A Time to Value - Proposal for a National Paid Maternity Leave Scheme
Part A: Background
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
In August 2001, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) began a comprehensive examination of the need or otherwise for a national paid maternity leave scheme in Australia.
HREOC is an independent statutory authority established under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth). It has a variety of functions and powers to promote and protect the human rights of all people in Australia.
HREOC administers the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (the Sex Discrimination Act). The Sex Discrimination Act provides a framework for the investigation and conciliation of complaints of unlawful acts of discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, pregnancy, potential pregnancy and sexual harassment. It also makes dismissal on the ground of family responsibilities unlawful. A number of other functions necessary to deal with systemic issues of discrimination are granted under the Sex Discrimination Act.
One of the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act is to give effect to certain provisions of the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) [1] which says at Article 11(2):
[i]n order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures:
...
(b) To introduce paid maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances;
Australia has a reservation to Article 11(2)(b), which means that it has not agreed to take the measures required by this paragraph of the Article.
Another object of the Sex Discrimination Act is to promote the principle of equality between men and women. HREOC is concerned that Australia's reservation to this Article, and the lack of comprehensive paid maternity leave, disadvantages women by reason of their reproductive role. HREOC considered that work on this topic was not only justified but necessary.
Paid maternity leave was identified as an issue of concern and importance in HREOC's 1999 National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry. The Report of the Inquiry, Pregnant and Productive, recommended that the federal Government provide funding for economic modelling and analysis to assess possible paid maternity leave options.[2] Any economic modelling of the viability and consequences of paid maternity leave that the Government may have done has not been publicly released or made available to HREOC. The Minister for Finance released costings of a range of paid maternity leave schemes on 12 September 2002.[3] The detail of these costings has not been made available to HREOC or the public.
1.2 Methodology
On 18 April 2002, HREOC released an interim paper, Valuing Parenthood: Options for paid maternity leave.[4] This paper was intended to generate public discussion on the issue of paid maternity leave. The paper reviewed the domestic and international context, outlined possible objectives for a paid maternity leave scheme and identified a number of possible options for a paid maternity leave scheme. The interim paper also provided a comprehensive overview of current information on existing maternity and parental leave arrangements. The information in that paper remains relevant in considering the discussions, conclusions and recommendations in this paper.
Written submissions were invited in response to the interim paper and 257 submissions were received. Submissions came from individuals, employers, employer groups, unions, community and women's groups, health professionals and organisations, academics and State and Territory Governments. Click here to access a list of the submissions.
The Sex Discrimination Commissioner and her policy staff also conducted targeted consultations in metropolitan and regional areas of Australia with employers, employer groups, unions, community and women's groups and interested individuals. Click here to access a full list of consultations.
HREOC received substantial information on the experience of individuals, organisations, and industries in relation to paid maternity leave. While the full extent of this information is not included in this paper, it significantly contributed to and informed HREOC's work on these issues. HREOC wishes to thank all of those who contributed to this paper.
1.3 The community debate
1.3.1 Introduction
The response to HREOC's interim paper has been overwhelming. The public has embraced the opportunity to contribute to the policy debate on paid maternity leave. They have engaged with the detail of paid maternity leave in a way that is rarely seen in policy debates. The Government and the community have taken the debate further - to the extent that Australia is now in the midst of a national debate on the options for restructuring the workforce into a more family friendly environment. The other striking thing about this debate has been the willingness of so many women and families to share their experiences of coping with the arrival of a new child.
What has emerged from the debate is a clear recognition of the fact that women and babies do need support, particularly financial support, at the time of the birth of a child and that there is a role for Government in providing this support. For many of the individuals and organisations who spoke to HREOC there was a relative willingness to accept a minimum paid maternity leave scheme of 14 weeks to ensure that the scheme was affordable for Government. However, for many people, the ideal support for mothers and babies was much greater than this. There has also been widespread concern that small business generally does not have the capacity to fund paid maternity leave.
Another significant feature of the process has been the willingness of major stakeholder groups to engage with the debate. In conducting the consultations, HREOC partnered with unions, employer organisations, large employers and women's organisations. While there has not been agreement on every point, the stakeholders have provided significant submissions and approached the issue with good will. HREOC appreciates this engagement and the quality of assistance provided.
