2020women

18 weeks in 18 months

Posted by Jenni Colwill on 11 May 2009 | 2 Comments

Tags: , ,

Looks like I was right, and wrong. We are getting paid maternity leave, but not right now. In fact, we won't get it until we vote the Rudd government back into power in 2010. Sounds a bit like a game to me.

When I was thinking about today's blog entry, I toyed with some headlines that were a bit more out there. Headlines like .... 'Rudd government ejaculates prematurely over paid maternity leave' .... 'Not tonight, Josephine, and not tomorrow night either' .... 'Promises, promises, promises' .... but decided on a more mature approach.

But the more I write, the less mature I feel about this policy proposal. I want paid maternity leave NOW.

I don't want to play this sophisticated game of maybe, maybe later, maybe if you're nice. I just want it NOW.

I WANT PAID MATERNITY LEAVE NOW.

GO AWAY. LEAVE ME ALONE. I WANT PAID MATERNITY LEAVE NOW!

I WANT PAID MATERNITY LEAVE NOW....NOW....NOW!

There, that feels better.


Post your comment

Comments for this page have been disabled

Comments

  • Hi Jenni,
    Was just thinking even where both parents have "average" incomes, this new scheme bites the bean.

    It would be possible - even if income of secondary earner means the household is not eligible for FTB B, for the maternity leave payment to produce a 20 cent reclaw on FTB A/Rent Assistance and 34 cent effective marginal tax rate - created by the LITO. Larger families and those with 2+ who rent with middle incomes could find themselves in this situation. They would keep only 46 cents of each dollar of the Mat Leave payment. It could be worth as littke as $4504. This is WORSE than the baby bonus.

    Also I am concerned about the interaction of mat leave payments with public community housing. If state housing authorities treat mat leave as income, then 25% of the mat leave will infact go to state housing authorities. This would mean that the low income family mentioned in my first post could infact be SIGNIFICANTLY worse off. The mathematics is rather complex, but in the situation where every dollar results in a 40cent reclaw of FTB, and the family is in public housing, an additional 20 cents of every dollar of the mat leave payment could end up in the housing authorities hand. I am not sure what housing authorities do with baby bonus payments, but if they are excluded currently, these working families could end up keeping only $3916.80.

    All of these problems mirror those that working single mothers who receive child support currently experience with the FTB system.

    Michelle

    If the housing authority keeps 25% of the $9792 ($2448), then the low income household

    Scenario: John earns 50K p.a. Joan is

    Posted by Michelle Wingett, 12/05/2009 12:16am (3 years ago)

  • I am not so sure that this proposed scheme offers much more to low income households than existing baby bonus scheme.

    The $5000 Baby Bonus does not count as income for FTB purposes.

    The proposed 18 weeks of $544 is $9792. If this money is treated EXACTLY like earnt income - i.e. is included in income tests for FTB - where both parents have low incomes, 20 cents of FTB B, and 20 cents of FTB A may be lost to reclaw of FTB. The number of dollars subjected to this reclaw would depend upon how much each parent had already eaarnt in the financial year, how much they would earn in remainder of financial year.

    If taxable and included in FTB tests, this new scheme may actually deliver as little as $5875.20 to lower income households, only $875.20 more than the existing $5000.

    Higher income households would receive greater benefit. I will be very interested to read how this new scheme is to interact with the FTB system/Tax system.

    Posted by Michelle Winget, 11/05/2009 6:53pm (3 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments