tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/paid-parental-leave-scheme-14111/articlesPaid parental leave scheme – The Conversation2016-10-25T00:06:07Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/675492016-10-25T00:06:07Z2016-10-25T00:06:07ZPaid parental leave plan ignores economics of well-functioning families<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142994/original/image-20161024-28417-1weyw93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Family policies are about ensuring children get a good start in life.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government’s <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5752_ems_aa3b0247-12f2-4869-87b0-6d3c7fed66a3/upload_pdf/600981.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">proposal</a> to amend paid parental leave may result in short term fiscal gains, but overlooks the fact that well-functioning families provide long-term economic and social benefits to the community.</p>
<p>The paid parental leave scheme was designed to enhance the well-being of families by providing a strong foundation in the months following the birth of a child. The 2016 Bill limits the entitlements of women who receive some level of support from their employer by restricting the Commonwealth support to a top-up payment that would be a maximum of 18 weeks at the minimum wage. </p>
<p>The current scheme entitles the primary carer to claim up to 18 weeks at minimum wage, of which two weeks can be claimed by the carer’s partner (Dad or Partner Pay). Women earning more than A$150,000 per annum are not eligible for the government scheme. The minimum provisions of the National Employment Standards further allow a parent to take up to 12 months of unpaid parental leave.</p>
<p>This original scheme was not designed as a top-up scheme, but to complement payments available under existing employment arrangements. It recognised that some new parents had rights under their existing employment agreements, so the policy was <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/pplb2010176/memo_0.html">explicit</a> that the parental leave pay can be received in addition to other entitlements including employer-provided parental leave. </p>
<p>Before fiddling with the design of paid parental Leave, we need to be clear about the purpose of the policy. Family policies, including child care, early education, paid parental leave and family benefits are not just about economics and productivity: they are also about ensuring children get a good start in life. The broad reach of this policy is set out by the diverse range of women’s groups who have signed the <a href="http://www.nfaw.org/protect-our-paid-parental-leave/">call to protect paid parental leave</a>. </p>
<h2>What the experts say</h2>
<p>Health experts are unanimous about the benefits of parental bonding in the first weeks of life. The International Labour Organisation <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs342/en/">recommends</a> mothers be entitled to at least 18 weeks of leave, on the equivalent of their normal rate of pay.</p>
<p>The World Health Organisation further <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs342/en/">recommends</a> that infants should be breastfed for the first six months of life, with supplementary breastfeeding until at least the age of two. These recommendations were critical in the design of the 2010 paid parental leave policy, with the Productivity Commission <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/parental-support/report/parental-support.pdf">noting</a> that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>a leave period of 18 weeks of postnatal leave (as proposed in the draft report), combined with adequate payment levels appropriately balances the above considerations. Such a duration would provide the overwhelming majority of parents, more than 90 per cent according to preliminary estimates, the option of taking at least 26 weeks of leave without undue financial stress.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The current proposals will meet the 18 week benchmark, but payments are limited to the basic wage. This is about half of <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6302.0May%202016?OpenDocument">average weekly earnings for women</a>. If paid parental leave cannot be combined with other leave entitlements, the amount the parent receives will be inadequate to give many parents the option of taking the recommended 26 weeks of leave to bond with and care for the newborn baby.</p>
<p>WGEA <a href="http://data.wgea.gov.au/industries/1">data</a> shows that in 2015, less than half of employers (48.2%) provided paid parental leave. Of those, 80.9% offered full pay and 8.6% topped up the government scheme to full pay. The average period of paid leave was 10.2 weeks. </p>
<p>The most highly feminised industries of health, childcare and primary education are more likely to provide leave on full pay, but the duration of the leave remains around the average. This is a long way from the 26 weeks that the WHO and the Productivity Commission recommended as being in the best interests of the child. </p>
<p>Under the current arrangements, a new parent who is entitled to claim 10 weeks on full pay from their employer would be entitled to dad and partner pay of two weeks and 16 weeks of Parental Leave Pay. This would enable the family to get to 26 weeks, although they would need to budget carefully to get through this period.</p>
