STRIKING THE BALANCE
WOMEN, MEN, WORK AND FAMILY
Premier’s Council for Women
Response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2005 Discussion Paper
Contact: Sally Ryan
Executive/Policy Officer
Premiers Council for Women
Telephone: (08) 8303 2540
Email:
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE CASE FOR CHANGE
3. WHERE TO FROM HERE?
3.1 THE GOALS OF CHANGE
3.2 OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
3.2.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY CHANGE
3.2.2 LEGISLATIVE CHANGE
3.2.3 SOCIAL POLICY CHANGE
3.2.4 CULTURAL CHANGE IN THE WORK PLACE
3.2.5 ATTITUDINAL CHANGE
4. SUMMARY
13
Premier’s Council for Women
Submission: Striking the Balance, Women, men work and family
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2005
1. INTRODUCTION
The Premier’s Council for Women (PCW) was established in 2003. The PCW provides recommendations, information and advice to the Premier, the Minister for the Status of Women and the Office for Women, to facilitate a whole of Government approach to ensuring that programs and services match women’s needs. The PCW also monitors all Government policies and programs related to women and measures of women’s progress against set indicators. The PCW aims to develop strategies for dealing with the causes of inequalities for women and to provide leadership to influence and shape women’s policy. PCW has a strong interest in working toward gender equity not only in the work force but in all aspects of political and civil life.
The PCW welcomes the opportunity to respond to HREOC’s Discussion paper. It is noted that the Discussion paper has emphasised a focus on heterosexual couples with family responsibilities.[1] However it is extremely important to recognise the diversity and complexity of family relationships in our society. A ‘one size fits all approach’ is not appropriate as it will not address the needs of many working families and parents nor create the climate for business to harness the full capacity of its workforce. In the first instance it is necessary for State and Federal Governments to recognise the diversity of family types and the cultural considerations that shape the nature of family responsibility. The following examples indicate just a few of the issues that need to be considered:
· Indigenous communities may have kinship and other familial relationships that require significant commitments of time and care but have no validity in terms of legislation that relates to family responsibility.
· When looking at the needs of Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds it is important to consider the cultural norms that relate to family.
· Same sex co-parents face unique difficulties with no recognition of their existence in the Workplace Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act
The need to address the issue of balancing work and family commitments is becoming increasingly obvious. This is evidenced in the recent decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) concerning the Australian Council of Trade Unions Work and Family Test Case. In their decision handed down on August 8 2005 the full bench of the AIRC drew on important research in this area when stating the following:
‘[57] Balancing work and family obligations can create conflict and tension. As Glezer and Wolcott (1999) observe:
“Work and family conflicts and tensions can occur as the result of role overload or role interference when there is not enough time or energy to meet the commitments of multiple roles or the expectations and demands if the two roles conflict (Duxbury and Higgins 1994). For workers with family responsibilities, time appears to be the major juggernaut of those who are combining paid work with family responsibilities—time for children, time with partners, time for elderly parents, and time for household chores, personal leisure, and meeting the demands of work.” ‘[2]
In addressing this Discussion paper, the PCW has drawn on the enormous breadth of expertise available through research on this topic as well as the expertise and information provided by working women to the PCW through focus groups and other contacts. The PCW also recognises that the most appropriate balance to achieve is one that takes into account work/life and family balance as this also acknowledges the need to build social capital through community participation.
In writing this submission the PCW has concentrated on addressing the questions contained in the final chapter of the Discussion paper. This approach has been taken to ensure that the response is succinct and addresses the need to move forward on this issue within the time frame provided.
The PCW makes a series of recommendations in this submission. Please note that while those pertaining to the Federal Government’s responsibilities are regarded as of prime importance, the remaining recommendations are not listed in any order of priority.
It also should be noted that the views expressed in this submission are the views of the PCW not necessarily the views of the South Australian Government.
2. A CASE FOR CHANGE
The issue of work/life balance is one that affects not just the individual and/or their family but the whole of the Australian community.
‘…over the next 40 years, the proportion of the population over 65 years will almost double to around 25 per cent. At the same time, growth in the population of traditional workforce age is expected to slow to almost zero. This is a permanent change. Barring an unprecedented change in fertility rates, the age structure of the population is likely to stabilise with a far higher proportion of older Australians.’[3]
Australia’s ageing population has significant implications for future generations who will be required to carry the burden of expenditure without the necessary tax base required to do so. Limiting the choices, particularly for women, with regard to career and family formation contributes to Australia’s declining fertility rates and needs to be addressed as an essential strategy to increasing Australia’s population.
2.1 Negative impact on fertility rates.
Without support to achieve work life balance, prospective parents will postpone the decision or decide not to have children, resulting in smaller families and a negative impact on fertility rates.
A robust Australian economy and the safety net of a well-resourced social security system require the back up of a higher fertility rate than presently exists along with strong workforce participation. Fewer workers will be able to support their ageing parents or financially support an ageing population through taxation.
