Two papers released today probably won’t be the proverbial barbeque stoppers of Howardian memory on work/life balance, but they’re raising very interesting issues and questions which have the potential to reframe debates of central importance to, well, all of us. The Productivity Commission’s Issues Paper on Parental Support has now been released. It’s a very good exercise in recognising the differential impacts of decision making on people with different circumstances and basing policy on rethinking its objectives. There’s also an extremely useful appendix summarising what’s known about the scope and impact of policy in this area in Australia and overseas. It’s certainly true to say that Australia is one of the few major developed nations not to have in place any overall framework for parental support, but that doesn’t mean we should rush to formulate policy on the run, but rather that we have the chance to get it right. The Commission is inviting submissions in response to the paper, and I’m also glad to see that it’s welcoming individual submissions on personal experiences of time taken out of work for parental reasons.
It’s also worth observing that the PC provides data which demonstrate that access to paid parental leave is currently a privilege largely enjoyed by full time employees and those employees in higher income brackets. It ought not to be seen as a “bonus” but rather as a right that enhances and underpins equitable access to employment and career progression and job satisfaction, and should thus be guarenteed to all. The Commission also notes the positive labour market effects and productivity gains for employers which could flow from a broader extension of paid parental leave.
Having worked in the area of advising corporations on staff retention and equity issues myself, I’m well aware that one of the options often taken by professional or skilled parents (and particularly women) - part time work - has often been something which is viewed as an inconvenience to employers (although in the case of less skilled workers, it’s lauded as necessary flexibility). The right to request such changed conditions will be enshrined in legislation to be introduced by Julia Gillard later this year. However, it’s also worth noting that the most comprehensive survey yet done on work/life balance issues - by Beaton Consulting on behalf of Professions Australia - with over 11000 respondents drawn from the well paid ranks of “knowledge workers” finds that the option to take part time work is often to the detriment of employees’ careers and fails to provide the balance it’s supposed to provide.
Both these papers provide richer empirical data and stronger research than much of what passes for debate on what is often ideologically contested terrain. That’s a good thing, and it’s to be hoped that their conclusions inform and shape future debates.
Sorry, I’m skim reading, but which is the second paper? The survey?
Yep. Survey and research report - pretty comprehensive actually.
There was a story on it today in the Oz:
[link]
I linked to the full report because news stories about reports of this nature are always very selective - what’s considered “newsworthy” isn’t always what’s most interesting or significant.
I’ve just finished reading Ann Manne’s Quarterly Essay and am thoroughly convinced that the only way we’re going to beat this is by supporting parents by giving them the option of choosing high quality daycare or staying home and receiving assistance. And by high quality daycare I don’t mean ABC.
Mark,
It’s worth noting that the ‘right to request’ in the exposure draft of the NES is quite weak. It is, in some ways, as lesser entitlement than that provided by the AIRC work & family test case, and in various State IR systems.
Matt C
Well, men have paid parental leave for years. Its called “thank f*ck Im back here at work away from the wailing no-sleep nightmare”.
Time to even up the scheme, Mr Rudd.
Seriously though: after my one week pat leave, I acheived absolutely squat in the next 3 months back at work. I was a braindead, sleep-deprived, spew stained lump whjo kipped all day. A pile of old newspapers would have been more productive.
What was the point? I might as well have been at home helping out for those 8 hours.
Matt, I’m not surprised!
It’s worth noting that the ‘right to request’ in the exposure draft of the NES is quite weak.
As are all the provisons in the NES. They will always be rudimentary while ever the government must legislate directly to improve them. The federal governemnt is in a very different position from State governments in the practical and political capacity to legislate anything much above a bare bones rudimentary ’safety net’ of crap provisons lower than most Awards and certainly lower than mnay provisins already availabnle via State legislation.
What I want to see are the provisions for ‘Modern’ (what else?) Awards, and how it is proposed that Award reliant sectors are able to maintain and improve their living standards and rights over time.