<p>Under the proposed changes, the family would be restricted to eight weeks of parental leave pay following the employer-funded leave. This leaves the family with the choice of either returning to work or remaining on unpaid parental leave for the balance of the recommended 26 weeks. </p>
<p>When deciding whether to return to work, other practical issues must be considered. </p>
<p>If adequate breastfeeding facilities are available in the workplace, 18 weeks would meet the ILO standards, but the WGEA data also shows that less than half of employers (45.7%) provide private breastfeeding facilities. If this can be addressed, the family will then need to find a place in a childcare centre for a child under six months old. The cost of childcare takes a further chunk out of the family earnings.</p>
<p>Paid parental leave policies need to consider a range of objectives. The economic objectives include encouraging women to remain active participants in the workforce. But the overriding objective is to improve the well-being of families, including the health, social and cognitive development of the child.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67549/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Hodgson receives funding from AHURI. Helen is a member of the WISER Research Group at Curtin Business School, the ACOSS Tax Advisory Panel and a Director and Member of the Social Policy Committee of NFAW. Helen was a member of the WA Legislative Council from 1997 to 2001, elected as an Australian Democrat. Helen is not currently a member of any political party.</span></em></p>Before fiddling with the design of paid parental leave, we need to be clear about the purpose of the policy.Helen Hodgson, Associate Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/548932016-03-16T06:50:46Z2016-03-16T06:50:46ZMore women than ever are in the workforce but progress has been glacial<p>It’s good to celebrate how far Australia has progressed when it comes to women and work, but policymakers must also recognise how far we’ve got to go.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told journalists recently that<a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/joint-doorstop-with-ewen-jones-mp"> Australia was seeing the highest ever female workforce participation rate</a> and the largest number of women ever in the workforce.</p>
<p>That’s true, but the pace of change has been glacial – especially for women in full time work in their prime earning years. If Australia is to meet its G20 goal of <a href="https://www.dpmc.gov.au/office-women/economic-empowerment-and-opportunity/female-workforce-participation">reducing the gap in workforce participation rates between men and women by 25% by 2025</a>, much more needs to be done. </p>
<h2>Better than ever but a long way to go</h2>
<p>The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0Dec%202015?OpenDocument">Labour Force Australia</a> publication indeed show that women’s labour force participation rate was at its highest ever in the last quarter of last year. </p>
<p>The labour participation rate for women is the proportion of women who are either in paid work or unemployed and actively looking for work in the adult population (over 15).</p>
<p>In February 1978, women’s participation was 43.4%. It reached 59.4% in December 2015, up from 59.3% in October of that year (using the trend data, not seasonally adjusted). The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.nsf/log?openagent&6202001.xls&6202.0&Time%20Series%20Spreadsheet&2AA256F3C68D7563CA257F5C001F452C&0&Jan%202016&18.02.2016&Latest">January and Feburary 2016 data</a> have the figure <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0">holding at 59.4%.</a>.</p>
<p>The nearest it approached 59.4% previously was in March and April 2009, when it reached 59%. That was when the effects of the global financial crisis were still unfolding. Given the subsequent economic slowdown, it is unsurprising that there followed a dip to 58.4% between February and June 2010, before a gradual recovery reaching 59% again in July 2015. (The labour participation rate for men is currently 71%.)</p>
<p>That Australia is seeing the largest numbers of women in absolute terms are in the workforce should come as no surprise; the adult population is at its highest level since 1978 (though with an increasing number of older non-working Australians).</p>
<p>The monthly labour force statistics taken alone, however, obscure how gradual the growth in women’s workforce engagement has been, especially in recent years. The years of good employment growth between 2002 and mid-2008 saw women’s labour force participation rate <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.nsf/log?openagent&6202001.xls&6202.0&Time%20Series%20Spreadsheet&2AA256F3C68D7563CA257F5C001F452C&0&Jan%202016&18.02.2016&Latest">increase only from 56% in Dec 2002 to 59% in March 2009</a>.</p>
<p>The decline in men’s employment from 79.3% in Feb 1978 to 71.2% in January 2016 now has played a significant role in closing the gender employment gap.</p>
<h2>Slow growth in full-time work</h2>
<p>And the growth in the proportion of employed women working full time has been slow for women aged 25-45, the prime employment years.</p>
