Full Circle

By Paul Callister

With the introduction of its “Parental” Leave legislation, the NZ government once again acknowledges mothers at work, but not fathers at home. A step backward, not forward, argues Paul Callister.

[Paul Callister is an independent NZ social and economic researcher, currently based in New York.]

On November 7, the New Zealand government announced its plans for paid parental leave. It is proposed that payments will begin on July 1 next year for mothers of babies born or adopted from this date.

Women will qualify if they have worked for the same employer for at least 10 hours a week for a full year. This is the criterion used now for unpaid parental leave of up to a year.

The Government estimates that 20,000 mothers will qualify. It says “up to half” of female wage and salary earners will get 80 per cent of their earnings and about a third will get the full rate.

The Government also announced that it plans to keep most of National’s parental tax credit, which gives low and middle-income working families up to $150 a week for eight weeks when they have a baby, regardless of whether a parent is working.

Laila Harre, the Minister of Women’s Affairs and the chief architect of the legislation, sees this as “stage one”, with the prospect of a more generous scheme if the party gets more seats in the next Government.

While progressive in its aim to support families in the first months of a child’s life, in terms of gender equity the proposal is a giant step backwards. In complete disregard for the idea that it should be the family’s choice who will be the main caregiver in the early months, the government has proposed that only the baby’s mother can claim the 12 weeks leave.

However, if the mother chooses she can transfer some or all of the leave to her partner. This can be the biological father, but also a new boyfriend.

In the latter case, the biological father is likely to be seen by the government as having a responsibility to provide income support to the mother but with no rights to take paid leave with his new child. The mother can also transfer the leave to her female partner if she is in a lesbian relationship.

Under the current proposal some fathers appear not to be eligible for leave. There appears to be no payment for a single man or a gay couple adopting a child, or in those rare situations to a father whose partner dies during childbirth.

Other fathers who would appear to miss out are those where CYPS takes the child at birth and places it with the father. Finally, if the mother is self-employed (and therefore not eligible for paid leave), but the father is an employee and eligible to take unpaid leave, he cannot take the payment or transfer it to his partner.

This proposal treats fathers as second-class citizens in families. There is much research to show that the transition to parenthood is a time when roles and responsibilities are being renegotiated.

In heterosexual couples, the negotiating power will be placed in the mother’s hands by the government when in fact the decision as to who should be the main caregiver should be a shared one.

If we as a society want to involve fathers more around the home fathers need to have a chance to learn something about babycare, instead of being assigned a place at the periphery from the start.

While overseas research does show that it is mainly mothers, who take most paid leave, there are increasing examples where the father is the main caregiver.

The government is keen to recognize some of the diversity in families in New Zealand with, for example, the legislation passed earlier this year to equally share property when defacto and same sex couples separate.

However, it seems to have a blind spot when it comes to new roles that fathers might be adopting.

The government may have been well advised to look overseas, where there are specific provisions for both paid maternity and paternity leave.

For example, maternity leave in Denmark and Finland is not transferable to another partner.

However, in most European countries, including these two, there is also a designated period of paid leave for the father. In Denmark this is 10 days, in Finland one week and in Sweden 2 weeks. In many European countries there is a much longer period of paid parental leave that can be equally divided between couples.

In Sweden and Norway there is even a period of one month’s paid parental leave that the father is encouraged to take and is not transferable to the mother. The UK, too, has announced such a scheme.

In Sweden another “pappa” month is to be introduced next year, and in such countries the term “fathers rights” is not seen as pejorative as it is by many policy makers in New Zealand. Instead, the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood are promoted together.

The decision to effectively make the New Zealand scheme paid maternity leave only is even more surprising given Labour’s history in parental leave debates.

Yet, some of this history also provides a guide as to why parental leave is still seen by some less progressive thinkers as only a “women’s issue”. Back in 1919, the first year of its existence, the International Labour Organisation developed a number of policies for “protecting” women’s employment.

The Maternity Leave Convention, which included a call for period of paid leave, was among these policies. However, while many European countries subsequently introduced maternity leave policies, in New Zealand it took until 1948 for some form of leave to be introduced, and then it only covered maternity leave within the public service.

In 1972 the United Nations designated 1975 as the International Women’s Year. Throughout industrialised countries International Women’s Year provided a focal point for debates around a range of issues affecting women, including parental leave.

In New Zealand, the Labour government set up a select committee on “Women’s Rights” in September 1973.

The committee’s recommendation on parental leave was that ‘[t]he government (a) introduce legislation for paid maternity leave for employed women with the objective of either (i) ratifying by legislative act I.L.O Convention 103 concerning maternity protection, or (ii) giving effect to the principles contained in the aforesaid convention; and (b) consider the desirability of allowing for paid paternity leave in cases of family need.’

In this report there was some ambivalence expressed towards paternity leave.

It was thought that ‘the birth of a child is an event which involves family and friends in a spirit of co-operation to assist the mother, father and baby.’

The select committee suggested ‘[w]hile the introduction of paid paternity leave may be a desirable social development, the committee does not favour measures which might diminish or destroy the value of personal relationships and co-operation in New Zealand society.

We would therefore see its purpose as providing a feasible alternative when other arrangements are not possible.’ Thus, the committee saw parental leave very much as a women’s issue.

These recommendations were not acted on by the Labour Government. Instead, in the latter part of 1975 as part of the run-up to the general election, the government introduced a new concept, that of a Child Minding Allowance to be paid to mothers. This was part of a separate, but related, debate about paying a “mothers’ wage” which was taking place.

The 1975 manifesto of the then opposition National Party indicated that it was not in favour of paid leave. Its policy was also contained within the “women’s rights” section of the manifesto.

However, the possibility of men needing job “protection” at the time of a child’s birth was also raised with the manifesto stating ‘[w]e will hold discussions with employers on the practicability of providing unpaid paternity leave to enable the father, at the time of the birth of the second and subsequent children, to care for his wife and children during her time of confinement.’

It was not felt that a father could be the primary caregiver of a newborn child, although it was envisaged that he could be the main, but temporary, support person for the mother and older children in subsequent births.

In late 1979 the National Party introduced the Maternity Leave and Employment Protection Bill.

As the name indicates this bill only covered women. But a key issue identified by the majority of submissions to the select committee was the need to expand the eligibility criteria for leave in terms of gender.

Included in the submissions was one from the relatively new Human Rights Commission who argued that the bill ‘could negate this purpose of the Human Rights Commission Act by causing further discrimination against women in their employment opportunities and career advancement’.

A number of women’s groups also made the point that paternity leave was essential, if a mother was seriously ill, died, or otherwise was unable to care for the child.

In the debate about the bill in parliament, the opposition Labour Party as well as some government MP’s continued to seek an extension of leave to men.

For example, Labour MP Kerry Burke noted “…that the role of women in the workforce has now reached the point at which many families may decide that, given a choice, the father rather than the mother should remain at home.” But such ideas did not influence the government to shift its ground on gender neutrality.

In late 1986, with Labout back in government, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Bill was introduced. The most significant feature of this bill was the expansion of leave provisions to include fathers.

In 1995, a further government report was published on parental leave. The report was published by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and focused on labour market issues.

Despite a small reference to the question of men’s use of parental leave the report concentrated on women. In recent years much of the thinking about paid leave has come from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and its Minister has primarily promoted the current proposal.

In addition, in recent years there have been many examples when fathers and fathers’ groups have not been consulted when the government is developing important social policies. A recent example is the review of Human Rights legislation.

Given that there is no “Ministry of Men’s Affairs” (and never likely to be one), the government needs to work harder at consulting men.

The proposed legislation will be going to select committee and this is a time that individual fathers, fathers groups and others who support equality in families, need to make their opinions known.

Hopefully, there will also be critical input from government agencies that should be concerned about discriminatory legislation.

Given its concerns about the lack of gender neutrality of maternity leave in the early days of its existence, the Human Rights Commission should be a key agency trying to change this proposed legislation.

Next: The Magic Number