most need support.
A P.M.and Treasurer who show little respect for Australians or for their high office.
A Treasurer dancing away in his office before his cutting budget speech.A TIME TO BE MERRY !!!
A P.M. whispering & smirking while the Treasurer is making his speech on cuts to those less fortunate.
Disappointing.

Alert moderator
- Ally:
  
  15 May 2014 9:35:19am
  
  So, you should get to stay at home being supported by the government because you have "family commitments and chores"?
  
  Well guess what, we all have family commitments and chores. I'm single and live by myself. I also work full-time in a professional role and have a home based business that I do weeknights and weekends. I still have family commitments and chores to do and I just suck it up and do it.
  
  Family benefits are there so you can feed and clothe your family, not so you can stay home and get the washing and ironing done.
  
  Alert moderator
wandererfromoz:

14 May 2014 2:03:35pm

Mum to work, pensioners, dole bludgers, students, hobble off to work at 69 - the tombs of Egypt built by slaves flogged to make bricks out of straw and drag 2 ton blocks of stone into place for their masters! - this image clearly springs to mind.

Once again the love child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop bites the hand that bred him - another roll back of the wasteful years of the Howard government - isn't it - what better proof do you want.

And yes - lets forget family trusts, excessive negative gearing, reduced capital gains tax through discounts and taxes, imputation credits for those who can afford shares, sweeping and generous tax benefits on superannuation payouts of hundreds of thousands to millions or more and host of other lurks and perks for the asset rich rich who can drive their million dollar or more incomes to zero using the same - so they pay no or a pittance of income tax. Lets forget multinationals through transfer costing and pricing paying little or no company taxes. Lets forget the myriad of ways the rich and smart avoid tax through havens and host of other means.

Just remember the Mums who do nothing to kids who don't need a mum after 6 years of age - and flog them to join the dole queues chasing the million or so jobs on offer for one and all.

Just what did we do or fail to do more correctly to deserve both this and the previous government and Prime Ministers?

Alert moderator
inmyuniverse:

14 May 2014 2:06:10pm

Great piece!
This got me many thought.
But in this article, there are no parts to claim stay-at-home mum is also working at home.
They clean a house, make fook, wash disiches and laundraies everyday that is not actually visible.
This article think their works are not worthy enough.
Also, there is one more problem to practice this policy.
Where can they get a job ? It's hard for women who are married to get their profession.

Alert moderator
- wrknmum:
  
  14 May 2014 4:51:04pm
  
  inmyuniverse - just a thought but doesn't a working mum (or for that matter everyone) also clean house, make food, wash dishes etc? Working mums just usually do it before they drop the kids to school and go to work, or after they pick up the kids on their way home from work. They tend to do all this in their free time when they aren't working.
  
  I'm not sure why you feel the tax payer should be paying a supplement for you to do these things?
  
  Alert moderator
  - inmyuniverse:
    
    14 May 2014 6:30:31pm
    
    If you think in that way, does that mean house chores doesn't have any values in it?
    Why do you think there are a lot of house assistants
    and they are paid for their work?
    There are no differences stay-at-home mum and house assistants in terms of what kind of work they do.
    
    Alert moderator
    - wrknmum:
      
      14 May 2014 6:49:27pm
      
      If I felt I was entitled to have you to pay me to clean my own house would you be happy?
      Because I am not happy to pay you to clean your own home. That is my point.
      But if you were to cook and clean for people other than yourself and your family then you would be justified in expecting to be paid.
      This is also a job that could be done during school hours so your children won't be disadvantaged by your absence.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ally:
      
      15 May 2014 9:38:43am
      
      So what if there are house cleaners? People obviously make the choice that they value their leisure time enough to pay for a cleaner with their own money. That is completely different than effectively getting paid to clean after yourself by getting family benefits to stay home.
      
      As I noted above on a separate thread, everyone has these chores to do. Welfare is to feed and clothe your family, not so you can sit at home to do chores that every person out there working also has to do.
      
      Alert moderator
  - inmyuniverse:
    
    14 May 2014 6:35:46pm
    
    I miss this point.
    I feel like you are considering domestic work easy.
    Have you ever been to the house for double income family?
    most of places seem too messy and even if it's not, it's really hard to keep clean.
    That's why this kind of people need house assistant.
    
    Alert moderator
    - wrknmum:
      
      14 May 2014 7:18:46pm
      
      I live in the house of a double income as both myself and my husband work full time. I apologise if I didn't clarify that point earlier.
      
      I don't believe domestic work is easy, but everyone has to do it or their house becomes very messy.
      
      If some people are prepared to pay someone to clean up after them that is fine, I am surprised that you believe though that you feel you should be paid to clean up after yourself. Interesting concept!
      
      Alert moderator
Lord Erebus:

14 May 2014 2:14:29pm

I have to ask, why is it an issue for stay-at-home parents to go back to work after the kid starts school? Ok, finding a job might be tough, but from 8:30am-3:30pm the kids could be at school, fully supervised, so surely one could work part-time during these hours?

Is it Job-Snobbery that is the real issue? Uni qualified Mum quits to look after the bub/toddler/etc, then once child starts Kindy, expects another high paid, high-flying job, rather than accept the work the Call Centre offers, or as a Shelf Stacker at Woolies/Coles or something similar. Is that it? Are those jobs "beneath" you? Work is work is work. Take what's on offer. Even a few shifts at Maccas can easily pay more than FTB A & B.

All power to those who choose to stay at home and run the household, but the Wife and I manage fine with both of us working full time and the Child in Primary School. Food is always home-cooked and prepared, washing is done weekly, lawns and gardens maintained on a Sunday, dishes done every 2nd day. The Child is fed, dropped at school by his Mum on her way to work and picked up by me on my way home every day. Weekends are ours to enjoy as a family. We qualify for, but do not claim, FTB A, as we don't need it.

I don't like Abbott & Hockey's budget (or them, or the party the represent), but i don't disagree tightening of the purse strings for welfare. I have a friend I am unhappy with, who claims the dole, puts in about 10-15 job applications a week for jobs he will never get offered, and plays X-Box all day. Nothing is stopping him from working but sheer laziness and the ability to get away with bludging.

Alert moderator
- Concerned:
  
  14 May 2014 3:34:48pm
  
  For all this to work you have to make sure you have your child enrolled in a school that offers before and after school care. Because as you know you cannot just dump your child in the school playground at 7.30am on your way driving to work.
  Then you must have employers who are family friendly and flexible and have an appreciation of your need to dash off right on 4.30 or 5pm to collect your child for that 6pm deadline when the after school care closes down.
  
  Given the dangers in our streets nowadays you really would not want your 6 year old to become a "latch key" child, walking home alone. That is if they survive crossing the road as many children cannot safely cross alone until they are 8 or 9 years old.
  
  Then for those older children over 12 years who are too old for after school care they can hang out at the local shopping mall to get chatted up by a pedophile or maybe invite a few friends around before you both get home from work to engage in some substance abuse. Or just hang out in the 'hood in the streets. That is what seems to happen in areas of social deprivation in the USA so I guess it is about time we caught up here.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Lord Erebus:
    
    14 May 2014 3:48:22pm
    
    We don't need or use Before or After School care, we worked our shifts around school hours. Wife works 10am-6:30pm, and I work 6am-3pm, and am 2 blocks from the school, even in heavy traffic. That way our Child has a parent accessable at all hours. I'm not saying it works for everyone, we got lucky. I'm just saying it's not impossible, and with all the negativity on here, thought I'd show it's possible.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Dan1968:
      
      14 May 2014 10:07:42pm
      
      It will be perfect to find jobs which can be done in school hours. Unfortunately reality especially in regional and rural areas far away from this. Job opportunities are very limited and child care options in some areas are none. Those families with low and single income either need to learn how to live without Family Tax Benefit Part B or move to the big cities which will add more people who are looking for the jobs. We should not forget Australia is a very big country and continent where the distances are huge. I thought government were encouraging people to move from big cities to the regional area. Am I Wrong ?
      
      Alert moderator
- Sarah:
  
  14 May 2014 3:36:16pm
  
  'THE CHILD" is fed and dropped of at school by mum- THE CHILD?
  Try with four children- one off to a different school to the others- one still a toddler. Try dropping of one to soccer- another to ballet and yet another to the doctor. Do the dishes every second day? Washing once a week? If only.
  
  Lawns and garden every Sunday-what while hubby is at work earning enough for us to make ends meet? and while the kids have sports?
  
  Get off your damn ivory tower. That part B payment helped us to keep our sanity.family and home together.
  BTW- if there are less kids there will be less for you when you grow old- so I am already damn well contributing.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Lord Erebus:
    
    14 May 2014 3:51:54pm
    
    Annonimity is key here, Sarah. I won't be throwing my Child's name all over the web, sorry.
    
    4 kids? Sure, makes it more difficult, but not impossible if both work, see my reply to Concerned above your post. We don't work weekends, but both work full-time, so we both attend his sport games.
    
    I don't understand the less kids equals less in retirement? How so? I will have plenty of super, and we have just purchased our 1st investment property, all on a combined income of less than $100,000 per annum.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Sarah:
      
      14 May 2014 4:47:05pm
      
      I was not asking you to divulge names your Lordship-but MY child may have been more appropriate.
      Guess you will be using the welfare of negative gearing in buying your investment property.
      As for the less kids=less in retirement- means less nurses- doctors- carers-police-firefighters and others who DO the doing.
      Guess you could always invite a few asylum seekers to tend to you.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Lord Erebus:
      
      15 May 2014 8:04:01am
      
      Negative Gearing? Not at all. I own my own home, brought it when I was 18 and in the Military, Mortgage paid off last year. We just don't go for the fancy Mcmansions, flat-screens or latest tech. Our cars are both over 10 years old, and well maintained, and we grow our own fruit and veg. Power is all solar, and we live well within our means, no fancy overseas trips, and holidays are camping in the bush or a remote beach.
      
      What's wrong with immigration when Aussies aren't breeding? Are you that racist or insecure you can deal with competing for work? They aren't actually taking "our" jobs, this ain't South Park.
      
      Alert moderator
- MT_Syd:
  
  14 May 2014 3:39:55pm
  
  in the real world flexible jobs that offer regular hours between 9 and 3 are few and far between
  
  Most primary schools finish at 2:45 - 3pm, not 3:30, and kids up to the age of 10 have to be accompanied to the school gate, so mum needs a job very close by, or a job that starts at 10am
  
  just because call centres and shelf stackers are lower paid does not mean they get these convenient hours, usually they are shift work
  
  and what maccas will pay an adult wage to someone who is vastly over qualified and over experienced and who they know will leave at the first opportunity?
  
  do liberal voters never come into contact with the real world?
  
  Alert moderator
- GJA:
  
  14 May 2014 3:41:22pm
  
  You make a lot of assumptions.
  
  Alert moderator
Graham27:

14 May 2014 2:16:46pm

I know! Let's do what the Danes do and have very generous maternity and paternity payment provisions! Mum or Dad would be right then! And whilst we are at it what about an old age pension higher than the lower wages of workers! Sounds great . I am in! .....But being Australian there is no way I will stand for a GST of 25% (Denmarks GST) and an effective marginal tax rate of 63%! But I want it all never the less and I don't want to pay! When do we want it? Now! Do we want to pay for it? N0! (chant that at your next rally)

Alert moderator
Sunray:

14 May 2014 2:23:31pm

Tony is just providing an opportunity for young mothers to demonstrate the fabled "multi tasking" skills of women.

Alert moderator
Andrew Rollason:

14 May 2014 2:40:03pm

The solution is to set up a company and then pay the new mother a wage out of that company. If she is a director, she'll be paid director's fees.
Then she will be eligible to receive from from the paid parental leave at the highest possible rate, provided you work through the sums properly.

Alert moderator
- Grover Jones:
  
  14 May 2014 3:29:56pm
  
  What money are you paying her from?
  
  Alert moderator
Kerry:

14 May 2014 2:40:48pm

The "Stay at home Mum" is also the volunteer at the local school, helping the schools to function.They are also the carer for older people, enabling them to stay in their homes.So if having a parent at home for when children are sick and enabling the other Parent to go to work without having to worry about trying to negotiate with their employer for time off or take sick leave themselves, is not of enough value perhaps the unpaid community support has some value. Or perhaps not, the message from this Government is unless you are getting paid for your work, you are of no value.

Alert moderator
Koel:

14 May 2014 2:42:08pm

Who is paying the taxes?
Ten years ago middle class two working parents paid $50,000 in tax with no assistance at all. The two working parents from middle Australia now pay $60.000 + in direct income tax.
As women in the past knew that the mortgage, the medical and education expenses made it essential for a dual income to support the growing family and even more imperative than before. The situation has not changed even given the income support for stay at home mums. Perhaps what has changed is that the children have a better early start in nutrition, clothing and child care than in the past.
Yes ladies go to work but be prepared for giving no input to your child s education, running the gauntlet of a sick child and an inflexible boss, strange inconsistent meal times and crying over the washing on Sunday mornings!

Alert moderator
Jenny:

14 May 2014 2:46:34pm

If we want to talk abou gender equalty, how could we call our society a gender equal society when the woman have the proviledge of not go to work but still get paid? Wait a second, is it because the public consider woman are not capable of taking care of the family and work at the same time? Isn't this view kind of gender discrimination? So it is time to get women back to work which is totally normal in other industrial countries.

Alert moderator
- GJA:
  
  14 May 2014 3:46:56pm
  
  Yes, the two-income family has become the norm. It's a bad norm. It means that if one working parent loses his or her job the whole family is devastated, without recourse to the other partner picking up the slack.
  
  But who is paying these women you speak of who stay home? How much do they get paid? How can I get in on this?
  
  Oh, did you mean the Abbott PPL? The Howard & Costello Baby Bonus?
  
  Alert moderator
jaci73:

14 May 2014 2:49:23pm

Great peice Annabel,

I am a part time working mum to a beautiful1yo, and am so saddened by this news. I dont understand how a government that on one hand seems to be wanting Australian women to have children 'for thier country' would also take away any incentives to do so. I work part time, and only with the help of my mum..

Alert moderator
Alpo:

14 May 2014 2:52:04pm

Classification of political Parties according to their valuing of women as human beings rather than anything else:
Top of the Class: The Greens
Followed by: Labor Party
With third place for the: Liberal Party
The Nationals are a very likely fourth.
What about the PUP? Is the T. rex in Palmer's park a male or a female?

Alert moderator
Robyn:

14 May 2014 2:54:52pm

Please change to "stay at home parents". I am a full time working mum, I've been the "bread winner and provider" for 10 years; but I'm still called (by "career dads") "a selfish career woman". My husband is at home, "the homemaker" but people (including at home mums) like to call him a bludger. More women are getting tertiary education, they will earn more than their partners so more women will be in my position. Men should also have the choice of what role they'd like - believe me having the sole responsibility for a family's income is not a picnic. Can we please move on and realise that these roles don't have to be gendered.

Alert moderator
Alison Cann:

14 May 2014 2:57:02pm

The stay-at-home mum is no more as misogamist Tony Abbott wants Australian mums to work and create a childcaring industry to keep alive the PM's over-glossed Parental Leave Scheme.

Alert moderator
Mary Whitehouse:

14 May 2014 2:57:27pm

Well, As long as that job is close to home so that the 6 year old can still get to school. Or do we want them in before AND after school care?
And, the workplace would have to have immense flexibility or offer work from home because a run of gastro or flu could have the mum of a large family taking lots of days off work.
What I do know is that mothers of large families currently on a single income are going to have to get creative about ways they can make an income because traditional 9-5 roles will just not fit with the family logistics.

