For parents, it's hard to think of anything more infuriating than learning the politician who, on Mothers Day last year labelled mothers as "double dippers" for claiming both their employer and government parental leave entitlements, is now enjoying a taxpayer-funded high life in Washington complete with free babysitting services.
But try this.
More News Videos
Paid parental leave backlash
The Government wants to rein in spending on paid parental leave to save money in the budget but there's a lot of opposition to the proposal. Courtesy ABC News, Channel 7.
Very soon, Australia will inherit the title of the country with the most miserly paid parental leave scheme for mothers in the developed world.
Until now, it has always been possible to point the finger at the US, which currently has no guaranteed paid leave for primary caregivers.
Even Donald Trump recognises the injustice of it all, pledging six weeks paid maternity leave for mothers (and yes, only mothers – it is Trump, after all).
His opponent, Hilary Clinton, has pledged 12 weeks for the primary carer, paid at two thirds of their salary – the equivalent of eight weeks at full pay.
How does Australia compare?
According to a 2015 league table assembled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, our 18 weeks of minimum wage payments works out to 7.6 weeks of average full-time pay.
![Australia's government paid parental leave scheme is about to become the most miserly in the developed world.](/web/20161031180227im_/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/content/dam/images/g/s/a/t/c/7/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gsc6kq.png/1477861795240.jpg)
This puts us second worst in the world, behind everyone except the US. Typically, countries offer much longer periods of paid leave and at higher rates.
None of this includes top-ups from employers, presently the subject of debate in Australia. Indeed, the OECD data only underscores the importance of such top ups, given we have the second-most stingy government program in the developed world.
![](/web/20161031180227im_/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/content/dam/images/g/s/c/b/4/x/image.related.articleLeadNarrow.300x0.gsc6kq.png/1477710935450.jpg)
Other countries are moving forward with paid leave, while we go backwards. Worse, there seems now to exist some genuine confusion about the purpose of paid parental leave in the first place.
Is it to keep women at home with their babies? Or is to get them back to work?
Let's be clear: it's both.
We want women to have enough time at home to recuperate from the physical requirements of child birth and to get up to speed on their new life with a newborn. Paying women a salary alleviates the financial pressure to go back to work before they are ready.
But make no mistake. We also want women to go back to work. Yes, because it helps pay the bills. But also – heaven forbid she admit it – many women actually enjoy their work. Gasp! Providing paid leave actually acts as an incentive for mothers to maintain their link to the workforce because to get it, you have to be in a job in the first place. Mothers contemplating more children must return to work so they can receive the payment again.
But let's dig deeper into the conservative backlash against paid leave.
Why should taxpayers help parents at all? Why make those without rug-rats share the burden of breeders? Some economists view the decision to have kids as a private consumption decision. We have them because we like them and therefore we should bear the entire burden of that choice.
But for women, the choice is somewhat of an illusion. Sure, families might choose whether or not to have children. But women can't choose if they'll be the parent to actually bear them.
Science currently presents no suitable gestational alternative to women growing babies inside their own bodies. Getting them out is an inherently messy business, from which some period of recuperation is necessary, although exact times can vary.
Being possessed of milk-producing mammary glands, women are also commonly called upon to provide babies with a nutrient-rich source of sustenance throughout the day and night – although more families rely upon infant formula as an entirely suitable alternative than feel comfortable admitting it. After all, only 17.6 per cent of Australian babies are exclusively breastfed to the World Health Organisations six-month recommendation, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics data.
So, at its heart, paid parental leave is a remedy for a fundamental inequality that women face.
The physical burden of childbirth is unavoidable, but women should not also have to shoulder the financial burden of lost income and superannuation following the birth of a child, which can add up to many tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime.
But it's not just about women. Men suffer, too, from our present system of parental leave, which denies fathers sufficient time at home with their children.
The main failing of our current system – aside from its generosity – is that it still presupposes the existence of a primary caregiver – and by default a secondary carer – and not the existence of two co-caregivers with equal responsibility. Or, better yet, two equal carers, supported by a team of highly qualified, professional child carers to replace the village of unpaid carers we have lost in our modern lives.
Australia chose in the 1990s to adopt the language of "parental leave", rather than maternity and paternity leave, to promote gender neutrality. But women remain by far the overwhelming recipients of parental leave, given the need to decide upfront, often while still in hospital fumbling around with breast feeding, which partner should be nominated as the primary carer.
Other countries have maintained the maternity and paternity distinction, and shaped each leave entitlement to recognise the high upfront burden on women's bodies of child birth and then a greater role for dads, or partners, in following months. A system that normalised a situation in which mothers received three months paid leave, followed by three months for dad, for example, would neutralise the discrimination women face in the workforce and give both parents a more equal stake in child-rearing.
Parents have a right to be furious. We're a long way away from the fair and equitable system of paid leave, supported by high quality, affordable childcare, that they deserve.
149 comments
Comment are now closed