Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Lawyers may lose out on parental pay

High-earning female lawyers who are single or breadwinners are unfairly disadvantaged under the Rudd Government’s Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme, a Women Lawyers Association of NSW spokesperson has claimed.

user iconLeanne Mezrani 24 July 2013 The Bar
Lawyers may lose out on parental pay
expand image

PricewaterhouseCoopers legal director Susan Price, who wrote a submission on behalf of the industry body, told Lawyers Weekly that the Federal Government’s $1.4 billion initiative should not have an income test.

“[It] does treat single women unfairly, or those earning above the threshold who are the main breadwinner in their family ... the very income that needs to be replaced, in part, while the woman is on parental leave,” she said.

Only women earning less than $150,000 a year can take advantage of the scheme, which pays new mothers the minimum wage of $606 for 18 weeks.

Price said the means test could prompt pregnant lawyers and barristers to manipulate their income in order to qualify for PPL.

“We are aware of a woman who was due to receive a bonus and asked her employer to defer it into the next tax year.”

Barristers are in a better position to alter their assessable income, admitted Price, but claimed that any financial gain would likely be paid back in tax obligations for the following year’s inflated earnings.

Price also argued that an all-inclusive PPL scheme could encourage more women to participate in the workforce and, in turn, boost the country’s overall productivity.

She added, however, that PPL does not address the more pressing problem of lack of affordable and accessible childcare.

“The current childcare system is patchy and unable to meet demand, and the way the Government subsidises parents is confusing and variable,” said Price.

“There should be a thorough review of how childcare is delivered and funded, to simplify the system, and properly assess the benefits that childcare can add to workforce participation for women.”

Price also highlighted tax write-offs for childcare fees and ‘out-of -school hours’ care as areas requiring government review.

Kate Ashmor, the president of Australian Women Lawyers, has also urged the government to review what she described as Australia’sinaccessible childcare system in an interview with Lawyers Weekly earlier this month.

Ashmor said at the time that, based on anecdotal evidence, the inability to access childcare, whether due to cost or limited places, is contributing to the attrition rate of women in the legal profession.

She singled out female barristers as a vulnerable group, claiming that many are forced to refuse briefs or leave the profession altogether because the childcare system can’t cater to their needs.

Tags
Comments (3)
  • Avatar
    <p>It is illogical to base the income test solely on the mothers income as this does unfairly disadvantage families where the woman is the main breadwinner. As I understand it, currently if the man earns $300k and the woman $145k, they will get the paid leave. However if the woman earns $151k and the man earns $40k, they do not. This is obviously unfair. In the second situation, the couple are likely to have outgoings (such as mortgage payments) relative to their income, and this would force the mother to return to work straight away, as probably they could not get by on just the man's income for any length of time. If there is to be an income test, it should be based on family income to make any sense.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>I'm sorry but if you earn that much even if you are the sole breadwinner you don't need help from the government - such a suggestion might show that the person making it needs to have a darn good look at themselves - the government isn't a charity. If they are the sole income earner they need to put some plans together - I paid for my kids and my wife to stay home and so can the high earning lawyers.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    old fashioned ideas Wednesday, 24 July 2013
    <p>As someone who was the main breadwinner when I had my 2 kids (and received no maternity pay at all, I used my long service leave), it is about time this was seen as a work-related benefit, not "welfare". I vote Labor, but their scheme is very unfair to people who were in my position, because it assumes the man/other partner is the main breadwinner. Who'd have thought Tony Abbott would be better for women?</p><p>For those bleating about women who earn more getting paid more, it is actually returning tax they have already paid to them. Women on the minimum have not been contributing the tax to begin with, and are therefore, for whatever reason, not contributing financially to the economy, but should receive a payment from the rest of us to acknowledge that everyone has higher costs when they have a child. They also get family tax benefits, which working women generally don't.</p><p>Next step is tax-deductible child care...</p>
    0
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!