Why Endorse ILO Resolution 183?

1. Because Australia is out of step with the rest of the world.

2. Because paid maternity leave is an equity issue.

PML would address systemic discrimination and disadvantage that women suffer when they seek to combine their re-productive and productive roles. A reasonable period of paid leave as essential to protect working women from economic hardship due to maternity.

• PML maintains an effective right to work. As an anti- discrimination measure, the responsibility for introducing PML falls squarely on government.
• Paid leave would go some way to addressing gender pay inequity, over a woman’s lifetime.

3. Because paid maternity leave has economic benefits.

• Paid maternity leave has been associated with improved labour market attachment force women. Female labour market attachment will improve employment rates and retain valuable skills, necessary in the new economies.

4. Because Paid Maternity Leave is good for families and the community.

• There is also evidence that maternal workforce participation, amongst both single and couple mothers can assist prevent child poverty.
• As part of a family friendly policy environment, PML may assist with the deterioration in the national fertility rate – more women might have more babies.
• PML provides protection for mother and baby, by providing an income for a short period. This allows recovery from birth, maternal/child attachment/bonding and give breastfeeding the best chance of success.

Why A National Scheme?

In its report to the ILO the Howard Government reported that PML was an issue for the States and Territories. The ACTU is calling for a national scheme.

• A national scheme of PML is needed because the market has proven unable to deliver.
• Only 24% of private sector employees have access to PML, and bargaining has delivered vastly different outcomes- in federal agreements the most common period of PML is 2 weeks, in state agreements it is 6 weeks. Less than 1% of agreements in wholesale and retail trade contain paid leave.
• Leaving PML to the market, by obliging employers to fund the direct cost, makes women less attractive in the labour market, and creates a barrier to female employment.

What Would The Ratification Of ILO Resolution 183 Mean For Australia?

If Australia were to ratify ILO 183, and introduce a scheme of maternity protection, which complied with the Convention, the scheme would have the following features:

Eligibility

ILO 183 Article 2 states that the Convention applies to “all employed women, including those in atypical forms of dependant work”. In line with ILO 183, the ACTU endorses a model, which delivered PML to all working women.

In order to comply with ILO 183, as many women as are covered by the convention should qualify for benefits.

Limits which applied to length of time in the labour force, length of time with a particular employer, minimum number of hours worked per week, nature of employer (eg small business) or nature of contract with employer (eg casuals, fixed term workers) would offend Convention 183.

Each such limit would artificially exclude women from the scheme, and create its own form of discrimination.

Just mothers?

Consistent with the maternity protection purpose, the primary entitlement should rest with the mother. The Convention is specific to mothers. However the ACTU does not oppose the extension of eligibility to the child’s father or other primary caregiver, in circumstances where the mother has genuinely opted to transfer her leave entitlement.

Adoptive parents?

The ACTU supports the provision of PML for adoptive parents, as a means to encourage attachment and bonding between the adoptive parents and the child. Such leave should be available to either parent, or split between the parents.

Duration of leave

ILO 183 calls for a minimum 14 weeks leave.

Recognising the additional benefits of longer periods of breastfeeding, and emerging evidence around post –partum recovery, and in light of parental choice, the accompanying Recommendation (No 1919) calls for 18 weeks leave.

The ACTU supports an initial 14 weeks, with the aim to extend payment over time. From April 2003 the UK scheme will be extended from 18 to 26 weeks.

Responsibility for payment

Article 6(8) states that in order to “protect the situation of women in the labour market, benefits ... shall be provided through compulsory insurance or public funds...’’. The convention allows national variation, but discourages an employer being directly liable for the costs of paid maternity leave.

Rate of Payment

ILO 183 calls for payment to be at a level which ensures that the woman can maintain herself and her child in proper conditions of health and with a suitable standard of living. The convention allows nations to provide cash benefits (PML) at a minimum of either 2/3 of previous earnings, or a comparable amount.

Recognising that Australia does not have compulsory insurance, the ACTU is calling for government contribution to national minimum wage ($431pw) topped up with a national employer levy (similar to insurance). The total would be capped at full time average weekly earning ($981.10).

Forty-eight percent (48%) of women workers earn less than $500pw, and 35% earn less than $400pw. Payment to the federal minimum wage would ensure full income replacement for the lowest paid women.

Almost half of the Commonwealth’s contribution to the PML scheme (excluding its contribution as employer) would be paid to women earning less than the federal minimum wage. The cap therefore allows an appropriate level of targeting of taxpayer funding to lower-paid women.

However, a $431pw cap does not deliver the ILO recommended 2/3 previous earnings for all women.

Therefore, the ACTU calls for the implementation of a levy on employers to fund the gap between the federal minimum wage and the average weekly earnings (currently $981.10). If such a levy were introduced with this cap, PML would deliver full income replacement for 87% of all women accessing the scheme. If capped at AWE the scheme will meet the ILO requirement for 2/3 of pre-leave income for 97.5% of Australia’s working mothers.

For the 14% of Australian women who earn more than AWE bargaining or award variations could close the gap and provide 100% income replacement.

The ACTU would expect governments as employer to pay gap coverage to 100% payment.