Paid Parental Leave – is that it?
( These comments are Katrina's personal reflections only and are designed to invoke interest,consideration, reflection, discussion and response.)
You may be shocked to know that tax payers are currently funding around 93 million dollars of paid parental leave each year. If the Families Commission has their way that figure could increase to between 300 and 450 million by the year 2015! That is without inflation adjustment. This is an enormous increase and could potentially be realised within seven years! Over 100,000 parents have now signed up for paid parental leave since it was first introduced in 2002.
This proposal for change still only takes into account year one of a child’s life. What then? Racked with guilt, devoid of extended family support, and financially depleted because of burgeoning child care costs, parents then put these babies into preschool centres. The challenges of leading a dual life continue for most mothers, particularly those living in cities where two incomes is more often than not non-negotiable.
Child care costs are currently subsidised by the Government. I have no idea exactly how much per annum, but add that to the 300–450 million dollars and you have a great whack of money that would go a long way to providing a broader range of options and choice for parents.
The Families Commission has recently produced a summary of its current recommendations which you may find interesting reading.
I won’t cover this entire document but the recommendations include:
1. 1. Fourteen weeks paid leave at 80% level (currently 14 weeks at 46% *)
2. 2. A further 12 weeks paid leave at 65% level*
3. 3. 12 Weeks unpaid entitlement with job protection ( increasing to 25 and then 38 weeks by 2015)
4. 4. Four weeks paid leave (80% of average earnings*) for partners that can be taken at the time of the birth or at the end of the parental leave period (currently up to 2 weeks un-paid).
* Payments are based on 100% of personal gross earnings capped at either 65% or 80% of the NZ average earnings.
MY COMMENTS
I applaud any increase in paid paternal leave as the current level does little to relieve the financial stress of losing one income into a household.
The general idea is to increase the paid leave for one parent: increased the length of time of job protection; decrease the criteria for minimum hours or time of employment prior to claiming parental leave. I just think we should be looking at other solutions and spreading the spend to allow more choice.
I believe that:
1. Even with the payments increased … the financial stress will remain.
2. I remain unconvinced that men (assuming that the partner allowance would be claimed predominantly by men) for the first time history require four full time weeks to bond with their children and that this will have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of the child’s wellbeing. Lovely idea - but far better to have those resources contribute to other schemes that will assist one parent to be available to their children at all times outside of school.
f These proposed changes will have a significant impact on productivity in a country dominated by small enterprise. A company might manage without their worker for two weeks without bringing in a temp—but four weeks is another story. In some industries it can take four weeks just to train a replacement so it would not be plausible to hire temporary help.
3. How many couples/families could afford for both parents to be on a reduced income for four weeks at the same time? I would expect the majority of couples would be too financially stressed to take advantage of this particular option anyway. I can see the benefit of perhaps Dad taking his four weeks paid leave at the end of Mum’s entitlement to give the baby an extra four weeks of one on one.
4. Apparently 2/3’s of those taking parental leave go back to the same employer. However some companies struggle with less than satisfactory temps or a multitude of contracted staff only to find that at the end of the current 26 week parental leave period, the parent does not return. I believe an extension of the unpaid period of job protection from 12 weeks to 38 week is unreasonable for employers.
It It is estimated that round 35% of workplaces already have their own parental leave schemes in place. These include ongoing support of the parent in work-life balance arrangements, ongoing training, and working from home. All admirable options. It is cheaper to retain those people than lose touch, risk that person not returning and having to train someone else.
T There is no doubt that parents, babies and pre-school siblings benefit from one parent being home full time. I have no argument with that. In an ideal world all children would have at least one parent home full time with them until they are five years old. In an ideal world, staff would be trusted with flexible work hours and work venues so children are never left alone at home and without the care of one parent.
However this isn’t an ideal world. Women have multiple needs. They may be single parenting; require two incomes to live above the bread line; have children at varying ages; are in jobs with no flexibility; have non supportive partners; or simply don’t want to take a break in their career or jeopardise their positions within a company.
Putting up to $450 million into one choice—is no choice at all for parents, and in my opinion, applies blinkers to greater needs than simply the first year of a child’s life.
What would real choice look like if child care subsidies and parental leave funding were collectively utilised to fund a range of options? If we really want effective choices for parents that impact the first 5 years of a child’s life, then employers need education and assistance to remove the fear factor of options that might include the following:
A
1. Government funded or subsidised onsite baby crèche and child care facilities. If women are in the same building as their children they can still breast feed, visit their children at breaks etc. Contrary to belief, women would not be distracted if their children were on site. They would be more relaxed and not racked with guilt that their children were in public facilities elsewhere (from 7am to 5.30 pm in some instances).
B
2. More work from home alternatives
M C
More flexible hour options so that one parent can be home after school and be at special school outings.
4. D
Jo Job sharing alternatives
I would appreciate a broader range of options, costings on the alternatives, more effective research to see what parents actually want.
Strong families build strong communities. Today there are more and more obstacles to ideal parent based care for preschoolers. Guilt, and stress for working mothers is a huge issue.
What do you think? What would you prefer? What worked for you or what would work for you? Where would you like to see $450 million go? To support the first year, or the first five years of a child’s life?
www.womenz.co.nz is going to monitor where this is going.