Public servants already enjoy generous parental leave schemes
NOW I am no fan of Tony Abbott’s proposed paid parental leave scheme. But, frankly, the stench of hypocrisy coming from Labor, the trade unions and leftwing commentators is close to overpowering.
Take the stance of Labor parliamentarians, led by former trade unionist,
Bill Shorten. Perhaps his team needs reminding that it was Labor’s
Gough Whitlam who introduced the Maternity Leave Act 1973, which
provides for a minimum of 12 weeks parental leave for commonwealth
public servants at full replacement wages, plus superannuation.
And can I remind trade union leaders that the ACTU’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into paid parental leave recommended a guaranteed income of 14 weeks at ordinary time earnings, plus superannuation, with the costs split between government and employers.
Let’s face it: if a full replacement wage parental leave scheme of 26 weeks duration were proposed by Labor, the pages of The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald
and The Guardian would be filled with gushy opinion pieces praising the foresight, fairness and economic sense of the proposal.
And if that is not bad enough, the naysayers of Abbott’s PPL scheme — a scheme that has been taken to two elections — conveniently ignore the extremely generous arrangements that apply to workers in the public sector, the costs of which are borne by taxpayers.
The features of these arrangements include: • The scope for double dipping; • Full wage replacement parental leave, including superannuation;
• The manipulation (nay, rorting) of the system to benefit public sector workers on paid parental leave.
Take the first issue, double dipping. Under the current arrangements, a public servant on parental leave can receive 14 weeks on full pay (the number of weeks varies between departments and can be taken as half pay for a longer period) as well as the government-provided payment of 18 weeks based on the minimum wage. As long as the public servant has a taxable income of less than $150,000 per year (and most will), this double dipping is completely permissible.
Adding in individuals’ ability to cash in unused leave entitlements, it is pretty clear that many public sector workers are on extremely good wickets when bub comes along — and all courtesy of the taxpayer.
As if that’s not bad enough, it gets worse. There are various wrinkles in arrangements that pertain to particular classes of public sector workers across the country. Take nurses employed in the NSW public sector as a case in point. They are entitled to 14 weeks’ parental leave on full pay, plus superannuation.
But here’s the kicker: if a nurse has a subsequent period of
parental leave while on unpaid parental leave or has returned to work on
reduced hours (and it is within 12 months from recommencing work), the
next period of parental leave is paid at the full-time rate — plus
superannuation. Wow, I think. Expect a lot of nurses’ children to be
close in age.
Not surprisingly, these arrangements now apply to all health professionals working in the public system in NSW. Note also that these provisions are the result of union-led negotiations.
And take a look at the paid parental leave provisions in publicly funded universities. While there are some variations, a typical pattern is 24 weeks on full pay for workers with at least five years’ tenure (14 weeks for others) plus a return-to-work bonus of 12 weeks’ pay. Let’s not forget that many of these university workers will be entitled to the government’s paid parental leave scheme payments as well. It really is a fabulous deal for those who can get it.
And then there is the outright rorting of paid parental leave that takes place in the public service, the tab for which is picked up by the taxpayer. There are a number of variations, including workers returning to full-time duties for the two weeks prior to taking paid parental leave (and being paid at full-time replacement pay) and temporary appointments at a higher classification.
Without the pressure of a financial bottom line, supervisors often give into these contrivances in the (mistaken) belief that there is no harm generated by workers getting enhanced deals when baby arrives.
So where does this leave the debate? The truth is that the detractors of Abbott’s PPL are hiding behind a thin veil of two-faced duplicity in which extremely generous full wage replacement schemes for public sector workers are endorsed while simultaneously criticising the features of Abbott’s scheme.
When Labor shadow minister for disability reform, Jenny Macklin, writes that “the huge gap in support between high and low income women is fundamentally unfair; this is taxpayer’s money”, is she talking about the parental leave arrangements that apply in the public sector or to Abbott’s scheme? I think you know the answer. And surely the ACTU is somewhat embarrassed by the fact that support for a full wage replacement parental leave scheme has been its official policy since Adam was a boy?
What is the way forward? The obvious first move is to remove double dipping. Any public servants (or any other workers, for that matter) receiving paid parental leave from their employer should not be able to receive the government provided payment in addition. (There could be scope for some top-up if the worker received less in total than the current government scheme provides.)
Second, there needs to be a systematic review of the paid parental leave arrangements that apply in the public sector. Wrinkles such as workers being paid at full pay during subsequent leave periods even if they have not returned to work need to be eliminated. Third, the outright rorting of arrangements should be stamped out.
I am still not a fan of Abbott’s PPL. But when it comes to
attacking those who defend the inequitable treatment of different
workers taking parental leave, he does have a point.
Not surprisingly, these arrangements now apply to all health professionals working in the public system in NSW. Note also that these provisions are the result of union-led negotiations.
And take a look at the paid parental leave provisions in publicly funded universities. While there are some variations, a typical pattern is 24 weeks on full pay for workers with at least five years’ tenure (14 weeks for others) plus a return-to-work bonus of 12 weeks’ pay. Let’s not forget that many of these university workers will be entitled to the government’s paid parental leave scheme payments as well. It really is a fabulous deal for those who can get it.
And then there is the outright rorting of paid parental leave that takes place in the public service, the tab for which is picked up by the taxpayer. There are a number of variations, including workers returning to full-time duties for the two weeks prior to taking paid parental leave (and being paid at full-time replacement pay) and temporary appointments at a higher classification.
Without the pressure of a financial bottom line, supervisors often give into these contrivances in the (mistaken) belief that there is no harm generated by workers getting enhanced deals when baby arrives.
So where does this leave the debate? The truth is that the detractors of Abbott’s PPL are hiding behind a thin veil of two-faced duplicity in which extremely generous full wage replacement schemes for public sector workers are endorsed while simultaneously criticising the features of Abbott’s scheme.
When Labor shadow minister for disability reform, Jenny Macklin, writes that “the huge gap in support between high and low income women is fundamentally unfair; this is taxpayer’s money”, is she talking about the parental leave arrangements that apply in the public sector or to Abbott’s scheme? I think you know the answer. And surely the ACTU is somewhat embarrassed by the fact that support for a full wage replacement parental leave scheme has been its official policy since Adam was a boy?
What is the way forward? The obvious first move is to remove double dipping. Any public servants (or any other workers, for that matter) receiving paid parental leave from their employer should not be able to receive the government provided payment in addition. (There could be scope for some top-up if the worker received less in total than the current government scheme provides.)
Second, there needs to be a systematic review of the paid parental leave arrangements that apply in the public sector. Wrinkles such as workers being paid at full pay during subsequent leave periods even if they have not returned to work need to be eliminated. Third, the outright rorting of arrangements should be stamped out.
I am still not a fan of Abbott’s PPL. But when it comes to
attacking those who defend the inequitable treatment of different
workers taking parental leave, he does have a point.
