Skip to main content

Retail Industry National Employee Relations Summit

Sex Discrimination

Paid maternity leave - will
it become a reality for the retail industry?

Speech presented by Commissioner
Pru Goward Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Retail Industry
National Employee Relations Summit, Sunshine Coast Queensland, 23 May
2002.

  • Ladies and gentlemen,
    when Valuing Parenthood: Options for paid maternity leave was
    launched, it was intended to begin an informed and fair-minded public
    debate about the need or otherwise for a national paid maternity leave
    scheme for Australia.

  • Apart from a
    most annoying diversion over whether or not employers should pay,
    which has never been recommended in either the paper or in any public
    comment I've ever made, more of that furphy a little later.

  • To be honest
    the most we hoped for was that the Government might agree to pay for
    some economic modelling on a couple of options.

  • Well weren't
    we under-achievers!

  • None of us anticipated
    the strength and depth of the public support for the issue. But perhaps
    we should have.

  • Perhaps we should
    have known that if work wasn't working for women, then it wouldn't
    be working for anyone else much either- their parents, partners, their
    children and babies.

  • Perhaps we should
    have believed that the anxieties we hold for the struggle women still
    face in Australia were anxieties shared by others, a lot of others.

  • Perhaps we should
    have realised that if we think we can no longer put off facing up
    to some of the profound social challenges emerging in Australia, then
    the rest of the country might be thinking the same way.

  • And they are.

  • Challenge Number
    One is a profound challenge to the future of human existence- the
    challenge of who will have our children.

  • Every year,
    slightly fewer women of child-bearing age in Australia, as elsewhere,
    decide to have children.

  • Every year they
    get older when they have their first child, every year maternity becomes
    medically more difficult.

  • A variety of
    economic, biological and social changes have contributed to this trend.

  • First- education
    and training periods are longer, meaning earning capacity begins later
    in life for most young men and women.

  • Then, the nature
    of work has changed. Few young people enter the workforce with permanent
    full time jobs the Bank is going to lend money for a home on. Contract
    and project work is very common, with the consequence that not only
    do home mortgage lenders feel understandably uncertain about the young
    couple's prospects, but so does the young couple! They too, are unwilling
    to commit to family responsibilities when the job is over in a few
    months time!

  • Next, the long
    run economic viability of families today means that paid work today
    is compulsory for most parents, whether they are mothers or fathers.
    Sure, one parent might only need to work part time, but work they
    both do.

  • It's not about
    saving up for the overseas family holiday, if indeed it ever was.

  • Today the majority
    of women will have to work part or full time for at least part of
    their parenting years.

  • Why? Because
    the real cost of living is high. In particular, housing affordability,
    Australia-wide, has declined by 29% with in the space of a generation.
    You need two incomes to carry the mortgage on the slum of your dreams,
    forget the 4 bedroom mansion with the spa bath and optional pool room!

  • Finally those
    hard one qualifications and work experience soon get out of date.

  • As employers,
    you know the first question you ask recruits is "when was your
    last job?"

  • Qualifications
    and jobs of five or seven years ago do not count any longer.

  • Workforce qualifications
    and experience toady very rapidly reach their used-by date.

  • Into this heady
    pressure pack, you can now add the fact that women still bear children
    and somehow have to cope with all this while juggling a major responsibility
    that hasn't changed for thousands of years and isn't likely to!

  • God might have
    given us university degrees but he forgot to change our child bearing
    years!

  • Young women
    find out, very quickly, that there is considerable workplace disadvantage
    to be had as a result of their motherhood.

  • As Sex Discrimination
    Commissioner, the workplace discrimination that women face as a result
    of their pregnancy or potential pregnancy is my point of entry on
    this issue.

  • Women receive
    less pay, less opportunity, less financial support in the workplace
    because they bear children. They still only earn 84 cents in the male
    dollar, when comparing average weekly ordinary full time earnings.

  • This disparity
    most obviously occurs when earnings of men and women over 30 are compared.

  • Before this
    the earnings of men and women are about the same.

  • It is no coincide
    that 30 is the age when women are most likely to be combining work
    and family. It occurs because they won't take the promotion, they
    won't do the extra hours, they won't act in a senior position at the
    interstate office for three months, because they need to get home
    to their kids.

  • Once you add
    in casual and part time workers, the majority of whom are women, and
    almost entirely because they want and need to be full time mothers,
    and the disparity is even greater. The earnings ratio drops to 66
    cents in the dollar.

