Maternity Leave !

There is no doubt that the demographics of Australia have changed in recent decades.  The two income family is a fixture across even the middle income salary bracket when it comes to home ownership.  As a consequence, many women are putting off having children until their family finances are settled - and some are choosing to remain childless.

Our national birthrate is below replacement level and we are now relying on migrants to swell our numbers.  For decades there has been pressure from women's groups to ease the financial burden of having a child and this finally convinced the politicians that we need a national Maternity Leave scheme.

Thats where the objective to be obtained becomes somewhat hazy.  Some in the medical profession claim that the greatest benefit of a period of paid leave would be to allow the mother to bond with the new infant.   Others from a more financial aspect are concerned that the loss of earnings during the period away from work can be disastrous for those on low salaries.  What level of compensation - and for how long - have finally reached a broad agreement of twelve weeks Maternity Leave - paid for at the average wage level.

Just to complicate things even further, during the decades this has been argued between the parties in parliament, some private sector firms have introduced their own Maternity Leave schemes as an inducement to hold on to valued female staff, and many of these pay salary compensation at the level their employee is earning.   In some cases, this leave is split between the mother and the father of the child - in the interests of sexual equality.

Now that the parliament is grappling with putting together a bill to bestow a national Maternity Leave scheme across Australia a new enigma has split the political parties.   The government sees this Maternity Leave scheme as a "safety net " to give financial support to those who do not have the good fortune to be covered by their employers private scheme.   The Opposition wants it to be an equal right and be available in addition to what any private scheme may deliver.

There seems to be a degree of confusion as to just how this is meant to apply.  Some suggest a single twelve week leave taken, but paid for by individual payments from both the government and the employers schemes, whilst others suggest the leave may extend to twenty-four weeks, paid for by contributions from both schemes.

The point of contention seems to be that some will benefit doubly because they are in an existing scheme and this is fast developing into the usual Capitalist/Socialist fracas between the two main political parties.

Wiser heads will see the danger of two levels of compensation being delivered across the Australian work force.  Those served only by the National scheme may consider themselves second class citizens and should the privileged get a twenty-four week entitlement that would introduce an unacceptable manning level problem to many businesses.

There is a danger that unless this is regulated to an "either /  Or  " basis it may work against female employment.   Many firms may develop a preference for employing women edging past their child bearing age as a safety precaution.

Hopefully, sanity may prevail !