› 
Paid maternity leave is not a capricious feminist whim

tamaraplakalo's picture

A sociology lecturer once gave me a valuable piece of advice: “If you want a government to act on an issue, make sure you tell them how much it is going to cost them if they don’t.” Understanding that this suggestion was probably truer today than at any other time in history, I recently set out to find some information on the cost of not providing paid maternity leave to the working women of Australia. Surprisingly – or not, I have found no information of the kind.

 

It has to be interesting that one of the most contentious social policy issues in contemporary Australia has been fought on economic grounds only when justifying the absence of a unified, committed, national policy on paid maternity leave. Perhaps the answer is blinding obvious given that the cost of paid maternity leave is the cost to be borne by governments and business with no short-term economic justification to either. Which is where the argument could stop. But that is only so if one accepts that the society one lives in has one common goal only – economic performance measured by the simplistic and somewhat outdated concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

 

There are several reasons, social and cultural, that could explain the fact that the on-and-off paid maternity leave campaigning is often seen as a cause of an ‘annoying lobbying group’, as Anne Summers aptly put it, even if the group in question happens to represent about half the population of Australia. Indeed, as a person of European background, I have often found it puzzling that an issue most Europeans consider close to a basic human right would somehow be seen as ‘women’s problem’ in a country as prosperous and, supposedly, as progressive as Australia.

 

There is, of course, an economic argument behind Australia’s general reluctance to introduce paid maternity leave. It is a country where roughly 75 per cent of businesses are in the small business sector. Making them come to the party is near impossible without serious government commitment to footing the majority of the paid maternity leave bill.

 

Being a country of migrants, it is also a place well aware of the benefits of “parallel importing”, so to speak. In simple economic terms, human beings whose education and preparation for productive economic activity has been paid for by other nations and the benefits of imported, ‘ready to deploy’ knowledge reaped by Australia, ultimately makes for a more rational economic choice.

 

If this sounds like a cynical oversimplification, think again. The government that sees itself primarily as a manager of the economy will prioritise policies that can be sold as sound economic choices. In the case of Australia, migration is a sound economic choice. Paid maternity leave is not.

 

But is paid maternity leave something that should be considered just in the context of sound economic choices? In other words, do governments (and the Australian government in particular) have the mandate that extends beyond economic and into social well-being and returns? The answer to that question is also obvious. But social well-being and returns are an ideological category. And so their understanding and definition influence the paid maternity leave debate in rather ideological ways.

 

One of the key arguments that has been presented to the Australian public over the years to explain the lack of commitment to the paid maternity leave is that working and non-working mothers should receive equal support from the society they live in. This argument presents an interesting problem for policy makers. At the heart of it lies the question of weather paid maternity leave should be placed in the context of workers’ rights, or in the context of women’s rights. In either case, they steer the debate towards a ‘special interest group’, removing it from its proper and real context.

 

The question of paid maternity leave is a family issue, it is a social issue, and an issue affecting Australia from both micro and macro-economic point of view. What this is not (though it is often portrayed as such), is an echo of the feminist "revolution", which somehow makes the problem of having children simply the question of women’s choices, and, hence, their own problem.

 

A national Newspoll survey on paid maternity leave shows 78 per cent of men and 75 per cent of women in Australia are in favour of its introduction.  Their reasons for supporting it are varied, but revolve around three key themes – newborn babies require women to stay at home for at least a year, financial pressures often make this impossible, and governments, business and workers should share the burden of child-rearing in the first year of a baby’s life. Australia, alongside the US, is the only OECD country that (officially) doesn’t believe so, even if the social consensus on the issue clearly exists.

 

As Australia keeps facing its now almost perpetual skills-shortage crisis and a declining birth-rate, it is interesting to see that no government has been willing to encourage Australian women to participate in solving both issues through a better support and incentive system. If anything, numerous policy analysts have argued existing policies have done exactly the opposite – encouraged women out of the workforce and into full-time motherhood. Faced with a choice of economic hardship, diminished career prospects and the lack of support during pregnancy and the first year of childbirth, women have opted out in significant numbers.

 

For many young couples, the choice between home-ownership in the least affordable housing market in the world, and having a baby in one of the most unsupportive environments for working mothers is a tough choice. Entrepreneurialism, a national buzzword used to suggest to aspiring and young mothers to just get on with it and find a solution has simply not provided us with a satisfactory answer. Our declining birth rate is but one of the proofs. Paid maternity leave might not be the only ingredient required to reverse the trend, but it is certainly one of the key elements currently missing from the Australian social policy puzzle that could attempt to do so. The cost of not doing so could be quite high.

   

RELATED READING

 

National Foundation for Australian Women on paid maternity leave

http://www.nfaw.org/social/maternity/index.html

  

Parliamentary Library information on paid maternity leave

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/ECON/maternity_leave.htm

      

Comments

Hate to play devil's advocate, but.....

Having a family is one of my biggest life goals. Having just acquired a mortgage and learning how to really "budget", I am painfully aware of the difficulty I may face in being able to stay at home and raise my kids as a full-time mother for longer than the first 12 months. Once upon a time, I thought it would be a given to not work for as long as I wished. Despite this, something in me declines to agree totally with the concept of paid maternity leave.

While I think it is admirable that some large corporates offer some sort of paid maternity leave as part of their employment contract, it is financially impossible for small businesses to foot such a bill. The complications of creating a policy that is fair to both employers and employees is therefore mind boggling! Aside from this, there are so many complex issues that need considering:

  • women who can't or don't want children, what entitlement would they be offered as an equivalent to paid maternity leave?
  • should there be a limit of how many paid periods of maternity leave a woman can have?
  • what about those women who were allegedly falling pregnant on purpose just to get their hands on the $3000 baby bonus? Is this sort of entitlement open to similar abuse?
  • is the financial assistance already offered to Australian families in various forms enough to compensate the financial pressure of starting a family? Some argue it is.
  • finally, of course there is the argument that many mums who have gone before us would have - and that is that parents have raised families, some with very large numbers of children, for decades without paid maternity leave as an option. They survived just by making a few sacrifices that some people in today's world can't bear to consider making themselves.

Just to demonstrate how complex this argument is!

New Economic Realities

Alison, I agree with your general comments. There is possibly one big difference between the period when women were bringing up a lot of children in the past without any assistance from the government and now - the economic reality of Australia we live in today, and the housing problem specifically.

Owning a home in places like Perth and Sydney these days, while realising that a good retirement plan requires further investment, is very much a "two-salaries economy" these days. I don't know two many young families around me that can afford the cost of paying off a house and raising a child without the woman also pariticipating in the workforce. Perhaps these things can be negotiated in some circumstances, but more often then not, it is a simply an economic reality.

A $5000 baby-bonus is a one-off contribution to the initial cost of raising a child, but it doesn't really make up for the loss of income a new mother (and her 'economic unit') will experience as a result of child-birth.

In the past, the society was also a lot more community-oriented, cohesive structure where extended family often contributed to easing the burden of child-care, both in terms of support and financially. But the social fragmentation that has occurred over the last few decades has made this form of support less and less available.

Protecting young families from the effects of both trends is an important aspect of governing in the minds of most OECD countries. The question you are posing about rewarding the unpaid work of mothers not in the workforce is a valid one -- and not the one that necessarily supports the argument against paid maternity leave. Even some of the poorest countries on Earth provide paid maternity leave to all as part of their social security system.

In fact, if you refer to the table published on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave), you will see that only Swaziland, Lesotho, US and Australia have no compulsory paid maternity leave of any kind (some 180 countries are listed with details of benefits provided). All of the listed countries could list the same sort of arguments for not providing any paid maternity leave, and most of them are in a far worse position to do so economically.

I cannot but suspect that the arguments provided against paid maternity leave are more ideological, than anything else. As Anne Summers pointed out in her book The End of Equality, the Australian Government is quite happily providing the Reserves Employer Support Payments to defence Reservists in order to make it easier for them to undertake periods of continuous defence service. In July 2001, the Govt was paying employers the equivalent of the average wage ($809.70), to allow reservists to serve when required.

One could argue that if a woman in the workforce is required to lose her income in the period she needs to take off work in order to have a child (and having babies, as Peter Costello said, is a service to the nation), her loss of income should be considered equally important.

There is evidence that women delay or forgo child-birth completely due to some of the economic realities discussed above. Does it mean that those who can't afford to do so simply should not have children?

It is ironic that we are having a discussion like this in one of the most prosperous countries on the planet. Our society is wealthy enough to support paid maternity leave, it is, however, a matter of ideological priorities if we decide to do so or not.

Childcare is a bigger issue

I think the shortage of affordable, good quality childcare is a bigger issue in Australia. Paid maternity leave would be, of course, a welcome move, but the government is already providing quite a number of family benefits (a part from the baby bonus) through various social support programs. Plus, guaranteed job security at the end of a 12 month maternity leave is a fantastic thing to have.

What's missing, and we all know it, is a proper system supporting the childcare sector at the national level. For a working mum, there's no greater peace of mind than knowing your child is well looked after while you are away.

In terms of other potential improvements, a couple of possible examples:

- a part-time option for working mums at present entirely depends on their employer's workplace policies - it would be wonderful to have this legalised as a woman's right

- increasing the number of guaranteed annual sick days (cumulative) for mums of 0 to 5 year olds would be another welcome move I am sure