Pauline Hanson’s latest push for change is dividing even her biggest fans

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has confirmed she will back proposed changes to stop workers receiving a significant chunk of

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has confirmed she will back proposed changes to stop workers receiving a significant chunk of their parental leave payments.

The controversial move was introduced as part of Joe Hockey’s ill-received final budget and would see workers denied parental leave payments from their employer on top of the money they are already getting from the government.

As it stands, new parents are eligible for an 18-week, $12,100 entitlement from the government. They can also receive additional parental leave payments from their employer if it is part of their contract.

Ms Hanson says this creates a culture of “double dipping” where parents are taking money from both buckets.

“No one wants double-dipping. If you’re getting a payment, you’re getting looked after, fine; one only. I don’t believe in this double-dipping,” she told the Seven Network.

She also said businesses were “screaming out” because they couldn’t afford to to pay workers’ benefits.

“We actually have to pull the budget back. We can’t keep affording this and people want a hand-out all the time.”

However, while many support Ms Hanson’s idea, others say she is taking away money new parents and young families need to survive.

Jenny Macklin, the opposition social services spokeswoman, said the government’s paid parental leave scheme is designed to include top up payments from employers and that the government money alone isn’t enough to fund young parents.

“Some of the employer schemes are very modest and of course they’re paid at the person’s wage and the vast majority of young women having babies, they’re not getting paid exorbitant wages; most of them, who are working in retail for example, are on very modest wages and those are the people who will be very hard hit,” Ms Macklin told ABC radio.

“The government is taking $1 billion out of the pockets of new mothers, so this new measure is … going to hurt low and middle-income women.”

Of cause many baby boomer parents know just how tough it was thirty or forty years ago to find the money to raise a family and many are watching their children go through the same thing know.

While have have said they back Ms Hanson’s opinion, others say we need to do all we can to help young parents make ends meet.

What do you think? Should we cut paid parental leave to just one payment? Or do young parents need this money to survive?

  1. desleigh clarke  

    It’s a hard one really. With the cost of day care etc they need all they can get but on the other hand I had 3 kids & got not a cent from anyone.

    • Gail  

      The cost of Day Care should not come into the equation. The money was to help the parent to stay at home to give the babies a good start. To give money on top of wages is not appropriate – it’s only for 18 weeks, so it’s just a baby bonus. We saw what happened years ago when the parents spent the money on huge TVs etc. That is not the intent at all.

    • Roma bennett  

      Thought the idea of paid parent leave was so you could look after your kids for the start of their lives , not to pay for day care .

  2. Kate  

    I have no problem with maternity leave per se; but if you receive the basic wage from the government, approx 600 per week and your normal wage is $800 per week, surely your employer should only have to make up the difference, i.e. $200 per week. Why would you expect to earn $1400 per week? We all know babies cost money but having them is the choice you make.

    • Gail  

      Now I see it’s more than $650 per week. That’s amazing. My pension is not even half that.

  3. sorry. but i do agree with pauline. back when i had kids this wasn’t even around. so why should parents of today get this. if you want a baby then save up to take the time off. this country is going down the toilet because everyone wants a handout. if you can’t afford to support yourself then simple. don’t have children. so this will bring me onto the next topic. pensions for single mothers with kids to all different men….. which is one of paulines policies she wanted to do 20 years ago… cut their pension in half to stop them BREEDING LIKE RABBITS!!!!! and go study to better your lives. break the welfare cycle and teach your kids that not EVERYTHING in life is free!!!!!

    • Seriously don’t comment on the lives of others that you know nothing about, especially when I am a single mother of 4 with 3 fathers. But I guess I’m just popping out the kids for the money by your assumptions without even knowing my story. My first child her father and I did not work out so we separated before she was born, then I stayed a single mother for 6 years while studying on and off while I could to work in hospitality, i then had 2 more kids to a man I loved but after my 3rd child was born here became abusive and controlling so after a couple of years of abuse I decided it was time leave him (after some stalking and threatening behaviour from him a year later I was finally free) I decide to change my career path goals and go into community services to help others like I needed to be helped once and then 2 years on i meet a wonderful man and I fell pregnant (a wonderful accident) but he just was not ready to be a father again (he had a son also) so we went separate ways and the whole time I am still studying. So as you see it is never good to make assumptions about a women just because her children have different fathers without knowing there story, it just makes you judgemental and ignorant

    • Lyn  

      I agree 100% with Tracey, Gail and Pauline. First pregnancy could be a ‘mistake’ but seriously 2,3, and 4 please you knew what caused them and you most definately must have known how to prevent pregnancy. You had these children now you find a way to look after them.

      • Colleen  

        Yes I agree with Tracey to, I had my first and only child at 31 and his father abandoned us after birth and I decided to NEVER have any more children, for me and other smart woman it only took once to be shown a man cant be relied on therefore forcing me to walk into Centrelink to not do it again. Ok I get some of you need to learn that lesson twice, but 3 or 4 times? wether studying or not is not important, if your relying on welfare to raise and feed them you should not have more until your studies are complete and your working. As for some men not being ready well one would think you would establish that before having unprotected sex and conceiving another child. And when some NOT ALL wait until their first 2 kids are 13 and 14 before having another one, that to me is a clear save the pension fund baby. And it is woman like this and immigrants who also claim for numerous children that have made it unfair for the genuine single mother of one child who is abandoned by father, those women and only those woman should be except from any further cuts.

