Yesterday Prime Minister Tony Abbott made a surprise announcement with his Treasurer Joe Hockey. Government funded paid parental leave will be taken away from some 80,000 parents who receive paid parental leave from their employer.
Those parents will be precluded from “double-dipping” Hockey and Abbott declared. The language makes all too clear how poorly understood paid parental leave is.
The current PPL scheme, introduced by Labour in 2011, provides 18 weeks of paid leave to the primary caregiver of a new baby in the 12 months following his or her birth. It is worth $11,500. As it stands parents are also entitled to receive paid parental leave from their employers. The new change means almost half of Australia’s new mums or 80,000 mums, will miss out from July 2016. Around 90,000 parents won’t be affected because they do not receive any paid parental leave from their employer.
Why should parents receive paid leave from two sources? Why are parents so greedy? I’m so glad you asked.
The Productivity Commission Report on Paid Parental Leave in 2009 noted that there is compelling evidence of health and welfare benefits for mothers and babies from a period of postnatal absence from work for the primary caregiver of around six months.
Six months paid parental leave is a pipe dream for most Australian families. Having the government scheme operate in conjunction with what employers are already paying, means more families get closer to that 26 week mark of paid leave. And the cost is shared between taxpayers and employers.
The purpose of paid parental leave is two-fold: it recognises the importance of caring and bonding, particularly in those first 26 weeks of a baby’s life, and it recognises the importance of keeping employees connected with the workforce. There are social and economic benefits from both, which is why it is not merely a feel good cash grab. It is a legitimate investment in Australia’s future.
Even before we take into account Tony Abbott’s promise of 26 weeks paid leave at salary, this is a shocking change in policy. It undermines one of the key objectives of the existing PPL scheme.
To say the news has been poorly received is an understatement of considerable proportions.
Australia’s pre-eminent academic in paid parental leave Professor Marian Baird from Sydney University has called it the “mother of all insults”.
The Productivity Commission recommended that mothers who work be allowed to combine both,” Professor Baird said. “It was a deliberate choice – designed to help lengthen the period women could take off work. The former Labor government introduced the current scheme in 2011 because there was no government funded scheme. So now, taking this government leave time away from women – when our scheme is still not providing a long enough period of leave as it is – is a massive step backwards.”
Kate Carnell, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the move is unlikely to save the government money as business are likely to explore other avenues to compensate parents in their employ.
Chief Executive Women’s president Dianne Smith-Gander described the move as disappointing given the combination of taxpayer and employer contributions was a necessary ingredient for the sustainability of parents’ working lives.
Ged Kearney the CEO of the ACTU expressed her anger: “Such hypocrisy is hard to imagine, let alone deal with.”
Fair Agenda’s petition in this regard gathered 1000 signatures in just a few hours. (If you want to add your name to that list click here.
Neither Joe Hockey or Tony Abbott are unfamiliar with a negative reception from the public. It something both appear to accept. I do wonder, however, whether in this case they have completely underestimated the ramifications of this choice.
Tony Abbott’s list of achievements as minister for women is woefully short so the expectation of any real leadership from him is slim. But in this announcement he has well and truly outdone himself. He has completely hoodwinked the women of Australia.
I can’t determine what is worse: that we were hoaxed to this extent or that the government expects the women of Australia to tolerate this hoax. There is no doubt that Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have a lot riding on this budget. It is make or break certainly for one of them and possibly even for both of them. In that position the decision to dupe women and put them last speaks volumes.
For however disenfranchised Joe and Tony believe women are – implicitly or explicitly – women aren’t disenfranchised. And particularly not when they are given grounds to unite together like never before. Perhaps that will be the enduring legacy of Abbott’s tenure as minister for women: a permanent reminder that without adequate representation women will not be adequately represented. That much is crystal clear.