<p>For example, between January 2005 and January 2016, women’s full time employment as a proportion of all employed women aged 25-34 actually declined from 68% to 67%. These data are from the same survey as above but they are <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6291.0.55.001Jan%202016?OpenDocument">published separately</a>, as the original data only but provide age breakdowns.</p>
<p>For the 35-44 age group, over the same period, it <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6291.0.55.001Jan%202016?OpenDocument">edged up slightly</a> from 53% to 54%.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6291.0.55.001Jan%202016?OpenDocument">For men, it remains high</a> (despite small declines) at 89% and 91% respectively.</p>
<p>Overall employment rates (full and part-time employment together as a proportion of all women in the population of the relevant age group) have shown only quite a small increase and that in the older age group.</p>
<h2>Older women back in the job market</h2>
<p>Women’s employment for those aged 45 and over has, however, shown a boom in the past 20 years.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6291.0.55.001Jan%202016?OpenDocument">Employment for women aged 55-59</a> increased from 35% in January 1995 to 49.8% in January 2005 before jumping to 63.8% in January 2016.</p>
<p>This reflects both the increasing education levels of older cohorts and their greater attachment to the workforce and the postponement of the age pension receipt for women. </p>
<p>Policies known to encourage women’s workforce attachment include improving the availability and affordability of <a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/drivers-of-female-labour-force-participation-in-the-oecd_5k46cvrgnms6-en">childcare and providing paid parental leave</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/game-changers-economic-reform-priorities-for-australia/">Australian research</a> also highlights how a complex interplay of tax, family benefits and childcare subsidies can end up discouraging mothers from working.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54893/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Heron is a member of the Women's Electoral Lobby, until recently, a member of the Greens party.</span></em></p>It’s true Australia is seeing the highest ever female workforce participation rate but there’s still a long way to go.Alexandra Heron, Research Associate, Women & Work Research Group, Business School, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/417572015-05-14T20:02:07Z2015-05-14T20:02:07Z‘Double dipping’ public servants will lose out twice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81654/original/image-20150514-28641-uciv22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Public sector workers using both employer and government-sponsored paid parental leave have been accused of "double dipping". </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In times of fiscal austerity, governments as employers seek to curb labour costs. This is currently occurring within the Australian public service. One way of reducing costs is to limit wage rises and reduce conditions of employment through enterprise negotiations. The Australian government has suggested savings could be made through negotiating <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/public-service-commissioner-john-lloyd-debates-cpsus-nadine-flood-20150327-1m8xxx.touch.html">reduced sick leave</a>. On top of this, public servants look set to lose a parental leave payment.</p>
<p>Media reports have suggested 80,000 employees including public servants will be worse off by $11,500 after the Government announced employees would no longer be entitled to receive parental leave pay from the Australian government, as well as PPL from their employer, should the latest proposal ever make it through parliament.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s original “signature” paid parental leave policy would have provided mothers with 26 weeks parental leave pay at an employee’s replacement wage. </p>
<p>My research, using the average salary of a public servant who works in one of the core public sector agencies in NSW (such as a government department, as opposed to those working in the wider public sector, for example, teachers or nurses), shows a female employee would have been approximately $6,000 better off under the this policy. </p>
<p>Under the the latest proposal employees will be $11,500 worse off - the amount which would have been paid through the universal government scheme. </p>
<p>Treasurer Joe Hockey has caused a furore by claiming that Australian mothers are “double dipping” on paid parental leave by utilising both employer and government sponsored parental leave.</p>
<p>But as Professor Marian Baird and others of the Work and Family Policy Roundtable <a href="http://www.workandfamilypolicyroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/W+FPRT-Budget-Press-release-12-May-2015.pdf">explained</a>, the current PPL scheme was designed to complement employer-provided PPL, taking women closer to the six months leave which the International Labour Organisation (ILO) recommends as being best for mothers and babies. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/FB46BB699848054DCA257CEC001E1B97/$File/63100_august%202013.pdf">Employer-provided paid maternity leave</a> is most common in the female-dominated industries of the public sector (81% of employees have access to paid maternity leave) and the finance sector (77%).</p>
