Should Maternity Leave Be Paid for 12 Months?

Trying2SaveABuck on 29/08/2022 - 16:55
Last edited 29/08/2022 - 17:23 by 2 other users

Now I'm not a 'believer in a Gender pay gap but I do believe there is a life time 'earnings gap' between the two sexes which probably could be 'better' managed in Australia.

A recent article - The message is clear, women are not part of Australia’s fair go

Does talk about the 'gap' widening from what I have 'read' from the actual research not journalist sensationalism is women generally do get paid mostly the 'same' as men per-hour (for same work) however they tend to 'work less hours' though out there working life (despite living longer then their male counter parts) and one of the big issues is women take 12 or so months off for maternity leave for every child they have (note: some take more then 12 some take less but the average is about 12 months)

The other bits of research I've read in the past is there is a gap because men more likely to take a heighten risk to create wealth i.e. start a business, invest in stocks etc (however interestingly women who invest on average do better then men from a returns POV) - but I don't think there is much society can do about that so to focus on the matter at hand….

With that said from a balanced perspective I actually think there is a reasonable argument women should not be 'dis-advantaged' for having children especially in countries like Australia that have a relatively low birth rate. The system should be encouraging women to have a solid career but also not harm them financially if they choose to have children. If anything it should be 'encouraged' from a social and financial perspective.

This is probably the most 'socialist' thing you will read me type, but I think there is a fair argument women should be fair at least 12 months full pay maternity leave with super and all…(this should be paid by the government not the employer to stop discrimination at the hiring point) - Certain workplaces might want to give additional benefits but I think the minimum time for full pay should be 12 months or at least 12 months at minimum wage.

What does the OzBargain community think?

Full: Disclosure my wife and I have two kids do not intend to have anymore i have no 'dog in this fight'

Poll Options

  • 192
    Maternity leave is fine the way it is
  • 466
    Maternity should be paid for at least 12-month
  • 97
    There shouldn't be any Maternity leave
Education & Work Maternity Leave

Related Stores

Services Australia
Services Australia

Comments

  • provision on 30/08/2022 - 18:49

    I’d like it if you went down to a single income during your wife’s pregnancy that there’d be reduced taxation on the working parent whether that be the mother or father who forgoes their salary whilst looking after the child.

  • LFO on 30/08/2022 - 19:05

    What does the OzBargain community think?

    How there can be "equal pay" when one of the two genders get the gigantic benefit (aka cost to the employer) of 12 moths paid leave and a secure job to return to after that leave?

    Doesn't sound a bit discriminatory against the other gender, the one left out?

    • Ughhh on 30/08/2022 - 19:25
      -3

      The other gender can adopt and still get the same /some benefits afaik (might depend on age of child?)

      • Miss B on 30/08/2022 - 19:39

        I think for my employer the adopted child has to be under 12 to get parental leave.

    • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 01:33
      -1

      It's suppose to be discriminatory….

      If you think about this rationally, Its not really equality if females only want equality in executive roles and position of power…. They don't want equality in brick laying, construction, soldering, trades job.

      If there was true equality there should be 50% quotas in all jobs/roles, not just the roles with power/prestige.

  • DeeTrance on 30/08/2022 - 19:39

    Not unless Men also get 12months.

    • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 01:49

      I agree.

      If females want equality, men should get the same privileges.

      I also want to see a construction sites where 50% of that workforce are females. There should be quotas there too! I'll like to see some woman on the tools under the hot sun in the middle of summer!

  • imrichkid on 30/08/2022 - 19:54
    +3

    If peasants can't afford to raise their own kids then they shouldn't have any. Don't parasite on us rich people to fork out for your stupid AF offspring.

    • SlavOz on 31/08/2022 - 18:36
      +1

      User name checks out

  • bryans on 30/08/2022 - 20:04

    Keep on dreaming. Don't feel so entitled.

