KEY POINTS:
Few taxpayers will disagree with the proposal from the Families Commission that paid parental leave should be extended from the present 14 weeks to one year. If couples cannot afford for one of them to give up paid employment to care for a baby through its first year, the grant would seem one of the better uses of the social welfare budget.
The commission estimates the extension of the benefit would increase its cost from the current $95 million a year to $450 million, a significant new financial commitment by any measure. To soften the fiscal shock the commission suggests the extension be phased in over eight years, first to six months, then nine, reaching the full year in 2015.
But these cautions will be based on an assumption the benefit will be fully subscribed. In all likelihood, the money might be hard to give away. Even with the offer of paid parental leave career-minded young mothers may be as anxious as fathers to return before their baby is a year old.
The full benefit would probably be taken up mainly by women in low-paid, non-career employment who would need it most. In this respect the scheme has a natural efficiency that enables it to be supported by taxpayers who might be concerned at the present Government's tendency to waste precious public funds on welfare for all.
The latest example, this week, was an announcement of an extra $8.25 million for medical services to children under age 6. The money will be available to general practices that commit to providing services to under-6s at no charge to their parents. Health Minister Pete Hodgson said, "We don't want any parent to think twice about taking their young child to a doctor because of how much it costs."
Many parents do not think twice now; they are earning enough not to need this benefit but they will get it. If the scheme was income-tested Mr Hodgson would be able to help more needy children for the same money; he could offer it to low-earning parents of older children.
But for reasons best known to itself, the Government likes to make beneficiaries of us all. It probably knows these schemes are not sustainable; they will have to be better targeted sooner or later, probably when the economy enters a rough patch and a future Government has to cut out all unnecessary expenditure.
Universal benefits are usually a pretence anyway; doctors do not usually agree to handle these schemes unless they retain the right to charge a fee to those of their patients they know can afford to pay. General practitioners have long been accustomed to quietly cross-subsidising poorer families in their practice while governments congratulate themselves for schemes that claim to lower fees for all.
Paid parental leave, though, carries a social signal more important than its financial terms. A decision to extend it to a year would tell young parents that society thinks it a good idea for one of them to care for their baby at home for that time. The present provision of just 14 weeks paid leave arguably gives quite the opposite message, though the right to unpaid leave with a preserved job already applies for a year.
This country's 14 weeks payment is less than any other Western country except the United States and Australia, which do not provide parental leave. If we are going to provide it we ought to do it properly. Both main parties seem to agree with the Families Commission. Even if the cost is too much to extend the scheme more quickly, a decision to do so could be made soon. The decision would be a statement of value, affirming that nurturing for at least the first year should be a full-time job.
