Help Understanding Eligibility for Maternity Leave

Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 12:38

Hi all,

Wife will be giving birth in about 4-5 months.

At her workplace she is eligible for 12 weeks paid parental leave.

I have also been told that she is able to get payment from the government and have been looking at the following link for info; https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centre…

So am I right in thinking that she can get 12 weeks from her employer and then 18 weeks of Parental Leave Pay from the government??

She is eligible according to the criteria set out but I'm not sure if I am understanding it correctly.

Much appreciated! :)

Education & Work Maternity Leave

Comments

Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/06/2019 - 12:44

Look up your wife's award, EBA or contract. If it's not obvious call FairWork for clarification.
- Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 12:47
  
  Hey! The 12 weeks from her workplace is all clear as part of her EBA.
  
  I was just thinking that this would be it. Wasn't expecting on extra payment from the government. So wondering if it is all too good to be true and I am getting something wrong lol
  - [Deactivated] on 11/06/2019 - 12:48
    
    My understanding was it's either from the workplace or from the government.No double dipping. I could be wrong though.
    - Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 12:51
      
      That's also what I thought, but a few ladies here at work have said they received both, provided they met the government's eligibility criteria
    - zonra on 11/06/2019 - 14:13
      
      +3
      
      You can get both, not at the same time though.
      
      In a nut shell:
      OP’s wife goes on leave and uses up the 12 mat leave weeks from employer.
      Once that finishes, the 18 mat leave weeks from the government kicks in (obviously she’ll need to be off work for these 18 weeks too).
      
      OP can also take 2 weeks off unpaid from work to claim Dad/Partner pay (claimable within 12 months after birth).
      
      Source: gone through all these recently.
      - Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 14:35
        
        @zonra: Thank you, yes that looks like what I was imagining.
        
        Only thing that may complicate things, from my side, is that I could be potentially starting a new job in a few weeks.
        
        zonra on 11/06/2019 - 16:33
        
        @Heracles26: Should still be fine, the requirement for Dad/Partner pay:
        
        To receive Dad and Partner Pay you must have worked at least:
        
        10 of the 13 months before the date your Dad and Partner Pay period starts, and
        330 hours, around 1 day a week, in that 10 month period
        
        So it doesn't matter if you're currently unemployed or just starting a new job so long that you satisfy the above requirements.
        
        Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 17:59
        
        @zonra: Thanks!!
      - brendanm on 12/06/2019 - 13:12
        
        +1
        
        @zonra: This, my wife got maternity leave from work, and when that finished, got the government one as well.
  - spackbace on 11/06/2019 - 12:51
    
    +6
    
    Don't forget Dad and Partner Pay too, if you want 2 weeks off @ minimum wage
    - Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 12:51
      
      +1
      
      This didn't even occur to me, thank you!!
      - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/06/2019 - 12:54
        
        @Heracles26: If you didn't even know about Dad & Partner Pay, and aren't certain whether both leave entitlements can be claimed, I think you need to call both Fairwork and DHS to confirm all your entitlements for each of you.
        
        It's no secret they make their websites difficult to browse and thus difficult to determine your entitlements.
        
        Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 12:56
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: yes that's a good point, thank you!
    - ESEMCE on 11/06/2019 - 15:09
      
      The only way the Dad and Partner pay is worthwhile is if you can pay out a bit of Annual Leave to make up the salary difference or you're happy to live for 2 weeks on a reduced income.
      For most people, the second option isn't an option!
      - spackbace on 11/06/2019 - 15:12
        
        @ESEMCE: Can easily take a week or 2 paid leave, then the 2 weeks unpaid.
        
        Given both sides are getting payments, should be able to live without issue off that with a bit of a top-up from savings. But hey, if you wanna complain about a free $1500 payment then go ahead
        
        ESEMCE on 11/06/2019 - 15:24
        
        @spackbace: Not complaining, just pointing out the "flaw" in the scheme.
        In most cases you're dropping from 2 incomes to one already, dropping from 2 incomes to at best 2 minimum wages can be a steep drop that people may not find to be viable.
        In our case, our mortgage payment wouldn't have left us with much to live off on minimum wage. I took a week's Annual Leave payout to boost the finances so that we could eat!
        