  • SimpleSimom on 30/08/2022 - 20:12

    Here's an idea, if gender pay gap is the issue in this situation, could we mandate that all father's of the newborn children be forced to give up half their pay and super for 12 months to be directly paid to the mother. This would equal out the pay discrepancy without the need to burden tax payers or employers.

    • StalkingIbis on 31/08/2022 - 14:01
      +2

      id love that! two tax free thresholds!

  • tonka on 30/08/2022 - 20:17
    -4

    There is definately a gender pay gap. Not everwhere but most places. I've got 35 years specialising in pays. Male dominated professions are paid more than female ones And just very often a guy will get a more important sounding job title with more money when doing the same or less work than female colleagues.

    • ozbjunkie on 30/08/2022 - 23:54
      +1

      Have you got any time reviewing the evidence for and against the gender pay gap or are you presenting one or more anecdotes as data?

      • tonka on 31/08/2022 - 18:33

        Hundreds of hours (of actually tooling around doing stats), at many businesses. But apart from that about 88,000 hours of full transparency on everyone's pay hours etc my whole career over maybe a couple of hundred companies.

    • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 01:46
      +1

      Question is whether the same job has the same pay for both male and female given experience.

      Male dominated professions may be paid more because there's less supply of labour wanting those roles. Eg. rubbish collection, brick laying, construction etc.

      If females filled 50% of that workforce the AVG salary most probably drop because there's more supply.

      The issue is females generally don't want to be out in the sun doing laborious and dangerous jobs. That's why these roles are paid more. Men know this… That's why some men just want to sit in an A/C office and type on the keyboard for less money.

      I think there's too much focus on females building a career and sacrificing their child bearing years. They might have a career, money and what men call success, but after 40 all they'll have is a cat and loneliness.

      Smarter and more successful females generally want a smarter and more successful male… Unfortunately there's even less of them around given most men are of average intelligence and on average income.

      All these career/successful women will be chasing the same 5-10% of men and it won't be the tradies/brickies.

  • TightLikeThisx on 30/08/2022 - 20:27
    +3

    It would be better for the economy and therefore Australia as a whole if we made having children as difficult as possible but made up for it with increased migration of working age individuals. GDP would go through the roof with that level of productivity. Tax revenue would be insane.

    So no I don’t think it is a wise idea for my tax dollars to fund a liability for the public at large.

    No one is forcing these females to have children. It is their own personal choice. Some people might take off a year to travel the world. Others might take a year off to have a baby. You can’t cry victim if it’s something you chose to do.

    • Ughhh on 31/08/2022 - 01:02

      therefore Australia as a whole if we made having children as difficult as possible

      Not a bad idea. Perhaps If this idea was implemented before you were born, you wouldnt have these headaches. Win win?

      • TightLikeThisx on 31/08/2022 - 08:36

        No headaches. I wasn't born in Australia so I don't understand the purpose of your comment.

        • Ughhh on 31/08/2022 - 18:39

          Every/any country would benefit from a better GDP/economy, right?
          You might later.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/08/2022 - 12:39
      -2

      It would be better for the economy and therefore Australia as a whole if we made having children as difficult as possible but made up for it with increased migration of working age individuals. GDP would go through the roof with that level of productivity. Tax revenue would be insane.

      Im all for migration but in no way is it better to migrate people to Australian then it is to raise your own citizens.

      You either take skilled migration from other countries leaving them with talent drain which is bad overall

      in the 'short term' it makes GDP looks better per capita in the long term it brings about a whole bunch of equity and social issue ie crime, cultural instability etc

      Compared to somewhere like the UK where migration has been massive but standard of living is falling off a cliff

      The best run countries like Denmark, Sweden etc have minimal migration for this reason keeping the population low isthe easiest way to ensure a high standard of living.

      • TightLikeThisx on 31/08/2022 - 21:27
        +1

        You either take skilled migration from other countries leaving them with talent drain which is bad overall

        This is happening already. How does Australia importing nurses from the Philippines affect Australia negatively? Maybe if these countries were not so corrupt and disorganised people wouldn't want to leave them in the first place.

        in the 'short term' it makes GDP looks better per capita in the long term it brings about a whole bunch of equity and social issue ie crime, cultural instability etc

        I like these vague words "equity", "cultural instability". So basically you are saying the immigrants are going to be criminals and we are going to see more Cronulla riots. I disagree. Im talking about skilled migrants who can speak english and who can contribute to broader society. Yes there may be some adjustment issues but once people come to realise that Australian citizenship is a legal status with entitlements not a cultural indicator I think even the bogans will embrace the diversity.

        The best run countries like Denmark, Sweden etc have minimal migration for this reason keeping the population low is the easiest way to ensure a high standard of living.

        I don't know how you contribute lack of immigration or small population to the standard of living. It's largely to do with the socialist democratic governments that the nordic countries share. I mean besides Norway name a single country that manages its resources in a forward thinking way for the good of the people.

        • xdigger on 09/09/2022 - 10:53

          Agree and upvoted. In Nordic countries like Norway with paid maternity PLUS paternity leave, most of their natural resources/oil wealth profits goes to the state, while here in Australia our billions in mining profits flow mostly to individuals like Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest. Plus then we also need to pay for hundreds of billions for American nuclear submarines to make us a nuclear target.

          This is why we don't have paid parental leave like the Nordic countries, and are also slowly losing our universal free healthcare boasting rights over the Americans, ie, no more bulk-billing GPs nowadays.

          • TightLikeThisx on 09/09/2022 - 17:02

            @xdigger: Not just that but they do other things too like scale fines to reflect a percentage of your annual income and tax things like alcohol heavily.

      • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 02:05

        Denmark/sweeden are walfare countries and need strong borders and controlled migration to stop the influx of free loaders crashing their system.

        That's why Australia has to turn the boats back, we can't afford to let them in.

        There's no free lunch my friend, we are all paying for it via taxes or inflation.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/09/2022 - 09:18

          Denmark/sweeden are walfare countries and need strong borders and controlled migration to stop the influx of free loaders crashing their system.

          Australia is no different but we let them in that is why we are going backwards

  • nephilim on 30/08/2022 - 21:18

    Maternity leave should only be extended if assessed by a Obstetrician, and has a bad side effect like extreme pain from Caesarean.
    Treated the same way as return to work from injury.

  • sheepzpal on 30/08/2022 - 22:39
    +4

    I only got one week fully paid leave as a secondary carer. Used three weeks AL in addition to take a month off in total. Dads need more loving!

  • ozbjunkie on 30/08/2022 - 23:56
    +2

    I'm not having kids but I would like to have a pet, can I have time off to train and bond with my pet?

    Why not?

    • StalkingIbis on 31/08/2022 - 14:00
      +1

      your pet wont eventually pay tax and contribute to the economy. why would the gov have any interest in incentivizing you to have a cat? what good does it do for them?

      • drfuzzy on 01/09/2022 - 21:23
        +2

        My cat contributes alot of tax in the form of GST.
        Just ask my vet.

    • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 02:07

      Only if your pet is female.

  • tonka on 31/08/2022 - 00:32
    +1

    For all those trashing childbearing. The reason it is subsidized is because society needs children. Without them you won't get to retire and when you can't work they'll be no-one to grow your food and change your nappy. Your investments will become worthless, your super will be worthless, there will be no kind of age subsidies, your home won't be maintained, you'll have no healthcare etc. If you choose not to have kids, it is probably more selfish than those that do, because your relying on other peoples children for your future.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2022 - 10:15

      If you pay for them I'll have 50 then. Oh I'll need you to provide a woman too.

    • SlavOz on 09/09/2022 - 15:32
      -1

      lol people don't have children to benefit society. They do it for themselves, and yes it's a huge benefit to all of us but if someone really wants kids they're going to have them whether it's subsidised or not.

      The only practical way to increase birth rates is to promote marriage. The overwhelming majority of married couples bear children and raise them better than De facto or non-married couples.

