Parental Leave

PM slams paid maternity leave

Last year Mr Howard indicated he was considering sweeping changes to family benefits and the introduction of a lump sum homemaker allowance for parents. But he now says the existing policy arrangements are "about right" and warning against paid maternity leave as the answer.
In an article published in the latest issue of Options, a policy journal published by federal Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Mr Howard says he is not against paid maternity leave in principle but has a realistic view of what it can achieve.

Edited extract of an article written by Prime Minister John Howard in in the latest issue of Options, a policy journal published by federal Liberal MP Christopher Pyne

Of all the principles that are at the foundation of the Liberal Party none is more important than the principle of individual choice.

It is in this context that the Government has focused its attention on the issue of work and family realising that the challenge is to confront this issue in a way that does not seek to mandate behaviour but respects choices and the different preferences of families.

Our work suggests that women tend to fall into one of three groups:
· home-centred women who prefer to be at home full-time looking after children; · work-centred women whose priority is overwhelmingly career oriented; and
. adaptive women whose hopes and aspirations are in the areas of both work and family.

Significantly, around 50 per cent of families with children had one parent working full time and the other either not working or working part time. We also see that the most common family configuration in Australia is now the one and a quarter income family.

One vital lesson that governments need to draw from research is that no one policy will fit all families. In other words, we need to have a range of policies to assist families in a range of situations if we are to provide genuine choice for parents to balance their work and family lives.

Over the last seven years we have made considerable progress to enhance the choices available to families in balancing their responsibilities.

Our employment polices have worked to create more flexible workplaces, thereby helping women realise their workforce choices.

Since 1996 the female unemployment rate has fallen and the female labour force participation rate increased. Our workplace relations reforms have opened up flexibility for family friendly practices to be introduced at the workplace level.

The Workplace Relations Act includes provisions to protect and assist women in the workplace including a provision for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value.

The Government has also actively encouraged the spread of regular part time work by removing unnecessary and restrictive conditions such as limits on the number of hours that can be worked by part time employees. The number of women in part time jobs has increased from around 1.5 million in March 1996 to almost two million in March 2003.

Workplace agreements have also made it easier to balance work and family responsibilities. Nearly 80 per cent of workplace agreements contain at least one family friendly or flexible working hours provision.

In my address to the Liberal Women's Conference at the Liberal Party's National Convention this year I indicated that any idea that the Government opposed paid maternity leave in principle was wrong.

I added that it is also important to keep the issue in perspective and that we should not fall into the trap of attributing outcomes to paid maternity leave that simply aren't going to accrue.

A first argument advanced in favour of such a scheme is that it will improve job security for women contemplating children. What is often not acknowledged is that the Workplace Relations Act provides a year's job security for permanent employees in the form of a statutory guarantee of up to 12 months unpaid parental leave for permanent employees with more than 12 months standing with their current employer.

The Government's emphasis on the negotiation of pay and conditions at the individual workplace level allows for paid maternity leave to be negotiated where it is a high priority for employees. There is a concern, however, that a union sponsored test case may result in the provision for paid maternity leave in awards.

Such an outcome would impose an unreasonable financial burden on business and the consequence could be that the job security of women could be weakened and job opportunities limited. It is unsustainable to suggest that paid maternity leave would have a significant influence on Australia's fertility rate.

The pattern overseas suggests that there is no correlation between the two. The United States, a country without a paid maternity leave scheme, has a higher fertility rate than many European nations that do have such schemes. One of the more persuasive arguments in favour of paid maternity leave involves the variability in available employer schemes.

I appreciate that the women who have access to paid maternity leave are more likely to be in higher-paid and full-time jobs, partly because employers may provide paid maternity leave schemes in order to attract and retain key staff.

In addition, employers in a financial position to compete for talent are often in high-skill, high-pay, high-profit industries. This means that women in lower-paid, part-time and casual work are less likely to have access to paid maternity leave.

It is also true that some paid maternity leave schemes involve relatively short durations and payment may be conditional on the mother returning to work in the same job. Our response to these issues, however, is to rule out imposing onerous obligations upon employers, particularly in small business.

Finally, it is also argued that a government funded paid maternity leave scheme would assist in meeting the cost of children. This is undeniably true. However, this is an argument to help all mothers and not simply those in the workforce.

For these reasons the Government's position is that paid maternity leave is still under consideration as part of a range of measures in the work and family area. We are not opposed to it in principle but we have a realistic view of what it can achieve.

The decisions surrounding work and family are fundamental life decisions. They involve when to have a child, what caring arrangements for children are most appropriate, how long to stay out of the workforce, when to return and on what basis. These are decisions for each family to make.

The principles of the Liberal Party inform us that the purpose of government is to assist families to make the choices that best meet their individual needs rather than to mandate a particular behaviour.

The Government believes that the architecture of the present arrangements is sound although there is scope for improving policy around the key transitions between home and work.

As economic circumstances permit, we will seek to bring forward measures to build on these existing structures.

© 2001 Community & Public Sector Union - State Public Services Federation (CPSU-SPSF) - National Office

http://www.cpsu-spsf.asn.au/campaigns/women/20030806_153.html
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005