        Also note that the 2 weeks Dad and Partner Pay MUST be consecutive. I made the error of taking 2 weeks, failing to consider that there was a public holiday in the middle. As a result, my claim was deemed to be non-consecutive and I only got a part payment.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/06/2019 - 18:01
        
        @ESEMCE: Not actually sure what your argument is. Is it that the national minimum wage is too low? Because most would definitely agree with you there.
        
        ESEMCE on 12/06/2019 - 12:51
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I'm not arguing or complaining about anything.
        Merely highlighting a few of the pitfalls in the scheme for new players and a loophole to assist with one of the pitfalls.
        
        brendanm on 12/06/2019 - 18:36
        
        -2
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Increasing the minimum wage simply increase the cost of everything as the wage costs are passed on. So then the people on minimum wage feel better, but have basically the same buying power, and everyone else pays more.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 12/06/2019 - 22:49
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm: That's a complete false dilemma spewed from the mouths of the right.
        
        Literally a dozen countries are prime examples of the opposite of what you're stating. If it was earlier in the day I could be assed citing them all.
        
        Let's rearrange your quote to an event of yesteryear
        
        "Decreasing penalty rates for those on a minimum or award wage will simply decrease the cost of everything as the wage savings are passed on. So then the people on minimum wage feel worse, but have basically the same buying power, and everyone else pays less."
        
        Is everyone paying less? Do more people have employment? Who has benefited?
        
        brendanm on 12/06/2019 - 22:53
        
        -2
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Are you seriously suggesting that businesses would ever lower prices if given a choice? Raising and lowering are two very different things, a business will do anything possible to maintain or increase its profit margin, it will never willingly do something to decrease it.
        
        Decreasing penalty rates will only benefit business owners, and hurt employees. However we aren't talking about lowering, and we aren't talking about penalty rates.
        
        Anything else is a complete false dilemma spewed from the mouths of commies (see what I did there?).
        
        Low skilled jobs get low pay, who would have guessed. Surely Barry the Garbo should be able to get payed $350k a year and live on the water even though he didn't finish year 9, its 2019, it's only fair!
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 12/06/2019 - 23:02
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm: Ok, let's stick with your argument then.
        
        Can you provide an example of the minimum wage increasing, in Australia or elsewhere, resulting in increased costs of "everything"?
        
        brendanm on 14/06/2019 - 20:48
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: If there would be no change to the price of goods and services, why don't we just make the minimum wage a million dollars a week? Can't we just print money and give it away? I don't think there have been any examples of this ending badly lately…
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 17/06/2019 - 17:01
        
        @brendanm: This ladies and gentlemen, is an example of someone stating a completely false dilemma, being unable to back it up with any facts and resorting to a Straw Man.
        
        Bye bye.
        
        brendanm on 18/06/2019 - 16:33
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Is it that hard to figure it out for yourself? Countries with low minimum wage generally have lower cost of living. Have a look at the states in America that recently went from $5(?) to $15 minimum wage. Prices went up.
        
        It's not even a false dilemma, if increasing the minimum wage didn't increase prices, there would be no reason not to increase it. The example of a million dollars simply highlights this fact.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 18/06/2019 - 19:28
        
        @brendanm: Well, that's sorta how it works. You state a fact. You need to back up or prove that fact.
        
        Here's the irony. Name a single USA state that currently has a $15 minimum wage. Zero.
        
        May I hazard a guess that you've never studied economics?
        
        So far you seem to be making crap up as you go.
        
        brendanm on 18/06/2019 - 20:20
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Sorry, I shouldn't have said state, I was going off memory of an article I read recently. Certain cities/regions have higher minimum wage. Seattle is over $15 for some companies. Washington DC is over $13, there are some more. I'll have to try and find the article and link it.
        
        How do you think it is that China produces goods so cheaply? Low cost of labour. If that labour rate were higher, so would the cost of those goods.
        
        I can get a boat built a lot cheaper in Costa Rica than in America. Why? Labour is cheap there.
        
        Seeing the pattern?
        
        When we have to pay people $740 a week, plus super, to pick apples, apples are more expensive. When you have to pay people $740 a week plus super to make a big Mac, the price goes up.
        