  4. Anthony Arnold  

    Seems that “retired” MPs are quite at ease with receiving their Parliamentary pensions plus any other incomes they can lay their hands on but woe betide a lowly taxpayer trying anything that even looks like “double dipping” – hypocrites !!!

    • Barry Walker  

      Total agree here Politicians should have a closer look at their setup before criticising us or changing our lives. I won’t hold my breath over this They are so out of touch and arrogant with it

  5. Robert Young  

    The decision to have a family is the parents why should the government pay them to do just that I am not using the fact there was no assistance when my children were born as my argument I just cannot see the relevance in paying mums to have a bub.

  6. Wendy Muzzy  

    I agree with Pauline, As like so many family a generation or two ago, we forewent expensive holidays saved up for our 2nd hand home before starting a family, I stayed home being a full time Mum while Hubby worked at two jobs, and went to night school to better himself. I returned to the paying workforce when the last finished school and got a job, not his dream job but one available, which he worked at until he was able to get earn the job of his choice . There were no luxuries, I made 90% of our cloths, kept a garden, cooked wholesome meals. Admittedly this was pre the greed factor epidemic that struck, most seem to want to start out with the best of everything, even if it means someone should help them pay for it.

    • Joyce Schubert  

      I agree just look at the coffee shops ect we had one wage and my husband mowed lawns for extra money young people want it all at taxpayer expense . When we went into town my kids got a drink of water it was all we could afford

    • Leanne  

      I agree with you Wendy. That is exactly what I did. A stay at home mum is good for the children as well. We survived and the children were not spoilt either. We lived within our means. Didn’t spend money on flash cars, holidays etc. The cheapest holidays we had were camping holidays and the children had a ball. I had a vege garden. We have owned our home for many years. We paid off a home on one wage. Had a busines after the children were well off our hands and built two homes in the process. We wouldn’t change a thing.
      These days people are always looking for hand outs. I am absolutely surprised at the amount of money the Government is expected to pay out to these people. Shocking really. The government cannot afford it as we are manufacturing very little these days. We are buying from China and elsewhere, as a result of our manufacturing companies setting up overseas. Australia is living beyond its means and its people too. The country is in massive debt.

  7. Paul Stewart  

    Why the hell should my taxes be used to help people who want to have children?? If you cant afford one dont have one! I know plenty of business people who wont employ females as they dont see why they should have to falk out money for for up to six months if they decide to have a child. God spare us all from the ‘entitled’ people who think business and government for be there for their benefit in having children. While I totally disagree with either of these incentives, as it is now law, they should only get one or the other, not both! We criticize politicians for double dipping, is this any different?

  8. Ian Robinson  

    So, it is apparently okay for politicians(Phillip Ruddock)to double dip but not ordinary Australians?

    • Jill  

      NO it’s not OK for the politicians to double dip! their perks should be abolished as soon as they leave parliament, but then if people want to have kids support them yourself! There should be a two strike rule with the single mums too. Two kids as a singleton get support till they go to school and you can work, third child it’s on you. (widows excepted, divorced make the father pay too)

  9. Ron McGree  

    If I can’t afford to have kids then don’t have them.
    Free handouts have to stop.

    • I agree with you – but – only if that applies to the unemployed and the unemployable as well as the employed.
      The government should not have to pay for more than one or two children of the permanently unemployed.

      • Lyn  

        I agree Ron, first child ‘accident’ 2nd and there after intentional sorry if this offends anyone but if you cant afford children DON’T have them—-don’t use children as your meal ticket its not fair to them.

  10. Dianne Clarke  

    I am well past the age of having children and work full time. Am I able to take 18 weeks off work and still get paid by my employee as well as a hand out from the government because I want too? The choice to have children is the parents and like everything in life they should budget their finances to support the decision. I remember a young girl (25) that was working for us and she was quite upset about some one being on maternity leave and getting paid when she would’ve liked to take 6 months off after Uni to have a break from all the study and still be able to have some financial support. Tricky situation this one and no easy answer.

  11. June CP  

    Double dipping no, yes we in the 60 and 70 did not have the help but still managed to get a home and have a family, myself four children.
    I feel that families who have very large families should not be given extra money, they choose to have the extra children, they need to learn to manage on what they have.
    Today’s young want it all, we had to wait and earn it the hard way.
    This also goes for the new Australians, very large families, extra wife’s, never needing to work as the hand outs keep coming.
    No wonder we attract so many to this cash cow country.

  12. Wendy  

    Will the government stop politicians double dipping as well?

    • Kazza  

      Would be nice to see that happening. Keep on dreaming

      • Carolyn Mash  

        If Pauline has a say in it, yes they will!
        We have to realise EVERYONE in this country needs to start taking responsibility for themselves and not expecting so much. If you plan to have children it will be costly, it always has been so do without the new cars, (and usually 2) expensive furniture, dinners at restaurants, wine etc for a while. Make sacrifices! I know these days both parents need to work, but in many cases that is to keep up an expensive lifestyle and have everything new from the start. Babies really want love and nurturing, they don’t care if you have the best car or house so if you want children, maybe the rest has to wait awhile. Your parents and grandparents probably did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *