Opinion & Commentary
Let's review all family benefits, not just paid maternity leave
Over the past few weeks, we’ve heard a myriad of competing opinions about the possible introduction of a paid maternity leave scheme. Retail chains Myer and Aldi have rushed to introduce their own schemes before a statutory scheme is implemented. Unions say that current proposals for 14 weeks paid leave don’t go far enough and maternity leave should be paid for six months, while Pru Goward thinks we should scrap the Productivity Commission inquiry and just get on with it. Gerry Harvey believes that when it comes to the Baby Bonus, many new parents just spend it on flat screen TVs anyway.
But it’s time we all take a deep breath, and start thinking beyond the hype. The Productivity Commission has now released a discussion paper which aims to inform public submissions to its inquiry. Hopefully this will signal the end of the hyperbole, and the beginning of rational, informed debate.
We already have a number of benefits on offer – Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefits A and B, Child Care Benefit and Child Care Tax Rebate. If the Federal Government rushes into adding paid maternity leave on top of this, it would simply add another layer to the already dense system of middle class welfare in Australia.
It’s true that Australia is one of only two OECD countries which don’t have a paid maternity leave scheme, and there may well be a place for it here. But it should only be introduced as the result of a measured, objective investigation into the whole system of family benefits in Australia. The Productivity Commission is the right place for such an analysis.
The Baby Bonus was introduced by the previous government as an alternative to paid maternity leave, and now the current government is under pressure to scrap it amid accusations that its non-means tested nature makes it inequitable. Its critics claim that it is too costly to give the payment to middle and higher income families. This criticism will not be answered by the introduction of paid maternity leave.
With the Baby Bonus currently attracting so much public scrutiny, it would be foolish for the Government to adopt a paid maternity leave scheme without first addressing how the two payments will sit together. Will a paid maternity leave scheme replace the Baby Bonus or will they be paid in tandem? Will non working women receive a benefit to compensate them for being ineligible for maternity leave? Kevin Rudd’s reaction to criticism of the Baby Bonus has been to unequivocally rule out its abolition. But this is short sighted, and fails to take these questions into account. Instead, Rudd should expand the Productivity Commission’s terms of reference to specifically include the Baby Bonus as part of a broader investigation into government support for families.
Family benefits should be developed to achieve clearly stated objectives– the problem with the current system is that benefits have been layered one on top of the other, leaving us with a mess of competing objectives. Child Care Benefits are designed to help mums get back to work, while Family Tax Benefit B is designed to help mums to stay at home. Simply adding paid maternity leave on top of this only adds to the confusion.
We need to review the whole system of family benefits and ask ourselves ‘what are we trying to achieve?’ Do we want mums to stay at home with their kids, or do we want to get them back to work as soon as possible? Do we want to increase fertility rates, or promote equity between men and women in the workforce? Should women be given time to breastfeed and bond with their newborns? How much responsibility should fathers take in caring for their kids? Should we provide assistance to all families or direct help only at the neediest ones? Do we even want the Government to be making decisions about these questions anyway? Perhaps family policy should just be value neutral – allowing parents to make their own decisions about how to raise their children.
Instead of feeding into the current hype, it would be more useful if the government actually told us why they are considering introducing paid maternity leave. If the objective is labour force participation then paid maternity leave may be appropriate. If they are simply trying to ease financial pressure on families then another solution altogether might be what’s needed.
If we are serious about giving mums a choice of whether and when to go back to work, there may be a place for such a federally funded scheme. But simply adding paid maternity leave on top of the existing maze of family benefits will not fix the system. What is needed is objective, informed analysis – not hyperbole and hype.
Jessica Brown is a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies
