Abbott could be the father of a motherhood revolution
Jessica Irvine
06 Feb 06:00am
Tony Abbott doesn’t have a woman problem. What he has is a radical, feminist policy proposal that, if elected, will contribute enormously to the advancement of women in the workplace.
Every woman and man in Australia should support Abbott’s proposal to pay new mums six months parental leave at their existing salary, or the minimum wage, which ever is greater.
Labor’s paid parental leave scheme – the first ever introduced in Australia - is worth $606.50 a week (the minimum wage) for 18 weeks for women who earn less than $150,000 in the year before their child’s birth. It is taxed. Women who receive it lose the $5000 baby bonus and family tax benefit Part B during the duration.
So, for instance, a woman on $100,000 would receive a maximum of $10,917, minus her tax rate of 37 per cent, so $6,878. And she loses the baby bonus, putting her not much further ahead. Such a woman would likely still rely on her company’s parental leave scheme to support herself. If paid at her full salary for 10 weeks – about average – this would add about $20,000, compared to the $50,000 she would have earned working.
Labor’s scheme ensures very low income women are not penalised for the decision to have a baby. But for high income women, the penalty is still great and a financial deterrent to having kids.
Abbott’s scheme would provide all new mothers with 26 weeks leave paid at their existing salary, or the minimum wage, whichever is greater. Our woman earning $100,000 would take home $50,000. For women earning more than $150,000 a year, the amount would be capped at $75,000 - hardly a millionaire’s salary.
While Labor’s scheme is taxpayer funded, Abbott’s scheme would be funded by a 1.5 per cent levy on the nation’s 3,370 biggest companies.
Critics say it is an overly generous scheme for “millionaire mums”. Or how about a replacement salary to help keep some of our nation’s best and brightest minds attached to the workforce?
At present, our top female leaders in business are either not eligible for the government’s paid parental leave scheme or it is well below the value of their own company’s scheme, if they have one at all.
This hybrid system of government and private company funded parental leave means the expense of a woman taking parental leave is often born on an individual company’s balance sheet.
This creates a disincentive for individual companies to hire or promote a young woman over a young man, the later whom they could be sure they won’t have to pay to disappear for weeks on end.
Spreading the cost of parental leave across all big businesses, as Abbott’s scheme does, removes this disincentive for individual companies to discriminate against women.
In fact, such a broad based levy – which would eventually replace company schemes – would benefit companies who employ a lot of women, and hit hardest those companies who do not employ many women. I’m ok with that.
But why pay wealthy women more than poorer women for performing essentially the same act of raising a child?
High income earning women embody a lot of skills and know how that boosts not only their own economic productivity but that of their children. Studies show that the children of highly educated women have better income prospects themselves. We want highly skilled women to contribute to the workforce and we also want them to care for children. We want them to do both.
But wealthy women also tend to have wealthy husbands and so be at greater risk of leaving the workforce for extended periods to have kids, because, well, her family can afford for her to.
This keeps women from progressing to top jobs. It’s not good enough. We must help women crack into the top ranks. Female leaders tend to create more female and family friendly work practices.
Tony Abbott doesn’t have a woman problem. He does, however, have a potential business problem. If elected, Abbott will sure encounter a revolt from business not wanting to pay the 1.5 per cent levy.
But enlightened employers shouldn’t complain. Sure, a new levy may potentially reduce profits and returns to shareholders. But guess who they are? You and me. And a levy may also slow growth in employee wages or overall employment, but this burden would, once again, be borne by workers.
It is we who must decide if we are willing to give up a little something as a society to help the women who give us life.
Reproduction of the workforce is necessary to sustain economic growth.
Women aren’t just having lovely holidays when they take parental leave. They are working, in a sense, for society and for business. They are giving birth to and nurturing a future generation of workers. None of us would be here to contribute to the economy if they hadn’t.
But for too long, the costs of that activity have fallen upon women. They show up in lower wages, fewer promotions and smaller retirement nest eggs. Too many women today still face the dire choice: career or baby. Mothers agonise about how long to take off before returning to work. Executive women too often feel compelled to return to stressful, high responsibility jobs too early.
So why not end the anguish and make it a flat six months for all mothers? Six months aligns with the minimum period for breastfeeding recommended by experts (if individual mothers are able to do so – not everyone can).
Abbott’s proposal to have a Productivity Commission inquiry into childcare and potential subsidies for nanny care is also a welcome step.
i guess we'll be finding out just how big a misogynist Arsie is, very soon...
The more we begin to view the costs of childcare not as a women’s problem, but an economic problem, the better off we’ll all be.
)
