Paid Parental Leave On The Table
Posted by Amber Robinson at 2:52 PM on September 29, 2008
The Productivity Commission has released it’s long-awaited draft report on paid parental leave — and the news is good.
Under the proposed scheme, 18 weeks paid maternity leave would replace the baby bonus for working women, who would receive a flat $543.78-a-week payment of around $11,854 over 18 weeks.
Dads and same sex partners also get a slice of the pie, receiving two weeks “use it or lose it” paid leave and the option of participating in the 18-week scheme if the mother went back to work within the first few months after birth.
Employers will have to make superannuation contributions, which will cost businesses $70 million once the tax deductability of superannuation was factored in (compared to the 1.3 billion the maternity scheme will cost.
One thing I like about the scheme (of course it would be great if it was 24 weeks or longer) is that regardless of whether the new mother was part-time or casual, all women who have worked with an employer for more than 12 months and for more than 10 hours a week will be eligible. However, higher income women who go back to work within 12 months will be taxed, so will lose some of the benefit that way.
One conentious issue is that non-working women will only receive the current $5000 “baby bonus”. Still enough to buy a plasma baby essentials, I’m sure some women out of the workforce because of previous children or other circumstances will feel that the system is unfair.
However I am firmly of the issue that paid maternity leave is about job retention and productivity rather than social welfare.
What do you think of the proposed scheme?
[Source]
Amber Robinson, I find your comments on the “Plasma” quite insulting. I am a first time mum, on non paid maternity leave and we are using our baby bonus to help pay for our home and car loans whilst I was off work caring for our child. During this time we have decided that I shall stay at home and take care of our daughter full time. This is a decision made on the basis that financially we are just scraping through but we’d rather that and see our daughters firt steps etc. We would like to have a second child and once again some form of baby bonus for us would once again assist us in our bills whilst I am not working. I also used to earn more than my partner! I believe you have children to be parents, not to hand them over to others so you can just be weekend parents. I understand that some people have to work to survive but we chose to reduce our debts and live on the minimum as our family was the priority. I think paid maternity leave is great, but what about those mums already with children that have already chosen to sacrifice their careers to raise more children as there was no paid maternity leave to return to. We are trying to do the right thing by our family and employer yet do you see us as just a social welfare case if we need and use a baby bonus?????? Think about every kind of mother before you so liberally use such insults. Otherwise I’m dissapointed you mind is so small. One other thing, do self employed fathers get any part of the use it or lose it 2 weeks?
Hi Kate – the plasma comment was intended as a joke, I am sorry if anyone took offence to it.
I think perhaps you have misinterpreted the article, the draft legislation as it stands would still give stay-at-home mothers such as yourself the baby bonus.
Most working women also see their child’s first steps and are not just weekend parents. Many women only go back part-time after the birth of their child, or use family support for childcare.