I know I’m supposed to be celebrating a great Victory, because Women have finally made up some ground in the passing last night of the legislation for the payment of parental leave. I’ll be seen as ungrateful for still carping. But in the end, women with workforce attachment may clear something over $2000 extra through this payment, and some will gain nothing.
The vagaries of the taxation and timing may mean these will be better off taking the Baby Bonus and Family Tax benefit B.
As a long term activist I am pleased we have something and the support of both major parties for the concept. I can remember the failure of earlier attempts after the 12 months unpaid leave in the late seventies. We hoped paid leave would follow soon, but it didn’t. Some public sector workers were given paid leave, and a few private sector ones but most low paid mothers had no access to paid leave.
An attempt under Keating failed when he worried about discriminating against mothers at home and made it a universal maternity payment at eight times the weekly unemployment rate. The next major effort by Pru Goward under Howard failed for the same reason and created the baby bonus, another welfare type payment but not income tested.
The change of government and some heavy lobbying by women’s groups was for a clearly work based leave payment to create a clear link between parenting and jobs. The result of a Productivity report and government decisions is a strange hybrid that will offer payment of 18 weeks at minimum wage to those giving birth after December 31st 2010 but does not include a leave entitlement.
For those women who had no paid entitlement this is a victory, and maybe for those who will increase smaller payments already awarded, but it has been interesting listening to the Greens and Opposition identifying the flaws in scheme. The question is whether the Bill is a good starting point or will its difficulties will make it hard to build on. The now legislated review in two years time will be very necessary.
The debate on the Parental Leave Bill in the Senate was underway when I started writing this, and there wasn’t much doubt that it would go through because the Opposition was committed to support it. They needed to do so because they could hardly claim credibility for their ‘’better version and policy switch, if they destroyed this one. This didn’t stop Rudd trying to set them up as a problem by ordering them to get out of the way a couple of days ago.
The major flaw in the Bill is its lack of leave entitlement so it offers a payment for those who have the 12 months employment with one employer, ie continuity of services that qualifies them for 12 months unpaid leave under the Fair Work provisions. However, there will be about 20% of new mothers who have the employment qualifications for the payment but do not qualify for unpaid leave. To take the 18 weeks off, they will either have to rely on employer goodwill or maybe have to leave their jobs to spend time with their newborn.
Hansen Young and others made the point that this is a social security type payment, not a genuine workplace leave payment, and this is reinforced because eligibility assessments and the money comes from the Family Assistance Office, who will also pay those who have no long term employer. The government expects those employers in the long term workplaces to integrate the payments with their usual payroll, despite the different weekly pay rate, no superannuation and no payroll tax.
A survey of employers by the Bank of Qld and noises made by the Opposition suggest that many employers don’t want to take on that role.
Peter Strong, chief executive of the National Independent Retailer’s Association, says this is a bad decision. “Every Government always says they will not increase red tape. This addition is completely unnecessary, it just adds an extra part of the process,” he says. “They want to keep employees connected through this process, but you shouldn’t impose new red tape on a business just out of philosophy. The way to stop all this is to just make the payments directly to the person.”
This view is supported by both the AIG and ACCI in their submissions to the Senate inquiry which expressed concern over business’s role in distributing the payments to employees. “To insert a third party, such as the Government agency and workplace inspectorate, into the employment relationship, will create undue unnecessary workplace disputation and friction between employers and employees,” ACCI said. Next year will show whether the connections to employers are working.
Therefore the revolution it ain’t. It may well fail the basic test of changing the way that employers view parenting and paid work. Despite the government’s good intentions about reinforcing workplace connections, administration complexities may interfere with the maintenance of workplace relationships.
Rudd was on The 7.30 Report boasting about the stunning reform for 148,000 mums, which is a bit of an oversell. The government’s trashing of the good aspects of the opposition’s scheme will make it harder for to make similar changes. The opposition in their proposed amendment stated they:
‘(e) reject the Government’s representation of a paid parental leave scheme as a social security measure and instead affirms that it is a valid workplace entitlement that must come with a superannuation component to arrest the gross inadequacy of female retirement incomes’.
A Diversity Council meeting said leading employers largely welcomed the introduction of the Federal Government’s Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme but called for any future scheme to be as simple and as easy as possible to administer.