<p>The major banks have long recognised the retention benefits of offering a high level of family provisions and if the current PPL proposal comes to pass, may again lead the way in offering relatively generous PPL entitlements to attract and retain female employees. </p>
<p>For example, the National Australia Bank has seen <a href="http://www.nab.com.au/content/dam/nab/about-us/shareholder-centre/annual-reports/pdf-reports/2014-annual-review.pdf">continued increased retention rates</a> for female employees as a result of its PPL scheme.</p>
<p>But how will public servants fare? Enterprise bargaining policies in the Australian public service and half of the state and territory jurisdictions require that any wage increases be offset by productivity increases. This translates to savings being made through reduced employment conditions - such as decreasing the amount of personal carer’s leave available to employees - with any savings contributing to funding a wage rise. </p>
<p>In NSW at least, one main public sector union is not willing to trade off conditions for pay rises, and so it is unlikely that PPL provisions will increase for these employees. </p>
<p>An even more dire situation exists in the federal public sector. Not only are agencies required to trade off conditions for wage rises, but agencies are <a href="http://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-employment-policy-and-advice/workplace-relations/2014-workplace-bargaining-policy">prohibited from bargaining</a> for PPL. </p>
<p>This policy is based on the assumption that the Prime Minister’s Tony Abbott’s PPL policy would have been legislated. This PPL scheme would have provided women with 26 weeks paid maternity leave at replacement wages, capped at $50,000. Therefore, an increase in PPL through bargaining was seen as unnecessary. </p>
<p>The government’s bargaining policy is now sadly out of date and can no longer be justified. Surely an announcement rectifying this situation is imminent? Maybe. Maybe not. Enterprise bargaining negotiations in the Australian public service have been going on for over 12 months in some agencies and are becoming more fraught. </p>
<p>To date not a single new agreement has been made, largely due to employees refusing to approve agreements which contain reduced conditions and very low wage rises. A range of agencies are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-02/public-sector-strike-action-largest-in-30-years/6439280">currently engaged in industrial action</a>. The Community and Public Sector Union has <a href="http://www.cpsu.org.au/content/cpsu-votes-industrial-action-change-abbott-govt-bargaining-position">denounced the government’s “hard-line” stance</a>, but so far, the government has not appreciably changed its bargaining position. </p>
<p>If increased maternity leave provisions cannot be gained through public policy or collective bargaining, this leaves few avenues for improved maternity leave provisions. Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO Kate Carnell has <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/policy/budget/budget-2015-employers-will-dump-parental-leave-business-leaders-say-20150512-ggyq2d">suggested</a> that organisations may redirect their PPL finances into providing other family provisions for employees, leaving the government to pay for PPL. </p>
<p>While this may be a feasible scenario for the private sector, it is unlikely in some public sector jurisdictions due to the current bargaining policies. </p>
<p>As the major employer of public servants, the Australian government is using its role as regulator to not only curtail increases to terms and conditions of employment, but to actively close off legitimate avenues for increases, namely, through enterprise bargaining. While there has been public outcry over the government’s perceived hypocrisy in relation to its PPL policy, there is less discussion about the government’s unilateral role as employer. </p>
<p>While the Australian government is committed to curtailing the costs of public sector employment, it does not appear to consider the fact that the public service is female-dominated, and PPL provisions are a critical condition of employment. </p>
<p>Instead, Abbott has joined Hockey in singling out federal public servants for having <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-05-13/joint-doorstop-interview-canberra">“two goes at the taxpayer”</a>, thereby compounding their culpability. (Although others in the Liberal party, such former Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos told Sky News this language was “unfortunate”, while communications minister Malcolm Turnbull called for “empathy”.) </p>
<p>The real losers under the latest proposed PPL policy may not just be public servants, however, but the public sector’s reputation as being a family friendly employer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41757/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sue Williamson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government’s new paid parental leave could also have the effect of limiting conditions for public sector workers.Sue Williamson, Lecturer, Human Resource Management, UNSW Canberra , UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/416172015-05-14T06:15:55Z2015-05-14T06:15:55ZParental leave cuts undermine breastfeeding and child health, at all Australians’ expense<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81619/original/image-20150514-28641-zxag85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most of the developed world provides longer paid parental leave than Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/colinthedog/5619094038/">mark biddle/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>New and expectant parents are among the biggest losers in this year’s budget. From July 1, 2016, primary carers will lose full access to government-funded paid parental leave if their workplace also provides leave. The change is <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/overview/html/overview-32.htm">projected to save</a> almost $1 billion in savings over three years; the fourth-largest savings measure in the budget. </p>
