So I happened to catch on the teev tonight the tail-end of a story on
the nightly current affairs show of a certain national broadcaster. A
fire-fighting duo, at their wits' end with the miserable childcare
situation. By their calculations, it is not "worth" the female of the
couple - the "Caregiver", we'll call her - returning to work at the
conclusion of her maternity leave, or indeed for the foreseeable future.
Appalling.
Slow news day? I think not.
Childcare
is expensive. As an aside, I personally think it should be - you don't
want to trust your bundle of snot... I mean, joy to any old hack, now
do you? Certainly not your mother! And just like your post office is not open during non-business hours (what do you mean
you don't have access to the internet?!), there is no formal childcare
available in the evenings, when fire-fighting Caregiver may be required
to attend fires and other emergencies at short notice. As, equally, may her fire-fighting baby-daddy.
Oh dear. What. To. Do?
All those poor, poor women.
(All those cats stranded up trees.)
So
anyway, I knit my brow and in a matter of seconds (I'm good like that),
I came up with a solution! Brace yourselves... it's pretty radical and
left-of-field.
Girlz - let's hear it for the boyz!
Here it is: my manifesto on how to solve the childcare dilemma* in Australa.
Since
people must procreate (and it will never cease to amaze me, but it does indeed seem they must), I hereby
decree that the nominal FATHER in any opposite-sex, nuclear - a
so-called "traditional" - partnering is required to stay at home and care for any issue (he can start a cooking blog if he really wants - so long as
it doesn't interfere with the school run) and the nominal MOTHER must
return to work at the conclusion of any statutory period of maternity
leave.1
No, wait! Keep reading!!
If
the FATHER'S wage at the time of issue is greater than the MOTHER'S, the MOTHER will be paid at the same rate
as the FATHER. It is a requirement that the FATHER'S workplace make up any short-fall.
Indefinitely.
Yeah.
Various exemptions will apply to same-sex and non-nuclear families (I haven't worked through that part yet... policy on the fly. Oh hey, Tony!).
In sum, I think this decree will place the
burden of child-rearing more reasonably on the father and his
workplace. Possibly unfairly, even. But, you know, a good swing of the
pendulum might create some much-needed cultural traction.
And THAT, my friends, countrymen, is how you get women, specifically, back into the workforce after having children. And drop the childcare dilemma* on its head.
Knock-on
effects, intended or otherwise include (oh, Tones, I know you hate this
bit, but you can't just make a policy announcement without working
through the implications... oh, you can? Sorry, my bad...)
Well, it's over to you!
* here is an overt acknowledgement, so often neglected in mainstream media, that it's not a "dilemma" for everyone.
Like affluenza and other modern plagues, it's mainly a problem for the
middle-class - you know, the ones with relative job security, awareness of and recourse
to their statutory entitlements, the right to marry, Caregivers with
employed partners... that sort of thing. Not everyone in Australia (not by a
long shot). Probably not even actual child-care workers. So I do offer
my heartfelt apologies to those who read this whole bloody rant, um,
policy statement... thing and got annoyed to find it didn't even apply
to them anyway. I really am sorry...
1 For the record, I didn't bring up mothers,
the report by Madeleine Morris (you can view it or read the transcript,
here), and this recent article by Stefanie Balogh in The Australian
did. Seems we can unilaterally breathe a sigh of relief, as a recent
Productivity Commission review's recommendations, if adopted, "will increase the number of working mothers by 25,000 on a part-time basis".
All, let us rejoice.