It will also be interesting as guage of the approach to be taken by a ‘very modern ALP government’ to the issues of rights and standards in the 21st century workplace.
I think I feel another big campaign coming on.
Amused,
Why do you believe that the federal government is less able to legislate for conditions above ‘bare bones’ minimum than are the States? Why, for example, is the federal government unable to legislate for (say) an entitlement as strong as the UK right to request flexible working arrangements?
Matt C
But is the federal government in such a position, amused? I’d have thought that the case last year which upheld WorkChoices significantly stengthened their ability to legislate for employment conditions under the Corporations power. Maybe there’s some messiness with making them interact with awards, if awards rest on the C&A power. But I doubt the legal problems would be insuperable if the political will was there.
The Qld IR legislation has nice provisions for award modernisation - including “community standards” and triggers for review periodically. And about three years work - from employers, unions, the Commission and the government went into making them relevant - until WorkChoices effectively threw them all in the bin.
I can reliably inform LPers that the ACTU is moving on this one as the next campaign. Top shelf priority.
I must say that call for parental leaves me cold.
There is already a parenting allowance and baby bonus available, if the patter of little feet is ones bag. Increase the parenting allowance to a reasonable level and get over childcare for under fives except for single parents who are happy and able to pull in an extra buck.
Looking after kids is valuable and important WORK and should be recognised as such.
Entrenching a special deal for the children of the so called ’skilled’ and ‘full time’ employee just maintains inequity.
But that’s the point, surely, joe2. There should be a system which equitably supports all - regardless of income, skills or employment status. I don’t think that the baby bonus or the parental allowance cut it in that game.
Matt, apologies - we crossed comments. Also, our spam filter seems to have taken a dislike to you but if I keep digging your comments out, it should be capable of learning!
“There should be a system which equitably supports all - regardless of income, skills or employment status.”
So right Mark. This, however, is an ambit claim by full time employees to maintain their privileged position against the hordes of the now casualised.
When Pru Goward endorses something you know it is a bit fishy.
Its now pretty much an issue of not being the class dunce on balancing work and family.
Even Bangladesh has a scheme. Only the US and AU don’t. The UK has pretty much exactly what’s likely to be proposed: 14 weeks paid by Government at min wage, but with AU special of super for that period paid by employers. Benfits on top of that voluntary for employer.
Its a good idea. Its all just embarassing now, and has to go.
joe2, I agree with your criticism of what Prue Goward is proposing, but I’m not so sure what you mean by “this” - a whole range of options are canvassed by the PC’s Issues Paper, which is as it should be - rather than rubberstamping Prue’s proposal.
“but I’m not so sure what you mean by “this”..
Ok, i will try to put my shock jock to bed and do a little bit more reading on the subject, tomorrow. I might just say ,though, that the abandoning of tiny children to the abc learning type companies of the world, for peoples’ careers, will come home to bite bigtime.
Just for my edification, what is so bad about ABC child care centres? (Facts not myths, please.)
Given that there are now so many of them, it would have to depend on which one you are asking about!
My objections are ideological and guaranteed to provoke impolite conversation and thus will not be canvassed.
My objections are ideological too, but certainly the level of training and wages of staff and the company’s aggression in trying to force independent and not for profit operators out of the market have been highlighted in commentary I’ve seen.
I wouldn’t assert any expertise in the area though.
Well, on this issue, I would happily rant ideologically, provoking impolite conversation etc, but *yaaaaaaaaa* - too tired.
Joe2: This, however, is an ambit claim by full time employees to maintain their privileged position against the hordes of the now casualised.
I’m inclined to sympathise with this assessment to some degree. Too much of the discussion is centred upon the entitlements of permanent employees, which leads me towards the conclusion that either
a) a paid parental leave entitlement ought to apply to all employees (unlikely);
b) a paid parental leave entitlement for permanent employees should be complemented by a entitlement for other parents (ie. casual employees, the unemployed, and those not in the labour force) that would be paid through the tax or welfare system, rather than the IR system; or
c) that the entitlement is to be paid through the tax/welfare system for all recipients.