<p>This means that around half of new mothers in the workplace will be partially or completely ineligible for the government’s <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay">18-week paid parental leave scheme</a>, totalling A$11,500. They have effectively had their maternity leave cut short. </p>
<p>In a further insult, the government has framed the cut as cracking down on “double dipping”; suggesting new mothers are acting dubiously by taking the leave available to them. </p>
<p>Most of the developed world <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584541/john-oliver-maternity-leave">provides longer</a> paid parental leave <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/benefits-payments/review-of-the-paid-parental-leave-scheme-terms-of-reference/international-examples-of-paid-parental-leave-schemes">than Australia</a>: the United Kingdom provides 39 weeks, Canada 50 weeks and Sweden 60 weeks. But this is not simply an issue of how we lag behind other countries, there is cost to short maternity leave provisions. It results in poorer infant and maternal health.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.appa.asn.au/election2013/Coalition-policy-for-paid-parental-leave.pdf">Coalition’s previous parental leave</a> policy stressed the value of giving every new mother 26 weeks off with paid leave, saying:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a primary objective … 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. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Australian guidelines <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/n56_infant_feeding_guidelines.pdf">recommend</a> that infants are fed nothing but breast milk for their first six months of life and continue to be breastfed into their second year. These recommendations flow from extensive research indicating that breastfeeding is important to the health, growth and development of children.</p>
<p>The way infants are fed has short- and long-term impacts.</p>
<p>Feeding a baby under six months of age anything other than breast milk makes them more vulnerable to infection. Ingesting other foods or liquids changes the lining and environment of the baby’s gut in a way that <a href="http://www.ennonline.net/infantformuladiarrhoea">makes it easier</a> for bacteria and viruses to infect the baby. If these other foods or liquids replace breast milk, babies are also deprived of a variety of <a href="http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/1/1.short">anti-bacterial and viral agents</a> that they would have got from breast milk. </p>
<p>Sometimes these infections can be serious. Infants in countries such as Australia who are never breastfed are <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17403827">three-</a> to <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/e92">five-times more likely</a> to be hospitalised in their first year of life than infants who are fully breastfed. </p>
<p>One <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/e92">study found</a> one in eight formula-fed infants were hospitalised, compared with only one in 44 fully breastfed infants. These visits come at a cost to individuals, workplaces (because of missed days to care for sick children) and the health system. </p>
<p>In the longer term, infant feeding can influence children’s developmental trajectories. Short durations of breastfeeding are associated with <a href="http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1053811913005922/1-s2.0-S1053811913005922-main.pdf?_tid=0d16baa4-f911-11e4-9e8c-00000aacb362&acdnat=1431481415_de1a07e5c47f43a9b3e67db2b00edd35">slower brain</a> and <a href="http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=482695">cognitive development</a> and there is a measurable impact on <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.12136/abstract">school performance</a> <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)70002-1/abstract">and beyond</a>. There is also a growing body of evidence that early termination of breastfeeding <a href="http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/Growth_standard.pdf">alters the trajectory</a> of infant growth and increases the risk of <a href="http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/261899">obesity</a> later in life. </p>
<p>Although the impact of stopping breastfeeding early can be reduced – by actions such as hand washing, avoiding daycare (where the close contact between children encourages disease transmission), reading to children and avoiding overfeeding – at a population level, anything that lowers breastfeeding rates costs the health system and the economy. </p>
