Removing employer responsibility for Paid Parental Leave

Parliament house flag post

Removing employer responsibility for Paid Parental Leave

Posted 25/11/2013 by Luke Buckmaster

New Abbott Government legislation will remove the requirement for employers to make payments to employees under the national Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 March 2014. Instead, employees would be paid directly by the Department of Human Services, unless the employer chooses to make the payments.

The Government's reason for making the change is to 'ease administrative burdens on business'. 

Currently, in most cases, the Commonwealth Government funds employers to provide instalments of PPL to their eligible long-term employees for up to 18 weeks at the National Minimum Wage (currently $606.50 per week).

The employer role in making these payments was suggested by the Productivity Commission in its report recommending the current scheme. The Commission argued that:
 ... the more that parental leave arrangements mimic those that exist as part of routine employment contracts, the more they will be seen by employers and employees as standard employment arrangements.
It suggested that this would benefit employers in two main ways. First, it would 'promote employment continuity and workforce retention'. Second, it would signal that 'a genuine capacity to take a reasonable period of leave from employment to look after children is just a normal part of working life'.

During the Commission's parental leave inquiry, some employer representatives and individual companies gave qualified support to playing the 'paymaster' role for the scheme. Others, however, were opposed on the grounds of the perceived administrative burden.

The Commission, however, was sceptical of these concerns, suggesting that:
  ... it is arguable whether there would be any material addition to administrative costs, not only for large employers with access to sophisticated payroll and human resource management systems, but also for smaller firms because (as acknowledged by some participants) the probability of an employee actually being on parental leave at any point in time would be quite low.
Nevertheless, the Government says that feedback to a legislated review of the PPL scheme currently underway  suggests that employer groups 'generally [do] not support the employer role' because it  'places an unnecessary administrative burden on business, and any benefits to employers in terms of employee retention were not commensurate with the administrative burden imposed' (see Regulatory Impact Statement, p. 2).

The Government estimates that total annual (national) savings to employers from removing the paymaster requirement will be $48 million, though it isn't clear how it arrived at this figure.

While there is clearly some opposition to the paymaster role among employers, there is evidence from a Government evaluation of the early impacts of the scheme (the 2013 PPL Phase 2 Report) that employer experiences in implementing PPL have generally been positive.

According to a survey of 501 employers undertaken as part of the evaluation:
  • 54% disagreed with the statement that 'organising payments for PPL has been time-consuming'
  • only 29% of employers stated additional costs were involved in implementing the scheme
  • of those reporting additional costs, 94% stated that this arose from extra workload they took on themselves, rather than from purchasing a new payroll system or hiring extra administrative staff
  • in terms of staff hours required to process PPL:
    • 23% of employers reported one to two hours were needed
    • 22% said it required three to five hours
    • 30% reported it took 15 hours or more
  • costs to organisations implementing PPL were minimal, with estimates ranging between:
    • $1 and $250 for 45% of employers
    • between $250 and $1,000 for 21% of employers
    • over $1,000 by 20% of employers.
  • 74% agreed that PPL had been easy to implement.
In terms of possible retention effects associated with employers providing PPL, interviews conducted as part of the evaluation were inconclusive because 'most employers had little experience with return to work as the majority of their employees were still on leave'.

This suggests it may be premature to suggest that the benefits of the employer role in providing PPL are outweighed by the costs (especially when the available evidence suggests that employers have generally had positive experiences with the scheme). It could also be argued that the Government's provision of up to $11,000 to employers towards the costs of parental leave pay for their employees should be considered in evaluating the costs and benefits of the scheme.

Finally, it is worth noting that an argument often used in support of the more generous schemes proposed by the Coalition and the Greens is that PPL should be seen as a workplace entitlement, rather than a welfare payment. On this view, removing the paymaster requirement from employers takes away one of the few aspects of the scheme specifically intended to promote PPL as a standard employment arrangement.


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print


Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Indigenous Australians Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment Sport illicit drugs people trafficking taxation Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations Asia income management Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget health financing gambling school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA emissions trading Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Industrial Relations people smuggling dental health National Disability Insurance Scheme Australian Crime Commission slavery Senate election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure poker machines ALP New Zealand Newstart Parenting Payment 43rd Parliament political parties Census constitution High Court skilled migration voting Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS youth paid parental leave Aviation environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur leadership United Kingdom UK Parliament Electoral reform politics banking firearms public policy violence against women domestic violence mental health China ADRV terrorism social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation governance public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing money laundering Productivity asylum seekers early childhood education Canada Population Financial sector national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity science research and development Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia accountability housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise Senators and Members climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets health reform Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration health system Australia Greens servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship human rights citizenship Defence High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking federal election 2010 workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway hospitals

Show all
Show less
Back to top