Conservative religious and social groups felt that the payment was both an encouragement to sin and an insult to those women who upheld religious and moral values. Others believed that allocating money to hospitals and care facilities, and providing better community housing, would be a more effective use of public funds. In support of the allowance were those who claimed that it would help those less fortunate and was therefore an act of Christian charity. Others argued that it was an incentive to increase the white population.
The divide in public opinion was reflected in parliament but, after extensive debate, the Bill passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and was enacted on 10 October The introduction of a maternity allowance recognised the need for government intervention to improve the health of women and children.
In the Maternity Allowance Act was replaced by one-off payments that were means tested and therefore only available to those who needed financial assistance. In , the payment scheme was replaced by other family benefits. Today, a number of government initiatives support Australian families.
These include:. Maternity Allowance Act , Commonwealth of Australia, Social Security payments for people caring for children, — a chronology — on the Parliament of Australia website. The National Museum of Australia acknowledges First Australians and recognises their continuous connection to country, community and culture. Defining Moments Maternity allowance introduced.
Prime Minister Andrew Fisher. Opposition to the allowance Despite being forward-thinking in a number of ways, Australian society was committed to some traditional ideals, especially concerning women.
The new reimbursement rate has been set to cover only the additional costs of the improvements so it is cost-neutral as far as the taxpayer is concerned. In any case, employers are not paying a tax—rather they are now being asked to meet a small part of the cost of maternity pay for their employees.
Reducing the reimbursement rate in this way falls within Section 2 2 of the EC Act as it is related to a community obligation. The noble Earl asked what else the Government could do. I should make it clear that I am speaking to the regulations that are before the House tonight and not about what the Government could, might or will consider in the future. All the regulations have to be seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to ensure that they are correct.
The committee has seen the regulations and it is content that it is a proper use of the powers. The directive allows us to have conditions of eligibility as laid down under—. My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's point, but if I should not ask him for the scope of those vires , whom should I ask? My Lords, I was coming to the vires.
The directive allows us to have conditions of eligibility as laid down under national legislation and all governments have a principle of a lower earnings limit. With regard to the extent of the vires of Regulation 5, Regulation 5 is related solely to the costs of implementing the directive's requirements. It does not give a power to reduce reimbursement further. My noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Trefgarne are concerned about the costs to employers. The level at which employers are reimbursed for the money they pay out in statutory maternity pay is to be reduced to 92 per cent.
It is to pay only for the costs of the directive. The extra costs to employers are small. The Government believe that it is only right that employers should meet a small part of the cost of maternity pay for their employees during the period of leave from work.
As I have said, the reductions in national insurance contributions more than compensate. The increased costs of maternity pay for an individual employer will vary depending upon the employment profile of the female staff. An employer employing women who, on the whole, tend to remain in that employment for less than two years and who currently would qualify for the lower rate of statutory maternity pay throughout the week period would have higher additional costs than an employer with a more experienced workforce.
A good example is that of a large retail store chain which gave us some figures. It employs 72, staff, of which 71 per cent. It expects about 1, employees to take maternity leave each year. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made much of the extra administrative work involved. The Government have simplified the scheme which in the long run will save on business administrative costs.
The three previous service tests of five years, two years and 26 weeks have been reduced to one service test of 26 weeks. All women who qualify for statutory maternity pay will now receive the same level of benefit. I have explained about small employers. These measures have been widely welcomed by small employers. My noble friend Lord Reay asked why could we not link a relief scheme to one similar to that for statutory sick pay proposed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and accepted by your Lordships.
Small employers can recover currently all their statutory maternity pay costs. Large employers will still be able to recover 92 per cent. The statutory sick pay scheme reimburses per cent of a small employer's costs after four weeks of illness only. Employers receive nothing for the first four weeks.
Statutory maternity pay is already reimbursed from day one of the period of entitlement. Therefore such an amendment would not be an improvement for small employers. The scheme will be simpler to operate and changes to computer software will not cost more. Software companies are paid an annual fee which will include such changes.
They are not losing out because they are already excluded. We do not believe that someone should draw an earnings related benefit when they have paid no tax and national insurance contributions.
All governments have maintained that principle. Women with no other income can claim help from the income support scheme. My noble friend Lord Reay said that we were undermining our position in Brussels.
