The Coalition's Paid "Parental" Leave policy
So far this election I’ve managed to avoid lengthy rants about the various rubbish policies both major parties are spouting. But this maternity leave thing is starting to tick me off.
There’s been a lot of argument about the cost and how it will be paid for. And there’s been a bit of argument about whether it creates some world leading middle-class welfare (spoiler: it does).
But I’m a bit confused about why there is so little discussion about the structure of the policy itself. Because quite frankly, it’s pretty sexist.
The policy is called “Paid Parental Leave”, but it’s really just “maternity leave” with some pretty weak provisions for fathers who want to stay home instead.
Here’s some interesting examples. I currently earn more than my partner. If we had a baby and I wanted to stay home to take care of it I’d be paid at my wage. If my partner wanted to stay home, he’d be paid at his lower wage. Seems fair so far. But when the wages are reversed, the policy changes.
My sister earns less than her partner, a pretty normal situation in Australia at the moment, but one that is slowly equalising. If my sister and her partner have a baby and she stays home to care for it, she’ll be paid at her lower wage. But if her high earning partner wants to stay home, he will now be paid at her lower wage.
Men and women are treated unequally under this policy. I’m pretty sure that’s the definition of sexism.
And it’s based on some pretty spurious reasoning.
There are two reason’s given in the Coalition’s policy document.
Reason 1: The reason why the Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme is pegged to the mother’s wage is to ensure there is not a perverse incentive to send a mother back to work early in order to access higher payments based on the father’s wage, recognising that male average weekly earnings are higher at present than female earnings.
I guess that’ll happen when you don’t have a flat payment. But it seems to me a bit like the real problem is wage inequality, which this policy will actually worsen. Women are still being encouraged to take breaks from their careers and therefore take longer to get experience and earn promotions.
Reason 2: A primary of objective of the Coalition’s scheme is to support women to have the best chance to breastfeed and bond with their infant for the six-month period recommended by international and Australian health experts, while maintaining a connection to the workplace.
This seems contradictory to the normal Liberal party policy of not dictating what’s best for people, but giving everyone equal access to services and then letting people decide for themselves what care arrangements suit them best. But beyond that, it’s pretty clear that the Coalition is of the view that it is more important for mothers to bond with their children than it is for fathers.
If we want to create a more equal society, and do something about the gender pay gap, we need to be encouraging men to stay home with children in equal numbers with women. But this is not a policy designed to promote equality.
If we want to maximise our productivity and increase workforce participation for women, we need to parents of both genders as many options as possible to combine work with child-rearing. Insisting that it’s vital for women to stay home and “bond” doesn’t do that. This isn’t an economic policy to maximise workforce participation, it’s a social policy designed to encourage the growth of a certain kind of society.
This is a policy designed to encourage more women to stay home for longer with their children. This is a regressive policy designed to create a society where women stay home for domestic duties while men remain in the workforce as breadwinners. This is not a policy which should be lauded for its benefits to women.
There’s been a lot of argument about the cost and how it will be paid for. And there’s been a bit of argument about whether it creates some world leading middle-class welfare (spoiler: it does).
But I’m a bit confused about why there is so little discussion about the structure of the policy itself. Because quite frankly, it’s pretty sexist.
The policy is called “Paid Parental Leave”, but it’s really just “maternity leave” with some pretty weak provisions for fathers who want to stay home instead.
Here’s some interesting examples. I currently earn more than my partner. If we had a baby and I wanted to stay home to take care of it I’d be paid at my wage. If my partner wanted to stay home, he’d be paid at his lower wage. Seems fair so far. But when the wages are reversed, the policy changes.
My sister earns less than her partner, a pretty normal situation in Australia at the moment, but one that is slowly equalising. If my sister and her partner have a baby and she stays home to care for it, she’ll be paid at her lower wage. But if her high earning partner wants to stay home, he will now be paid at her lower wage.
Men and women are treated unequally under this policy. I’m pretty sure that’s the definition of sexism.
And it’s based on some pretty spurious reasoning.
There are two reason’s given in the Coalition’s policy document.
Reason 1: The reason why the Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme is pegged to the mother’s wage is to ensure there is not a perverse incentive to send a mother back to work early in order to access higher payments based on the father’s wage, recognising that male average weekly earnings are higher at present than female earnings.
I guess that’ll happen when you don’t have a flat payment. But it seems to me a bit like the real problem is wage inequality, which this policy will actually worsen. Women are still being encouraged to take breaks from their careers and therefore take longer to get experience and earn promotions.
Reason 2: A primary of objective of the Coalition’s scheme is to support women to have the best chance to breastfeed and bond with their infant for the six-month period recommended by international and Australian health experts, while maintaining a connection to the workplace.
This seems contradictory to the normal Liberal party policy of not dictating what’s best for people, but giving everyone equal access to services and then letting people decide for themselves what care arrangements suit them best. But beyond that, it’s pretty clear that the Coalition is of the view that it is more important for mothers to bond with their children than it is for fathers.
If we want to create a more equal society, and do something about the gender pay gap, we need to be encouraging men to stay home with children in equal numbers with women. But this is not a policy designed to promote equality.
If we want to maximise our productivity and increase workforce participation for women, we need to parents of both genders as many options as possible to combine work with child-rearing. Insisting that it’s vital for women to stay home and “bond” doesn’t do that. This isn’t an economic policy to maximise workforce participation, it’s a social policy designed to encourage the growth of a certain kind of society.
This is a policy designed to encourage more women to stay home for longer with their children. This is a regressive policy designed to create a society where women stay home for domestic duties while men remain in the workforce as breadwinners. This is not a policy which should be lauded for its benefits to women.