Communist Party of Australia

It was the worst kept pre-budget “secret”. The federal government succumbed to growing pressure in the community and used Mother’s Day to announce the introduction of its paid parental leave scheme. Australia had become a bit of a laughing stock in this regard. Among OECD countries, only the US shared the distinction of having no guaranteed paid parental leave for workers.

Canada offers women 50 weeks and the UK 39 weeks. France, Sweden and Estonia have 18 months on full pay. Even Tanzania pays 14 weeks maternity leave. But rather than lift Australia into the ranks of comparable countries, the government settled for a second rate system that won’t come into operation until 2011.

The main features of the Rudd scheme are lifted from a draft report by the Productivity Commission. It is better than nothing but reflects the still-dominant neo-liberal attitude that paid parental leave is a luxury, particularly in these days of global economic recession. For a time it looked as though any move towards a scheme would be cut down by the Rudd government’s razor gang.

The scheme entails:

Paid leave funded mainly by the federal government for 18 weeks at roughly the equivalent of the minimum wage – $543.78 a week.
The payment is taxable.
It can start at the end of any employer provided leave but must begin within six months of the birth of the baby – you could miss out if you take employer provided leave at half pay.
None of it can be taken before the birth of the child.
It can be transferred to the father if he is the primary care giver.
It can’t be taken at half pay to extend the leave.
Recipients lose the $5,000 baby bonus.

The government scheme did not take up the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that father’s should receive two weeks leave. Neither does it compel employers to make superannuation payments while the caregiver is on leave. The scheme is not universal. “Stay at home” mums miss out but they will continue to receive the baby bonus and Family Tax Benefit Part B – a less generous deal. Primary care givers earning over $150,000 p.a. will not qualify. The Rudd government is said to be gunning for what is termed “middle class welfare” in this year’s Budget.

Knockers

Rumours of the scheme brought the Liberals out swinging with the usual complaints about debt and waste even though it is estimated to cost just $260 million a year. Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey used the creative argument that it is all-but-redundant; that many workers now have access to generous maternity leave. He cited BHP Billiton’s announcement during the week that it will offer 18 weeks parental leave at full pay to its workers.

“My fear about this being stretched out to 2011 is that the employers that want to continue, or who do implement maternity schemes will simply pull up stumps because now they know that the Rudd government, with taxpayers money, is going to step into the breach,” Hockey said on the ABC’s Insiders program on the morning of the announcement.

So what’s been holding them back until now? It’s a fact that less than a quarter of enterprise bargaining agreements in the country have paid maternity leave provisions. Fewer than that have paternity leave on offer. While 80 percent of the highly paid have access to parental leave, only 10 percent of very lowly paid women benefit. Only 1.7 percent of EBAs in hospitality provide maternity leave and 1.4 percent in retail. Casual workers generally receive no paid leave at all.

There was an urgent need for government intervention. Market forces, as could be predicted, had let families down in this crucial area.

Pressing for improvement

The ACTU has been campaigning for some time for a decent maternity leave scheme. The government’s new scheme does not deliver what is needed but the ACTU is pleased with the progress achieved and the increased flexibility granted for women with respect to the number of hours worked in the year leading up to the birth. However, unions still want:

A requirement for employers to top up the government payment to achieve full income replacement.
Flexibility on when mothers can take the leave; some may want to take part of it before the birth.
Flexibility when the payments start.
Choice to take leave at half pay to stretch the time off to 36 weeks.
Equivalent benefits for “stay at home” mothers.

Even the Productivity Com
mission draft report recognised that at least 26 weeks is needed for babies to bond properly with their mothers. The decision to introduce an 18-week scheme with niggardly payments shows that family life is still viewed as an obstacle to productivity.

The arguments against that stance are clear. Women now make up 45 percent of Australia’s full-time workforce. Nearly 90 percent of women who avail themselves of paid maternity leave return to work, bringing their valuable experience and training back with them. A related statistic is that 60 percent of families with dependents under 15 need both adults in paid employment to make ends meet. With so much at stake, we shouldn’t be forced to wait 18 months for a parental leave scheme.

Next article — Pacific Brands: union demands govt action

Back to index page