Mark, no worries about the comment system.
Joe2, they’re the WalMart of child care. Staff members aren’t as well trained as in independent centres (to keep costs down) and they are incredibly aggressive in monopolising the child care industry in any given area, forcing out independent centres that actually care about providing a decent service rather than just raking in the dollars.
When care based institutions are run as profit generators, the care often goes out the window.
Joe2, childcare workers who have worked at ABC larnin’ state that they would not send their own children there. (To ABC, I mean, not that they wouldn’t send their kids to cc centres per se.)
*Forcing small operators out of business as mentioned above
*Evidence of inadequate food and equipment / toys in some centres
*Poor treatment and payment of staff
*Entrenched and intractable built-in conflict between the for-profit model and returning maximum profits to shareholders, and providing the best quality care. Industry best suited to not for profit model.
*Ideological point: kids should not be treated like widgets, see previous point.
“*Entrenched and intractable built-in conflict between the for-profit model and returning maximum profits to shareholders, and providing the best quality care.”
Hmmm, as anyone who has seen the Gordon Ramsay restaurant TV shows will attest, providing a poor quality service is usually the way to lose money in business, not make it. There must be something special about the child care business.
“*Ideological point: kids should not be treated like widgets”
Presumably this also applies to children’s clothes, children’s food, children’s medical services etc. Or in other words, capitalism is bad because it exploits workers and consumers, but it’s unconscionable when applied to anything to do with children. Is this correct?
It’s not just ABC either. I’ve heard of some of the other private ‘chain’ centres deliberately violating ratios and then taking the extra kids out by bus if someone from DOCs shows up. I’ve also heard that ABC and some other for-profit companies systematically defer hiring properly trained staff in line with the relevant legislation, and use the various loop-holes in the rules to justify it if brought to account by the authorities.
I don’t necessarily think that for-profit centres are all problematic in these ways, and I’ve seen some small-scale operations turn a small profit and offer quality care. But this pretty much rested on the commitment and generosity of the operators.
“Or in other words, capitalism is bad because it exploits workers and consumers, but it’s unconscionable when applied to anything to do with children. Is this correct?”
No, not really. The current system simply fails to meet the needs of children, and it does so at the most important developmental stages. Parents are more or less at the mercy of whatever is available. There are several levels of interest and demand here, making the situation more complex than in other sectors.
“The current system simply fails to meet the needs of children, and it does so at the most important developmental stages.”
That may well be so, but if so the blame lies with governments who make the rules about how the system operates, how it is funded and so on.
There must be something special about the child care business.
Yes. There is. They must act in loco parentis for seven or more hours in a day. This cannot be left to the market. And the requirement to maximise returns to shareholders conflicts directly with the requirement to maximise comfort, nutrition, stimulation and qualified staff for the children.
“They must act in loco parentis for seven or more hours in a day.”
I see.
That must mean that children should never be admitted to private hospitals, because they act in loco parentis for 24 hours per day.
I can only defend our ABC local centre, but we were lucky in that when it was bought by ABC all the lovely staff came with it. Now ABC has built a completely new purpose built centre here and bought all new toys etc. The staff really love the kids and I am more than happy for my daughter to spend time there. They even email me photos so I know she is having fun. I have heard horror stories about other centres, but it all depends on the people. About half of the staff locally are studying for further qualifications, supported by ABC.
However, the childcare industry as a whole is profitable because some people are do desperate for work, they will send their kids anyway because it’s that or stay at home and worry about where the money to pay the bills will come from.
“providing a poor quality service is usually the way to lose money in business”. Gordon Ramsay doesn’t have a near monopoly in the restauratn business though.
ABC do - and are funded by reams of government subsidies on their fees, and their market share was driven by the neglect of community childcare funging under the Howard government. They run a sh*t service, and fine parents for being 5 minutes late.
