Thumbs up for 26 weeks paid maternity leave in the public sector
Union members have responded positively to a CPSU plan to campaign for 26 weeks paid maternity leave in the Australian Public Service over the next five years.
Background: CPSU push for 26 weeks paid maternity leave - read more here
What you said
I support the campaign for additional maternity leave. When the 12 week paid leave was introduced in the 1970s there was the similar objections sited, but the end of the world did not come and the Commonwealth provision was the model for other women to get similar paid leave - Justine
I applaud your efforts to allow mums to stay home longer after having a child. In my situation, my husband earns less than me, so not having my income would mean we would probably lose our house. It was a struggle for us when my income dropped and it has not gone back to "normal" yet. I would love to see the CPSU win this case, if only so other employers in tougher industries could follow suit. It would be nice for Government to legislate on this - providing that family is still an important issue to those governing the nation - Birgit
I've just returned from maternity leave and wonder how third-world countries could offer 6 months and not us? - Shaz
I fully support the CPSU's campaign on 26 weeks paid leave and I commend them for pursuing this. The issue is not the financial cost of paid leave to the employer, the issue is the well-being of babies and their primary carers, and in turn the investment in the well-being of the next generation - AL
I fully support this motion by the CPSU. A life of a working mother is not an easy one - you have to balance the guilt of perhaps not being there for your child's major milestones, with working for your personal satisfaction (a financially contributing family member and working person as opposed to 'mummy') and your family's benefit - Bel
I'm of two minds on this issue. Yes, matleave for those who can't afford to stay home without the extra cash is important to them and I understand their situation. On the other hand, if you want children, you should be prepared to do whatever it takes to have them. Take leave with a confirmed return to your job if you want it, yes, but don't expect too much in the way of hand-outs. I know of people who can't have children and get nothing from anyone, even if they struggle themselves to pay their bills. It's unfair on them in a way too, because their hard-earned money goes to someone who gets time off to do what comes naturally. Think about that too. Like I said - two minds! - Jean
I totally support the CPSU's campaign to increase paid maternity leave. The community can often underestimate the actual costs of having a baby, let alone the costs involved in feeding, clothing and equipping a baby. I have been on 14 weeks maternity leave and 4 months unpaid leave, I lost at least $12000 in wages during my unpaid leave. Why should women have to bear such a financial burden in having a baby? I fully support the CPSU in your maternity leave campaign - Julie
I don't agree with increasing the amount for maternity leave. There is no justification for the increase in paid time taken off. This leave has to be paid for out of taxes or the increased cost of goods and services. I agree that there should be the provision of unpaid maternity leave to settle in to the new family situation - Ross
I think this is a wonderful idea, and separately I sincerely hope that the Govt introduces paid maternity leave across the board for every family. In a perfect world, everyone would have the same entitlement. It works in other countries, so why not here? It infuriates me when people say that having children is a lifesyle choice. Don't forget, for those nearing retirement, that without these new additions to the population, there will be no workers in 16 years to pay their taxes and fund your pensions and health care. The cost of living these days is such that a family suffers at the loss of one income, and the high cost of childcare eats into your pay when you DO go back to work - KD
I just stumbled across this article by accident as I was looking for something else. I must say, if I understand correctly I am amazed. You really only get 14 weeks maternity leave with you work with the public sector in Australia? I work for the public service in Canada and we get a full YEAR maternity leave. I admit, I am ignorant as to the economic details of how your country works, but one would think that the govt should be able to find a way to manage to allow 6 months at least. Best of luck in your fight to get the Government to move into the 21st century with this most important issue. The days when mothers could quit their jobs to raise their children are long over, in all western nations - Diane
Join the debate
Have your say: Post a comment below or email us at rights at cpsunews@cpsu.org.au
More information: Visit our campaign page for news updates, resources and ways to get involved
Comments(5)
Posted by:Deborah Fulton - 29 Apr 2008, 11:24am
I support paid maternity leave of 26 weeks.
Too many mums have to return to work after 12 weeks. Babies are too fragile at 12 weeks to be left with a carer. What about the illness they pick up in day-care centres?
Although ,we in the public sector are more fortunate than others, there is still room for improvement.
When it comes time to move jobs, I will be searching for an agency that provides adequate maternity leave.
How do other countries provide 52 weeks paid maternity leave?
Posted by:Shirley L - 21 Apr 2008, 10:38am
The Government seems to recognise individuals in some areas, but married couples/families in others. It seems to be according to the most disadvantage for the people concerned. I have watched horizontal equity systematically stripped from Australian society over the past 30 years.
For example, if a married person earns enough, his/her partner has to pay the extra Medicare levy, regardless of how poor they are. I think that is unfair.
If the Government wants to count people as a family unit, then income-tax splitting should be allowed. That is, if one partner earns $60K and the other earns $28K, then the couple should have the option of being considered each to earn $44K. (The partner on $60K would not then have to pay the extra Medicare levy).
Then, when a child turns 16, she/he becomes an individual and the parents who are still supporting her/him get no tax deduction or any consideration for doing so. If the child is in full-time education, then they are dependants until age 25. (My daughter is over 25, but she spent 10 years living at home, caring for her invalid father and keeping house, so I could continue in the work force. She is a student being supported by me, but I don't get any concessions, let alone tax breaks).
The Family Allowance of the 1970s was meant to take the place of tax deductions for children, but when they means-tested it without restoring tax deductions for supporting children, it became unfair.
