Skip to main content

Submissions

From: Mark Dossetor [

Sent: Friday, 21 October 2005 7:13 PM

To: Family Responsibilities

Subject: Submission to Striking the Balance

Importance: High

Dear Sarah - as briefly discussed - here is some comments which I hope prove useful.

It seems that there is a concerning move in the current tranche of industrial relations to reduce or remove support for fathers as parents and wind back the gains made in this area – particularly for Government employees (where the gains were perhaps greatest).

While certain rights to maternity leave and access to leave without pay (or part time work) have been protected by law for 'some' women in 'some'

industries (but more could be done) – there is little promotion of the role of fathers to either be with their partner when a child is born or for those who may take on the primary carer role with young children at home.

Unlike certain Scandinavian countries where fathers not only get substantial paternity leave – but are encouraged to take this leave – we have the situation where it is almost frowned upon to take more than a short break.

Even where lip service is paid to workplaces supposedly being family friendly - the actions of senior management and the Government do not support them being genuinely family friendly.

As an example, in the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the management proposal for the current Certified Agreement (CA) removed an entitlement for 5 days paid paternity leave (without any 'active' discussion with staff) – and yet when glossing the change over at a staff meeting painted this as a gain by saying staff could access up to 14 days their existing accrued personal leave for family reasons (on a voluntary basis).

However, staff could already, in addition to paid paternity leave, access such personal leave for matters relating to their immediate family so this access was not new (and was just the spin used to justify taking away the paternity entitlements). Also, specifying a maximum of 14 days for this purpose or adding 7 days of it to a list of matters for which personal leave can be used is sending the message that men should only be at home for a few weeks at most. While double this amount of time is supposedly able to be taken on half pay – it is proposed that half the period will then not count for service at all – which could place a range of benefits at risk if there happened to be an unfortunate accident in this period of looking after the family.

The addition of paternity to miscellaneous leave was made – but only for those without any other form of paid leave available – and management expressed the view that it would be highly unlikely that a staff member would ever be in a situation where they could access this miscellaneous leave provision. That is, it was a sham offer.

To this point there is still no acceptance by the key ACMA manager responsible for the CA negotiations that taking away additional paid paternity leave is even a loss of entitlements.

Of more concern is the suggestion at a meeting with staff that it was inappropriate for men to have any leave which was not also fully available to women (which is odd given women having a child would be entitled to comprehensive maternity leave which, for obvious reasons, is only available to women.) That, in effect, fathers are so unimportant that they do not deserve consideration for support and father-based benefits are to be bargained away. To my mind this is sexist and discriminatory for men.

The whole push of the new IR regime will be to remove any chance of promoting a better balance of parenting between the genders. The only benefits that are likely to remain will be for women (as mothers) in some industries and thus the only workable solution (from a financial basis) for most families will be for traditional sex stereotyped roles – whether this suits the family or not. This of course has the historical flow on effects of limiting career choices for women and decreasing the importance of the family in Australian society – which can have other negative social and developmental outcomes.

If the Government is serious about promoting family friendly workplaces and improving the role of fathers as positive role models for Australian children – it should legislate to introduce mandatory paternity leave provisions. Unless there is such a change, then there will simply be the entrenchment of historical sex stereotyped roles – not by choice, but by necessity as the role of fathers will not be supported or protected. This would be a backwards step for men and women and demonstrate a lack of commitment to balanced and flexible working arrangements which give an equal opportunity and support for either gender to take on family commitments.

I would be happy to provide further feedback - but only came across the paper right at the closing date and do not have the time to address the questions in the discussion paper

Mark Dossetor