The headlines said it all. 'Mums delayed births to boost bonus'. 'Baby bonus a health risk, say doctors'. And this from Herald Sun columnist and mother of two Robyn Riley: 'Dollars but no sense'.
According to a report released this month 'hundreds' of mothers delayed giving birth last year to be eligible for the government's higher baby bonus ($4133, up from $3166). And expect much of the same next July when it's bumped up to $5000.
The subtext was palpable. 'Selfish' women taking advantage of the system. The fact they were pregnant just made it worse. They put their and, more importantly, their child's health at risk. And for what? Less than $1000.
But rather than coming across scores of heavily pregnant Australian women across Australia with their legs firmly crossed, the University of Melbourne report 'Born (Again) On the First of July' found that only '687 births were moved from June 2006 to July 2006, representing about seven per cent of births'.
It also found that the delay was 'most probably' due to the 'timing of planned caesarean section and inducement procedures', both already widely practised by women seeking to fit the birth of their babies in and around a vacancy in their obstetrician's diary.
One thing the report didn't explore was why the women held off past their due dates in the first place. Here's a theory: paid maternity leave. Or, more to the point, a lack thereof.
Currently, working women are entitled to 52 weeks of unpaid leave (shared between both parents) after 12 months continuous service with one employer.
What this breeds (sorry) is anxiety. A survey of 165 women, also released by the University of Melbourne, found that women with no access to maternity leave were more 'worried, depressed and irritable'.
'Working conditions have an impact on women's psychological and emotional wellbeing during pregnancy,' said the report's author Amanda Cooklin. 'In particular, the worry about financial security and ongoing employment after the birth leaves women feeling very vulnerable during such a crucial phase of their lives.'
Any wonder they felt compelled to hold out for an extra $1000? (Or $967 to be exact which, take it from me, buys a decent number of nappies. Or a new pram, cot, change table or any other 'necessary' accoutrement for baby.)
More worrying is the Australian Institute of Family Studies report that found that even those with access