  • It still
    comes as something of a shock for many independent and confident
    young women when they discover a whole new world of discrimination
    or barriers to work when they enter parenthood.

  • During pregnancy,
    there are still many employers who consider that women's brains turn
    to mush, that they do not work as productively, while pregnant- they
    often demote or dismiss them, deny them training or otherwise allow
    their careers to stagnate.

  • That is the story
    of complaints received by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

  • This treatment
    does not end after the birth.

  • For women who
    want and choose to breast-feed, many work places cannot or will not
    provide suitable conditions for this (even for the expressing of milk).

  • Women often experience
    a lack of sufficient financial support during maternity, no guarantee
    that a job is there when they return from maternity leave, difficulty
    accessing affordable childcare, difficulty finding hours that suit
    their families, or poor access to flexible work conditions which would
    allow them to occasionally take time off for family reasons.

  • In addition to
    the implications of this for earnings ratios, women are also the ones
    who end up taking large amounts of unpaid leave, or just time out
    of the workforce, further contributing to the direct economic cost
    they bear for having our children. And if you feel all this works
    out in the end, if you think that families share their income, let
    me remind you of the high rate of divorce over the long term and the
    official figures that demonstrate the higher reliance of older women
    on social welfare compared with the reliance of older men.

  • But I digress.
    What is the consequence of all these new social and economic forces
    for family formation? - Fundamental.

  • Young people
    are understandably reluctant to partner until they are sure of their
    economic futures.

  • Young women in
    particular are increasingly reluctant to forego the investment they
    have made by withdrawing from the workforce in order to have children.
    Their parents, who have often sacrificed a great deal to get their
    daughters through endless TAFE courses or a university degree, understand
    how they feel!

  • The average age
    of mothers of first children is now 29.8 years.

  • People wishing
    to have children today are forced to 'family cram'.

  • The biological
    clocks start to tick and there is a scramble for the pram.

  • This is assuming
    there can be - women who haven't borne a child by the age of 35 are
    most unlikely to do so after that age. The ability to conceive and
    complications of pregnancy and birth all start to compound as women
    enter their thirties.

  • At the same time
    there is still a mortgage to be paid, a cost of living to be met and
    a career to be established. Women have to keep working.

  • This is a social
    paradigm shift that can't be reversed - and the sensible thing is
    to work with it, not against it.

  • This is where
    a national scheme of paid maternity leave comes in.

  • In writing this
    options paper I have consulted widely with employer groups, employee
    groups, unions, Government and academics.

  • The message
    from most is clear - the time has come to introduce a national scheme
    of paid maternity leave in Australia.

  • Another clear
    message from those with whom I have consulted is that any national
    scheme of paid maternity leave should not be funded by individual
    employers.

  • Inevitably, whether
    we introduce a national scheme of paid maternity leave is not up to
    myself or the groups with whom I have consulted, but up to Australia
    as a nation.

  • In making this
    decision there are only two questions we need answer.

  • One, what can
    a paid maternity leave scheme do for us? And two, to what extent do
    existing schemes already cover it?

  • A decision is
    then simple.

  • If we believe
    that a national scheme of paid maternity leave can meet worthwhile
    aims not currently being met by the existing government benefits on
    offer - we introduce paid maternity leave.

  • What are the
    possible aims of a national paid maternity leave scheme?

  • There are three
    I would like to highlight today:

  • First, while
    the birth of a child is often a special time for families for women
    it is also a time characterised by colic, croup, cracked nipples,
    six feeds a day and sheer physical exhaustion. Post natal depression
    is common, as is the need for a physical recovery from caesarean section
    births.

  • The 'family cram'
    means that dragging yourself out of bed after your head has just hit
    the pillow-following feed number five- to go to work is 'that's life'
    for many women with newborn babies.

  • Paid maternity
    leave will allow women the time needed directly after the birth of
    a child to recover physically from childbirth and establish a feeding
    routine without being forced to return to work due to financial necessity.

  • Secondly, a
    period of paid maternity leave can also play a role in addressing
    Australia's disturbing trend towards a fertility strike - we are literally
    becoming a society without a future generation.

  • The current fertility
    rate is 1.75. This figure sits well below the replacement rate of
    2.1. Since 1961, when it hit a high of 3.6 children per woman, it
    has slid continuously- a decade ago this rate was 1.9.

  • We need a next
    generation to financially support Australia's increasingly aging population.

  • More importantly,
    we need a future generation to ensure that we continue to be a functioning
    society - we need a next generation of consumers, innovators, creators
    and workers.

  • At the moment
    this is far from guaranteed.

  • Let me show you
    what I mean.

  • Overhead 1:
    The current age structure (or spread of ages in Australia). Based
    on the total fertility rate in 2000, 1.75, and migration of 80,000
    persons per annum.

    Overhead 1

  • As you can see
    we have a nice beehive shaped structure, with a slight bulging in
    the 34-44 age groups. But still, more tax payers and worker bees than
    dependents.

  • Now let's look
    at age structure projections for Australia in 2050.

  • Overhead
    2: Standard projection for the year 2050. Assumes that the total fertility
    rate falls to 1.65 in 2005 however remains stable at this rate.

    Overhead 2

  • Assumes also
    that the number of migrants remains constant.

  • What do we get?

  • Perhaps a few
    more queen bees and a few less worker bees as we see the bulge rise
    slightly, to the 44-64 years age groups, however our beehive structure
    still remains. There are still more workers than dependents.
  • Overhead
    3: This projection assumes our fertility rate continues to decline.

    Overhead 3

  • It falls to
    1.65 in 2005 and then to 1.3 in 2015 where it remains constant. Again,
    immigration remains constant.

  • The result?

  • A grim projection.

  • The bulge moves
    to the 50-70 year old age groups.

  • Our beehive structure
    is replaced by a coffin. Dependents out-numbering supporters.

  • Why am I showing
    you this? Because this is the macro picture, that is the result.

  • And often, as
    in this case, the macro picture is the sum of many micros.
  • And here the
    micro issue is about women and choice - at the moment women not having
    choice - not having the choice to be both mothers and workers.
  • Not having certain
    rights, entitlements and support. And the impact this lack of choice
    has on society as a whole.
  • I am not suggesting
    that paid maternity leave alone can rectify this trend and ensure
    the existence of a next generation. It must be part of a suite of
    measures that supports families and work.

  • What a period
    of paid maternity leave can do however is respond to some of the financial
    concerns discouraging women from having babies at all, or having only
    one, or delaying having babies.
  • Paid maternity
    leave means that following the birth of a child there will not be
    a total loss of income by one, or sometimes the only income earner
    in a family. It means new mothers can choose to stay home from work!

  • As 'saving for
    a baby' gets added onto the family crammers' list of things to do,
    the provision of payment through a paid maternity leave scheme may
    mean that families are more able to have children at a time when they
    want to, rather than having to delay the decision for money reasons.

  • France and Sweden
    have been much more ambitious. France has introduced paid maternity
    leave as a deliberate attempt to tackle their birth rate drop- France
    for example, got down to 1.7 in the year 2000. But they recognised
    that substantial periods of paid maternity leave must be offered.
    In France it's 16-26 weeks paid maternity leave and in Sweden it is
    well over a year - and social insurance pays.

  • In most countries
    the introduction of paid maternity leave is too recent to test its
    effect on fertility rates, however since introducing paid maternity
    leave for a third child, the streets of Singapore are said to be full
    of strollers.

  • A third objective
    of a national scheme of paid maternity leave is benefits for the Australian
    labour market and the fostering of Australia's economic growth.

  • In 2000 women
    made up 46 per cent of all Australians with post school qualifications.

  • Women are spending
    years studying and training to enter the workforce - Women are attending
    university, entering TAFE and doing other a variety of other training
    courses.

  • They are qualifying
    as lawyers, accountants, chefs, beauticians and aroma therapists.
    That's an enormous public and private investment.

  • At the same
    time, the majority of women are having children between the ages 30-34.

  • It is when women
    have committed at least 10 years to their field, in study and/or experience,
    and are often on their way to becoming leaders in their fields, that
    they leave the workforce.

  • If they leave
    for five to seven years, those hard won qualifications and years of
    experience are out of date.

  • Australia therefore
    fails to maintain its most skilled labour force, crucial in the increasingly
    competitive global market.

  • None of you
    here today need to be told that high pressure and low margins make
    retailing increasingly difficult in this market.

  • · Most
    retailers struggle to differentiate themselves on their product. It
    is their staff that value-add.

  • And who are
    retail staff?

  • Women.

  • You don't need
    me to tell you that 60-70 percent of retail sector employees are female.
    Most are aged between 20-40 years.

  • Large numbers
    of retail sector employees are women retuning to work part-time or
    casual after having children.

  • These casuals
    make up 30 per cent of the retail sector. They work approximately
    15 per cent of all retail hours. Together with part-timers they make
    up a large number of retail sector employees - And the majority are
    women.

  • Overall, the
    retail sector is starting on the right path to valuing their most
    precious commodity - your people. But there is a long way to go.

  • Your workforce
    has particular challenges - high turnover and shift work means your
    workforce is not always stable enough so that problems like harassment
    can easily be picked up.

  • When it comes
    to turnover, the retail sector has a rate of 60-100 percent per annum.
    Most of this is explained by the extra staff put on over Christmas
    or school holiday periods; and employment in the retail industry being
    seen as 'job experience' rather than a career.

  • This turnover
    rate indicates however that most employees leave the retail sector
    within a year.

  • This is a huge
    cost for retailers and one that is regularly incurred.

  • A major retailer
    found that it costs a minimum of $3800 to recruit a new full time
    employee. [1] This does not include calculations
    for training or loss of experience.

  • The provision
    of paid maternity leave, if the experience of other employers is any
    guide, could reduce this cost as women using this leave are most likely
    to return to work.

  • Despite professing
    otherwise, hiring and training someone to fill the position of a woman
    on maternity leave will actually benefit retailers who operate in
    competitive markets and incur high levels of turnover and associated
    costs.

  • Paid maternity
    leave may see their pool of committed and skilled workers grow as
    they retain women who return after having children and benefit from
    newly trained employees. This gives retailers greater flexibility
    in increasingly competitive marketplaces.

  • Perhaps greater
    staff valuation, through offering entitlements such as paid maternity
    leave would actually reduce staff turnover in this sector, dominated
    by young female employees.

  • Business case
    arguments suggest that it would. Paid maternity leave can reduce attrition
    rates and encourage women to return to the workforce and their employer
    - AMP reported an increase in retention rates from 52% in 1992 to
    90% in 1997, following the introduction of paid parental leave. [2]

  • At the employer-of-choice
    level, this has been achieved through employer-provided pay. A national
    government funded scheme would not have this retention effect for
    individual firms.

  • These are just
    some of the aims that paid maternity leave can meet.

  • Are these aims
    important?

  • They certainly
    address issues relevant to the retail sector.

  • Are they of national
    significance?

  • I think they
    are and that anyone would find it hard to disagree.

  • Next it is worth
    looking at whether existing government benefits are meeting the aims
    I just outlined.

  • The government
    provides a range of income support payments to families to assist
    with the cost of raising children.

  • Last financial
    year, the Federal government committed over 10 billion dollars to
    direct family assistance, including the maternity allowance, family
    tax benefits A and B and a maternity immunisation allowance.

  • Add the amount
    spent on child care and parenting payments and this amount increases
    to 16 billion.

  • None of these
    existing benefits respond directly to the main aim of a paid maternity
    leave scheme - the need to financially support women in employment
    at the time of childbirth and immediately thereafter. To help them
    stay home.

  • The Government's
    new First Child Tax Rebate, costing half a billion dollars a year,
    will also not assist that rising number of women who presently need
    to go back to work within the first year.

  • The lack of direct
    financial support by the Government for women who are in employment
    and have children, suggests to me that the rapidity with which the
    generation jam has descended upon us has not been picked up in Canberra.
    That is easy to change.

  • Facts help.

  • For 100 years
    Australian taxpayers have supported families.

  • Now that the
    family has changed, the sort of support we give them has got to change.

  • Public debate
    on paid maternity leave has recognised this. It has focused on who
    should bear the cost for paid maternity leave.

  • This is good
    news.

  • Our debate is
    merely about what type of national scheme of paid maternity leave
    we wish to introduce.

  • In this 'who
    pays' debate two issues have repeatedly emerged.
  • I would like
    to address both of these briefly.
  • First, there has
    been much concern expressed that employers alone will be forced to pay
    for maternity leave.
  • This is of particular
    concern to small business - in the retail industry alone although 50
    per cent of retail employees are employed by the top 50 companies there
    are still many small businesses unable to afford to pay for maternity
    leave.
  • · As stated
    in the options paper, mandatory payment of maternity leave by employers
    to employees is not a desirable option.

  • Why ever the
    employer pays option become so central to our debate is surprising
    for a number of reasons.

  • First, the discussion
    paper clearly identified the problems of such a scheme.

  • Second, it is
    the third world scheme.

  • No where in the
    developed world is paid maternity leave funded through mandatory employer
    payments alone.

  • Third, International
    Conventions such as the ILO discourage it.

  • Next, the Federal
    Government and the Democrats have not shown support for an employer
    funded scheme, while the Opposition talks of a partnership approach.

  • Finally, employers
    and employer group spokespersons keep telling us that women would
    suffer under this scheme.

  • Employers, especially
    small business, would stop employing women of child bearing age to
    avoid this cost.

  • Any scheme which
    would result in women being further discriminated against in the workforce
    is obviously unacceptable and must be avoided.

  • There are more
    appropriate options for a national scheme of paid maternity leave
    as set out in the interim paper.

  • These are largely
    based on schemes that have been successfully implemented in other countries.
  • They are worthy
    of meaningful consideration and include:

    • Government
      funded universal payment: A payment through the welfare system to
      women who give birth; a separate payment for unemployed women would
      be provided.
    • Government
      funded employment based mode: Flat payment to women, made via either
      the tax or welfare system. Alternatively paid by employers who are
      reimbursed by the government.
    • Social insurance/superannuation
      style scheme: Government, employers and employees contribute to
      a fund from which maternity leave would be paid.
    • Employer
      levy: Employers pay a levy based on total salaries to avoid men
      being hired over women. Small businesses may be exempt.

     

     

  • We have decided
    we support the introduction of paid maternity leave. We have identified
    a number of options for funding it at a national level, now what?

  • The next step
    is submissions from the public and consultations with employee and
    employer groups, business organisations, unions and experts in the
    field on the feasibility of these options.

  • Submissions outlining
    other options for funding paid maternity leave are welcome.

  • These submissions
    will form the backbone of the final report on the options for paid
    maternity leave due out towards the end of this year.

  • The second issue
    that has been repeatedly raised in Australia's debate on paid maternity
    leave concerns the choice to parent.

  • The argument
    has been made that as parenting is an individual choice why should
    society contribute to the payment of maternity leave? In particular
    women without children and men.

  • From the outset,
    this notion of choice needs to be challenged.

  • Governments
    support many personal choices - such as living in a country town or
    playing elite sport. They support these choices when there are also
    benefits for all of us in doing so.

  • And the choice
    to have children is a peculiar one; it is far from universal: the
    fact is if women do not have children, no one will - biology bestowed
    women with this child bearing role and science has not yet been able
    to delegate it to men.

  • And I don't see
    any queues forming demanding it.

  • What women can
    choose however is if they have children, when they have them and the
    number of children they have.

  • The trend towards
    fewer children, later in life, if at all tells us women are choosing.

  • Now the rest
    of us have to make a choice.

  • We either -
    support women in their dual role as members of the workforce and as
    bearers of children - or we don't - we tell them to go home - or we
    support all groups of women, whatever combination of work and family
    they choose.

  • If we want them
    to go home it makes more sense to stop them from being in the workforce
    altogether… at least once they are married. We could re-enact the
    marriage bar.
  • No, marriage
    is too late. Let's take women out of university... such a waste for
    a five year job…and school, and then I suppose, it's hardly possible
    to justify reading and writing…

  • We'll tell young
    girls today, there's a nice spot for you in the home.
  • Barefoot, pregnant
    and in the kitchen.

  • Or we take the
    other road. With work with, not against, the wishes of our young women.
    We support women and men so that they can manage a combination of
    work and family responsibilities. Paid maternity leave is part of
    doing that. Just ask the rest of the world.


1.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission consultation with Phil Naylor,
CEO Australian Retailers Association 19 September 2001; Australian Retailers
Association, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Equal
Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency Balancing the Till: Increasing
profits and building a better workforce Commonwealth of Australia Canberra
2002, 11.

2. George
Trumbell "Creating a culture that's good for business" in E.M.
Davis and V. Pratt (eds) Making the Link: Affirmative Action and Industrial
Relations No. 8 Labour-Management Studies Found Sydney 1997, 31 -33 at
32.

Last
updated 14 June 2002.