Dialogue: Society must get future priorities right

By ADELIA HALLETT*

Let's face some facts about paid parental leave.

Fact one: children cost money. Fact two: parents have to cover most of that cost. Fact three: most can't afford to. Fact four: society, including business, needs people to keep having babies.

In New Zealand we have a free-market approach to reproduction - if people want babies, they will have them. And they will generate the money to raise them.

But what happens when society needs babies and parents can't afford them?

Many of my age (30s) and income bracket (middle) are having just one child. Any more is too hard. Many are not having any at all.

Basic maths tells us this doesn't add up. Will my contribution of one son to the workforce offset the demands I put on society as I age? Even National's Jenny Shipley is talking about a breeding crisis.

Money is not the only reason people stop having children, but it's a big factor.

In most families, women's incomes are no longer just a handy top-up of a decent pay packet brought home by a man.

If you live in Auckland or Wellington you need two incomes just to feed the mortgage.

In many homes, the woman's pay is the main income.

But it's impossible for most women to work immediately before, during and just after giving birth.

What's all this got to do with business? Plenty. Aside from the fact that employers need a supply of new little consumers and workers, smart companies realise that treating new parents as valued staff-members can pay dividends.

Most workers are not entitled to any money when they take time off to have a baby (as a union delegate in the newspaper industry, I found that men in particular were surprised when they were told this, having assumed that if they were given paid leave for holidays, bereavements and jury service they must surely be entitled to something for an event of the magnitude of a new child).

But some workers, such as in parts of the dairy and banking industries, have won paid parental leave in their agreements.

Why would these usually astute employers agree to pay workers to have babies? Because:

* It reduces the costs of labour turnover (it's cheaper to give an employee a few weeks' pay than replace her).

* Employers protect their investment in training and skills.

* It improves the staff's motivation, loyalty and morale and the company's industrial relations.

* It promotes a positive public image.

* The company is more attractive to new staff.

* It promotes equal employment opportunities - something employers like to appear to support.

* It brings us into line with international labour agreements. New Zealand is one of the few Western countries without paid leave.

But the best reason for not financially penalising workers for obeying the most basic of human instincts is that it is just plain fair. Parents always have, and always will, bear most of the cost of having children. But to deny them an income when they most need it is inhuman.

We are a society, and the primary role of any society is to protect and prepare the generation that will replace it. Whether they like it or not, employers are a part of society and must pull their weight.

Women's Affairs Minister Laila Harre has calculated that under her proposal of 14 weeks' paid parental leave financed by a levy on employers, the cost to firms would be less than when Anzac Day falls on a weekday instead of a weekend.

Whatever the funding system, 14 weeks is not long for a mother to spend with her new baby. It's the least we can do.

* Adelia Hallett, a journalist, is an officer with the Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union.