Dialogue: People being paid just for propagating the species

The great debate is on. Who should wear the cost of the proposed paid parental leave - the Government or the employer? The simple option that the financial burden should be assumed by the parents seems not to be considered.

In these politically correct times - when the popular belief is that no one should have to take personal responsibility for their actions - it is, indeed, a radical concept that each person should fund his or her reproductive activity.

Unlike accidents and illnesses, which can strike anyone at any time and are largely unforeseen events with which the state logically assists, parenthood is a completely different proposition.

These days most people voluntarily opt into it. It is usually a conscious choice, so why should the onus be shouldered briefly by the Government or the employer?

People should not be paid for simply responding to their innate instinct to propagate the species.

Why on earth, when our newspapers are peppered with tales of abused babies and toddlers, should we be encouraging people to have children?

Wouldn't it be more sensible to use the funds to hold compulsory childcare workshops for those about to conceive or to run screening tests on couples to see if they would be suitable parents?

Anyone who is spurred to procreate on the basis of paid parental leave surely is not an appropriate candidate to be a parent.

And - unpalatable as the thought may be - there are people who will make certain they get exactly what they are entitled to.

Groups advocating paid parental leave say that it minimises financial loss after the birth of a child. But why should the loss be minimised?

Parenthood is a never-ending series of costs and compromises, and the sooner new parents understand that, the better.

Temporarily masking the fiscal consequences is akin to placing a Band-aid on a gunshot wound.

And isn't the proposed paid parental leave rewarding the wrong group? What about those who opt not to have children?

If anyone deserves a financial bonus it is them - for not contributing another citizen to put pressure on our resources.

Each child born represents a potential drain on health, education, welfare - and an increase in pollution, consumption and landfills.

The public-minded people remaining child-free are doing the rest of us a favour. Why should they be penalised?

Advocates say that this paid leave helps parents to act in the best interests of the child.

Surely if a financial incentive is required to encourage people to act in the best interests of their offspring, we have reached an all-time low as a society.

At the least, any paid leave should be means-tested. Those who genuinely could not survive without it may have a strong case, as there is no reason the economically disadvantaged should be discouraged from having children.

But well-off parents - for whom a short loss of income is merely an inconvenience - should not be eligible.

Having children is an eternal stream of ups and downs, and they should just get used to it.

After the inconvenience of pregnancy, labour, breast-feeding, changing nappies and sleepless nights, any financial considerations surely pale into insignificance for many people.

It does raise the issue, though, that if a poorer family really cannot survive those first few weeks without handouts, how will they get through the remaining 800-plus weeks until the child turns 16 and can provide for itself?

If money is truly that tight, surely they would at least question the wisdom of creating another mouth to feed.

What is so magical about six or 12 weeks anyway?

It is not as if after that arbitrary point the babies can exactly look after themselves.

So this leave is only delaying facing the inevitable problem of how to combine earning an income with rearing a child.

It is just a short-term panacea, another impotent nod to political correctness, not an ongoing solution.

Creches in the workplace would be a longer-term and more functional answer than the few weeks of quick-fix. A creche would take a child right through to its schooldays and give the parent the best of both worlds - the ability to continue earning while having easy access to the child.

Perhaps the debate about the funding of paid parental leave could be delayed until we have ascertained whether it is actually the best option available.

* Shelley Bridgeman is an Auckland writer.