That is not the case. The Commission had originally proposed that pregnant women should receive full pay for 14 weeks, with no qualifying period. The Government fully supported other member states in devising a more sensible proposal which was eventually adopted at a Council of Ministers in October We secured a number of improvements to protect employers.
Of course the directive was agreed before the Maastricht Treaty, so I am sure that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne knows that an opt out from the Social Chapter does not apply.
The week maternity leave period strikes the correct balance between increasing employees' rights and adding to the burdens on business. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the benefit has not been uprated.
The directive requires us to provide maternity pay at a figure at least equal to the amount of state benefit a woman would receive if she were off sick. The amounts do not have to be the same. The Secretary of State will continue to review the rate of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay each year. The noble Earl asked me who will ensure that statutory maternity pay is paid. It is a legal obligation upon the employer. The Contributions Agency enforces it and will follow up any complaints of non-payment.
Of course, if the employer refuses to pay, the department will take over the payment. It is of course an offence not to pay statutory maternity pay. I should make it clear that if the amendment were carried the regulations would fall. It is a wrecking amendment. The noble Earl should consider the advice given by my noble friend and others in your Lordships' House about whether that is a proper way to go. It is not a revising amendment; it is a wrecking amendment.
The Government's proposals for improved maternity payments, as I have said, will benefit , women. At the same time, the scheme has been simplified to make it easier for employers to operate.
Women will also have more freedom to decide on the best time to stop work and have their baby. The EOC has welcomed some of the changes to the scheme, particularly the reduction in the length of service requirement, and is pleased that we have responded positively to the representations made by it to our consultation paper.
The Maternity Alliance has also called the proposed changes good news, saying, they are more generous than we had anticipated". It describes the introduction of the higher rate statutory maternity pay for all women entitled to statutory maternity pay as a "big breakthrough".
We have kept the protection for small employers, who will remain eligible for the per cent. I commend the regulations to the House, and I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment. My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply.
I cannot say that I was encouraged by it. He is not up to date with the Maternity Alliance which on 27th April said: The Maternity Alliance is opposed to any reduction in the rate of reimbursement to employers of the SMP they administer". He and I would wish to be associated with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I must answer the point about privilege which the noble Lord also made.
This is a matter of qualified, not absolute, financial privilege. In those matters, it is well known that there is no objection to this House asking. Another place may reply as it sees fit. The noble Viscount's comment that this was a wrecking Motion illustrated the usual government rule that there are only two classes of amendment: the unnecessary and the wrecking.
It would be perfectly easy for the Government to relay the first four regulations, leaving out regulation No. The noble Viscount said that a Bill would have taken up unnecessary parliamentary time. Unnecessary to whom? He said that Ole regulations have been through another place. Has he read the remarks that were made in another place by his honourable friends Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wilkinson and Mrs..
As regards the vires , he has given us no answer. That is truly a stern reply. He said that the cost to employers was very small —so was the maid's baby but it had life. Like the maid's baby, this has the power of growth. Above all, I do not see how this House can possibly carry out its function as a revising Chamber unless some generally acceptable way can be found to challenge matters in regulations. Whether I have found a way tonight is not for me to say and therefore I ask the opinion of the House.
Noticed a typo? Viscount Astor My Lords, I was coming to the vires. Division No. Lawrence, L. Airedale, L. Lytton, E. Bath, M. Mackie of Benshie, L. Beaumont of Whitley, L. Mar and Kellie, E. Butterfield, L. McNair, L. Castle of Blackburn, B. Meston, L. Darcy de Knayth , B. Morris of Castle Morris, L. Dean of Beswick, L. Ogmore, L. Ezra, L. Perry of Walton, L. Falkland, V. Rochester, L. Geraint, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Gladwyn, L. Russell, E. Seear, B. Strafford, E. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L. Hooson, L. Tordoff, L. Howie of Troon, L. Turner of Camden, B. Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Whaddon, L. Kilbracken, L. Wigoder, L. Kirkwood, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. Braine of Wheatley, L. Annaly, L. Brigstocke, B. Arran, E. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Astor, V. Burnham, L. Boardman, L. Cadman, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Carlisle of Bucklow, L. Long, V. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Carr of Hadley, L. Lyell, L. Chelmsford, V. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Clitheroe, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Macleod of Borve, B. Colwyn, L. The Health Insurance Act of also granted a maternity allowance for those women in childbed who were insured.