Alert moderator
Smoranean:

14 May 2014 2:58:13pm

"youngest child hits six years of age, "
Enough time to get through primary secondary & med' school concurrently and with one kid the pay is about double austudy.
Why not study online?

Alert moderator
- MT_Syd:
  
  14 May 2014 3:43:05pm
  
  yes, good plan
  
  everyone should go to medical school
  
  online
  
  even though you cant do medical school online
  
  Alert moderator
Fish:

14 May 2014 3:01:36pm

Not that I agree with a lot of the things in the budget released, but I can't understand where the complaints of the threshold for FTB B being lowered to $100,000 come from. If you cannot look after a family on $100,000 I am more than happy to provide some excellent financial counselling and budgeting fro you. $100,000 is more than enough to live comfortably on, and should not be subsidised by the taxpayer, and if you are struggling, well its about time you reassess what you are spending your money on, maybe a few less Ipads and Iphones for the kiddies.

Alert moderator
Alfie:

14 May 2014 3:02:37pm

Mothers returning to work well, well....who would have thuk?

So you suggest we keep paying benefits forever so they don't have to??

Alert moderator
helgab:

14 May 2014 3:19:39pm

It is hard that someone whose kids are at school receives benefits while someone else is hard a work. I could never see why women are paid FTB for a lifestyle choice. Thanks goodness it has gone. We need more participation by women in the workforce and society. Stay at home mothers with older children have nothing better to do than fuss of their children and gossip at the school gate! Believe me I have seen it

Alert moderator
foolking:

14 May 2014 3:27:43pm

Lowering aspirations someone mentioned, if you aspire to drive a nice new car and live in a new big house they're right.

It would be nicer if mums stayed at home, stuff the new everything, is that the implication?

Paying someone to care for your child is wierd and yet necessary.

The most expensive childcare workers do an excellent job,
the rest probably aren't as good as a mum unless that mum is depressed and doesn't visit other mums during the day.

It's mind mumming, this is a very calculated budget that is totally committed to dodging sticking points

and keeping its own coffers financial
[no lobby groups withdrawing financial support and Palmer will probably sit on his hands, nice earner ]

It is a clever budget and unless our well informed treasurer knows something I don't know,

[likely ] the backfire may be heard on the other side of the world,Boston hopefully

Where is all the employment going to come from, the budget of shock and awe,.. or fear and loathing?

Alert moderator
Eleni:

14 May 2014 3:31:53pm

It has just occured to me that it is the newly arrived, baby factories, that will be the beneficiaries of the $100,000 family subsidy cut off. Not only will they be eligible but because of religious and cultural practices will never be expected to work thus never contribute one cent to this country in the form of taxes. Also, their husbands and elderly parents ( family reunion recipients) will also still receive $ thousands from the government in dole payments, health benefits, child support, charity handouts, community support etc etc. However no one would ever criticise this situation which is lavished on the 30,000 newly arrived ( past 7 years) who are still in community " detention" at taxpayer expense.

Alert moderator
Juliet:

14 May 2014 3:46:58pm

as an employer of about a dozen low-skill admin staff i can testify that there are far more people out there wanting a job than there are jobs. Last time we advertised for part-time admin staff (about 6 months ago) we were overwhelmed by parents and students seeking part-time work to fit into their study and/or caring duties. about 250 applications for 2 jobs. many were massively over-qualified, some were prepared to travel an hour or more, despite the low pay. so i am highly, highly sceptical about the assumption being made that parents and youth dont want to work. i had to turn away 248 job applicants and i can assure you they were all genuinely seeking work. i sincerely hope they find it.

Alert moderator
GJA:

14 May 2014 3:48:05pm

Tony Abbott may not have a problem with women, but you can't prove it by his policies.

Alert moderator
noNBNforme:

14 May 2014 3:54:33pm

The taking away of benefits for those stay-at-home-mums who look after their children with disibilities is

NOT FAIR AT ALL

INCOME shouldn't matter (whether the families earn $100,000 or not is irrelivant) when one parent cannot work. Because the child with a disibility is not able to attend school for a variety of reasons, IF A CHILD WITH asd could go to a special school then maybe I could go out to work.

I am putting my child with ASD first by giving up my career to be parent/carer for her. My first non-disabled child is well catered for at school. BUT my child with ASD is not well catered for at school in QLD, and cannot attend school for many reasons, including health, sensory and personal care reasons, not to mention THE bullying factor.

Alert moderator
- Joccy:
  
  14 May 2014 7:39:34pm
  
  Completely agree . Same thing for me in WA.
  
  Alert moderator
Meg:

14 May 2014 4:07:06pm

I have appreciated receiving govt assistance the last few years while our kids have been young, in the form of FTB Part B, childcare benefit etc, as my husband (50+) lost his job and has struggled to regain employment. It meant we did not have to apply for Newstart. I would not like to see childcare support whittled away any further (it is means-tested beyond the automatic rebate of up to $7500 pa) but FTB always felt like a bonus - esp as I understand it was designed for people who were home by choice and not through involuntary unemployment. I also tend to think that staying out of the labour force long-term is an increasingly risky strategy for women (assuming they represent the majority of primary carers) as (1) no relationship is guaranteed to last forever and no primary income earner can be relied on to be permanently employed (as in my case), and (2) the longer you are out of the workforce the harder it is to get back in. So I don't think it's so crazy to remove a disincentive to returning to work when your youngest starts school.

Besides, the measure is only 14 years old and other commenters are correct, plenty of people criticised John Howard for introducing it, reading it as a policy to keep mothers at home (whether or not this was the intent is now irrelevant). You can't have it both ways. It's an interesting example of how an income transfer can very quickly begin to feel like a right.

Probably one of the larger challenges I foresee as increasing numbers of mothers enter the workforce is the mismatch between school hours and working hours. This is something that really needs to be looked at as before or after school care in my experience can only cater for a proportion of a given school's student population.

Alert moderator
foolking:

14 May 2014 4:07:08pm

Its a budget aimed at the least corporate resistance, the opposition parties better get on their bikes and start educating the punters to gain a clear mandate.
And talk about taxes, and public institutions we can be proud of please, sensibly and objectively.

International money is flexing its muscles, look out.

Free trade is looking a little like lambs to the slaughter, hopefully not,
Hockey and Abbot must know whats going on and are in it for all of us.
I don't believe they're money grubbing creeps,
or are they being held hostage to something real?

Alert moderator
Paulh:

14 May 2014 4:10:08pm

What absolute bollocks.the average wage is under $60,000.00 and ms crabb complains about people Earning Over $100,000.00 not being able to get the tax cut ? This is an example of welfare payments to those who don't need it.the hypocrisy stinks.did ms crabs parents get such welfare payments ? Over 60% of tax payers are getting some form of benefits! where does ms crabb think the money comes from! it doesn't grow on trees like labor and the greens seem to think. Because we have a triple a rating it appears ms crabb and labor/ greens seem to think the answer is to just keep borrowing.who the hell do they think is going to pay for it ?it appears we not only had nearly 6 years of labor waste and mismanagement but crabb and co want more

Alert moderator
old67:

14 May 2014 4:16:30pm

BRING ON A D/D ON ENOUGH OF THIS CHAOTIC LNP GOVERNMENT.

Alert moderator
Polly:

14 May 2014 4:25:17pm

This is a very sad day, our government, chosen to represent the people and build a strong and thriving economy for us all to live and share in. Has it self got caught up in the focus of money, forgotten that we are not all born equally, we all have different strengths and weaknesses, and instead of creating a country that cares and supports one another, it has chosen to cut the most venerable, and where there are there are people who can afford a little extra, they are being spared any burden at all.
This is a government that has made decisions based on money and not people. When you run a business this way you can automate everything and eventually sack all the people. Is this what your planning - Automate Australia and then kill off all the people. Imagine the profit you could create for the country then!!
VERY SAD TONY!

Alert moderator
Pete:

14 May 2014 4:34:57pm

Any benefit that '60% of families' receive is simply a discriminatory tax on singles and childless people - the group (perhaps justifiably) ignored by every government. The author provides a false dichotomy here too: the choice is not just 'go back to work', it's also 'make do without government largesse for your decision to have children'. A more efficient family benefit would be one restricted to the poorest families, or better still, a tax cut for people in this income bracket. Families aren't being deprived of some right here, they're just joining the rest of population who neither need nor receive government benefits. The logic of the government is inescapable: they want the size of the workforce increased which might be a good idea if we didn't have a rampant, ponzi immigration scheme whereby we import almost 300,000 people a year, but in the absence of jobs will just depress labour payrates.

Alert moderator
Jacob:

14 May 2014 4:39:17pm

Given that women live longer than men, why should they receive the age pension at the same age as men? (In the past, they actually received it earlier than men.) Or does this argument only flow one way, regardless of the evidence?

Mortality stats are hard to fudge, and the higher mortality rates for men are certainly tied up with genetics, something for which they cannot be blamed. Even the greater risk-taking behaviour of men has a definite genetic/hormonal basis.

Alert moderator
Desley:

14 May 2014 4:42:01pm

The new limit of $100K impacts another group of women too of course. The working solo parent who brings in one wage of $100-150K. I wonder what the government's message is for us. You should earn less? You should get yourself a husband?

Alert moderator
- wrknmum:
  
  14 May 2014 5:08:56pm
  
  Hi Desley
  
  My interpretation of their message is; you are a self sufficient, hard working woman that is capable of supporting yourself and your children without having to put your hand out for assistance from anyone either husband or government. Well done, it is hard working women like you that deserve our respect (I genuinely mean that)
  
  Alert moderator
  - Desley:
    
    14 May 2014 6:05:16pm
    
    Thanks for that but it would be good if there was some recognition in the budget that there is only ever the potential for one income for us.
    
    Also, it'd be easier giving up the family tax benefit B (which is not an inconsequential part of our household budget) if it was being redistributed to the pockets of disadvantaged people in our society, health or education. Which it is clearly not.
    
    Alert moderator
    - wrknmum:
      
      14 May 2014 6:23:01pm
      
      Desley -
      
      At least you can take comfort in the fact that it is no longer going into the mothers that make the lifestyle choice not to work and leave the rest of us to pay the taxes that assist in the support of their children.
      
      Maybe the taxes we have paid through hard work will go to disadvantaged people not someone that is capable of earning a living.
      
      If we are responsible enough to be able to make the choice to have children we should also be responsible for supporting them ourselves shouldn't we?
      
      Alert moderator
whatever:

14 May 2014 4:58:59pm

I'm confused now. the feminists called him a mysogynist and said he wanted his women at home and having babies and ironing. Now he wants them at work, he's also doing the wrong thing. Make up your minds!

tell me any government that has ever respected women who care for their own children instead of outsourcing the job.

Alert moderator
- wrknmum:
  
  14 May 2014 6:12:27pm
  
  whatever -
  
  Both my husband and I work and also manage not to outsource the job of raising our children.
  
  Working on this outsourcing theory maybe dads should stay at home as well so they aren't outsourcing the job.
  
  I'm not sure who will support us all but in the perfect world where we all get to choose whether we want to stay at home or work, who wouldn't????
  
  Alert moderator
  - Neenabeena:
    
    14 May 2014 7:24:01pm
    
    You can if you want choose a simpler life and get off the treadmill
    
    Alert moderator
Sarah:

14 May 2014 5:00:05pm

I think women in general should go on strike- refuse to cook-wash-clean-take kids to school-activities etc and above all refuse to shop for anything than family or personal essentials.

They should take the kids to hospital rather than the GP- walk with them rather than drive- play with them rather than the movies.

They should also delay paying their bills as long as possible- money is better in your bank than theirs.
In other words opt out of Hockey's trap and see what happens.

Alert moderator
John Forbes:

14 May 2014 5:09:18pm

The lurching from side to side of the Australian Governments is another messy situation.

I do not see how any country can continue down the road like this with only a RESOURCES basis to count on.

Couple this to the stated & published fact that over 80% of the money made in selling resources goes to overseas investors ,

OFF to where - ????? Manufacturing now - for the most part on the scrap heap ????

What NEXT TOURISM - with the COAL SHIPS now only pulling a 1 meter clearance through the Barrier Reef - Coal Profits going off shore

WHAT a PLAN ??????

Alert moderator
- Artful Dodger:
  
  14 May 2014 5:38:38pm
  
  The 'Plan" John is to follow the American Way cum Dream to gross inequality.
  But recent polls suggest Americans are awakening and Dems are leading Repubs in RED States.
  
  Seeing as we are always a couple of years behind them there is a good chance Aussies will come to an awakening too and realise that free market economic theory has failed.
  
  The global economic disaster showed it as a theory based on ideology not evidence and cannot cope with reality.
  Seems the yanks are beginning to see it- we may take a little longer-the LNP never will.
  
  Alert moderator
Kitty:

14 May 2014 5:26:10pm

An interesting take on Abbott, but perhaps more a reach for a take on Abbott and the budget for self interest and ideology.
I don't think Abbott has a thought in his head about the people and their lives and even less for the "wimmin".
All should work and work hard, he says. Where are these jobs for these "lifters"? Perhaps these lazy women will be employed on his road gangs ( being the infrastructure PM and all ), but the number of unemployed, and growing, covers all sections of society.
I am appalled with the betrayal of workers and all the lies.

Alert moderator
Jen:

14 May 2014 6:09:10pm

I'm a grandparent who is raising a grandchild. My grandson came to live with us when he was two years old and I worked for the first year but found it stressful and exhausting so retired to be a full-time grand-mum. Our income has dropped dramatically but FTB B made it possible for me to stay at home. My grandson is now ten and FTB B cuts out at six years of age. What is going to happen to the thousands of grandparents parenting their grandchildren who lose this money and are already physically, mentally and financially peetering on the brink of the limits of their endurance.

Alert moderator
- Sarah:
  
  14 May 2014 11:27:35pm
  
  Jen- may I suggest you write to yot nearest LNP MP or Senator and ask them the question.
  It seems they are so blinkered by economic rationalism they are oblivious to the damage they are inflicting.
  
  If enough if us lodge complaints the LNP may just get the message that even a large majority and two more years in which to con us some more will not save their rotten political. hides.
  
  Alert moderator
JohnnoH:

14 May 2014 6:30:11pm

What I would like to know is where are all these jobs for those on unemployment benefits and the disabled? There is also a suggestion for work for the dole, at what? To clean up parks and gardens it is the responsibility of councils, if farmers need a hand it is up to the farmers to hire workers at award rates.

Alert moderator
BJA:

14 May 2014 6:45:23pm

My wife and I have rather unique views about these matters, largely because of the fairly unique circumstances in which we were able to look after our 5 children.

For those who start whoopsy-ing about our contribution to overpopulation I point out that we now have three grandchildren and are unlikely to have any more.

Our five children have 9 university degrees - and counting.

Not one of them ever set foot in a school, nor are any of them grandmother bashers. They are all, by any measure, very decent, hardworking very productive members of society in their 4 very varied professions;

We believe that the normal milieu for a human child is with their parents on demand -but otherwise with other adults or with groups of other children.

We think that preschool, infant school etc is the juvenile equivalent of an old people's home.

We think that most workplaces can accommodate children from babies onward - with minimum problems.

We think that every woman who has a baby should have the options of staying home on the dole so that the position in the workforce is available to another person otherwise on the dole.

We have both proved that (with the necessary effort, and opportunity) it is possible to rejoin the workforce at very high levels in very demanding positions.

What is needed is flexibility in the workforce, but I certainly don't mean the right for some grubby thief to have excessive powers over the life of another human being. I mean a sufficiently malleable set of rules which takes account of the requirements of the child, the mother the father and the aunts. It is not all that difficult -just recently unusual.

