Rumours of Tony Abbott's Feminist Conversion are Greatly Exaggerated

I always figured there was probably something wrong with Tony Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave scheme, which on the face of it looks grand and is hard to fault (more money - what’s not to love?).  Thanks to many column inches given to his “women-of-calibre” comments during the last week I’ve figured out what I suspected all along. It isn’t all it seems.

Abbott claims his policy makes parental leave a workplace entitlement but it doesn’t do anything of the sort. Many (but not enough) organisations provide a workplace entitlement of paid parental leave at an employees’ rate of pay, similar to sick leave or recreation leave or any other type of paid leave you care to mention.

If they don’t provide paid parental leave, the entitlement women will use to take leave when having a baby has been there since 1979 (up to 12 months unpaid leave). At this point, since 1 January 2012 (after years of resistance from the Howard government, including Abbott.  Especially Abbott) the government can step in and provide a measure of financial support. The Abbott scheme does not change this.  What it does change is the level of financial support.  And therein lies the problem.

Abbott's PPL scheme will fully replace a woman's wage.  No other government benefit that I can think of does this. Not sickness benefits or the old-age pension or Newstart or Austudy. If there is one, please let me know and I will stand corrected.  This is why it is inequitable (this is also what the Labor government has failed to articulate…yet again).

Abbott’s policy may purport to be a workplace entitlement but it is really a welfare payment (I don’t see this as a problem but some Liberal voting types might). He even says it takes the burden from business of administering it because the government will do it all. So how is this a workplace entitlement?

In terms of bringing the Australian government’s paid parental leave scheme into line with other countries, such as the much-cited Scandinavian countries, their approach to government payments is very different to ours. They pay much higher taxes in order to enjoy generous government support (in all sorts of areas not just parental leave). It sounds great but I think the average Australian would baulk at paying the level of tax required to sustain that sort of program.

So Abbott’s scheme does not provide a workplace entitlement, despite what he says, and it is also a government payment which is at odds with every other type of government payment. This could breed resentment where there should be none.  

So paid parental leave at full pay could (and should) be provided by your employer, in the way sick leave or other types of leave is. The government can and should provide some sort of financial support where none is offered by your employer.  If you think this support should replace your full wage, you should be prepared to pay the tax necessary to fund it. Simple.

Other flaws?  There are a few.  Abbott’s policy does not give any incentive for organisations to provide paid parental leave. If anything, this gives them every reason to continue in not providing it or stop providing it. 

There are also other challenges faced by women returning to the workforce after having children that are not given this much attention, such as affordable childcare, flexible work arrangements and above all, job security.  Abbott’s policy says nothing about ensuring a woman has a job to return to at the end of her leave.  

What seems like a big, generous and progressive policy doesn’t stand up to deep analysis unfortunately.  It is really a sleight-of-hand fistful of dollars approach, designed to appeal to self-interest just as Tony Abbott needed to change his spots and appeal to women voters.