ࡱ> ` Bbjbj Q:z< < < $` TTTPTU` sVV4VVVX Y,5Y s s s s s s s$@uhwZ1s< ceX"Xcc1sVVwFsUiUiUic8V< V sUic sUiUiro$ < pVV 8pMTdfGpr,\s0sUpVx)fxpx< p4MY9\UiO^_MYMYMY1s1sh^MYMYMYscccc` ` ` HDRD` ` ` DR` ` `   STRIKING THE BALANCE SUBMISSION BY SHOP DISTRIBUTIVE & ALLIED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION Ian J Blandthorn  National Assistant Secretary National Office 5th Floor 53 Queen Street Melbourne 3000 PH: (03) 9629 2299 FAX: (03) 9629 2646 RESPONSE TO STRIKING THE BALANCE SUMMARY Financial well-being for themselves and their family is a key driving force in workforce participation by both women and men. It is critical to people making the decision to have or expand families. Work family balance cannot be achieved unless due cognizance is taken of the economic needs of families. Over recent years a range of changes have occurred in relation to workplace organisation which severely inhibit the capacity of many people to have children or to effectively balance their work life with their family life. At the centre of these changes have been the decline of full time employment opportunities and the growth of non full time jobs. Casual employment has increased from 13.2% in 1982 to 27.3% today. However the lack of regular and sufficient hours often leads to financial strain and stress and often generates among workers feelings of insecurity and uncertainty. At the heart of these feelings is a fear by the workers for their own and their familys economic future. However the widespread availability of casual employment gives lie to the arguments that Australian work practices are too inflexible or that casual wage rates inhibit the employment of casual labor. Apart from casual employment, many people are employed as permanent part time employees. Such employment offers security of hours but for many, the number of hours of work on offer are inadequate. For many of these workers this creates severe financial strain. A pre condition for enabling workers to better balance their work/life with their family life is to give them greater security of employment. This means actively discouraging precarious employment practices by employers. It means giving workers regular and sufficient hours of work. One approach to dealing with this is to support the proposition that any casual who works a regular number of hours over an extended period, such as three months will have the right upon request to their employer to be converted to permanency on at least the same number of hours as they are working at the time. Further, the casual loading should be retained and increased where relevant to at least 25%. Any reduction or abolition of the casual loading will only serve as a green light for an increase in precarious employment. In recent times the Australian Workplace Relations Commission has handed down Test Case decisions in favour of both of these propositions. The minimum number of hours on which a part time worker may be employed should be increased to at least ten hours per week. This is a standard provision in a range of retail Enterprise Agreements such as the Coles Supermarkets Agreement. Even where workers have reasonable numbers of hours on a regular and secure basis, rostering practices which produce frequent roster changes can make it very difficult for workers to balance work and family. Employers should be required to take into account the family needs and commitments of workers when setting or changing rosters. Further, rosters should not be changed without at least reasonable notice. Both of these provisions are standard provisions in retail EBAs. Employers can manage such requirements. The contemporary Australian workplace has seen an intensification of work. This has often left women with a greater share of domestic activity and this impacts on their capacity to participate in paid work. Reducing pressures for men in particular to stay at work longer, would encourage greater engagement of men as carers and help women participate more in paid work. The heavy demands of the workplace, and in particular the requirement to work long days, creates problems for workers trying to balance work and family. The Dr Eastman report comments on how a number of staff spontaneously commented on how they have come to hate Christmas. Dr Eastman quotes the following comments: Controls on the number of hours people can work each week, and preventing the working of unpaid overtime, would likely open up many new job opportunities. The Reasonable Hours Test Case decision should be applied across the workforce. These changes would result in a broader and fairer distribution of work. They would allow more people to both participate in the paid workforce and their families. They would facilitate achievement of better work-family balance. Many workplaces are unfriendly to pregnant workers. Problems ranging from employers not being willing to understand or attempt to accommodate the needs of pregnant workers through to actual discrimination against workers who are pregnant are widespread. This leads to the conclusion that greater efforts are required to assist women to achieve better work family balance. The "Pregnant and Productive" report (1999) has shown many employers actively discriminate against pregnant workers. The government should commit to introducing the recommendations of the "Pregnant and Productive" report, including ratification of ILO Convention 103. The government should also commit itself to the ILO Convention 156 "Workers With Family Responsibilities". In regards to maternity a range of issues also arise which unless dealt with effectively make it difficult for workers to balance work and family. Those issues include: workers being able to access maternity leave, take sufficient time off as 12 months is not always enough,- have access to paid leave for pre natal purposes and being able to return to work on a graduated basis after maternity. Apart from the introduction of paid maternity leave there are other flexible working arrangements which could and should be established for working parents so that they can balance work and family. Such arrangements include: The availability of extended (up to 3 years) unpaid parental leave to allow a mother to care for her child beyond a 12 month deadline