Alert moderator
- Artful Dodger:
  
  14 May 2014 11:19:42pm
  
  'We believe that the normal milieu for a human child is with their parents -on demand but otherwise with other adults or or with groups of other children"
  
  Well - the fact that your children have grown into five decent hard working and productive members of society is testimony to the effectiveness and practice of your beliefs.
  For me the operative word is 'society'.
  
  I would challenge any economist, economic rationalist or politician to put an economic value to the "contribution" you and your family have made to our society.
  
  I twill be interesting to see how many other comments such a wonderful post attracts.
  
  Alert moderator
OhMy:

14 May 2014 6:48:50pm

Ok, if the mothers go to work, who raises the children? Or do the mothers become child care workers, in which case they may as well raise their own children rather than someone else's. If one woman works as a carer for, say $15 per hour to look after the children of another carer on the same wage (less tax), they both come out backwards and can't afford each other. Seems a bit silly, doesn't it?

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  14 May 2014 7:12:24pm
  
  Now be careful you are starting to make sense.
  
  Alert moderator
Dan1968:

14 May 2014 6:49:38pm

We have to be aware that Australia is not only around big cities which can offer different job opportunities and child care options. What about families who are living in regional and rural areas? There are very limited job and child care options here. People are travelling very long distances to go to work, school etc. For a lot of families and mums in rural area there is no any options such as finding jobs as there are no jobs. Mostly living with one income and mostly "low income" (under $50K). To be able to go to work they have to travel to nearest biggest town which could be more than 100km away and they have to be at home when kids arrives back home as there are no child care option. You cant live primary kids alone at home isn't it ? Even the government help with child care rebate doesn't help to find somebody to take care of children. So I think every aspect should be taken in account. As these families in rural area has no options such as working but only trying to live without that money. For low income families and living in the rural area should be more fare decisions taken. When we encouraging families to move in regional and rural area, we should also consider such impacts and support them. Otherwise families will start to move to the cities which are already crowded. Which one is better ? Please before getting any decision consider every aspect and its long term effects.

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  14 May 2014 7:09:58pm
  
  Dan I have been thought this dilemma.Thanks for the point
  
  Alert moderator
Progress:

14 May 2014 7:03:39pm

Before raising the retirement age, consider:

- retired grandparents are the main providers of childcare in Australia
- retired people care for their elderly parents
- retired people provide volunteer services
- young people need jobs ... help to make jobs available by leaving the retirement age alone

By raising the retirement age the government is showing how little it values the services provided free by retired people, which greatly assist our society. Who will care for the grandchildren while grandma is working until she is 70 and mum is forced back to work? 6 months paid parental leave won't do it I'm afraid!

Alert moderator
Neenabeena:

14 May 2014 7:04:16pm

I think it is forgotten... the mums of this world work very hard, the stay at homes often cook all the food, often from scratch, go without new clothes and celebrate the good things they can buy at Vinnie's etc (no shame in That) Cope with what's in the fridge and recycle re use and fix anything they can. Mums teach their kids to be content with what they have and supportive parents keep the mental and emotional well being of their family/ partner steady so they can be efficient and positive workers.

Many don't get a top of the range hair cut or more than one pair of shoes a year. They put time into to school fetes, driving elderly or disabled friends and community members about when they cannot, all on the blessed budget they are gratefully (and I mean it) assigned. Us low income earners are just grateful we can clothe and educate our kids, see time playing cards with the kids as time well spent, and have enough to go out once in a while enjoying a dinner out or a movie. we dont splurge on Iphones and slick holidays. a day a t the beach is a treat...same as it used to be. I heard a mum at Christmas one year say in the car park I have already spent $1500 on Christmas and I haven't finished yet." That is our mortgage, a week off from work and a day at the beach plus the shopping for 2 weeks. I think as a mum at home with a partner who earns less than $50,000 a year, that I would do well on $100 000 a year. We would have no mortgage and we would buy a new board game. Turn off the TV and make sure our very 2nd hand car was serviced well enough that we could get to the beach this weekend. I would happily pay all medical bills I owed and gratefully buy some better quality fresh produce and bigger bags of rice and flour to get us through. Id also pay the school fees in a lump sum.I am lucky, I have no substance abuse, no mental health issues, a husband who dosent gamble or have expensive habits, Our kids are healthy and as we have time to listen to them because I am not out to work when dad gets home Our kids have support and are relatively happy. To those bemoaning the loss of the Tax benefit pause to reflect how valuable your kids are, a stable family and a substance abuse or mental health issue free environment makes the best families for the future.The time you were offered by the government was there to grow better kids not max out the credit card , upgrade the car or get to Hawaii twice a year it was to give your family a stable and predictable environment. I I hope this puts things in perspective.

Alert moderator
- Romanov:
  
  15 May 2014 1:39:45am
  
  @NEENABEENA:
  
  Indeed, I deeply sympathise with the INFO you posted here.
  What is this obsession with women who are caring for their children and preaching to them the work ethic?
  What are the assumptions behind it?
  There is a lot of chatter on The Drum about the details of government's balance sheets and constant shuffling of different items of expenditure according to different political beliefs.
  In fact, the ugly face of a clever liar is shown in full when the government spreads the idea that the women doing caring work are NOT WORKING!
  Whether a mum is looking after her child, or a person on disability, or an old age relative or neighbour she is still doing the UNPAID WORK in the community ... FOR the COMMUNITY!
  In other words, she is doing the Unpaid Work on a voluntary basis.
  Regardless of how many hours she puts into that work she only gets her subsistence money, the single mother's pension.
  The motive to push the mothers off their pensions into a paid job is to make them work for a PRIVATE company, preferably in a small business, so that those business people who fund, lobby and vote for the Liberal party PROFIT from their work.
  The benefit of a Private Employer, or the benefit of some crooked little operator on the edges of legality becomes the TOP PRIORITY in employment policy.
  This is what is meant when Joe Hockey extends his arm and wags his little forefinger at the Australian mums.
  He is putting private benefit, private profit, above the idea of WORKING for the COMMUNITY.
  This reactionary government does not have any respect for people who claim pensions and who want to work ONLY for their community.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Neenabeena:
    
    15 May 2014 7:27:34am
    
    Indeed Romanov, an expedient language used to mask the truth of action, a language of economics and efficient singular thought. A language of expediency was used to mask the actions of Nazi Germany a language that hid the truth from the people.
    
    Alert moderator
Ms H:

14 May 2014 7:27:22pm

My partner had a kind of uber work ethic and became the go-to person in his workplace...I would not have been able to count on him to do school pick ups etc as he worked late and often went on work trips. We got ftb part B but this was some years ago, whilst I mainly looked after the kids and home - it was not entirely a choice on my part but one of our kids had a lot of trouble coping with separation and I struggled to find a way to get back to fulltime work as she had a lot of anxiety - beyond the normal level - I do have other children so I had expected her to be like them, but no, even the childcare I attempted to place her with said they could not take her after a while as she was not coping there. She was always stressed by school, noisy environments and boisterous kids. With my partner in a really challenging career and needing back up at home, if felt justified getting this allowance, after all, my partner was paying a lot of tax, and I had previously done so. I didn't want my child who clearly was a candidate for mental health problems later in life, to suffer. I had a degree and I really missed my work (though I managed to pick up odd home based jobs here and there) and always felt like I had lost my identity in the eyes of others. There were other issues too complex to explain here...anyway, I know I have been de skilled and I wish things could have been different. My partner was kind of programmed to be a workaholic and I found it really hard to change the way we lived as he was just so busy with all his work projects. One thing I do know, is that the judgemental attitudes of others becomes a great weight and just makes you feel less able to reintegrate into the workforce. There seems to be no understanding of people's differences any more... I feel that our society has little understanding of the burden of care - in dark moments, losing perspective, I wish I had never become a parent, but then I remind myself of what beautiful people I raised. The child in question is now a very talented and caring person - she will probably never thrive in noisy crowded places, but she has special abilities that we tried to nurture and I hope one day it will all seem worth it.