      This selfish culture of encouraging sexual deviancy, single parenthood, easy divorces etc is the real strain on our population.

  • Wilson Wallace on 31/08/2022 - 09:55
    +2

    Have all the maternity, paid leave you want. Just make me my dinner every night when I’m home and have the house clean, we are good.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2022 - 10:14
    +3

    I should get some kind of one off payment if I never have kids. I am not taking as much governmental money they should reward me.

    • StalkingIbis on 31/08/2022 - 13:59
      +1

      you havent added any future tax payers.

      • dragonos81 on 31/08/2022 - 17:49
        +2

        Can you guarantee that your kid will be a future tax payer and be contributing more tax than they receive in government benefits?

        • StalkingIbis on 01/09/2022 - 10:01

          That is statistically extremely likely.

      • drfuzzy on 01/09/2022 - 19:37

        neither do alot of parents.

  • Juice-Wa on 31/08/2022 - 11:02
    +3

    Like all things, it's a really complex issue, but if I were to comment on one aspect I would say this. With the cultural shift of more women pursing careers over staying at home and looking after the kids, more families have become dual income. This increases the available finance of families on average, increasing the costs of living (and of raising a child) and making it less viable for single income families. Regardless of whether this is a good or a bad thing, the increase of career focused women have made it more difficult for stay at home mothers or fathers. This is especially true with how our tax system is set up to benefit dual income over single income parents. You get more in hand having two parents earning 50k each than you do with one earning 100k. I think rather than creating more career continuation with longer breaks, there should be more benefits and tax breaks for single income families. Let people parent how they want to without the financial burden of needing to go back to work.

  • BobLim on 31/08/2022 - 12:14
    +2

    IMO medically necessary leave to give birth and recover should be defined and endorsed by an obstetrician on a case by case basis, then this balance should be deducted from sick leave (which I think should potentially be unlimited with medical proof, perhaps with limited liability for the employer in a "Medicare Safety Net" type arrangement).

    All further paid leave for care of the child should be deducted from the normal pool of annual/LSL accumulated. To avoid having insufficient accumulated leave to cover these once off large life events, perhaps a portion of leave should be preserved on resignation and transferable between employers (either paid from the previous employer to the new, or somehow through the super or tax systems).

    Discussion could then focus on the size of this leave pool, what proportion is to be preserved rather than paid out on resignation, and under what conditions the preserved portion can be taken (perhaps for any period of 8+ continuous weeks?). In such a system I see no particular incentives either way for any choice about children or otherwise. e.g. If you blow all your preserved leave balance over several months as an owner-builder, then don't expect a second free run when you want a child.

  • StalkingIbis on 31/08/2022 - 13:58
    +1

    Just had my 3rd and last kid. I dont want to pay extra tax for others to get what i didnt.

  • Heaps for Cheaps on 31/08/2022 - 18:15
    +1

    It has been proven that the first 7 years will determine a childs future.

    I believe that maternity leave should be paid until a child is 10 years old so people don't fall through the cracks.

    • buckethat on 31/08/2022 - 19:19
      +3

      You're kidding right?

      • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 02:08
        +1

        I don't think they consider who will be paying. People think all this stuff is free and inflation is not simply another form of tax.

    • drfuzzy on 01/09/2022 - 19:34
      +2

      I believe that maternity leave should be paid until a child is 21 years old and can walk to Centrelink unaccompanied.

  • GourmetFoodie on 31/08/2022 - 19:50
    +1

    Paying 12 months of maternity leave won’t fix anything.

    The issue is this:
    Most women either WANT to be the primary caregiver or they are in the lower paid job out of the couple and so it makes financial sense to be the primary caregiver. This means they will step back from their job and go part time or quit completely no matter what the maternity leave situation is. It is very very hard to have both parents working full time when the kids are young (0-5 years). Most daycares will even say they don’t recommend kids being in there 5 days a week.

