Double Dipping !

The Australian population recently ticked over the twenty-four million mark and it's growth is reliant on the inflow of migrants rather than the natural increase by way of the fertility rate.  Cost of living pressures make the two income family necessary and one of the consequences of that is an ever decreasing number of children born each decade.

This phenomenon is repeated in many other countries and is delivering a frightening demographic. As the population ages the ratio of taxpayers supporting the elderly moves out of balance - with disastrous economic results.   The obvious remedy is to encourage families to have more children and it is hoped that this can be achieved by offering paid parental leave as an inducement.

Australian families are at present entitled to eighteen weeks parental leave ( PPL ), paid at the minimum wage level, for the birth of each child and this delivers $11,828 to each household.   The source of this funding comes from what is euphemistically called the " public purse ", otherwise known as that vast source of various forms of income which runs this country.

What makes this attractive is it's universality.   It ignores salary levels and type of employment and allows time for a mother ( or father ) to bond with their child.  It helps with the expense of adding a child to the household and it receives wide community support.

Before PPL came into being many companies introduced their own maternity leave schemes with varying grades of benefits.  In many cases these were not entirely altruistic.  They were a way of attracting and retaining valuable women employees whose skills were in short supply.  They enhanced the attractiveness of such companies in recruiting talented people and improved staff turnover rates.  The outlay was more than matched by increased productivity.

Now we have a new problem.  These two ways of treating maternity are running in tandem and some women are " double dipping " by exploiting both benefits.  This manifests itself in the sheer time some lucky women are granted in the way of maternity leave as well as a vast pay differential conferred by the different outcomes between the two schemes.

That is certainly an unintended consequence and legislation to achieve balance is blocked in Federal parliament - on political grounds.  Debating the way balance can be achieved offers a wide scope for political mischief and is seems unlikely that any form of consensus will be achieved anytime soon.

There seems to be two schools of thought.   The " socialist " outlook is that all should be treated equally and therefore only the universal PPL benefit should apply.   That could only be achieved by either banning private maternity leave or reducing the benefits to just the public PPL level.

The other way of thinking is to bar access to the public PPL wherever a private scheme delivers benefits of at least that level.   Should a private scheme deliver both an extended period of time and elevated pay above the PPL level that would simply be a bonus for the receiver.    The main outcome sought would be to prevent anyone participating in and gaining the cumulative benefits arising from both schemes.

It is the " double dipping " aspect that offends most supporters of paid maternity leave !