One thing is certain about paid parental leave; it generates a lot of discussion. It is understandably an issue that divides the population in many ways so it is not surprising that Tony Abbott’s parental leave scheme has sparked such vigorous debate.
One perspective that has been raised consistently, though perhaps more often in the comments sections than the features themselves, is the notion that having a baby is a personal choice that should be privately funded. On the one hand it is difficult to argue with this.
The decision to have children is personal so why should anyone, other than the parents, foot the bill? If you can’t survive financially without the government or an employer stumping up for maternity leave, then you obviously can’t afford to have children, can you? A similar argument is made about childcare fees and rebates; again, if you can’t afford to have children, don’t have them.
Obviously, as someone who has children, arguing against that seems self-serving. Of course, you might think, I just want as much paid leave and financial assistance as possible, but the truth is it’s not that simple.
This issue is much bigger than any single person’s decision to have children. I certainly didn’t have my children to fulfil any civic duty and I don’t feel entitled, in any personal sense, to be rewarded for having them. But neither of those things alters the fact that having children does fulfil a civic role; it guarantees the continuation of society and it impacts a nation’s future wealth.
My children alone might not affect the economic prosperity of this country (though I suppose I could cross my fingers and hope), but, collectively, the children of my generation can and will. In the same way that, collectively, the members of my generation, and the one before and afterwards, can and will impact Australia’s future.
At least we would if we could. But none of us can impact national productivity or prosperity if we cannot access the workforce or if we cannot utilise the full extent of our education. If women weren’t educated and didn’t work and were simply expected to be the primary caregivers to children, it would be difficult to monetise their fiscal contribution to the workforce. In that situation, introducing paid parental leave, might see nonsensical. But that’s not the situation.
Which is the reason the argument that previous generations managed to raise children without the benefit of paid parental leave isn’t persuasive. Children aren’t new but the social and economic dynamics into which they are born have changed dramatically over the past few decades.
Far more Australian women work, than don’t work. Australian women are as highly educated as men, if not more. Currently Australia has one of the lowest rates of educated women participating in the workforce in the world and, alarmingly, one of the highest rates of educating women in the world. It means we are investing an enormous amount of money educating women for minimal return and it’s unavoidable that having children contributes to that situation.
That gap is the reason it’s vital – from an economic viewpoint – to implement adequate infrastructure to facilitate working parents having children. It is in that context in which paid parental leave needs to be considered.
On its own the impact of paid parental leave might seem insignificant; a bonus financial payment for a family having a child. But, collectively, paid parental leave has the potential to act as a steady bridge that enables parents to walk in and out of the workforce after having children.
This matters not because individual parents need to be indulged for having children but because aside from being parents they’re also workers; they’re nurses and physiotherapists and lawyers and accountants and teachers and bankers and pharmacists. They fulfil valuable roles in the community. They’re individuals who pay taxes, who will have inevitably benefitted, to some degree, from public funds in their training and education, and can make a positive contribution to the economy. In that regard, irrespective of any social rationale, we all have a vested interest in making it as easy as possible for parents returning to work.
Our lives are no longer as simple as one parent working and one parent at home and it is unquestionable that the more of us who work the better off our country will be. Paid parental leave is not about one person’s decision to work or not to work, or to have children or not. It’s about building a piece of infrastructure that will facilitate parents to combine work and family and the collective benefit of that is exhaustive.
I have heard from many women without children throughout this election campaign who have wondered, legitimately, where the policies for them are. Mothers are being wooed left, right and centre while women without children have, largely, been ignored. It’s a voice that isn’t being heard and I agree, unreservedly, that’s an issue that needs to be addressed. But I would also argue that paid parental leave matters for men and women without children as much as it matters for mothers and fathers.
In the same way a comprehensive healthcare system benefits the whole population – whether you’re personally sick or not – so too does infrastructure like paid parental leave, or affordable childcare, that facilitates the continuing workforce participation of as many Australians as possible.