    What would make more sense is instead of throwing money at corporatised institutional daycares, why not give a caring allowance to every family to spend as they see fit?! It could be means tested and it could either go to paid external care or to the parent who chooses to stay home to care for their kids? In addition we could stop taxation penalties against single income families e.g. double income families at present can claim 2x tax free threshold vs. 1x tax free threshold for single income families. Also we could force superannuation earned to be split 50/50.

    There is a lot that could be done…but unfortunately most women just put up and shut up and continue to get the raw end of the deal like we have for eternity….

    • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 02:14
      +1

      Reason for daycare rebate is because Australia does not have enough workforce.

      daycare subsidy is to encourage females to enter the workforce and if that is simply replaced by paying them to stay at home it won't help Australia's productivity and will end up with less tax dollar to pay for the leave you want.

      People really need to think hard about from a macro and micro point of view.

      • GourmetFoodie on 01/09/2022 - 22:14

        But the mental health cost of this flawed approach is enormous. Marriages and children suffer as we try to force both parents to work as many hours as possible. If you dig deeper it doesn’t add up.

    • hdog on 01/09/2022 - 20:22
      +1

      I understand the concept to try and get both parents back to work, but there seems to be a huge gap in considering that maybe for some kids/families, being cared for at home and building those family relationships with parents and siblings is the right thing to do.
      It’s incredibly frustrating to have tiny children but then be living in a system that really really wants you to pay someone else your whole wage to care for them. Every family has different needs and priorities, and these also change with time, so any policy changes in area should focus on flexibility for the greatest benefits overall.

  • kaleidoscope on 31/08/2022 - 23:48

    it’s fine the way it is. perhaps improve some allowance or duration for casual staff

  • whitepuma on 01/09/2022 - 09:04

    I'm not too concerned about the duration of time, but i believe the amount of money you get should be higher. i'd even go as far to say that they should allow you to shorten it to 6 months, ideally i think it should match your salary before taking the time off.

    Most the people i know that had salaries well above what the government offers for mat leave cover have returned to work early (anywhere between 3 & 9 months after) simply because the amount they are getting on mat leave isn't enough comparatively to what they were getting before.

    So to summarise my response:
    - do i agree to mat leave people should get full time pay: yes
    - do i think they should keep mat leave at 12 months: i'm neither here nor there….i'm open to shortening it if it means giving them full time pay (give a little to take a little)

  • R4 on 01/09/2022 - 16:10
    +1

    No.

  • drfuzzy on 01/09/2022 - 19:32
    +2

    Paid by who? Taxpayers who have chosen not have children?
    Paid by the father and mother? Sounds good to me.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/09/2022 - 22:29
      +1

      you already do pay for people that have children….you think those people coming here with 7 kids work….you might want to look at the cash the government hands out….if anything would be good if some of that money went back to Australians who have worked and contributed to the country

    • Juice-Wa on 02/09/2022 - 08:26
      -1

      Damn, this has got to be one of the most close minded and shallow thought out comments I've seen. With such a selfish outlook on life, might be best not to raise children.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/09/2022 - 13:03
        +1

        Damn, this has got to be one of the most close minded and shallow thought out comments I've seen.

        I learnt a long time ago you cannot argue with socialist but the reason you have that response is because you know there is solid fundamental truth to it.

        It isnt 'selfish' or closed minded to state a fact

        • Juice-Wa on 02/09/2022 - 13:49
          -1

          @Trying2SaveABuck I hope you don't think I was replying to you?

          Like it or not our society is built upon all of us supporting the needs of children to develop the next generation. From healthcare to education your taxes go towards people raising children. So if your outlook is "I chose not to have children" why should I pay to raise them? Then you are extremely naïve about where your tax dollars go. If you refute this fact because you're one of the "Taxpayers who have chosen not have children" then I hope you chose not to expect care, respect or consideration from the generations that follow you without having to pay for it. People with this attitude are the same selfish geriatrics who complain about the behaviors of children, asking parents why they haven't raised the kids to their standards.

