Double Dipping !

Perhaps the most contentious item in this weeks budget is the change to the Parental Leave Scheme ( PPL ).  When this was introduced by a former Labor government there were few private sector employers offering paid maternity leave and hence the issue of "double dipping " went virtually unnoticed.

Now it has been dragged kicking and screaming into the public arena and Bill Shorten is threatening to block the passage of legislation to make the choice an  "either or " decision !   It is simply unfair that some people will have the option of taking two bites at the cherry -  a payment from their employers scheme and a payment from the public purse - while the vast majority have to make do with the lesser amount.

It all comes down to Labor's subservience to the union movement.  The greatest beneficiary of this double dipping on the PPL are the public servants and their unions are expected to fight tooth and nail to keep this rort alive.   A public servant on a $ 130 k salary can expect to receive a $ 35,000 payment under her public service award and then add another $ 11,593 from the public purse.  This is impossible to defend as a fair outcome as applied to ordinary people.

Bill Shorten is going to have great difficulty explaining his reasons for blocking this measure. The whole purpose of the PPL is to extend paid maternity leave to the wide spectrum of women in the workforce, not just those working in the public service and those lucky to  work for an employer with a private scheme.   Universality demands that the cost be contained - and no fair minded person would agree that double dipping meets that criteria.

Some would take issue with the PPL being geared to actual pay levels rather than just paying a universal level of compensation to offset the cost and time loss from work involved in maternity.  Contraception is now both reliable and available at low cost so that having a child is a conscious decision that should be taken with due regard to the costs involved.   There is the expectation that such a decision would be taken wisely and that financial help from a PPL would assist with the costs of a lifestyle change.  It was never intended as a total reward for child birth.

Some may even question the fairness of applying PPL to working women and excluding those who choose to be what were once called "home makers ". The unanswered question is precisely what population level we hope to achieve in Australia, and whether PPL is a device to raise the population level, or to simply get more women back into the workforce to raise the level of taxpayers contributing tax to the economy ?

That same question applies to the rebates applicable to child care.  We are a multicultural society and as our living standards increase the ratio of children per household tends to decrease, but this is distorted by some ethnic tribes and religious principles who discourage their wives from joining the workforce - and tend to have very big families.

It is noticeable that many economists quote a likely world population of ten billion by 2050, but there is rarely any discussion of what follows after that date and volume is achieved.   We are already an overcrowded planet in many world areas and it is unlikely that this vast continent will be allowed to remain home to such a small population in relation to it's area volume as the pressure cooker of living space rises.

We need to decide our population future and plan accordingly.  Otherwise, that is something that will be forced upon us - by the rest of the world !