I bring news of a land down under: according to the Australian press, the number of active dads is expected to double in the next five years (according to the The Australia Institute, though I haven't found any Institute report that talks about it). Now that sounded to me like the kind of happily overoptimistic number that was more or less plucked out of mid-air, but still ... the story mentioned that 53 percent of Australian businesses have paid parental leave. Let me say that again: 53 percent.

As I've mentioned in the past, Australia has family leave laws similar to the U.S. (and different from much of the rest of the world), in that paid leave isn't legally required. But unlike the U.S., it sounds like Aussie companies are stepping up to the bat, urged by the national chamber of commerce. Whaddaya say, Tom?

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mentioned that Full Time Father has responded to my response to his posting on the additional money for childcare. I'm out of my league on this one (someone call Mickey with these welfare questions), but let me throw my central point out there again: if the country is going to require/encourage low income parents to work (both within and outside of the welfare system), it owes it to those parent to make child care as good as possible. This seems utterly outside the realm of making the choice about whether to stay home. The money, from what I understand, is aimed at those with the least choice in the matter.