        If you had a business, and your costs increased, would you keep your prices the same and take the cut in profit, or raise your prices to compensate? I'd be raising prices.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/06/2019 - 01:08
        
        @brendanm: Yeah see, you've admitted it yourself. You "read an article" or 2 and are spruiking lies.
        
        Give up.
        
        brendanm on 19/06/2019 - 11:00
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: It's a lie that places with low wages have low cost of goods? I also showed you where the us has a $15 min wage.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/06/2019 - 12:34
        
        @brendanm:
        
        I also showed you where the us has a $15 min wage.
        
        No you didn't. It appears you're the only one who thinks a state in the USA has a $15 minimum wage.
        http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-mini…
        
        places with low wages have low cost of goods?
        
        I ignored your obvious straw man argument as the discussion is raising the minimum wage will increase costs of "everything".
        
        Given up waiting for you to make a coherent statement to support your argument.
        
        brendanm on 20/06/2019 - 10:09
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I corrected that to city/area, and even told you which.
        
        A coherent statement to support my argument? As I've said, simply look at the cost of goods and services in places with varying levels of wages. Higher wages generally equals higher prices. It's basic common sense.
        
        I'd like to see an argument for why unskilled workers need to be payed more? We have a massive amount of unskilled labour available, and only a certain number of jobs, so it sure isn't supply and demand.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 20/06/2019 - 12:45
        
        @brendanm:
        
        I corrected that to city/area, and even told you which.
        
        Already linked. No states have a $15 minimum wage currently.
        
        Your Seattle reference is incorrect as it is below $15 and requires medical or tips to meet the threshold of $15. Regardless it only affects small medium businesses. Surprise surprise, major employers and large companies are exempt.
        
        Irony is, Seattle saw no determinable increased prices in a major determinable market, retail supermarkets consisting of a large proportion of minimum wage earners, when minimum wages were last raised.
        https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/1/102/htm
        
        So your argument is wrong anyways!
        
        Higher wages generally equals higher prices. It's basic common sense.
        
        "Common sense"
        
        Your common sense disagrees with nearly every analysis and study in economics.
        
        There is no evidence of increasing minimum wages will result in increased inflation. Many papers have confirmed as such
        https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278…
        
        Like I said. We can all tell you've never studied it. Basic principals of supply and demand, and market forces. Prices are determined by what the consumer can bare. Wages are only a proportion of goods costs. Raising minimum wage can actually have a benefit to inflation and consumer spending.
        
        You can't even provide a single example of a market that had increased costs from increased minimum wages.
        
        Bye bye.
        
        brendanm on 20/06/2019 - 13:29
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Here's an excerpt from that study: "We thank members of the University of Washington Seattle Minimum Wage team for their support and guidance on study design and sampling strategy". Sounds very impartial.
        
        An excerpt from your linked pdf "On the other hand, large
        minimum wage hikes have clear positive effects on output prices"
        
        As yourself this, why is it that goods produced in Australia are so expensive, but goods produced in China are cheap?
        
        How old are you to think that writing "bye bye" at the end of each post is clever?
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 20/06/2019 - 20:20
        
        @brendanm:
        
        why is it that goods produced in Australia are so expensive, but goods produced in China are cheap?
        
        We are talking raising minimum wages.
        
        You are talking demographics.
        
        Pick one.
        
        brendanm on 21/06/2019 - 10:24
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Haha ok. I see you ignored the other parts.
toniyellow on 11/06/2019 - 13:30

The government tried to put through reforms several times to stop double-dipping, but they did not succeed
https://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-201…

I think it is possible to get both still, but you should do research to confirm
- Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 13:43
  
  Thank you!
pistachio1 on 11/06/2019 - 13:48

+1

Pretty sure the double-dipping law never passed. So your wife should be able to get both.
- Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 13:53
  
  It's looking that way, thanks!
Hardlyworkin on 11/06/2019 - 14:02

+2

Confirming that you get both, I think double dipping was an Abbott phrase that was abolished along with him.
- Heracles26 on 11/06/2019 - 14:35
  
  Thanks!

Help Understanding Eligibility for Maternity Leave

Comments

New Forum Topics