The most contentious issues in the consultations were:
- whether the payment should be limited to women in the paid workforce or made available to all women;
- whether the payment should be available to mothers only, or made to the primary carer; and
- the role of employers in funding paid maternity leave.
1.3.2 Submissions
Seventy-three per cent of submissions received supported the introduction of a national system of paid maternity leave. In contrast, 16 per cent opposed the introduction of such a scheme while a further 11 per cent were undecided or neutral. These figures do not, however, indicate the complexity of submissions in which support or opposition was sometimes conditional on other factors.
Of those opposed to paid maternity leave, 60 per cent were submissions from individuals and 29 per cent were submissions from employers and employer groups. The remaining 12 per cent consisted of Government, community groups and an academic. The main ground for opposition was concern that employers may be forced to pay for maternity leave, and the economic and employment effects that may flow from this.
Those submissions clearly in favour of paid maternity leave represented a much broader range of groups and were more evenly spread between different types of groups. Of these submissions, 38 per cent were received from individuals, 14 per cent were from women's groups, 12 per cent were from unions and nine per cent were from employers and employer groups. In addition, submissions in favour of paid maternity leave were also received from academics, community groups, health professionals and organisations, legal groups and Government.
1.3.3 Consultations
Between May and July 2002, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner conducted 27 consultations with employers, employer groups, women and community groups and unions. The consultations were held nationwide in all capital cities and some regional areas. A number of organisations partnered HREOC in conducting the consultations. While the majority of consultations were group discussions, forums were also held as were two round table discussions. One round table brought together a range of academics in work and family issues, demographics and population studies. The other brought together representatives from unions, employer groups, women's groups and community groups.
A range of views was expressed throughout the consultation process concerning the objectives, structure and funding of a national scheme of paid maternity leave.
Click here to access a full list of the consultations.
1.3.4 Public opinion
A high level of public debate about paid maternity leave has been generated since HREOC began its research last year. The media response has been varied and a number of public opinion polls have been conducted to gauge public support for the issue. The results of these polls suggest there is public support for paid maternity leave.
In September 2001 Newspoll [5] showed 76 per cent of people surveyed supported paid maternity leave. Fifty-five per cent strongly supported it and 21 per cent were partly in favour. Support was slightly stronger among women and substantially higher among younger people.
A Sun Herald Taverner poll [6] conducted in May 2002 also showed overwhelming support for paid maternity leave, with 75 per cent of those surveyed agreeing that mothers should be paid while on maternity leave, and 23 per cent disagreeing.
An online poll conducted by motherInc [7] showed that 77 per cent of the 1000 women who responded to the poll believed that paid maternity leave was essential. Twenty per cent agreed that the absence of paid leave had been a major factor in their decision not to have more children. Eighty-four per cent of respondents believed that fathers should also be given the option of paternity leave, paid or unpaid.
Public opinion was also sought concerning how maternity leave should be funded and the rate of payment. The polls concluded that there was support for paid maternity leave to be funded through a combination of sources. For example, the September 2001 Newspoll [8] found that 60 per cent of those surveyed believed that the cost of the paid leave should be shared by employers and Government, 17 per cent said the cost should be borne by Government alone and 12 per cent said employers should pay for maternity leave. Altogether, 77 per cent believed the Government has some role in funding paid maternity leave.
The Sun Herald Taverner poll [9] showed 66 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of maternity leave funded by a combination of Government, business and employees, 17 per cent thought the Government alone should fund it, while only eight per cent were in favour of an employer funded scheme. Payment for three months was the preferred option for 24 per cent of respondents, while 23 per cent supported a six month payment and 17 per cent supported one year paid maternity leave. Only eight per cent supported two months paid leave and three per cent supported payment for one month. Varied responses were also given concerning the rate of payment. Twenty-three per cent stated the payment should be at half the basic salary, 22 per cent believed it should be two thirds the basic salary. The minimum wage and full basic salary each received 20 per cent support from respondents. The majority response, 69 per cent, was that payment should only be made to working mothers, while 26 per cent supported the payment being made to all women.
Fifty-two per cent of women responding to the motherInc poll [10] believed that it is the responsibility of the Government to fund paid maternity leave. Seventy-five per cent of the remaining respondents believed the payment should be split between employers and the Government.
Westpoll phone surveyed 400 Western Australian voters in May 2002 [11] on the issue of who should pay for paid maternity leave. When asked whether employers should fund paid maternity leave, 38 per cent were in favour, while 56 per cent opposed an employer funded scheme of paid maternity leave. When asked about a government funded scheme, 47 per cent stated that they supported paid maternity leave funded through the taxation system, while 48 per cent were opposed. Support for both proposals was much higher: 56 per cent and 60 per cent respectively among people under 35.
In addition to polls measuring public opinion, a number of polls targeted at specific groups were conducted. The Finance Sector Union of Australia, for example, conducted a survey of its members.[12] Eighty-eight per cent of the 182 members who responded to the survey agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "[i]t is important that everyone has access to some form of paid maternity leave when they have a baby." [13]
The New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce and NRMA Insurance conducted a survey of local business in regional New South Wales in May 2002. [14] Seventy-seven per cent of the 781 businesses that responded did not support "a mandatory scheme of paid maternity leave".[15] It is not clear whether this opposition was based on the concern that employers may be forced to pay for such a scheme, or was a general objection to paid maternity leave. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents also answered yes to the question: "[w]ould you be less inclined to employ a woman if your business was forced to pay maternity leave?".[16]
The Australian Institute of Company Directors conducted a survey of members attending its May 2002 Conference on the Gold Coast. [17] Sixty-one per cent of women and 38 per cent of men that answered the survey answered yes to the question: "[d]o you feel paid maternity leave should be a standard condition of employment?". [18] Forty-three per cent of respondents considered that both business and Government should pay for maternity leave. In addition, the survey found that "[b]ig business appears willing to support and pay for paid maternity leave, while recognising that small business needs government support".[19]
1.4 About this paper
This paper is divided into four parts and an appendix.
This part, Part A, included an introduction to the paper and an overview of the process that was followed in preparing the paper.
Part B provides an overview of the present circumstances of Australian families and the increasing financial and time pressures on mothers and families. It also reviews existing maternity leave and financial supports for mothers at the time of birth of a child.
Part C sets out the objectives and benefits of a national paid maternity leave scheme.
Part D outlines community views regarding the possible structure of a paid maternity leave scheme and details HREOC's preferred model for a national paid maternity leave scheme.
The Appendix is a consultancy report prepared by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) of the cost of HREOC's preferred model for a national paid maternity leave scheme.
1.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women GA Res 180 (XXXIV 1970), 19 ILM 33 (1980). CEDAW was ratified
by Australia on 28 August 1983.
2. Recommendation 46, Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission Pregnant and Productive: It's a right not
a privilege to work while pregnant HREOC Sydney 1999, pxxvii.
3. Minister for Finance and Administration "Population
Ageing - Adapt to the Reality, Don't Defy it" Media Release 12 September 2002.
4. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Valuing Parenthood:
Options for paid maternity leave, interim paper 2002 HREOC, Sydney
2002.
5. Mike Steketee "Tax should pay mums' leave: Poll" The
Australian 5 September 2001, p1.
6. Sun Herald Taverner Poll "Paid leave: What you think" Sydney Morning Herald 5 May 2002, p4.
7. motherInc, Submission 196, p2.
8. Mike Steketee "Tax should pay mums' leave: Poll" The
Australian 5 September 2001, p1.
9. Sun Herald Taverner Poll "Paid leave: What you think" Sydney Morning Herald 5 May 2002, p4.
10. motherInc, Submission 196, p2.
11. Anne Burns "Baby leave bill for all: Poll" West Australian 15 May 2002, p4.
12. Finance Sector Union, Submission 161, pp5-9, Appendix 2.
13. Finance Sector Union, Submission 161, p6.
14. New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce, Submission 231, pp9-10.
15. New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce, Submission 231, p9.
16. New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce, Submission 231, p9.
17. Australian Institute of Company Directors, Submission 53, pp1-2.
18. Australian Institute of Company Directors, Submission 53, p2.
19. Australian Institute of Company Directors, Submission 53, p2.