This was extended to all women, after the First World War, whose relatives were covered by a health insurance fund. In France, after , job security was guaranteed for women who could not come to work in the weeks before and after giving birth. Grants-in-aid were introduced after , in addition, for employed women. In , they submitted a first petition to the Federal Council, though without success.
The ratification process, however, quickly came to a halt. Parliament ultimately rejected accession to the conference agreement in the autumn of The opponents were particularly concerned about the costs of the proposed insurance. Politicians from middle-class parties — all of them men — also justified their opposition by arguing that birth was a natural process, requiring no special social protection.
Following the Federal Assembly veto, the Federal Council considered revising the KUVG, but this likewise failed in due to reservations primarily about introducing a partial obligation f to have health insurance. Renewed attempts were made at the end of the s, including efforts to introduce insurance for women in childbed that would be exclusively financed by working women.
In the 19th century, public authorities intervened in families, mainly related to laws governing the poor, as when impoverished parents were forced into poorhouses and their children placed in care or foster homes. The Civil Code ZGB of created uniform rules at the national level, now oriented to the welfare of the child, permitting public officials to intervene in families.
In cases of "negligence" - a key concept in child protection in the Civil Code - municipal or cantonal public guardians were empowered to supplant parents as guardians and place children into care facilities outside the home. Various cantons and cities established specialized authorities in the following decades, in addition to existing guardianship authorities such as public agencies for the welfare of youths.
In the inter-war period, debates intensified about whether state and society should accept responsibility for the upbringing of children. While middle-class social reformers advocated a renewal of the moral order of the family, those on the left hoped for the betterment of working-class families.
There were two approaches in expanding social insurance. Maternity insurance stood for a particularistic approach that put the individual woman at the center. This stood in contrast to socio-political models emphasizing the collective needs of the community of the family which sought to expand the protection of the family, for example, through family allowances, for example. The traditional male-breadwinner family model was given a boost in the inter-war period.
Lower-class families were particularly affected, as were those from discriminated ethnic groups like the Yeniche.
The degree of pooling of the various interests involved in family policy took place at a meeting in organized by the Swiss Association for Social Policy, as well as from onwards in connection with the family protection commission organized on behalf of the Swiss Philanthropic Society SPS. After , Federal Councilor Philipp Etter made a name for himself by initiating a number of meetings devoted to population and family protection.
Thanks to the support of Catholic trade unions , representatives of agriculture, and the family protection commission, a popular initiative with , signatures was submitted in They withdrew their initiative in after the Federal Council presented a counter-proposal which addressed some of their key issues. Controversy regarding individual and social wages constituted an important aspect of the debate on the economic protection of the family. The question was whether wages should reflect work performance or whether it should also encompass social commitments associated with providing for a family.
The concept of a family wage was centered on the salary of the father as well as the number of children and met with the approval of Catholic conservatives in particular.
In the s, the same Catholic conservatives ran a number of strong campaigns against secondary wage earners, largely as opposition to the gainful employment of married women.
However, they too were ready to address family financial obligations by means of special allowances. Such family allowances had been introduced in France and Belgium in the early s. In Switzerland, federal civil servants had been able to draw family allowances since By , companies in the private sector had launched similar allowance systems, covering 18, employees in total. Many companies, in French-speaking Switzerland in particular, followed the example set by France and joined a family equalization fund which shared the financial burden within the respective industrial branch.
The expansion of family allowances during the war years was rapid, with many economic sectors introducing family allowances and setting up equalization funds. At the federal level, family allowances became a pressing issue in conjunction with the initiative launched by Catholic conservatives. The advocates for family protection, however, were unable to reach a consensus regarding the criteria to be applied to the disbursement of family allowances. It was also open whether public or private entities should pay benefits, and whether every family or only those with many children should receive these benefits.
Once the initiative was withdrawn, voters and cantons came out clearly in favor of the new family protection article in the federal constitution Article 34quinquies on November 25, While maternity insurance and family allowances both gained their constitutional basis in the same vote, their logics differed.
Maternity insurance generally made it easier to combine work with motherhood, while family allowances aimed to both strengthen the male breadwinner model, along with reducing the pressure on married women to work.
In one respect, however, they shared the same fate: they both had an unusually long way to go before being implemented at the national level. Internationally, various countries had already found solutions. Germany passed a Maternity Protection Act by , and under its provisions, women were protected against dismissal for a fixed period, and were allowed to take time off from work.
They received a maternity allowance, and breaks for nursing were also introduced.
0コメント