Australian mothers (and fathers) have to wait until after the next federal election before paid maternity leave is introduced here in Australia. I can sympathize with working parents. It must be a difficult decision where you have two incomes coming in and you live to the standard that those incomes provide. Leaving work and that income for six to twelve months can be a huge impost financially - but I have to wonder. Should Australian taxpayers fund a system that allows you to maintain that higher standard of living whilst staying at home to look after a child?
It sounds like I am putting a negative on it - and I am. We are rapidly approaching an era where both parents will work and these working families will insist on tax payers funding everything. Maternity leave, child care and after school care. How much can the tax system carry is my question?
I think there is a case for some type of maternity leave. I keep talking about 'tax payers' and these working parents are tax payers. I just don't know to what extent those tax dollars need to go into the cost of raising a family. I think we could have devised a much more equitable scheme that would have seen the burden spread around a little - including the shoulders of the parents (or parents to be).
We have a reasonably good superannuation scheme here in Australia (retirement scheme). Employers and employees contribute to a fund that is invested and steadily grows. I cannot see why a similar scheme couldn't be introduced for parenting. If we used a scheme where 10% of a person's wage was set aside each year - with that 10% divided between the employee, the employer and the government (with the employer paying the smallest component), within five years an individual would have accumulated the equivalent of six months wages (5 years x 10% = 50% of annual wages = 6 months wages).
This would spread the cost burden and include the parents to be - they would be investing in their own maternity leave as well. If we cap maternity leave at 80% of their average wage, their would be a residual for any later biths. If we include males in this scheme, they would also accumulate six months wages every five years. This could be used to either take paternity leave, or to top up the maternity leave if there were insufficient savings.
Down the track, these funds could be used to provide income in situations of extended illness, or simply transferred to superannuation funds. The bottom line, the cost of maternity leave is spread around. Mothers would receive 80% of their average wage rather than a predetermined amount set down by the government of the day and national savings would get a substantial boost. It would be win for all parties involved.
Should tax payers fund maternity leave - we have no say in the matter really. But surely young workers need to be responsible for setting aside something for when they want to start a family!




