A couple of weeks ago, the AFR published an interesting article profiling parental leave policies amongst the Big4 accounting firms. In that article, the following was written:

insignificant cost

From July 1, KPMG will increase paid leave from 12 to 18 weeks for new parents (male, female and same-sex couples) who are primary care givers and up to three weeks’ paid leave for non-primary care givers, as well as broadening the scope of the firm’s policies to include adoption and fostering.\

In relation to the changes, KPMG national managing partner for people James Allt-Graham said they represented:

“a pretty significant amount of money”.

The article also profiled the parental leave policy at PWC, noting:

PricewaterhouseCoopers earlier this year upgraded its parental leave policy under its flexible working arrangement programs so that, from July 1, new parents can get 18 weeks’ paid leave if they are the primary care giver and up to three weeks’ paid leave for non-primary care givers. The program, which previously offered 12 weeks’ leave, always included staff who became parents through adoption, fostering, and surrogacy.

The article pointed out an important difference between the KPMG and PWC policies by noting:

KPMG’s option is based on the primary carer’s years of service whereas PwC says its program is offered to all staff who have been with the firm for 12 months or more. KPMG gives 14 weeks for staff with 2 to 5 years service, 16 weeks for 5 to 8 years of service and 18 weeks for more than 8 years of service

Rival Big4 firm Ernst & Young has the least generous parental leave policy. As written by the AFR:

Ernst & Young provides 12 weeks’ paid leave for the primary care giver and up to 5 days … parental leave at the time of birth or adoption for the secondary care giver.

Meanwhile, in another AFR article on parental leave that appeared in the newspaper last week (5/5), comments were made on the Rudd governments offer to administer its paid parental leave scheme. Under this scheme, primary care givers would be given 18 weeks parental leave at minimum wage. Importantly, the following is written:

Lawyers fear some employers will use the taxpayer funds they get under the scheme simply to subsidise existing arrangements, thereby reducing their own labour costs.

One of the lawyers in question appears to be Freehills partner Kate Jenkins. Moreover, the article goes on to note:

… Freehills equal opportunity partner Kate Jenkins said some employers with their own paid parental leave schemes might now simply top up the government minimum wage payments to ensure staff received 18 weeks’ full pay, rather than continuing with their current arrangements.

Any thoughts on whether partners in the Big4 accounting firms, who not more than a week earlier were praising their parental leave policies as a weapon to retain staff “as the war for talent re-emerges”, might simply adopt the “top-up” approach that Freehills’ Jenkins is fearful of? How about KPMG national managing partner for people James Allt-Graham who said the new parental leave policy represented “a pretty significant amount of money”?

Perhaps we’ll get the accountants to crunch the numbers!

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Related posts

1. Big4 Accounting Firm Graduate Intake Statistics Thanks to the current edition of BRW for the following...
2. Firm Spy Editorial; The Henry Review & Big4 Accounting Firms Speak to any Big4 accounting firm employee and they’re likely...
3. A Female Wasteland; Alarming Big4 Accounting Firm Partnership Statistics We often hear how among corporate law firms, there...
4. Big4 Accounting Firm Leads Corporate Industry in Response to Mental Illness We have edited the following post to protect the identity...
5. BRW Top 500 Private Companies - Big4 Accounting Firms Corporate Australia should follow the rumoured lead of a few...