Huggies Forum

Paid Parental Leave Lock Rss

Now please dont get me wrong.. I dont want to sound greedy or selfish in any way...

But I just discovered today going my next financial year estimate for family assistance office that I will be better off receiving paid parental leave for 18 weeks as opposed to if I was working.. Has anyone else been in the same situation?

I know I wont be eligible for FTB part B but I only get like.. $4 per fortnight for that one anyway!! It is part A that I get more money from from the gov and that wont reduce with the paid parental leave. I am just exited now that I can comfortably stay home with my baby with having DD still young too and enjoy it.. not stressing about money all the time!

I only work 25hrs per week now so that I can spend more time at home with DD and DS.. I plan to have longer off when I have the three kids.. I told DH I didnt want to have to work at all if we decided to have 3 kids but I think I will need a day a week just to keep my sanity!! lol

anyone else better off with paid parental leave as opposed to their normal working hours?
Wow? Really?

Hmmm.... paid parental leave is a touchy subject with me as I don't believe that it should have ever been brought in. But thats just my opinion. smile

Just out of curiosity, how much do you get paid per week with paid parental leave?

Thats ok Fruchoc.. it is $570/week and it is taxable. So you include this in your yearly estimate unlike the FTB payments.

I wont start a debate at all about it but have heard we are WAYYYYYY behind on the paid parental leave thingy.. other countries introduced it ages ago.. and they get more then we do now too apparently.

Not sure what it works out to be after tax. It is means tested.. combined income must be less than $150,000. and you have to have worked a certain amount of hours in the past 6 months or something before u can claim.
Go for it.
Have your 18 weeks at home and enjoy it smile
btw- it may not be the whole $570 (this will go up soon as the national min wage is going up), but you're taxed at 15% which will be $484.00 take-home per week.
C/link somehow assesses how much you're entitled to out of that amount. Good luck smile

Fruchoc- I'm glad it has been brought in- otherwise I would not be entitled to any leave from work at all. It's for once, a positive thing from the government to encourage working people to have the time to have children.
Rather than the people who have more children to get more money on the usual 'parenting payment' where they don't have to do anything but sit around, watch their kids, they get cheap child care, full FTB amounts, reduced medical bills & concessions left, right and centre. Not to mention the bonus coupla hundred they get as part of the baby bonus.

This way the govt is ensuring people are treated fairly at work when it comes to maternity & paternity leave.



Yup.. I knew it would be in the $400's but wasnt sure what tax % was so thanks for that..

I wonder.. u prob cant but I wonder if you can get the payments stretched out?? Like opting to get it paid over 36 weeks.. but prob not actually.. I think I just answered my own question cos it has to be claimed a certain amount of time before the child turns 1.. never mind lol

$484 is still more then i get per week lol.. not much but like i said.. I choose to work less to stay with my children more!

I wonder Steph.. I rang up family assist office today and she didnt say anything to me about a reduced amount depending on what u earn now? Nor have I read it anywhere.. only the means testing thing where u have to earn less then $150,000..
$484 is a lot of money per week! I used to earn only $600 per week to work a 40 hour week just 7 years ago. blink

So.... the company you work for.... are they out of pocket when it comes to paid parental leave?

Not sure [i][exactly/i] how it works.. I think the employer pays it but the gov reimburses them .. but dont hold me to that.. Some employers have their own paid parental leave schemes and these can be claimed as well as the gov one.. just not at the same time I think.
[quote name='Simone24' date='23 June 2011 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1308749447' post='3012552']
Not sure [i][exactly/i] how it works.. I think the employer pays it but the gov reimburses them .. but dont hold me to that..

Some employers have their own paid parental leave schemes and these can be claimed as well as the gov one.. just not at the same time I think.
[/quote]

See.... this is the problem that I have with it. I don't believe that your employer should be responsible for a womans choice to have a baby. They shouldn't be affected by it in any way, other than to find a replacement for your position until you do or don't decide to come back to work.

I also think that it brings a whole realm of other issues with it.

