Swan's paid parental leave falls apart

THERE are a couple of things Australian Mums expect to see on Mother's Day.

Burnt toast, for example. Burnt toast, and cold tea.

What they don't expect is what they got this year, Wayne Swan muscling in on the celebrations, his nervous face grinning up at them from the foot of the bed.

It would have been fine, I suppose, if he'd come with a decent gift, but what Swan held in his hands was actually pretty much worthless. It wasn't a jewellery box made of Paddle Pop sticks, held together with sticky tape. Those truly are priceless.

What Swan offered was very much worse: an apparently expensive present that fell apart the moment women lunged for it.

We speak, of course, of paid maternity leave or, as Swan calls it, "paid parental leave".

It's to be included in today's Budget, which you, as a Mum, might take to mean it's included in the coming year's accounts.

It's not in the accounts.

It's not even in the Budget.

It's just in the speech.

It's not due to come in until January 2011 ... that is, after the next election. It's dependent on the Rudd Government being returned (quite likely) and on the deficit not blowing out (not at all certain).

No matter how you spin it, that's not a budget measure.

That's an election promise.

Why include it? That's too easy. It's a touch of blue sky on an otherwise cloudy day, but it's also a grand way to keep women quiet.

Not just any women, either.

No, in announcing the measure, Swan had in mind keeping quiet a particular group of women who sit beside him on the nation's front benches, formidable women with names like Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek; women who have for years campaigned for paid maternity leave as a right, not a privilege; women whose very presence in the parliament is a constant reminder of how far women have come, and how far they have to go, in public life.

They wanted a maternity leave program, and they wanted it to be in this budget.

Swan obviously didn't have the guts to tell them - again - that the nation just can't afford it, so he agreed to bring it in.

For some women. Eventually.

Which women? At the moment, it is supposed to go to "primary carers" (read: women) who earn less than $150,000 a year.

Why should maternity leave be means tested? Maternity leave is a payment to women that recognise the importance of being home with their infants during the first, precious months of their lives.

Once you get into the zone where this woman gets it, but her sister doesn't ... well, you're exactly where we are right now.

Except instead of the employer deciding who gets maternity leave, it will be the Government.

If that weren't enough, has anyone looked at the start date? Swan says the scheme will start on January 1, 2011.

According to many very twitchy groups on the internet, that date - 1/1/11 - is also the day when the sky is going to fall in.

Somehow, it seems appropriate.