Finding solutions that balance work and family is therefore in the interest of individuals, families and employees, but is also a national issue for employers, Australian society and our future economy. In this context, it is worth noting that “Countries with policies that facilitate regular female employment… by offering public support for child care for 0-3 year olds, flexible working hours and individual tax systems, are also those countries with the highest fertility rates”[4]
There are number of reasons that Australia has experienced a drop in fertility rates. The PCW has identified the following disincentives to family formation, particularly for women:
Financial:
· The loss of salary and wages while out of the workforce to care for children,
· The loss of employee input into superannuation schemes due to absence from the work place while child rearing,
· The lack of opportunity to off set costs in having children through taxation,
· Competing priorities of home ownership, education, HECS and other debts,
· Increased community awareness of the high cost of raising children, which is estimated at $310 per week for the average Australian couple with two children, or $448,000 to raise two children from birth to age 20, $50,000 of which is spent on education and child care[5]
· Difficulties experienced when sandwiched between responsibilities for caring for children as well as ageing parents,
· High community expectations of what expenses parents/carers should meet, leading to greater financial pressure on families and the need for dual incomes eg some school expenses previously covered by Government are now covered by families.
· High cost of child care and limited number of places available for childcare
Career:
· Interruptions to career progression resulting in loss of earnings and promotional opportunities including exclusion from work place training,
· Lack of employer recognition and value of multi tasking skills involved in raising families, setting priorities, managing relationships, households and domestic budgets.
Social:
· Couples postponing having children until they are older and financially better established, resulting in smaller families,
· The low fertility rate results in less community tolerance of children and a devaluing of parenting
· Social isolation for mothers, lack of support, particularly for women in rural communities,
· With a tendency to smaller families, extra pressure on fewer children to care for others, impacting particularly on female children with societal expectations for them to care for family members
· Conflict for many men who want to be involved with their growing families but whose work hours conflict with achieving this.
2.2 Threat to the economy
The Australian economy operates in a competitive global marketplace. In order to recruit and retain employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, the Australian business community will need to improve the current access to flexible employment options. If this does not occur Australia will fail to attract or retain valuable employees and risk a further drop in fertility producing a negative economic impact as our population ages and skills shortages increase.
The South Australian Government has recognised this by producing a Population Policy that outlines a set of broad strategic objectives aimed at increasing the State's population. The policy states the following:
“Initiatives that improve people’s ability to balance their working and non-working lives form a major part of the strategies required to arrest the decline in the State’s fertility rate and to address the negative consequences of an ageing population. To support improvements to the work environment, it is important that flexible and family friendly arrangements become part of our education and training systems.” [6]
3. WHERE TO FROM HERE?
3.1 The Goals of Change
The PCW agrees that the possible goals for change as outlined on page 129 of the Discussion paper are in themselves laudable. However, there is concern that the third and fourth goal are presented as either/or goals. The PCW would argue that Governments providing adequate support for families to make real choices and workplaces that are culturally and structurally flexible are both essential if men and women are to achieve a work life balance.
In addition to the goals presented in the Discussion paper, the PCW would strongly advocate for five further goals.
· The Federal Government to take a strong leadership role in creating work/life balance
· Recognition of the importance of achieving work life balance to the stability and well being of Australian communities and of present and future generations of children
· The need for systemic workplace change that reflects more accurately the industrial and cultural landscape we currently live in.
· Flexibility of workplace options using a life course approach
· Recognition of the diversity and complexity of Australian family life in the 21st Century
PCW’s rationale for each of these additional goals will now be outlined. Specific recommendations which arise from these goals are detailed in section 3.2 Options for Change.
The Federal Government’s leadership role in creating work/life balance.
Balancing work/life/family is not just an issue for individual families or for women. It is a much broader industrial and social issue for Government and communities. Given that Australia has some of the longest working hours of any OECD[7] country, this has become very important issue for Australian workers and is likely to increase in importance as our population ages.
The PCW is extremely concerned about the changes proposed by the Federal Government to the Australian Industrial Relations system. The changes signal a further move toward individual contracts and a removal of a number of the Award safety nets currently in place. This will make it more difficult for men and women to balance work and family responsibilities. Evidence suggests that the power of most employees to reach a fair agreement, that includes family friendly working conditions, with their employer, is limited. This applies particularly to those with less leverage in the work place such as those for whom English is not their first language, for new arrivals, casual workers and those in low paid and/or low skilled positions. It is in the latter that women are overrepresented. For example, in South Australia in 2002 70% of all part time causal employees were women compared to 66% nationally. [8] Women are also less likely to be in senior or managerial positions that accrue more leverage in the workplace.[9]
The removal of the right to take an unfair dismissal claim against an employer is also of concern particularly for those workers with limited bargaining power. The Federal Government asserts that individuals will still have a right to take an unlawful dismissal claim if dismissed due to a discriminatory reason. However access to this provision is limited due to the costs of proceeding to court and the ability of employers under the current system to opt out of a conciliation process. While the Government has recently agreed to provide up to $4000 for legal costs, workers for whom English is not their first language, new arrivals, casual workers and those in low paid and/or low skilled positions may not have the knowledge or skill to take an unfair dismissal claim against an employer.
There is no indication at this stage that the Federal Government intends to flow on the recent decision regarding the Australian Council of Trade Unions Work and Family Test Case. The decision handed down by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is essentially one that enshrines the right to request certain family friendly arrangements. However it also provides ample scope for the employer to refuse such a request on a number of grounds. Despite this it signals an important shift in understanding the need for more flexible work practices, particularly in recognising the needs of casual employees in relation to work and family responsibilities.
The Federal Government can lead the way in setting the national benchmarks for work conditions to support families in achieving a work - life balance and provide incentives to employers to be creative in the options they offer their employees. These steps will ensure Australia is internationally progressive in its response to changes in work life culture. As the following quotes indicate, benchmarked against other countries, Australia has not kept pace with initiatives in some other developed nations to assist their constituents to strike balance in work/life/family.