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  14 May 2014 7:43:57pm
  
  Hi Ms H well done and yes the stigma of the stay at home mum has been undervalued as if you did nothing and you efforts were irrelevant while millions is thrown at fixing up damaged humans for the rest of their lives because they had no support (unlike yourself) at home.
  
  Alert moderator
- Joccy:
  
  14 May 2014 7:56:27pm
  
  You did the right thing, you put your child first, you took responsibility and cared for that child. Your reward is you did the best for your children, it may have stalled your career but as your daughter grows older you may find an opportunity to enter back into your chosen field of work. Best wishes.
  
  Alert moderator
Peter:

14 May 2014 7:54:07pm

The concept of 48% of families paying no net tax is totally ridiculous.

I am 65 was married first at 22 and had a child at 25. I paid tax and my wife did not work for 15 years after that. No chid care. What has happened since then is that expectations have shot through the roof. My first house was about 120 square meters and was quite adequate. Dinner or lunch out rarely happened.

Alert moderator
Kirara:

14 May 2014 7:58:13pm

I agree that it can be a good choice for women to get back to work, but certainly it?s not simply giving them the motivation but a serious of more complicated things. Government has to provide them with the same opportunity as others, and maybe also some training before working, otherwise they are not going to have long time job.

Alert moderator
James:

14 May 2014 9:16:52pm

I don't understand how one of the countries with the most national resources in the world, and with one of the smallest populations (in relation to the size of the country) can be so frugal with its citizens. Where is all of the money going? There must be a lot going into the pockets of the few super-rich citizens who are lucky enough to own things like mines. We need to wake up; Australia is wealthy enough to support spouses who want to stay at home with their kids. Anyone who makes you feel differently to this is a liar or ill informed.

Alert moderator
Peter Lazos:

14 May 2014 9:32:13pm

Well, people of Australia, you got what you vote for. Soon this country is going to finish in a third world , where Australians
will be migrating to other places because of vote seekers , failed barristers politicians. Well, what are going to do about it?
Talking you'll get you no where. I'm watching my grandkids playing and I wonder what is the future telling us!!!It's very sad for this country which for sale to any one. I heard millionaires pay zero tax. Is it typical??Punish the low classes, support the high classes. This is nothing short of Machiavellian principles. It is very sad.

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  15 May 2014 7:29:11am
  
  Do you recall Joe Hockey's ambitions for Australia ...to have an economy like India's!!!
  
  Alert moderator
raisedonhelpyourself:

14 May 2014 10:14:02pm

Any woman making $100,000 a year doesn't need help from the government. She has the smarts to be truly independent. Money grubbing for public coins just makes you pathetic. Have some pride, have some guts. Make your own life and make your kids proud of you.

Alert moderator
Ebbs:

14 May 2014 11:49:44pm

I bet most stay at home mums/dads or part time workers could teach Joe Hockey a thing or two about how to run a budget, one that attempts to maximise quality of life as much as possible, instead of degrading it. Us mums do it all the time, and some of us have become pretty damn good at it too. So move over Joe, there's plenty of people more qualified to do your job, we do it every day, 52 weeks a year.

On that note and speaking of cuts, I for one, am looking forward to continuing to cut Joe Hockey's cuts out of our lifestyle as much as possible! Engineer them out of your life as much as you can. I'm starting by going solar, not paying an energy company to make money at my expense.

Yes, well said "The Age of Entitlement is Over".
That's right Joe, your entitlement to lie is over.
Your entitlement to bleed the
nation is also OVER.

Alert moderator
- Maynard:
  
  15 May 2014 7:21:21am
  
  What should we do, borrow more?
  
  Alert moderator
Liz:

15 May 2014 1:10:06am

I can't believe I'm reading all this utter nonsense. How can you expect to live in a society, with access to hospitals, schools, roads , communications etc and not contribute to the tax base that funds it all. Why should a working couple with their own children subsidise your life ? Why should a single couple subsidise it ? Why would a single person think they should even have to ? Get a grip , make choices in your life , have the extras and earn them via work or go without. I'm totally over paying ridiculous amounts of income tax to fund stay at home mums at the school canteen or whatever other homemaking duties they aspire to. I would absolutely love to stay home and get up to date with all my housekeeping and the like, read a book , study something I actually enjoy. I'm stuck at work and busting ridiculous hours to ensure I am self funded into retirement , we have paid our mortgage and our children are all schooled. To date we have raised five children this way and they are all healthy and normal and working. Not one of them would ever think that it was normal not to work.

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  15 May 2014 8:00:02am
  
  Hey Liz, Not all of us want to be servants of this master, you need to remember that this amazing nations was not just built on economic policy but compassion and human rights values, not everyone contributes to society in a monetary way, how dull if we all did, we would all start to live like batteries neat and finished and dull.
  Thank you for working hard if that gives you meaning, or stop if it is starting to be ridiculous cos no one wishes they stayed another day at the office on their deathbed. I support self starters and wholesome families, some people dont get the opportunities you are talking about and by no fault of their own. I chose to go with out to support my kids and husband. I contribute to the invisible needs of the families about me who work( child care and caring for kids when they are sick if mum/dad has to work) no one pays me they just thank me. there are no tax breaks or subsidies for that. Howard had good values about a stable society it is so much more than the wage we earn and the retirement package we pursue. cheers
  
  Alert moderator
  - ruthie:
    
    15 May 2014 4:18:50pm
    
    " Not all of us want to be servants of this master, you need to remember that this amazing nations was not just built on economic policy but compassion and human rights values, not everyone contributes to society in a monetary way, how dull if we all did, we would all start to live like batteries neat and finished and dull."
    
    Much of the time I was raising kids I was also working part time and paying some tax. Not a lot, but still paying it. Many welfare recipients must pay tax also.
    
    Alert moderator
aussieinjapan:

15 May 2014 1:39:57am

Less support for families to have kids. Less support for kids at home. I feel we are on our path which Japan is taking.

The rich having a great education while the rest of the kids, those with brains and not the money have to put up with it through none of their fault.

We need an inheritance tax of some sort to make things fairer.

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  15 May 2014 8:02:08am
  
  I think this brings up a good point. Where do we want to end up. Who do we want to be in 30 years. will we get there by pursuing this path or do we need to rethink the whole idea? Bring in the philosophers!!!
  
  Alert moderator
jim :

15 May 2014 1:59:39am

Observe and see the banks have us all in big debt for our homes
have you forgotten who works for who .
We are all slaves to the AUD and our Debt and its going to get worse .

Alert moderator
SeanD:

15 May 2014 6:19:42am

All this hoo-aha about Part B, has anyone look at the amount per family? We receive it but a second salary would be much better, to the point that we went that way this year. It has never really been very much individually, so anything that makes us find a job will actually increase that family income not decrease it.

Alert moderator
SeanD:

15 May 2014 6:19:57am

All this hoo-aha about Part B, has anyone look at the amount per family? We receive it but a second salary would be much better, to the point that we went that way this year. It has never really been very much individually, so anything that makes us find a job will actually increase that family income not decrease it.

Alert moderator
rexie:

15 May 2014 6:23:36am

After reading these comments I realise that this Budget is not just about financial engineering, but more sinisterly about social engineering, with the USA as its prototype. Hobin Rood (intentional) and his band of bizarro world lizards show how the poor must be made to pay for the misdeeds and miscalculations of the sociopathic elite. It's only fair, isn't it?

Alert moderator
James In Footscray:

15 May 2014 7:24:59am

It's sad we now believe a government doesn't care about a group of people unless it gives them money - and sad we believe people's decisions are primarily based on whether they'll get government money.

