I used to be a fan and a supporter of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s revolutionary paid parental leave scheme.
My reasons were pretty simple. I believed that parental leave should be treated the same way as any other type of leave such as sick leave or annual leave. That means it should be at the full wage of whoever took it.
Yes, that means some people would receive more during their maternity leave than others. But that happens already. Westpac Bank’s Gail Kelly earned a lot more when she was home with the flu than you do. Even if you have the same flu. Same with Christmas holidays.
Not everyone’s time is worth the same amount. Fact.
It’s also true that all our lives are indexed to our incomes. Your rent or your mortgage, all your living expenses are based on what you earn. Assuming we want one parent to be able to stay home with the baby in those early weeks and months of life (which is the purpose of any PPL), a workable scheme needs to take that into account.
Tony Abbott: Popular with the babies.
But I’ve changed my mind.
And I’m as proud of my backflip as I would be if I were wearing a leotard and had just done an actual one on the floor.
I no longer support the idea of Government-funded paid parental leave that gives every woman her full wage for 6 months up to $150K per annum (ie: a maximum payment of $75K for the six months). I don’t even support that amount coming down to $100K per annum (maximum of $50K).
Here are the basic reasons for my new position – in case you care:
Annual leave and sick leave are costs borne by an employer who makes discretionary decisions about wages based on what that person is worth to them. Tony Abbott’s proposed PPL is a government payment, so it IS different to annual leave and sick leave. It’s about how the Government values a person’s time not just at an economic contributor but as a family contributor.
Jenny Macklin answers questions on the PPL (Post continues after video):
In addition, the childcare system is terribly broken. Primary and high school education may be free but childcare is prohibitively expensive and there is a massive shortage of places. While it’s wonderful to support new parents taking maternity leave, at the end of those six months, if nobody can find affordable childcare, this simply creates a new problem. Funds should be diverted from a more generous PPL scheme to instead improve the affordability and availability of childcare. The additional money could be better spent.
These are my very topline thoughts but they’re different to the ones I had a year and two years ago where I spoke out in favour of Abbott’s PPL.
So why the backflip?
Because I kept my mind open.
I listened to arguments made persuasively by many people I admire and respect. People who know far more than me about public policy, people whose lives will be directly affected by this proposed new legislation and people who have very differently opinions to mine. I thought about the issue more and over time, I changed my mind.
Is that a backflip or is that a change of mind based on new information I hadn’t previously considered? Politicians love to taunt each other with the word ‘backflip’, as if it’s somehow a sign of weakness. But in the right circumstance, I think it can be a sign of strength.
Tony Abbott talks PPL in October this year, adamant that he will not break his promises...
And here he is again this week, announcing changes to the government’s signature policy…
As I get older, I’m less and less interested in people who refuse to learn and grow and change their views. I don’t mean about scientific things like vaccination. Science is not a matter for opinion. There are no “two sides” when it comes to science. Just facts.
But there are so many other things where changing your mind – or at least opening it up to other possibilities – is a positive thing.
It means Tony Abbott will never be allowed to reverse his position on marriage equality, like Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd did before him. It means that we can never expect a more humane approach to refugees. It means that Tony Abbott would have always had to have held firm to his position that climate change was “crap”.
Changing your mind or shifting your philosophical position on an issue is not necessarily the same thing as breaking a promise although I understand that it can be (eg: “There will be no cuts to the ABC” or “There will be no carbon tax”)
I’m not suggesting all bets should be off when it comes to sticking to your word or being consistent. But there are some backflips – and reversals and revisions – that should be welcomed if it means politicians are listening to a population who are pushing firmly back on a proposed policy like this one.
A policy that – in my opinion – is neither fair nor what most Australian parents actually need.
Top Comments
Putting the debate on whether the money could be better spent to one side, the current structure seems to discriminate against families where the mother is the main breadwinner.
It appears in the proposed PPL scheme, a family where the father earns $200k+ and the mother earns $40k would receive support to replace the mother's wage, meaning the family would be no worse off.
On the other hand, if the mother earned $200k+ and the father earned $40k, it appears the mother would only receive support up to a cap of $150k, meaning the family would be worse off if she took time off (as she'd probably need to, biologically) to birth and care for her child.
Now, I'm not arguing that either of these families should necessarily be eligible for government support in this instance, but I don't see how means-testing on the mother's income only can be justified.
It is ridiculous on so many levels that to pick at just some issues seems pointless. The supposed principle on which it is based is flawed. The funding model is flawed. The distribution model is flawed.
The fact Abbott apparently pulled it out of thin air without even discussing it with his party should have seen it dead and buried a year ago.
The fact the government could continue to support it whilst teling pensioners we can't afford to keep subsidising their medical care at current rates, should have seen Abbott and Hockey kicked out of their leadership roles.
The fact the Greens seem to be the only political party that support the plan should have rung alarm bells throughout conservative Australia long ago.
Nitpicking individual cases of inequity is unnecessary. The plan was a dud from the start. Both it and its architect should be dumped.
if you have a high income job, wouldn't you be paying much higher taxes as well? i know i do. so, why all the fuss? i pay my taxes, why can't i get them back? that's on a selfish level.
on a more defining level, having a good PPL scheme would ensure that women have an aim to get back into the work force. we save on childcare at home because my MIL takes care of my little one, which i am ever-so grateful for!!! it keeps us close as a family and i love coming home to my family and not having someone else raising my kid. i feel that where you can, this should be the way to go. grandparents don't have much time with the g-kids anyway and like this, the family is kept much closer and relationships are formed.
PPL is beneficial not just for the woman who struggles as it is in the workforce with the stigma of not being "wanted" when you're of childbearing age, but it also incentivises the employer to hire said woman because the employer will know that she WILL return to work to keep earning her pay (whether high or not).
i for one would NEED to return to work, whether i want to or not, but i would also WANT to because i know i've got a high paying job to return to that supports my family even though it is a very stressful job i have.