From my findings, there are several policy implications can be drawn. Most notably, that PPL should be extended in New Zealand. However, my research suggests that the proposed length of extension may have to be initially shorter to be politically feasible in the short term, with future extensions to the policy as they become fiscally possible. This also takes into account the social and economic benefits against the costs – the maximization of benefits (including equity, productivity and wellbeing of individuals, families and workplaces) against cost of implementing the program, which will determine the length of PPL that will provide the maximized benefits. Due to the current financial climate, policy initiatives that appear expensive begin to be ignored. However, ensuring employees can afford to take time off when they have children provides many positive effects for employees, employers and governments.
While I believe that while the move to extend the current PPL provisions is a worthwhile one, I accept that it is also open to questions and critiques from others. These are largely economic in nature and assert that the PPL period is too long, and as such, is too expensive, whether the government or private employer bears the cost. Additionally, it is argued that is not justified by benefits, and that cost of non-working employee too high to employer. However, I believe that examining the issue through a socio-economic analysis framework demonstrates that not all effects have to be measured in economic values, and that extending the PPL scheme would produce significant social and economic benefits. As such, in socio-economic terms, the cost is not too high in comparison to the benefits of implementing it; that its benefits justify or outweigh the costs.
However, the socio-economic analysis raises the question about how individuals and societies value certain things in comparison to others. Ultimately, the cost-benefit analysis of PPL depends on the value accorded by a government to the facilitation of participative parenting combined with meaningful participation in the labor force.[1] Such a commitment is already demonstrated in varying degrees in OECD countries, especially Denmark, France and Germany.
From the findings, I conclude that New Zealand’s current PPL scheme should be extended. It should have provisions for longer leave, and apply to both mothers and fathers. PPL payments should be increased, providing benefits close, or equal, to full wage replacement. Additionally, PPL should be targeted at parents with a strong prior attachment to the labor force. This attachment should be measured as attachment to labor force, not a single employer. Consequently, the maximum eligibility requirements for being in employment should be reduced, taking into account and employees total time in the labor force, not just time at one employer.
In addition, global research suggests an increase in PPL legislation, and that it is effective as a human resources tool when supported by a much wider package of family-friendly, flexible working and work/life balance measures. Cross-national comparisons suggest that the relationship between the provision of PPL and rate of labor force participation is complex and dependent on access to other supportive benefits such as reduced-hours employment and the availability of child care.[2] As such, alternatives, or complements to PPL could include providing work and family information/parental management program; providing facilities for women to continue breastfeeding; offering the option of returning to work part-time or working flexible hours; providing technology to parents who wish to work from home; providing childcare subsidies or facilities and/or inviting employees on leave to participate in workplace activities such as training sessions and social events.
[1] Fredman, S. (1997). Women and the Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 221.
[2] Whitehouse, G., Baird, M., & Diamond, C. (2005). Parental Leave in Australia Survey. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from http://www.arc.gov.au