The Government made some minor changes as a result of the Senate Inquiry and included some objects of this Act which after the usual health related issues stated it would:
(c) encourage women to continue to participate in the workforce; and
(d) promote equality between men and women, and the balance between work and family life.
It sounds good if a little ambitious for a single Act. Whether this change is a harbinger of a new view of the workplace and women remains to be seen.
Given the way that some of the loony right attacked the Bill, including Fielding’s bizarre assumption that women would deliberately set up a late term abortion to gain the payment, there are still problems out there. However, the support of the idea by both parties suggests finally an acceptance that women are in the workforce to stay.
Eva Cox is right. Women in Australia are not necessary treated like equal partners in the society. It is so patronising to even discuss the issue that has been solved even in less opulent countries long, long ago. In Europe, even in former Soviet block countries maternity leave is the right not a privilege and covers ALL women equally.
In most of those countries maternity leave is up to three years; one year paid for. It is not about women. And it is not a ‘women’ issue. We are talking about Australian CITIZENS and the welfare of their children.
Just wondering when women of Australia will stand up for their rights to be equally paid for the same job as men and when women of Australia will stop being treated as a second income. When women of AUstralia will get the chance to have equal opportunity employment status based on individual case merit rather than their birth/marriage certificate?
Most of the ‘successful’ women in Australia I know of are somehow ‘related’ or ‘connected’. And average brainy, even highly educated female does not have much chance to succeed. Many young university graduates struggle to even get a job – any job.
And most of young ladies face a very difficult challenge: to get a job to be financialy secure, to start a family, and not be finacially secure, and then lose the opportunity to be employed according to her qualifications after some years of looking after the family.
Taking up maternity leave may be a risky business, anyway. Will it secure safe return to to the job? ( ‘You are not pregnant, again, Mrs. Jones, are you’ – syndrom)
Just wondering: What are all those females doing in our parliaments?? I know of at least one who kept reading questions written by friendly male MPs.
Eva’s article has left me with a few questions.
Firstly, I symphasise with employers who will find that their payroll system no longer has the required features. I expect that this will add substantial cost and a raft of knotty problems. Imagine trying to track down a missing payment via a Commonwealth bureaucracy, an employer’s payroll section and a recent mother. It’s a recipe for administrative disaster.
Second, why the superannuation angle? Welfare is intended for immediate needs, is it not? There are other types of welfare available to those who run out of personal resources at other stages of their lives. Superannuation is another question entirely. There is no obvious need for superannuation payments from the public purse towards a parent’s superannuation balance. Either the person will have adequate superannuation by age 65, or whatever, or will qualify for the age pension.
This is a good first step, but the review in 2 years will likely indicate a need for major amendment.
If you want educated women to be mothers and utilise their education in their career then paid parental leave is a long overdue step.
John Bennetts
For some reasons welfare payments are known as ‘government handouts’ and this is not the subject of the discussion.
How come that so many other countries have no problem with maternity leave scheme? Perhaps we can ask how they do it?
@Rena Zurawel:
I do not appreciate being misquoted by you. “Government handouts” indeed! Of course I didn’t say that or anything like it, either in reference to maternity leave or any other of the social programs of government. I did draw attention to a couple of points in the original article. I broadly agree with Eva Cox’s article.
My questions are simply that.
Please refrain, in future, from trying to put words into others’ mouths. It is bad mannered and unproductive.
Your initial rambling spray was worth criticism in its own right, but I declined. Well, it’s now time for you to sit up and take note.
We are not in a soviet era state, neither is this discussion about equal pay. Indeed, it is about a very clear need for our society to not penalise parents of either gender, but especially women, who need time away from their career to raise their family. These women are entitled to resume their careers and to at least basic support from the community as they undertake this essential community (and family) service.
Rena, your chip on your shoulder re equal pay, equal rights to progression in your career and so forth as mentioned towards the bottom of your rant cuts both ways. The same can be said thruthfully of males who are held back because they went to the wrong school or come from any of a number of other socially unequal backgrounds.
Try not to see everything as either a political conspiracy, a personal insult or an offense against your gender and the world will be a better place for you and for all of us who contribute to Crikey’s discussions and find ourselves wading through your bile.
I fully support the parental leave legislation, but as a first step. As Eva pointed out, it will require extensive reworking to take the bugs out, but it is a giant step, supported by both sides of the house. It is a victory for common sense and fairness.
So, please do not misquote me in future.