The case against paid maternity leave

Having children is undoubtedly expensive. All parents can testify that time taken off work and money spent on clothes, prams, books, toys and much more, all add up. But why should the rest of society pick up most of the tab? The benefit of having children is primarily enjoyed by the parents concerned, not by outsiders. It is therefore logical that parents, not the state, should be the ones funding such choices.

We need to stop this wasteful churn and encourage an ethic where people who are doing quite well stop looking to the government as a contributor to their incomes.

All this is certainly not to say that paid maternity leave which is voluntarily funded by employers is a bad thing, or should be prohibited. Recently, some very large companies, such as Westpac, News Ltd and Woolworths have decided to provide paid maternity leave to female employees who have been with them for a while.

If employers offer this, it is generally because it is in their commercial interests. For example, paid maternity leave often enables higher rates of staff retention, a big priority for many workplaces given the current competitiveness for employees in the labour market. High retention rates save firms the costs associated with re-advertising, re-hiring and re-training, and also maximise productivity. Such arrangements therefore represent win-win outcomes, and should be encouraged. However, every business and industry is different, so such arrangements should never be made compulsory.

In the meantime, I hope that those who believe in paid maternity leave being forced upon businesses and taxpayers stop and think about the real effects of their policies. If feminism is really about gender equality, it shouldn’t treat women who have children as a special class that is automatically entitled to income from others, regardless of need.