Say for example... you are filling a position at your company. You have two women with very similar experience and qualifiations, yet one is married and in her mid to late 20's and has no children. The other one might be a bit older and has 2 or 3 children, and doesn't plan on having any more. You tell me who you would hire?? The lady who plans to have children so you then have to fork out for paid parental leave while also paying a replacement for her until she decides to come back? Or the lady who has already had her children and isn't planning any more?

I am honestly waiting for the first law suit for "discrimination" because of this issue. I just hope it never arises. But, thats just my opinion. smile

I am currently getting the paid maternity leave as it worked out that I would get more then getting part A & B, cos of my husbands wage I don't get part A anyway. The company that employs you only pays if you have been there for more then a year otherwise the government pays, not sure if your company gets reimbursed or not.
It is also means tested on your wage only if you have earnt more then 150K in the year before bubs was born.
@ Fruchoc in regards to the situation where an employer has the choice between a mother and a younger married person with no children, I was in a similar situation I had a child already and was up for a job actually against a guy and I had told my employer that I planned on having more children and I still got hired so I think it depends on the situation and this was for a very well known company in Australia
Here is the link to see if you are eligible
http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/family-assistance-payments/paid-parental-leave-scheme/working-parents---eligibility.php

Yup.. I knew it would be in the $400's but wasnt sure what tax % was so thanks for that..

I wonder.. u prob cant but I wonder if you can get the payments stretched out?? Like opting to get it paid over 36 weeks.. but prob not actually.. I think I just answered my own question cos it has to be claimed a certain amount of time before the child turns 1.. never mind lol

$484 is still more then i get per week lol.. not much but like i said.. I choose to work less to stay with my children more!

I wonder Steph.. I rang up family assist office today and she didnt say anything to me about a reduced amount depending on what u earn now? Nor have I read it anywhere.. only the means testing thing where u have to earn less then $150,000..

You can't stretch it out but you can choose when you want the payment to start so you can select any date up until bub turns 1. Also there is not out of pocket cost for the employer




Some employers have their own paid parental leave schemes and these can be claimed as well as the gov one.. just not at the same time I think.

My employer has introduced the paid mat leave scheme - not the gov one - & you cannot claim them both at the same time.

My understanding of it is - say you are entitled to 12 weeks paid mat leave with your employer (my employer has a system the longer you have worked for them the more time you get!) & the gov scheme is 18 weeks, so you could claim the 12 weeks with your employer, but only 6 weeks from the gov, so it is still only 18 weeks. If you claim the 18 weeks thro the gov, then you cant claim another 12 weeks from your employer

I dont understand tho how the companies cant be out of pocket?? Why would the gov reimburse companies? i dont get it at all.

& my tongue is bleeding from how hard i am biting it to not get involved in this.... blink
My tongue is sore too.

But there's a fair bit of misinformation floating around here so I suggest checking facts at this link http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/ppl_working_parents_qa.htm

You can certainly recevie your employer's paid mat leave and the govt payment at the same time- you just need to provide pay estimates and it will all come out in the wash at tax time.

As far as I understand, the govt puts up the money for their scheme but they just use the payroll facilities of your former employer to administer it. Probably a god thing- centrelink can be slow. I have just received a backlog of payments from about 3 years ago.

7 years is a long time...things change. Think of the internet. Just 4 years ago a stay at home parent who was also the partner of a millionaire could claim FTB part B. Not to mention inflation.

What I think will be interesting is whether paid mat leave will result in carers staying at home from work longer, or whether they will feel career/ workplace pressure to return anyway. I imagine there might be some good flow on effects from staying at home longer.....less illness in young bubs from early exposure to childcare (aka 'germ houses' as any parent who uses childcare will tell you!); potentially longer breastfeeding; happier parents; potential in the workplace for colleagues to gain a promotion/experience when filling a mat leave position.

I think the important thing is that our generation has choices- unlike our mums who were expected to stay at home with the kids whether they liked it or not!
Sign in to follow this topic