Even private schools are not-for profit in Australia. Its one of the rules that looking after and educating pre-tertiary children is not supposed to be a direct money spinner.
If I was Rudd - I’d be funding up the community competition big time - drive those suckers into the dirt. Their service is so 2nd rate they wouldnt survive in a competitive environment. Any parent will tell you it aint easy to get a place these days.
“That may well be so, but if so the blame lies with governments who make the rules about how the system operates, how it is funded and so on.”
It certainly does lie with the governments who have been more than willing to be complicit in these dubious practices for the sake of political expediency. Criticising ABC is criticising the symptom, to be sure. It’s a general failure of governments - and even the public - to recognise that the market is failing, in this instance, to provide what is needed. I would say it is intrinsic to the particular nature of this industry that operating for-profit is a bad thing. It is not necessarily a reflection on markets in general, and I think you are right to caution us about lapsing into that position Spiros.
If I understand you correctly, LeftyE, the problem is not capitalism in child care, it’s monopoly capitalism. I can see how that would be a problem. I can’t see why high quality providers don’t enter the market in opposition to ABC. Not necessarily for profits; could be community not-for-profit centres. As everybody says ad nauseum, there is a shortage of childcare places, so there’s plenty of willing parents.
It’s the initial outlay: there is no money for opening not-for-profits, although they can run well enough once they’re going, with very little assistance.
I agree that Rudd should put money in to add some competition. Also, If ABC falters, governments should offer to buy up centres. One thing that ABC has been good at is putting centres in areas where they’re needed. Also, as Mindy suggests, some ABC centres have good staff and conditions and should be preserved. Whatever changes are made, they shouldn’t be designed to topple ABC, but to gradually shift away from the for-profit model. A collapse would be disastrous and could sour the public to the transition.
Exactly - it was an artificial monopoly driven by federal government neglect of the sector. Those ABC scumbags were clearly donating to the LNP. I was delighted to see their business in serious trouble. I applaud Rudd for not lifting a finger to help them - but yes, the solution is more community childcare finding.
I meet a lot of parents - right across the political spectrum too (kids bring everyone together!) and Ive never met one who would choose ABC if given any other option.
The reason that the federal governemnt will find it more dificult to legislate for anything better than a bare bones minimum is not constitutional, it’s political. There is a vast difference between say, the South Australian government consulting interest groups in that state and coming up with a workable and decent provision, than a federal government that has to wrestle with six states, interest groups who have different positions based on their State bodies’ approaches to issues, and with a labour movement that is still ‘federal’ in its structures and approaches.
Think WA mining industry and the AiG in Victoria. The most that can be said for the constitutional ‘freedom’ granted to the federal governemnt by the High Court in the Workchoices case, is that at least there is some basic provision against which phony ‘contracts for service’ may be tested, in the event the federal government is interested in the growth of this piece of free riding by sections of business, and is willing to draft suitable legislative provisions to deal with it.
On the issue of the growth of casuals and the like, it is unfair to blame full time employees for trying to protect their position aganist this form of employment. If the tears for this situation are more than crocodile tears, designed to demonstrate a ‘concern’ for the most vulnerable, as opposed to the continuing campaign to degrade existing conditions in the labour market, there is a way to deal with it. Make all entitlements to fundamental leave provisions based on total of hours worked, rather than contract status and make them (the entitlements) portable, and provide for access to flexible leave for full timers. While there will always be some need and demand for the kind of contract that permits a person to offer for hire on a daily or hourly basis, the current situation in Australia has been allowed to develop as a means whereby industries that could well provide permanent part time work uses casuals instead. And of course, Workchoices permitted the removal of any leave loading in any case, so even that sop to a pretty crappy employment status is being undermined, and there is right to this kind of provison in teh NES, so unless you are covered by a federal (modern!) Award or a State award, you can whistle dixie for your loading.