Posted by:Jennifer - 19 Apr 2008, 6:51pm
Whilst I usually support CPSU campaigns, I can not support this. I think it is time that we recognised that there are things in life that we are responsible for on our own, and this includes the costs associated with having and raising children. There is an increasingly unfair burden on single, childless and mature aged workers, with these individuals always expected to accommodate the 'flexibilities' and support demanded by parents of school aged children. Perhaps it is time families were less materialistic and people recognised that being a parent at home raising children can be a joy and add greatly to one's quality of life: it is not a burden that requires compensation.
Posted by:Leonard - 18 Apr 2008, 12:43pm
Let us be realistic about the economic rationality of asking an employer to pay wages for 6 months and get no productive results for the 6 months in the business.
If I was in private business, I would not be wanting to impose this extra cost on my business.
I would probably not employ females, for fear that they would become pregnant. Better for a woman to have a job without the benefits of 26 weeks paid maternity leave, instead of having no job at all. Also, a parent (mother or father) should be at home full time with the baby and children. It is because of parents not being with children enough, that we have so may parent-child relationship problems, that we have so much delinquency among young people. It is also because of pressures of work on both heads of the family, that cause us not to enjoy and appreciate our partner/spouse as we should.
Why is the divorce rate in society in excess of 30%?
Why is the divorce/separation rate in Defence around 60% ?
A parent may argue that both parents need to work, in order to pay the bills .. this is only the case because we want so much these days, we want everything at once, we want the best and biggest house, and car, and TV etc. Far better for family, and society, for one parent to work for a wage, and the other to work at home for the benefit of the family.
Ultimately, it is relationships, and happiness in life, that is important in our existence. If we can accept a simpler way of life, not try to keep up with the Jones's with worldly things, and spend meaningful time with our loved ones instead of farming the children out to childcare etc, then life will be worthwhile.
Posted by:Shaun - 18 Apr 2008, 12:41pm
Julie states she lost $12000 while on Mat leave, you cant lose something you never had and you new you wouldn't get paid for that period of time.
Expensive having babies? Sure I've had three but surely with forward planning, the baby bonus and 12 weeks paid leave barring any complications one would think it achievable.
I support paid maternity leave of 26 weeks.
Too many mums have to return to work after 12 weeks. Babies are too fragile at 12 weeks to be left with a carer. What about the illness they pick up in day-care centres?
Although ,we in the public sector are more fortunate than others, there is still room for improvement.
When it comes time to move jobs, I will be searching for an agency that provides adequate maternity leave.
How do other countries provide 52 weeks paid maternity leave?
The Government seems to recognise individuals in some areas, but married couples/families in others. It seems to be according to the most disadvantage for the people concerned. I have watched horizontal equity systematically stripped from Australian society over the past 30 years.
For example, if a married person earns enough, his/her partner has to
pay the extra Medicare levy, regardless of how poor they are. I think
that is unfair.
If the Government wants to count people as a family unit, then income-tax splitting should be allowed. That is, if one partner earns $60K and the other earns $28K, then the couple should have the option of being considered each to earn $44K. (The partner on $60K would not then have to pay the extra Medicare levy).
Then, when a child turns 16, she/he becomes an individual and the parents who are still supporting her/him get no tax deduction or any
consideration for doing so. If the child is in full-time education,
then they are dependants until age 25. (My daughter is over 25, but she spent 10 years living at home, caring for her invalid father and keeping house, so I could continue in the work force. She is a student being supported by me, but I don't get any concessions, let alone tax breaks).
The Family Allowance of the 1970s was meant to take the place of tax deductions for children, but when they means-tested it without restoring tax deductions for supporting children, it became unfair.
Whilst I usually support CPSU campaigns, I can not support this. I think it is time that we recognised that there are things in life that we are responsible for on our own, and this includes the costs associated with having and raising children. There is an increasingly unfair burden on single, childless and mature aged workers, with these individuals always expected to accommodate the 'flexibilities' and support demanded by parents of school aged children. Perhaps it is time families were less materialistic and people recognised that being a parent at home raising children can be a joy and add greatly to one's quality of life: it is not a burden that requires compensation.
Let us be realistic about the economic rationality of asking an employer to pay wages for 6 months and get no productive results for the 6 months in the business.
If I was in private business, I would not be wanting to impose this extra cost on my business.
I would probably not employ females, for fear that they would become pregnant.
Better for a woman to have a job without the benefits of 26 weeks paid maternity leave, instead of having no job at all.
Also, a parent (mother or father) should be at home full time with the baby and children. It is because of parents not being with children enough, that we have so may parent-child relationship problems, that we have so much delinquency among young people. It is also because of pressures of work on both heads of the family, that cause us not to enjoy and appreciate our partner/spouse as we should.
Why is the divorce rate in society in excess of 30%?
Why is the divorce/separation rate in Defence around 60% ?
A parent may argue that both parents need to work, in order to pay the bills .. this is only the case because we want so much these days, we want everything at once, we want the best and biggest house, and car, and TV etc. Far better for family, and society, for one parent to work for a wage, and the other to work at home for the benefit of the family.
Ultimately, it is relationships, and happiness in life, that is important in our existence. If we can accept a simpler way of life, not try to keep up with the Jones's with worldly things, and spend meaningful time with our loved ones instead of farming the children out to childcare etc, then life will be worthwhile.
Julie states she lost $12000 while on Mat leave, you cant lose something you never had and you new you wouldn't get paid for that period of time.
Expensive having babies? Sure I've had three but surely with forward planning, the baby bonus and 12 weeks paid leave barring any complications one would think it achievable.