<p>That’s a point that the Coalition supported in their previous parental policy, which said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As the <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/parental-support/report/parental-support.pdf">Productivity Commission</a> notes, the health gains from paid parental leave do not only benefit families. Society at large will benefit from the lower long-term health costs</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mothers know breastfeeding is important; <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=10737420925">95% of mothers</a> in Australia start breastfeeding. But it’s a time-intensive activity. The <a href="http://jhl.sagepub.com/content/29/4/547.abstract">time spent breastfeeding</a> gradually decreases after birth, but even at six months of age, breastfed infants feed for an average 2.5 hours a day.</p>
<p>It can be extremely difficult for mothers to maintain breastfeeding while they are working. The need to return to work prompts some women to introduce infant formula to their baby’s diet or stop breastfeeding altogether. </p>
<p>Only 60% of Australian babies are <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=10737420925">still breastfeeding</a> at all at six months of age, and only 15% are exclusively breastfed to five months. </p>
<p>While there are many issues that factor into mothers’ infant feeding decisions, it is no accident that the countries with the highest breastfeeding rates in the OECD are also countries with generous paid parental leave and workplace accommodations for breastfeeding women. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/STATE-OF-THE-WORLDS-MOTHERS-REPORT-2012-FINAL.PDF">Norway</a>, for example, mothers have up to 46 weeks of leave at 80% of their pay. Almost all (99% of babies) are breastfed initially and 80% are still breastfeeding at six months of age. </p>
<p>Sweden has 60 weeks of paid parental leave at 80% of pay and has 60% of babies exclusively breastfed at four months.</p>
<p>The government’s own evaluation of paid parental leave identified that the longer women are able to stay at home with their babies, the longer they breastfeed. They found that “in a great number of cases, women weaned their babies at around the time of their return to work.” </p>
<p>The impact of short parental leave is not limited to infants, as mothers also suffer when they do not have enough leave available to them. Negative outcomes of an early return to work <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2012/op44.pdf">include</a> poorer physical health and well-being, feelings of stress and poorer mental health, including anxiety and depression. </p>
<p>Taking away the <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/interactive-data-centre/paid-parental-leave">additional nine weeks</a> parental leave that employers provide, on average, effectively reducing parental leave from 27 to 18 weeks, is enough to make a real difference to mothers. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2012/op44.pdf">Longitudinal Study of Australian Children</a> found that women who took between 13 and 26 weeks parental leave were more likely to report that they were suffering from mental distress for up to two years than women who took more than 26 weeks. </p>
<p>The private sector has been remarkable in providing paid parental leave for a large proportion of the population. They were picking up the slack of an inadequate government scheme. That is the sort of action that a “small government” government should have welcomed and fostered – rather than now undermining with this new policy.</p>
<p>Mothers, babies, the health system and the wider society are going to pay the price of this false economy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41617/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karleen Gribble is affiliated with the Australian Breastfeeding Association.</span></em></p>New and expectant parents are among the biggest losers in this year’s budget. From July 2016 primary carers will lose access to government paid parental leave if their workplace also provides leave.Karleen Gribble, Adjunct Fellow, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/356102014-12-18T00:27:04Z2014-12-18T00:27:04ZWhat do Australians need in a ‘families package’?<p>There are a lot of babies around, and the numbers <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/media-release-detail/?id=60129550053">are increasing</a>. However, Australia does not have coherent policies that recognise the effect of parenting on workforce participation and vice versa. Parenting is still defined as a “women’s issue” so no real policies exist to make it possible for both parents to be good parents and good paid workers.</p>
<p>Treasurer Joe Hockey has given <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/myefo-joe-hockeys-full-statement-on-the-budget-deficit-2014-12">signs</a> that the mix of anxieties about paid parental leave and the final version of a <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childcare/draft">Productivity Commission report on early childhood education and care</a> may emerge as a “holistic” families package in the new year. </p>
<p>Given anxiety about new spending, this will probably need to be within the approximately A$10 billion that current childcare and the proposed paid parental leave scheme cost combined. As the initial report by the Productivity Commission indicated a need for more money for care services, the package may not be as holistic as is needed.</p>
