PM needs to address sexism in paid parental leave scheme

To get parental leave pay, the government applies an income test.

But the test applies only to the income of the newborn’s mother.

If she earned more than $156,647 in the last financial year, she and her partner get nothing.

It doesn’t matter how much her husband or partner earns.

They could be literally taking home millions, but as long as the mother’s income is less than $156,647, the family can get the government’s money.

In his speech on Saturday, the prime minister said he wanted a “modern policy, for modern families” which will “support dads who want to take time off work to be more involved in those early months”.

Amen to that, but if he’s serious about, it he needs to do something about a scheme that gives families with female breadwinners and stay-at-home dads nothing.

To be fair, mothers can currently transfer parental leave payments to their husbands or partners if they are the primary carer.

But again – only if her income is less than $156,647 a year.

Loading

We all know (or are) a woman who goes out to work to pay the mortgage while her husband works on his many unproduced screenplays and collects rejection slips from The Monthly.

Parts of Australian society still aren’t comfortable with the female partner earning more than her other half, but the government should not be designing policy based on that prejudice.

Because surely that’s discrimination? You can’t treat someone less favourably because of their sex in Australia!

Well in this case you can and the Human Rights Commission and Administrative Appeals Tribunal have agreed it’s lawful.

The inequality has been there since the scheme was birthed by Julia Gillard in 2011 and during their nine years in government the Coalition frustrated attempts by Centre Alliance senator Stirling Griff to correct the anomaly.

Perhaps if the Coalition had been prepared to stand up for professional women when they wanted to start or grow their families, fewer of them would have turned against the government at the last election.

Albanese’s decision to extend parental leave payments to 26 weeks isn’t surprising.

He copped an earful about it at last month’s jobs summit where it was argued the current entitlements hold women back.

The unions were particularly scathing with the ACTU’s Michelle O’Neil complaining we have the second worst paid parental leave scheme in the developed world.

Adding to that pressure was a push from the Greens and teal MPs including Zali Steggall and Zoe Daniel to increase it to six months.

The government will no doubt reap the electoral reward for this extension while hoping voters forget the role it played in scuppering Tony Abbott’s plans to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

Abbott’s proposals – there were a few iterations – would have tied the rate of payments to women’s actual wages with a maximum payment of $50,000.

Loading

Labor opposed Abbott’s plan with then shadow treasurer Chris Bowen describing it as “extravagant, unaffordable” and a “frolic”.

But it also stuck rigidly to Julia Gillard’s policy, in December 2014 describing the 18 weeks she had legislated as a “perfectly good, rational, sensible paid parental leave scheme”.

The press release spruiking Albanese’s expanded scheme states “Equality for women is at the heart of our vision for a fair go at work … Because the full and equal and respectful participation of women in our economy is our nation’s greatest untapped resource.”

If he really means it, the sexist income test has to go.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here