which currently applies; An entitlement to return to work on a part time basis after a period of parental leave even if the pre confinement contract of employment had been full time; A specific entitlement to paid pre-natal leave for both mother and father to attend medical appointments related to the pregnancy; A pro-rata amount of unpaid leave for those who have not worked for the pre-required 12 months to be eligible for parental leave so that they do not automatically lose their job because they need to take time off to deliver their baby; An entitlement to consideration of family responsibilities when establishing rosters on returning to work; All of these provisions are standard arrangements in retail EBAs, showing that employers with large female staffs can adequately manage such provisions. An entitlement to family leave to take care of pressing and unforseen matters relating to other members of the family (such as the need to care for sick children). Many workers need child care. The provision of affordable, high quality children's services on an equitable basis should be a key plank of a government family friendly policy. The federal government has announced that it will introduce a raft of changes to industrial relations legislation, justifying such actions on the grounds that it will encourage employment and productivity. However, initiatives designed to reduce workers award entitlements, reducing the no disadvantage test, removing workers capacity to seek redress for unfair dismissal or compensation in cases of redundancy, pulling back the real value of the minimum wage or curtailing the right of workers to be represented by their union are unfair. Such changes will leave workers worse off. None of these changes will improve productivity or employment opportunities. The government has a responsibility to ensure that industrial legislation produces outcomes which are fair to all parties. It is not possible to achieve an effective work-family balance in an industrial relations setting which does not have fairness as its key abiding underlying principle. Decent wages and working conditions are the critical factors in the recruitment and retention of staff. It is these things which are critical for the formation and stability of families. They are fundamental to achieving work family balance. It is critical that government continue to respect the right of parents to determine whether one or both of them will participate in the paid workforce and on what basis Whatever its decision, a family should not be adversely affected by the application of government policies. All choices should be respected, including those who choose to play a role in the unpaid workforce. A feature of such respect is to properly recognize and value the unpaid work done by those who care for and nurture others, especially where they do it on a full-time basis. A parent caring for children should be seen as making a valuable contribution to society. Government policy should be to ensure that no family needs two incomes simply in order to survive and that all families are free, economically and socially, to choose whether they have one or both parents in the paid workforce and on what basis. Support to families through the taxation system could result in real freedom of choice being available to all parents. For families to have sufficient disposable income there needs to be a revision of the taxation system The absence of tax indexation has led, over the years, to low income earners moving into brackets where they are paying a greater share of their income in tax than previously. Many low income working families are facing high effective marginal tax rates. High effective marginal tax rates occur as a result of income tests for social security payments overlapping with each other and/or the income tax system. They provide a disincentive to people engaging in or increasing their involvement in the paid workforce. In particular it is families with children, especially low income working families who are most disadvantaged by high EMTRs. The presence of children places a significant economic burden upon families. The more children, the heavier the economic burden. The government should provide greater financial support to families. The withdrawal rate applying to Family Tax Benefit A is very low. The withdrawal rate should be adjusted. The minimum figure at which any withdrawal should cut in should be $55,000. The large family supplement should be increased. The purpose of the Parenting Payment when it was first introduced was to provide additional income support to low income parents. The subsequent tightening of the income test applying to it, means that today most Parenting Payment recipients are those who are in receipt of some form of income support payment. The Parenting Payment income test should be adjusted to make this payment accessible to all low income families. The Family Tax Benefit B withdrawal rate should be increased. The introduction of the Maternity Payment was a welcome initiative. It should be means tested. Home ownership is a fundamental factor in families being able to avoid poverty and have sufficient income to function effectively. SUBMISSION Introduction Increasingly research from both Australia and overseas is concluding that family friendly workplaces produce positive results for business, employees and the community. For business it leads to higher profits, reduced costs, retention of talented staff and greater employee commitment. For employees, family friendly work practices allow for a more effective balance to be struck between work and family. This in turn, enables families, and especially the primary care-giver in families (who generally happens to be the mother), to function more effectively. For the community the outcome is stronger families and from that comes a stronger society. Creation of Family Friendly Workplaces There is clearly a great need to make workplaces more family friendly. Employers should be encouraged to see the creation of family friendly workplaces as an investment in the future. Over recent years a range of changes have occurred in relation to workplace organisation which severely inhibit the capacity of many people to effectively balance their work life with their family life. At the centre of these changes have been the decline of full time employment opportunities and the growth of non full time jobs. Today Australia has more people working non full time than almost any other western nation. (Economist, p88, July 2, 2005) These developments have adverse implications and consequences for families. Casual employment has increased from 13.2% in 1982 to 27.3% today. Almost a quarter of all males (23.6%) and a third of women (31.5%) are employed as casuals. Moreover, 71.4% of all employment growth between 1990 and 1999 was casual. Most casual employees, especially those outside the retail industry do not have access to paid leave and most do have variable monthly earnings. Casual employment often generates among workers feelings of insecurity and uncertainty. At the heart of these feelings is a fear by the workers for their own and their familys economic future. While some workers, especially young people prefer casual employment workers with families are generally looking for something more stable and secure. They are looking for regular hours each week. Moreover many also want additional hours to what is available. The lack of regular and sufficient hours often leads to financial strain and stress. The situation is compounded by the fact that many casual workers have been in the same job for lengthy periods of time. A paper released by the federal government in 1999 stated that, "ABS data indicates that many casuals have been with their current employer for lengthy periods of time. Despite this they are not given permanency. The uncertainty of casual employment, often with frequent changes of work rosters makes it very difficult for parents to effectively manage both work and family. The SDA regularly conducts Focus Groups of members. A recent series of Focus Groups conducted by Dr. Moira Eastman of the Australian Catholic University concentrated on the issue of work family balance. Dr. Eastman reports that to the workers, casualisation is perceived to involve issues of lack of care, injustice, competition with other workers, financial pressure, inability to get a loan, stress (even to suicidal levels) and rostering issues that add to the stress. To the workers, these issues are all inextricably interwoven. However these developments give lie to the arguments that Australian work practices are too inflexible or that casual wage rates inhibit the employment of casual labor. A pre condition for enabling workers to better balance their work life with their family life is to give them greater security of employment. This means actively discouraging precarious employment practices by employers. One approach to dealing with this is to support the proposition that any casual who works a regular number of hours over an extended period, such as three months will have the right upon request to their employer to be converted to permanency on at least the same number of hours as they are working at the time. Further, the casual loading should be retained and increased where relevant to at least 25%. Any reduction or abolition of the casual loading will only serve as a green light for an increase in precarious employment. In recent times the Australian Workplace Relations Commission has handed down Test Case decisions in favour of both of these propositions. Apart from casual employment, many people are employed as permanent part time employees. While on one hand some workers want to be able to access part time employment others take it because it is all that is on offer. Such employment offers security of hours but for many, the number of hours of work on offer are inadequate. Recently the SDA conducted a survey of members which showed that 37% of non full time workers desired more hours. As result of recent industrial relations changes at the federal level, provided an employer offers x number of hours (normally 3-4) as a minimum start, he/she is not obliged to offer more. Consequently many part time employees are working low numbers of hours. For many of these workers this creates severe financial strain. The minimum number of hours on which a part time worker may be employed should be increased to at least ten hours per week. This is a standard provision in a range of retail Enterprise Agreements such as the Coles Supermarkets Agreement. Such moves would give greater employment security, reduce stress on workers, especially women and facilitate achieving better overall balance in work and life/family. Even where workers have reasonable numbers of hours on a regular and secure basis, rostering practices can make it very difficult for workers to balance work and family. The following comments from retail workers, cited in the Eastman report illustrate this. O4 (J): I come up quite often with the problem where both partners are working and shes happily going along on a roster and her partner is probably starting when she gets home, and all of a sudden she gets a roster put in front of her thats changed, and then sometimes theres a couple of children involved and they hit the panic button because there might be a 3-hour gap there what do I do about this? And that causes her perhaps to have to drop out of the workforce. B108 (W): I just wanted to say that as far as what youre asking, its the feeling of insecurity. You dont know whether youre going to be put from full-time back to part-time or even casual. Its an insecurity thing that you have at the back of your mind all the time and then thats where you get back to when youre talking about wages. You go without things to make sure youve got a bit of back-up in case that sort of thing happens so instead of going on holidays you like to go away you go for two weeks instead of four weeks. Thats what I feel the impact of that is. You still watch your pennies all the time and it cuts your social life back. Like you dont take the kids to certain social activities which is what I was trying to say before. So youre still penny watching and its always at the back of your mind, if you get cut back. H8: They are constantly changed for the business needs. Forget about the familys needs or family environment. It is always the business needs and sometimes for no reason at all, except there's a change of management and they want to assert their authority so to speak. They come in and they decide they have to change rosters, no other reason, just that they are new. They want to implement changes and the only way of doing, or being noticed, is by changing rosters. And you can speak to them until youre blue in the face kind of thing and the answers always business comes before family needs. My son has his sport all day Saturday, whether it be cricket in the summertime or football in the winter and because hes the baby and he was the baby at that stage I said well I want to spend this time with him because I need to have that time with him. We did it with the others and I really need it now. So we had a few problems. We worked around them, but it looks like were going to be changed around again. We just get settled into those hours and then theyve got to cut back times and hours again. So it looks like theyll be closing back again on hours. But my son now is just turning 17 and hes got a job, so now I have to be around to pick him up from school and I said to the Manager well now I need to be there to pick him up at 4.30 when he finishes and I want to be there. But they just dont care. In the early days, 10 years ago, it was like Yes, we care. Its a family company, and we care, so well work around you. But now its like, You do the hours or you dont do them. If you want to work you do them. N87: So getting back to the employer, though, they dont give a damn, because you want to work, thats your choice and if you cant spend time with your family [thats your problem]. These statements show that a fundamental problem in achieving work family balance is overcoming prevailing workplace culture where management very often take the position that the needs of the business must take precedence and that workers must be the ones who make the adjustments. Employers should be required to take into account the family needs and commitments of workers when setting or changing rosters. Further, rosters should not be changed without at least reasonable notice. Both of these provisions are standard provisions in retail EBAs. Employers can manage such requirements. The distribution of available paid work in Australia is becoming increasingly uneven. On one hand we have what might be described as job rich households where more than one person in the household is employed, and on the other hand we have job poor households where no-one is employed. This "increased inequality in the distribution of employment", with more two-income families and more no- paid income families than ever before, is generating problems for workers trying to balance work and family. The contemporary Australian workplace has seen an intensification of work. The demands upon workers to do more with less resources, and at a faster pace than previously, characterises many Australian workplaces. In terms of working hours, only 53% of the employees in full-time employment now work a "standard" working week with no overtime. Of other full-time employees, 15% work paid overtime and 28% work unpaid overtime (4% have second jobs). According to the Centre for Applied Social research at RMIT University, between 1982 and 2000 full-time male workers increased their working week by 4.3 hours and women by 3 hours. In the past two years, an average of 48 minutes was added to the working week. The study estimated that without the increased hours, 55,000 extra full-time jobs would have been created. Those with full time jobs and requirements to "do extra hours", complain at the lack of time they have to interact with their partner and children. However, many workers feel they have no alternative but to do the hours required in order to keep their job. The intensification of work has often left women with a greater share of domestic activity. This clearly impacts on their capacity to participate in paid work. Increasingly research shows that fathers as well as mothers are important in the development of children. It is no longer a solution to say that it does not really matter how many hours the male works as long as he is a good provider. Fathers and mothers need to have time to spend with each other and their children. Reducing pressures for men in particular, to stay at work longer, would encourage greater engagement of men as carers. The heavy demands of the workplace and in particular the requirement to work long days creates problems for workers trying to balance work and family. The Dr Eastman report states: A number of staff spontaneously commented on how they have come to hate Christmas. They comment on how, because of extended hours trading in the week before Christmas, they are exhausted on the day. The actual food and gift preparation on Christmas day is a nightmare. They are so tired they cannot enjoy the time together with families and friends. Then they are back at work on Boxing Day for stocktaking sales. But Easter and school holidays are also peak trading times, so they cannot travel interstate at these holiday times to visit extended family, or get together with extended family. While working late before public holidays is technically voluntary, members feel under strong pressure to work. Dr Eastman quotes the following comments: B11: . . . Another thing that I find with probably nearly everybody I work with now is Christmas. Christmas is non-existent for people who work in retail. At Retail Chain X we work up until late Christmas Eve, setting up for the stocktake sale. We have Christmas Day off and then were back at work for the sale, and it means that basically theres just no Christmas anymore. You cant go away to see family, and thats extended family its having an impact on. If you have families who live interstate you cant possibly go home for Christmas. You cant have holidays, and thats the other thing. All the busy times in retail now are school holiday times. Retail Chain Xs stocktake sale, Easter sale, Christmas, you just cant have school holidays anymore. B17 But I hate ChristmasIm always exhausted because youve done all those extra hoursI dont enjoy Christmas. I hate it. Controls on the number of hours people can work each week, and preventing the working of unpaid overtime, would likely open up many new job opportunities. The Reasonable Hours Test Case decision should be applied across the workforce. These changes would result in a broader and fairer distribution of work. They would allow more people to both participate in the paid workforce and their families. They would facilitate achievement of better work-family balance. Education and training are increasingly becoming pivotal factors in whether individuals can obtain, hold and advance in employment. Secure jobs are a precondition to the achievement of work life balance. It follows that governments should put in place policies which encourage employers to train. To maximise the benefit of training, policies which encourage employers to retain skilled staff should also be encouraged. Figures provided by the government suggest that Australia has a large number of people who are unemployed, underemployed or working with no real opportunity of promotion. These people lack qualifications and in some cases even basic employment skills. Many of these people were early school leavers (they left school before completing Year 12) and they have never had any government funded post-school training. They are also often low income earners who cannot afford to pay their own course costs. The expense of completing a qualification could thus prevent a person from being able to maintain an employment situation or otherwise confine them to low wage positions for the whole of their working life. This leaves such people susceptible to the vagaries of the labor market. For these people achieving effective work life balance is but a dream. It is time for Australia to adopt a position of guaranteeing all people, including those currently in the workforce, a minimum training entitlement. Such an entitlement could be means tested and only be available for the achievement of a first post-school qualification. Many workers have real employment skills but no formal qualification which gives recognition to such skill. Many existing workers, through extensive on the job work experience, could complete all or a substantial portion of an AQF II or higher qualification via a recognition of prior learning (RPL) process. Access to adequately funded RPL must be expanded Many talented people are not having their skills recognized and the nation has a skills shortage! Many workplaces are unfriendly to pregnant workers. Problems ranging from employers not being willing to understand or attempt to accommodate the needs of pregnant workers through to actual discrimination against workers who are pregnant are widespread. This leads to the conclusion that greater efforts are required to assist women to achieve better work family balance. The "Pregnant and Productive" report (1999) has shown many employers actively discriminate against pregnant workers. The government should commit to introducing the recommendations of the "Pregnant and Productive" report, including ratification of ILO Convention 103. The government should also commit itself to the ILO Convention 156 "Workers With Family Responsibilities". In regards to maternity a range of issues also arise which unless dealt with effectively make it difficult for workers to balance work and family. Those issues include workers being able to access maternity leave, take sufficient time off as 12 months is not always enough, have access to paid leave for pre natal purposes and being able to return to work on a graduated basis after maternity Apart from the introduction of paid maternity leave there are other flexible working arrangements which could and should be established for working parents so that they can balance work and family. Such arrangements include: The availability of extended (up to 3 years) unpaid parental leave to allow a mother to care for her child beyond a 12 month deadline which currently applies; An entitlement to return to work on a part time basis after a period of parental leave even if the pre confinement contract of employment had been full time; A specific entitlement to paid pre-natal leave for both mother and father to attend medical appointments related to the pregnancy; A pro-rata amount of unpaid leave for those who have not worked for the pre-required 12 months to be eligible for parental leave so that they do not automatically lose their job because they need to take time off to deliver their baby; An entitlement to consideration of family responsibilities when establishing rosters on returning to work. All of these provisions are standard arrangements in retail EBAs, showing that employers with large female staffs can adequately manage such provisions. Dr Eastmans Focus Groups commented on the problem of balancing family with rosters: B55: When I was six months pregnant I was working in Gardening and it was getting too muchlifting potting mix and big pots, etc. And their solution was to bung me on checkouts and I had to stand up for eight hours. . . B57: Being on checkouts for eight hours a day my blood pressure started going up and my doctor wrote a letter and said that it was too much and that I should have something like four hours standing and four hours sitting and then their solution to that was to put me on four hours on checkout and then four hours standing at the fitting room. That was their solution. I was still standing for eight hours. Some workers find it difficult to cope when they have sick children. Comments from the Dr. Eastman focus groups include: B170: Ive found out its easier to ring up and say that youre sick, rather than your child. A lot of people would prefer to say that and a lot of employers will say, Well your childs not covered by sick leave. So you cover yourself so you know youre going to get your sick pay. O111: And particularly if your children are sick that is the worst thing for our members. Someone will ring from the school and say, Little Johnnys sick, or whatever, and the boss goes, Well are you really sure? Isnt there someone else who can pick him up? Like give you the third degree and a hassle to leave. . . And the schools rung you! O112: Or they will take a message because youre not allowed to take a phone call at work and youll get the message at the end of the shift: Mary broke her arm at school this morning. An entitlement to family leave to take care of pressing and unforseen matters relating to other members of the family (such as the need to care for sick children). Much more than basic entitlements such as access to Bereavement Leave (see page 91 of Discussion Paper) are required. Making workplaces more family friendly, which includes having employers more receptive and supportive of women when they are pregnant or have children, is critical to the well-being of families and therefore of the nation. It is a pre condition for many people, especially women to be able to participate in the paid workforce and to achieve work family balance. However, until the prevailing culture in many workplaces is changed men in particular will be loathe to take time off for family purposes. In practice such tasks will often fall to women. Until male workers are able to take family leave without being penalized overtly or covertly, until they are no longer made to feel that they are letting the side down they will not avail themselves of such opportunities. Changing workplace culture means changing the attitudes of management, particularly line management. This will not be easy and will require prescriptive legislation or regulation Many workers need child care. A wide variety of care arrangements are utilized. There is a clear relationship between the age of the child, the work demands of parents and the usage of formal child care. According to Australian Social Trends, 2004 in 2002, one in four children spent some time in formal child care. For the vast majority of children this time was limited with 44% receiving less than 10 hours care per week, 34% receiving 10 to 19 hours care per week and only 9% receiving more than 30 hours care per week. The median figure was 12 hours per week. Very young children had the lowest usage rate of only 7%. Clearly the vast majority of parents with very young children choose to care for them directly. One in four children under three use formal child care. The overall usage rate of formal child care for children in the 0-4 years age group is 45%. However, only 23% of children aged 0-4 years used long day care at all and only 6% used family day care. The other 16% are using pre school. The overall formal child care usage rate for children aged 3-4 years was 73%. This high figure largely reflects the high rate of pre school participation as 56% of all 4 year olds and many 3 year olds attend pre school. These facts suggest that most parents seek to minimise their children's time in formal care (apart from pre school), especially when the children are very young. Usage of child care is higher with single parent families with 51% of children 0-4 from single parent families using formal child care as compared with 43% of children from two parent families. The overwhelming reason parents use child care is work related. Once children reach the age of 5 years and begin school there is a clear drop in the usage of formal child care. However there has been a strong growth in before, after and vacation care, again reflecting the work needs of parents. For the vast majority of children (92%) there is no demand for additional formal child care facilities to be made available. Moreover the number seeking additional facilities has declined over the past decade. In 1993 there were almost one in four children requiring additional care opportunities. (Source: ABS, Child Care, 4402.0,6 June, 2000). However, there are still areas of high local need, especially in rural and remote communities, because of the uneven distribution of places. There is also evidence of an unmet need in the before, after and vacation care areas. The provision of affordable, high quality children's services on an equitable basis should be a key plank of a government family friendly policy. It is critical to the overall needs of many parents and to their ability to participate in the paid workforce whilst maintaining a balance between the needs of family and the requirements of work. In the provision of child care services the needs of the child must be the paramount concern. It must also be recognised that the family will normally be the primary carer and raiser of children. In July 2000 the government introduced the Child Care Benefit. This payment is means-tested. It applies for approved or registered care. Maximum rates available for registered care (i.e. most formal child care) are $2.81 per hour for a non school child ($140.50 per week for a 50 hour week). Rates for school children are 85% of the non school rates. Higher rates apply where there is more than one child in care. Lower rates apply for registered (largely no formal care such as grandparents). The maximum rate for approved care is payable for incomes below $32,485. A means test then applies. Above certain levels, $93,299 for a family with one child in approved care, a minimum rate applies. Child care payments make a significant difference, especially to low income families in respect of child care costs. There is some evidence to suggest that a small number of families do not use formal child care because of cost factors. For some parents child care is not affordable. Government has a responsibility to ensure that child care is not denied because parents cannot afford it. There should not be an obligation on the public purse to meet in part, or in full, the costs of child care for those who are on high incomes. The overall structure of the payments is clearly progressive. However the provision of a minimum payment to everyone irrespective of their income level, is inequitable. There is no justification for using taxpayers money to finance "child care for the wealthy". If the government is serious about reducing welfare dependency and providing support only to those in need, it could start by making this payment fully means tested and reallocating the funds to providing increased support to low and middle income families. During the 90's there was a shift from funding centered upon child care centres (operational subsidies and capital expenditure subsidies) to funding centred upon support for individual families (fee subsidies). This had the affect of reducing costs for low income parents, thus making child care more affordable for them. As such, the change in the structure of funding child care was progressive. Over two thirds (68%) of respondents to the FACS Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Benefit Survey indicated that they would prefer their Child Care Benefit paid as a payment directly to the provider, 6 per cent preferred to receive it as a claim at the end of the tax year, 21 per cent as reimbursements on receipts provided and 5% were unsure. In recent Budgets we have seen child care initiatives introduced which are fundamentally at odds with these above listed principles. Funding has been cut, the accreditation system has been allowed to run down, many families cannot afford childcare, yet wealthy families receive support, and despite the prevalence of research which shows that children left in sub-standard, informal child care arrangements, where they have no on going attachment to the person providing their care, are likely to be disadvantaged, the government has ear-marked funds to finance "flying squads" of nannies to go at short notice to someone's home to care for their children, even if the child is sick. 鱨վ who are sick need their mum or dad, not a stranger. At the present time, if you stay at home to care for your own children, you receive less financial support than if you bring someone else into your home to care for your children while you go elsewhere to a paid job. The federal government has announced that it will introduce a raft of changes to industrial relations legislation, justifying such actions on the grounds that it will encourage employment and productivity. Initiatives designed to reduce workers award entitlements, reducing the no disadvantage test, removing workers capacity to seek redress for unfair dismissal or compensation in cases of redundancy, pulling back the real value of the minimum wage or curtailing the right of workers to be represented by their union are unfair. Such changes will leave workers worse off. None of these changes will improve productivity or employment opportunities. An example is the proposed changes to unfair dismissal legislation. Despite government assertions there is no evidence which suggests that the current unfair dismissal laws have any detrimental effect upon employment. The Association takes this opportunity to draw attention to aspects of a recent Federal Court decision in which a Full Court of the Federal Court, comprising Justices Wilcox, Marshall and Katz, engaged in a reasonably thorough examination of the effect of unfair dismissal laws on employment growth. This examination by the Federal Court on what is predominantly a political argument, arose because the Minister, who had intervened in the proceedings before the Federal Court, led evidence supporting a contention that there was a strong link between the presence of unfair dismissal laws and growth in employment. Essentially, the Minister argued before the Court that a regulation excluding a range of casuals from unfair dismissal laws, was justified because casual employees were a group of employees against whom the availability of access to unfair dismissal provisions would operate to their disadvantage by limiting growth in casual employment. In other words, there was a direct nexus between the existence of unfair dismissal laws and the availability of, and growth of, employment for casual employees. As this matter was argued before a court of law, the Government could not rely merely on political rhetoric, but was forced to produce "evidence" to justify its assertions that there was a link between the presence of unfair dismissal laws and growth in employment. The Minister's evidence consisted of both ABS statistics and expert evidence from Professor Mark Wooden, a Professorial Fellow with the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne. In its decision on the matter at paragraph 63 the Full Court said: "Professor Wooden suggested flexibility was especially important to small business enterprises, which had relatively higher casual densities. However, he did not offer any evidence, either statistical or anecdotal, to support his belief about the importance of flexibility to small business." On another aspect of the matter before the Court, the ABS statistics on employment growth were drawn to Professor Wooden's attention. The Court noted this at paragraph 65 of its decision: " from March 1994 to December 1996, during which the more comprehensive unfair dismissal protections of the 1993 Act were in place, employment growth was stronger than in the following three years, during which less comprehensive protections applied. Employment growth under the 1993 Act was also stronger than in the three years immediately before the commencement of that Act, when there was no comprehensive unfair dismissal protection". At paragraph 66 of its decision the Federal Court noted: "Professor Wooden agreed 'the peak in increased employment happens to coincide with the most protective provisions, from the employees' point of view'. He also agreed that the pattern in relation to permanent employment was similar. It was suggested this 'rather demonstrates that the existence or non-existence of unlawful dismissal legislation has got very little to do with the growth of employment and that it is dictated by economic factors'. Professor Wooden agreed 'the driving force behind employment is clearly the state of the economy' and mentioned the recovery from recession after 1993." The key conclusion drawn by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in relation to the arguments run by the Government that there was a link between the existence of unfair dismissal laws and employment growth was expressed in paragraph 70 of its decision as follows: "In the absence of any evidence about the matter, it seems to us the suggestion of a relationship between unfair dismissal laws and employment inhibition is unproven. It may be accepted, as a matter of economic theory, that each burden that is placed on employers, in that capacity, has a tendency to inhibit rather than encourage, their recruitment of additional employees. However, employers are used to bearing many obligations in relation to employees (wage and superannuation payments, leave entitlements, the provision of appropriate working places, safe systems of work, even payroll tax). Whether the possibility of encountering an unlawful dismissal claim makes any practical difference to