<h2>More time to raise the kids</h2>
<p>The first need to be addressed is the time out of paid work involving bearing, nurturing and bonding with the baby, say 12 months. Most women in paid employment are entitled to 12 months unpaid parental leave, and 18 weeks pay at the minimum wage, if they have been employed in the same place for the previous 12 months (<a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/parental-leave-pay/eligibility-for-parental-leave-pay">men</a> can take some time too but rarely do).</p>
<p>The current Abbott government proposal is for 26 weeks, with super, also starting with the minimum wage but then rising to replacement pay up to A$50,000. This establishes a wage-related payment which mirrors other leave payments that are currently only available to some women, particularly public servants and high-flying professionals. However many of these public servant schemes are likely to be absorbed in the Abbott scheme so will disappear.</p>
<p>Most mothers take extra holiday pay and extend their leave to take at least 12 months. The 26 weeks proposed is closer to the time mothers need than 18 weeks. The top pay limit of A$150,000 was the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-backs-down-on-paid-parental-leave-cap-20140430-zr1ts.html">main point of controversy</a>, so was scaled back to A$100,000, and could be scaled back even further. Were it to be set around the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0">annual average earning of A$70,000</a>, a majority of women, including low income recipients, would do much better than they do now.</p>
<h2>Better child care options</h2>
<p>Going back to paid work with a toddler needing care is not easy. There is a serious shortage of places for under twos because new child care services mainly depend on the vagaries of private developers’ investments in services that offer the best profit margin. As staffing costs more for under twos, they are not adequately provided for. So the subsidy system needs to change so it both pays more for higher cost groups and makes payments conditional on services being provided for those children who have highest needs for care.</p>
<p>This change of funding could also ensure that other services were where they are needed and more affordable. This would be a major policy change as currently there is no contract, or even direct contact between services and funder to ensure children’s needs take priority over profits. The current system is “demand driven” which assumes that services will respond to parents’ needs as a business would a customer. However the evidence from the <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childcare/draft">Productivity Commission report</a> suggests far too many parents’ needs are not being met, such as affordability, hours of operation, location of services and qualifications that meet children’s diverse needs. </p>
<p>A shift to direct subsidies, where the government gives direct cash subsidies to the child care service as well as fee relief for the parents, would see a better fit between services and parental needs. This is how it operates in <a href="https://theconversation.com/pc-logic-let-the-market-solve-childcare-market-failure-29580">most other countries</a>. Proposals to cut staff ratios or their levels of qualifications are not acceptable to parents or the experts in the area.</p>
<p>Direct funding contracts would allow for more flexibility in the variety of services, maybe with outworkers connected to centre based services, rather than privately employed nannies. This type of service would protect quality of care, adequate working conditions and child safety but would need funding of administrative and support staff to keep it affordable.</p>
<h2>Controlling fees</h2>
<p>Daily childcare fees range from A$65 to A$180 and official quality ratings suggest <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/childcare-quality-does-not-drive-up-costs-study-20141103-11fxxl.html">quality and fees are not necessarily related</a>. So some fee agreements between funder and provider, as exist in aged care, may be the way to cut costs.</p>
<p>The role of early childhood services in the Productivity Commission’s initial response was that subsidies should only be for parents with work related needs or for children needing remedial attention, except for 15 hours per week in the year before school. This is based on economic arguments about increasing GDP, now by mothers or later by remediated children. This narrow definition denies the social and communal aspects of learning and growing for children and the needs of other children for access to the services.</p>
<p>Child care should remain a community service, not just an economic one. In the longer term, we need to take a long look at rebalancing workplace participation and child rearing, and address the time it takes to balance social and financial roles for individual, family and communal well-being.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35610/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are a lot of babies around, and the numbers are increasing. However, Australia does not have coherent policies that recognise the effect of parenting on workforce participation and vice versa. Parenting…Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.