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  15 May 2014 8:03:04am
  
  Hi James I think we need a bigger conversation this is a good point
  
  Alert moderator
DENIS:

15 May 2014 8:00:31am

It's not just the mum's, or the aged slogging it out 'til 70... this is all connected to Pyne's ideal education system, where history is Anglo-based, and they can feed the minds of those glory days of yore when the big castle stood on the hill where the Pyne's and their 1% ilk lived, protected against the masses working from childhood-to-drop just to survive and if there was any sign of some wealth creeping into the villiage (say, a bumper crop of turnips), the Pyne's raised the drawbridge, rode over the moat and down the hill to raise taxes. Then returned to their castle loaded down with turnips. Simplistic, I know, but it roots their political bloodline...

Alert moderator
StBob:

15 May 2014 8:40:06am

The idea that stay-at-home Mum's are the great unfairly unpaid is rubbish. They may not get paid but then they don't pay taxes either. Consider the difference between two woman who stay at home and don't get paid. Compare them with the same two women doing each others household work and paying each other. The same work gets done, the same net salary (0) is paid. The difference is that they pay tax. The tax that goes towards building the facilities that they enjoy as they go about their working lives looking after their families. Rather than consider paying stay at home Mums we should consider taxing them. So let's just call it even and end this silly debate.

Alert moderator
Ian Batty:

15 May 2014 9:21:46am

... and on the maths of unemployment.

There are around 750,000 unemployed.

There are around 150,000 job vacancies.

(ABS figures).

So, Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey, how do *five* people do *one* job?

Yes, yes, yes, you're going to "grow the economy", but you need to create hundreds of thousands of jobs per year to take up existing school/TAFE/University leavers.

Can we have an extra 350,000 per year to take up all the unemployed, including those whose benefits you're axing?

It means they'll only have to live for a max of two years in poverty.

Ian.

Alert moderator
Jash137:

15 May 2014 9:44:09am

StBob, what you need to consider is that if the whole motherhood thing becomes too hard, women just won't do it anymore. Just like in Japan. How do you think we would fare as a nation if women became sick of being the political pawns of conservative men and just said, that's it, no more kids?

How often do we see in the Middle East, every time governments change from democratic to conservative, women have to put on the abaya then take off the abaya, depending on the vote-getting needs of their male leaders. It is the same here. We are supported as mothers, then we aren't supported as mothers, over and over again.

Well listen up men! We aren't breeding cattle and the job we do of raising children is THE most important in society. To change our political status of breeding cattle, we need to get more women into politics which means we need more women to stay in the workforce. Therefore, how about fathers start staying home to raise our nation's children so that women can stay in the workforce and hopefully, become our future leaders? I wonder what the political discussion around parenthood would look like then.

Alert moderator
Skeptic:

15 May 2014 9:53:46am

What jobs?
The unemployment and underemployment rates are already in double digits. There are simply not enough jobs for those already looking for work.

Alert moderator
wrknmum:

15 May 2014 10:07:11am

How are these women are being forced out into the workforce?

If you and your husband (or partner) have made the choice for one of you the stay at home and you earn $100,000 + can't you still do this on that amount of money without needing the rest of us to also subsidize this decision you have made?

I'd personally like to see the subsidy that you would have been getting be put towards paying down the debt that is accumulating for our children (yours and mine) to deal with in the future.

I personally consider myself a better parent by supporting my children and not taking money that inevitably they will be stuck having to repay in the future.

I'm not so sure they will be thanking us then, while they are trying to raise their own children.

Alert moderator
flexhours:

15 May 2014 10:29:44am

I think the key to balancing paid work and unpaid work at home with kids is flexibility. Until we address this we end up with kids in daycare for very long days.

My husband has had very little flexibility in three different jobs. There is a view that women can work part-time but men must work full-time. He even had a request to work part-time knocked back, only to have his position replaced on a part-time basis when he left! All that while sitting next to a woman returning from maternity leave who worked part-time. *&^%%!!

My kids go to daycare three days a week and enjoy it but struggle with the long days. I work three days a week and am regularly viewed as on the "mummy track" - denied training opportunities, offered promotions that are subject to returning to 4 or 5 days a week, referred to as a "family friendly" who "has to be accommodated". I feel sad and devalued at work and I feel guilty that my kids have to struggle with long days out of home.

I love working, would like to work more, my husband would love to work less and see the kids more.

If you want both parents working then full-time cannot be the main form of work.

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  15 May 2014 3:03:46pm
  
  You sound like you have good values and oh I wish mums would not feel so devalued!! You have correctly addressed the problem that two full time parents is too much and that dads at home more should be a more common option.
  
  Alert moderator
I Love Polls:

15 May 2014 10:30:20am

Am I to understand that you have to be on Newstart to qualify for the over 50's deal? I thought there might actually be one good thing in the budget, but it seems a lot of people are ineligible. When our Family Tax Benefit ended, I was told I wasn't eligible for Newstart because my partner had a job. So we've been living (if you can call it that) on his wage ($41,500) for years. I can't get my foot in the door because I don't have references or experience. All I have is age. As for kids making it to primary school before the mother has to go back to work, most kids turn six in kindergarten. Any mother would know how tiny they still are at that age. Tony Abbott went to church early on budget day (another stunt if you ask me). I'm so curious to know what he was praying for. I hope he wasn't wasting time praying for his soul, because he doesn't have one (and no heart either).

Alert moderator
- wrknmum:
  
  15 May 2014 11:14:26am
  
  This is one of my concerns, if a women stays home for the 20 odd years it takes to get all the children through school without even working part time sadly all work skills become outdated and you become less employable.
  
  This is a huge argument in favour of at least making a concerted effort to try to work part time over this period to keep your skills up.
  
  I'm sure no stay at home mother would want to transition from being a stay at home mum to someone that is unemployed and dependent on a hand out, would they?
  
  This would then also mean no superannuation being put aside so unfortunately they would then find themselves also relying on being supported by taxpayers through their old age as well.
  
  I'm sure stay at home mothers don't want to spend their whole life not working and being supported by others, surely?
  
  Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  15 May 2014 3:00:44pm
  
  I am sorry you are in this position it is one I am dreading
  
  Alert moderator
Mississauga Dad:

15 May 2014 11:40:04am

There is obviously a lot of sexist misandrous horse puckey when it comes to discussions of working fathers and working mothers and stay-at-home-mothers and stay-at-home fathers. I am a divorced single father of two teenage sons. My ex cost me tens of thousands of dollars in litigation in order that she obtain sole custody and residency of our children. Once she had done so, and had received all of the 'financial perks' that the courts award to single mothers as 'primary caregivers', (perks that came out of my pocket of course), she decided that she couldn't look after the children after all and shortly after winning her windfall, phoned me and said the boys and their possessions were waiting in her porch so please come and get them. They have been with me fulltime ever since.
I decided to stay at home and live off of my savings (what miniscule amount I had left after the justice system financially raped me) while my kids were growing up so they would have a fulltime parent. Financially it has cost me dearly since I did not receive ONE CENT of support from the children's mother nor did I get any tax breaks or any form of support from the government. My house has always been spotless (come and sniff around my toilets all you want). My sons have always had spotless clean clothes, and were showered, groomed, teeth brushed, hair combed everyday. They were at school on time everyday (as opposed to when their mom was taking them to school when they were reported late 3 times out of every 5 days. They both ate good, nutritious, exciting, and a wide variety of meals (Italian, Chinese, Thai, Indian - as well as the typical "Canadian" fare - I had to teach my wife how to cook when we were first married).
I have now two sons who have both recently entered University and are Honours Students - paid for by a Trust Fund that I put in place when I was working fulltime and my ex was supposedly a 'stay-at-home' mom. And guess what - when I was working fulltime before the divorce I was doing all of the child rearing and housekeeping at that time as well.
During my marriage I held an executive position meaning I worked much more than a 40 hr week. After rising each morning at six and showering etc. I would get our 2 sons out of bed, make breakfast and get them ready for school. I would drive them to daycare where they were until class started. Then without breakfast myself, I would rush to catch the train. At the end of school my sons returned to daycare until I got home to pick them up. Once I got home with them I usually cooked or help cook supper and did any kitchen cleanup. Then I helped them with homework, made sure they showered, got them to bed, made my sons' lunch for the next day and if lucky, I managed to get to bed by midnight. My wife did no housework -she had a maid. Anything the maid didn't do was left for me. I did my own laundry. I did all yard and garden work and snow shovelling. I did the grocery shopping. If my sons had a

Alert moderator
- wrknmum:
  
  15 May 2014 12:18:02pm
  
  I would like to say that I respect and admire all those fathers out there that every day contribute towards the raising of our children, including my husband.
  I understand that a father is just as important to a child as a mother and don't want my husband to work long hours to carry our family financially while I stay at home.
  We share the work load so our children get quality time with both their parents. This works for us, just as I'm sure other arrangements work for other families.
  Unfortunately it seems that in your case you had a partner that didn't understand this concept, but you are a wonderful man for what you have done.
  
  Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  15 May 2014 2:58:08pm
  
  good on you dad what a great father
  
  Alert moderator
Carl:

15 May 2014 12:06:31pm

I'm a bit dubious about the claim of 60% of families claiming Part B. I have numerous friends with children and a child myself and don't know of any of them who receive part B and only 2 who receive part A. None are rich people just middle class who both work and given the low level at which both cut out now (even before it reduced) earn too much.

The only government assistance we receive is a small break in childcare fees, from memory less than 20%.

Alert moderator
p mueller:

15 May 2014 12:07:06pm

I agree with cutting back Part B. My first child was born in 2000 so I remember the introduction of those changes well.

It essentially meant that a mother lucky enough to have a partner earning a good wage could afford to stay home - and get benefits for it.

Where as I went back to work because my husband earned an average wage. Together we earned considerably less than the former couple - and no Part B benefits.

It was social engineering for well off families and I'm glad it's gone.

Alert moderator
Sumukhi:

15 May 2014 12:41:04pm

The interesting thing is this budget is basing itself on successfully employing at least a million more Australians at the instant it comes down, (ie having suitable jobs available for us all, young, old, mothers and all between) to step into so that a million or more Australians don't just all fall instantly so far below the poverty line as to be having to steal bread just to survive. Where are the jobs for all these youth whose unemployment levels exceed the national average by double up to triple in some mostly rural areas, where there is no regular suitable public transport systems, no rail links, and where a car to travel distances is a necessity? And for all the single mothers who MUST have a job, where are these jobs Mr. Abbott, certainly not down at the local employment centres, their jobs available are pitiful, about 20 for every 300 people that will now ride to 1000 people trying to get just one available job! So what will every person under 30 who was not born with a silver spoon in their mouth do in this catch 22 the Government has deliberately created for the underprivelaged? What shall the disabled 'job seekers' feel guilty? and the Aboriginal communities, guilty? again?

Alert moderator
Crash:

15 May 2014 12:44:36pm

The worst part of this budget in my opinion is I don't expect it to achieve it's aim of reducing the deficit or the debt.
I expect tax revenues to fall sharply with increased unemployment and economic instability.
The reason I think this is because that is what's happening post GFC in other countries that followed this path.
As this is quite well known, it makes me ponder on hidden agendas actually.
Like the up and coming TPPA and the viewpoint of global corporate control.
Not a conspiracy theory at all, this is the stated aims of the neo-con world view.
Not good for us at all.

Alert moderator
Kellie:

15 May 2014 2:17:48pm

Upfront - I'm a 40+ yo woman with no children, and I am extremely unlikely to have any now.
Of all of the budget measures taken this week, I do not object to this.
Why should I supplement a woman to stay home after her children have gone to school?
I can understand women wanting to stay at home until her children go to school, but the part time work for many young mums would be a good thing.
Not in the least because it will help with their skills in getting back into the work force if they have had a break.
If mum's aren't encouraged back, then what chance do they have if they've been out of the work force for more than 10 years. And should I be subsidising them to have their coffee fun, go the gym and painting classes (once their kids are at school) that as a non mum I have never been eligible for?

Alert moderator
- Neenabeena:
  
  15 May 2014 2:52:13pm
  
  Hey Kellie You are right. I would love a job I am an at home mum but because I am rural I cannot obtain work easily. I have applied for so very many positions(years) but because I am older I am not the option. These ideas are good but the practical application are limited.
  
  Alert moderator
Deb:

15 May 2014 4:20:02pm

I am a stay at home mum, and my youngest of four, is turning 12. With my first two, I worked part and full time. With my youngest two, I have a mixture of part time, care for mother-in-law and now, home duties. To be honest, I do not expect the government, and the rest of the population to pay for me staying at home. I certainly have plenty to do, however, some of it, is really making those, who go to work and school, have a bit more time....I do most of the cleaning, gardening, painting (still doing it..two years on), cooking, running around...general stuff....it suits me fine. It may not suit others, but I love it. We do not have to pay for most things ie maintenance of home, as we do it ourselves, except for electrical or plumbing problems. I wouldn't know what to do with a cleaner or gardener...and I don't want to waste our money by finding out:) People have swapped 'doing ourselves' to paying for someone.....just look at ads for babysitting? Wow. 40 years ago and more, we did not have the gadgets we have to make life easier and jobs done quicker...it was a lot of effort and time...going to the bank, going to all the different utility shops to pay bills ie telephone, electricity, gas etc, hand washing dishes and clothes, ironing everything, home cooking for most meals, few TV dinners, far less frozen goods, no microwaves, no blowers for leaves, or edgers for edges, no internet to find out everything...go to the library, or look up your own books. For me to go to work, part time, all I would have to do, is add about 15 minutes per day to each other member of the family for various chores, organise myself differently and life would be fine. I have applied for part time work, but I am out of practice and am only looking to work during school hours, and not weekends...and we are at a wage, where really, for me to work part time, I would be doing 20 - 25 hours for about $40 - 50 net per week, as we would lose the small benefits we still get, plus clothes/food? for work, and transport, be it private or public, depending on where the work was located....it is our problem, and if that is the extent of our problems in life....then life is....excuse the swearing....bloody good! Oh, and I don't do morning coffee and gym clubs....ugh! I do Bunnings, then back home with my goodies to work:)

My husband (54) has worked all his adult life and has put in enough super to support us in our old age...he can legally retire next year, however, for quality of lifestyle will work until 65 and re access then...it does help that he enjoys his job.

I cannot help wonder when I see those on the dole, smoking cigarettes at $15-20 per packet, puffing away as they text on the latest mobile. There have been articles on people who state that you can survive on the pension, but they get lambasted by the hoards of whingers. The pension and dole should be for basic living only...food, clothes and a roof overhead...it should not cover alcohol, tobacco and o

Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed.

Abbott's message to mothers: get to work

Comments (288)

Professor Rosseforp:

tom e:

virgil:

John51:

Lotus:

Alfie:

Karen:

GrumpiSkeptic:

Alfie:

Nina:

Gary:

Sir Bill Bored:

brad:

GJA:

Brad:

bobtonnor:

Dani:

barsnax:

Marty:

barsnax:

Sir Bill Bored:

darthseditious:

barsnax:

Stuffed Olive:

Dani:

barsnax:

Ann:

barsnax:

Sharra:

barsnax:

Markus:

barsnax:

MT_Syd:

awake:

RegH:

marg1:

Nell:

pwrighter:

barsnax:

Sir Bill Bored:

barsnax:

Sir Bill Bored:

barsnax:

barsnax:

Grover Jones:

Leo:

John51:

Monica:

barsnax:

jb-baby:

GJA:

maureen:

barsnax:

Chuckles:

Sotapanna:

Aussie Roadster:

barsnax:

sdrawkcaB:

barsnax:

Nina:

GrahamD:

Roy:

AussieRoadster:

John51:

the yank:

Rob:

rag:

tsj:

cameco96:

Ted:

Where's Tony:

Emma:

Where's Tony:

whatif:

Bev:

Caffettierra Moka:

Kerrie:

GJA: