UK United Kingdom

FactCheck: will low-paid women subsidise rich women under the Coalition’s parental leave scheme?

[Under the Coalition’s proposed parental leave scheme] “the woman working in the local chemist in Gippsland in regional Victoria would be subsidising the paid parental leave of the woman working in the…

Universal paid parental leave is now standard in Australia, but would the Coalition’s scheme affect low-paid workers? Parent image from

[Under the Coalition’s proposed parental leave scheme] “the woman working in the local chemist in Gippsland in regional Victoria would be subsidising the paid parental leave of the woman working in the bank headquarters in Collins Street in Melbourne”. - Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, in a speech on 17 July.

In the lead up to the election, all sides of politics are aiming to sell their paid parental leave policies to voters.

The Labor government’s $1.4 billion scheme is already in place and provides 18 weeks’ pay at the minimum wage, around $622 per week pre-tax. To be eligible, the mother must have received a taxable income of $150,000 or less.

The Coalition’s $4.5 billion scheme provides mothers with 26 weeks paid leave, at full replacement wage up to an annual salary of $150,000 (or a maximum of $75,000) or the minimum wage if greater. It will also include superannuation contributions.

The Australian Greens have recently endorsed the Coalition’s scheme and promised to introduce something similar, although capped at an annual salary of $100,000 (or a maximum of $50,000).

The opposition’s scheme is ambitious and more expensive than the government’s. But is Macklin right that it is unfair to low-paid workers?

Flow-on effects

The answer partly lies in how the policy will be funded and partly in how it’s structured.

The Coalition’s scheme is funded by a 1.5% levy on companies with taxable incomes over $5 million. Essentially Macklin’s argument is that this increased company tax will flow through to consumers, but the benefits will largely go to those women earning a higher wage. This is because under the government scheme, everyone is paid the same: the minimum wage.

But with the Coalition’s scheme, the higher your income, the more benefit you receive.

Under a future Abbott government, parents earning over $45,000 would get the bulk of the increased assistance. For example, a mother earning $100,000 would receive $50,000 over 26 weeks, or about 4.5 times the payment under the current government scheme. At the upper limit of $150,000, the new payment would be 6.7 times the current entitlement.

Along with this, as political blogger Greg Jericho notes in The Guardian, more highly-paid women are much more likely than lower-paid women to already have paid maternity leave.

This means it is likely the Coalition scheme would simply replace these existing schemes. So, for a highly-paid woman on $150,000, the net gain after deducting existing employer-provided entitlements might be between 2.5 and 5 times the current government scheme.

It is worth remembering, however, that lower-income mothers pay lower income taxes than higher-income families and receive higher family tax benefits. The Coalition proposal then would reduce some of that redistribution of tax and benefits, although the effect is likely to be small.

Who would pay for the company tax increase?

The increases for higher-paid women in the Coalition’s paid parental leave would be paid for out of an increase in the company tax. But wouldn’t this just affect shareholders?

There is a central issue here of what economists call “tax incidence”, that is, the question of who ultimately bears the burden of corporate taxes. According to United States Urban Institute most economic studies of corporate tax incidence acknowledge that capital will bear the bulk of the burden in the short run, but there is little consensus about what will happen in the long-run.

In fact, the Henry Review recommendation for a cut in the company tax rate to 25% was partly based on the argument that in a small, open economy such as Australia, the fact that the legal obligation to pay corporate taxes falls on shareholders is irrelevant, and the ultimate burden of corporate tax falls mainly on labour.

From this perspective, more corporate taxes results in less investment in the economy, and a smaller capital stock, which in turn leads to lower productivity of labour and, therefore, lower wages in the long run.

This argument is not universally accepted. But the well-regarded Tax Policy Centre of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute now treats 20% of the US corporate income tax burden as falling on labour, 20% on the normal return to all capital, and 60% on the supernormal returns to corporate equity (shareholders).

According to an article in The Australian from May this year, the four major banks are hostile to the Coalition’s parental leave scheme, warning shareholders and customers would ultimately pay for the $400 million-plus cost to the industry: “The banks will have to treat it as an increase in their cost base, which means passing it on to shareholders or customers.”

Responding to the Greens' similar proposal last week, Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox also argued that it would be unfair to consumers, who would pay higher prices.


There are divergent views about who is burdened by company tax increases, but it is generally accepted that there would be some impact on wages and prices. So in this sense, it is correct to say that lower-income groups would pay for part of the proposed benefits to be received by higher-income mothers.


This is an accurate account of the different funding mechanisms for the competing parental leave schemes.

It is correct to say there are divergent views on tax incidences, and it is difficult at this point in time to say how a 1.5% tax would be absorbed by business, and if it would be passed on through lower wages or increased prices. It is certain, however, that it is an additional cost to the businesses who need to pay for it in some way. It is unlikely that big business will reduce their own profits to cover this additional cost.

Depending on how business passes on the costs, it is hypothetically correct to say that lower-income earners could be indirectly subsidising higher-income earners. - Marian Baird.

The Conversation is fact checking political statements in the lead-up to this year’s federal election. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert reviews an anonymous copy of the article.

Request a check at Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

Join the conversation

10 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Trevor Kerr


    I'd like to see the analysis centred on the engine-rooms of productivity, our schools. That is, how do the different proposals effect the ability of teachers to stay in class-rooms?

  2. Gary Murphy

    Independent Thinker

    I guess it all depends how it will be funded.

    Whenever I have heard Mr Abbott challenged on his hypocrisy of promoting this business levy while criticising the cost of the CPRS, he has said that the levy will be accompanied by a cut in company taxes.

    How will this (and all of his other promises) be funded? All signs point to a broadening and increase of the GST (this is what business groups are all saying). Which would be a regressive increase in taxes and affect low-paid people more.

  3. Rick Fleckner


    What is the point of a fact check on this subject if the result can only be wishy washy?

    1. Greg Young

      Program Director

      In reply to Peter Whiteford

      True, but I would have thought this was pretty close to Yes or No. It's a binary question, after all.

      If you really don't know the source of the funding for a major Opposition policy at this stage, that alone is worth highlighting.

    2. Judith Olney


      In reply to Peter Whiteford

      Hi Peter, this is off topic, but I would like to see the issues facing the unemployed actually get a mention in this election campaign. There has been silence from both major parties on the desperate need to increase the Newstart allowance. I have read some excellent articles from yourself, and would love it if you could bring this issue into the forefront of "The Conversation", (and anywhere else it gets a run).

      The unemployed, on the Newstart allowance are the most economically disadvantaged people in Australia, please help to make this an issue that is not swept under the carpet again this election.

  4. Troy Barry

    Mechanical Engineer

    Does "hypothetically correct" have the exact same meaning as "hypothetically incorrect"?

    A more useful approach would be to test if the cost will fall more heavily on low income women than on high income women. The Tax Policy Centre numbers, sketchy as they are, suggest absolutely not. If there is a relative fall in wages/price of labour, the more highly paid women will suffer greater loss by definition. If they own equity in business (as they are more likely to than low income women) they will suffer more than three times as much loss. The tentative conclusion reached here can only be supported by the logic presented if we assume that working at a retail pharmacy represents labour but working at a bank HQ does not, and I don't know of any economic argument to support that notion.

  5. Dale Bloom


    I am wondering why Jenny Macklin didn’t mention men.

    i.e “the woman AND MEN working in the local chemist in Gippsland in regional Victoria would be subsidising the paid parental leave of the woman working in the bank headquarters in Collins Street in Melbourne”

    It is men who are paying the most tax, but perhaps Jenny Macklin doesn’t think men are that important.

    Or perhaps Jenny Macklin is not that important.

  6. Graeme Smith


    It's a non sequitur as it is not parental leave. It is baby support. As such the state is most certainly unfairly favouring some infant citizens.