          @drfuzzy posting braindead comments showing just how selfish they are like:

          If you do not have self-earned income I don't believe you should have an opinion on the matter.

          Having children is a choice. Tertiary education is a choice.
          Maternity leave should follow the HECS/HELP system for education.
          The costs should be paid back over time from future employment of the family.

          Obviously having the outlook of
          "I pay taxes" - "not all allocations of taxation benefit me" - "my taxes are wasted"
          Seems pretty selfish by definition

  • RocketSwitch on 02/09/2022 - 11:09

    If you haven't had children, I don't believe you should have an opinion on the matter. You have no idea how hard it is or the pressure on parents to make a family work. You need the next generation and you need future tax payers. Simple. Trying to have children in the workforce has its own discrimination and biases mainly from those who don't have children. You can only have a few weeks to work out a new life. Let alone all the sleepless nights, stress, PTS etc that comes along with it. God help you if your child isn't healthy. Tax is there to help people who need it most. There's no better way to spend that money. You're investing in people. Treat them right and society as a whole will be better for it. Stress them out, send them on the edge, good luck with that!

    • drfuzzy on 02/09/2022 - 12:24

      If you do not have self-earned income I don't believe you should have an opinion on the matter. You have no idea how hard it is or the pressure on taxpayers to continuously make more money to overcome the welfare they need to pay for others who don't work.

      • RocketSwitch on 02/09/2022 - 13:09
        -1

        What do you think the whole purpose of tax was? Read up about it. Its purpose was purely for welfare initially. Educate yourself. This isn't exactly for people who don't work. You can't work while having a newborn. Don't bleed ignorance.

        • drfuzzy on 07/09/2022 - 13:54

          You've missed the point of how unreasonable your own statement is.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/09/2022 - 11:18
    +1

    If only parents have to pay the tax for it, sure.

    • xdigger on 09/09/2022 - 10:56

      How about single moms with five kids dependent on Centrelink? What then?

  • echelon6 on 02/09/2022 - 12:10

    How does one reconcile the need for maternity leave and the disincentive to hire women? Discuss. In your essay, include reference to labour as a commodity, economic principles of supply and demand, and behaviours of a rational market for labour. (100 marks)

  • drfuzzy on 02/09/2022 - 12:22

    Having children is a choice. Tertiary education is a choice.
    Maternity leave should follow the HECS/HELP system for education.
    The costs should be paid back over time from future employment of the family.

    • Ughhh on 07/09/2022 - 11:26

      How much do you think you get from maternity leave? Like $100m?? Lol

  • franco cozzo on 07/09/2022 - 07:15

    …..only if it applies to all 'birthing persons' as well and not exclusively 'biological women'. its 2022 after all….

  • xdigger on 09/09/2022 - 10:29

    In Nordic countries like Norway with paid maternity PLUS paternity leave, most of their natural resources/oil wealth profits goes to the state, while here in Australia our billions in mining profits flow mostly to individuals like Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest. Plus then we also need to pay for hundreds of billions for American nuclear submarines to make us a nuclear target.

    This is why we don't have paid parental leave like the Nordic countries, and are also slowly losing our universal free healthcare boasting rights over the Americans, ie, no more bulk-billing GPs nowadays.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/09/2022 - 11:13

      Although i dont 'disagree' with you - and our deals with Submarines are crazy the current situation with Sweden absolutely s—ting its pants that Russia might invade them is a prime reason you do need to spend on Military

      the spending just needs to be 'smarter'

      • xdigger on 09/09/2022 - 11:18

        Unlike the USA which can print unlimited money with the USD as reserve currency, Australia has a finite budget. If you think hundreds of billions spent on nuclear submarines is a good deal for us (as opposed to the US/UK making billions off us, and putting Aussie sailors lives at risk in the frontline in a proxy war for the US aka Ukraine), then we will need to forgo things we previously taken for granted like paid maternity leave and universal free healthcare/GP visits that affects everyday Australians.

        This is essentially the choice in front of the federal government now before the budget is released.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join