employers' decisions about expanding their labor force is entirely a matter of speculation. We cannot exclude such a possibility; but, likewise, there is no basis for us to conclude that unfair dismissal laws make any difference to employers' decisions about recruiting labor." The very clear, and the very strong, message flowing from this decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia is that the Government's arguments about links between employment growth and the presence of unfair dismissal laws is totally and absolutely unfounded. In 2001 the Victorian Wholesale Retail and Personal Services Industry Training Board was funded by the Victorian government to undertake a Destination Survey of hairdressing graduates. (This survey is available from Service Skills Victoria, formerly the Wholesale, Retail and Personal Services Industry Training Board. "The Hairdressing Destination Survey was planned to identify the reasons behind the skills shortage and attrition rate with the following clear objectives: 1. To ascertain why the industry was having difficulty retaining staff. 2. To determine why young people were not selecting hairdressing as a genuine career choice. 3. To provide adequate data to support critical decisions regarding the development of training, marketing and promotional activities, which will ensure that an appropriately skilled workforce is available to support the hairdressing industry. "Analysis of the data has identified some problems within the industry that will need to be addressed before the industry can successfully move on. An example being that 18% of respondents left the industry for another career, 4% left because of the training issues, 7% decided they had made an incorrect career choice and 41% citing working conditions being the reason for leaving their current employer. This included employer exploitation, superannuation not being paid and general dissatisfaction with the industry. The attrition rate, the identified skills shortage, and the number of respondents who have left the industry and have said they would never return, are major concerns. "Full time college graduates have reported that 23% leave their first place of employment because of working conditions and 10% change career paths within the average 21 months after becoming qualified. 2% of full time respondents don't commence work in the hairdressing industry after graduating." The government has a responsibility to ensure that industrial legislation produces outcomes which are fair to all parties. It is not possible to achieve an effective work-family balance in an industrial relations setting which does not have fairness as its key abiding underlying principle. Decent wages and working conditions are the critical factors in the recruitment and retention of staff. It is these things which are critical for the formation and stability of families. They are fundamental to achieving work family balance. People work to earn an income and the level of the income available will often influence a person in their choice of job or even if they seek a job. As such the level of wages has a direct relationship to workforce participation. It also is a major factor in young people determining whether to get married and or start a family. Support Families' Right to Choose It is critical that government continue to respect the right of parents to determine whether one or both of them will participate in the paid workforce and on what basis. Whatever its decision, a family should not be adversely affected by the application of government policies. All choices should be respected, including those who choose to play a role in the unpaid workforce. A feature of such respect is to properly recognize and value the unpaid work done by those who care for and nurture others, especially where they do it on a full-time basis. A parent caring for children should be seen as making a valuable contribution to society. In October 2000 the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that on its calculations the value of unpaid work to the Australian economy was $237 billion. Women contributed 65% of this figure. Between 1992 and 1997 the value of unpaid work to the G.D.P. as measured by the ABS, increased by 16%. Further, in 1997 the value of unpaid volunteer work to the community was calculated at $24 billion. Dr. Duncan Ironmonger from the Melbourne University Department of Economics (D. Ironmonger, "Household Production and the Household Economy", University of Melbourne research paper, 2000) has pointed out however that "with few exceptions, the national statistics of work and production continue to ignore the unpaid labor and economic output contributed by women (and men) through household production". He also argues that, "the pressure to transfer labor costs from the market to the unpaid labor costs of the household leads to the development of self-service petrol stations, automatic bank tellers and internet shopping. It also leads governments to support unpaid household based care of sick, disabled and elderly people instead of professional care in hospitals and nursing homes". In any consideration it is clear that the contribution of unpaid work to the G.D.P. is enormous. The value of unpaid work should be measured in the Census of Population and Housing. Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics, in a paper to the 2003 Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, reported that in 1998 and 1999, the British Cabinet Office's Women's Unit organised a major research programme entitled 'Listening to Women'. The research concluded, according to Hakim, that "In the absence of financial need, only 5% of mothers would choose to work full-time hours, three-quarters would prefer a part-time job, and one-fifth would prefer not to work at all. These results are in line with European Union surveys showing that, across all countries, the majority of mothers would prefer not to work, or to work part-time only, while their children were young. Full-time mothers insisted that childcare problems were not important; the reason they were at home full-time was because motherhood and parenting took a central place in their lives until their children had grown up and left home" "The research programme concluded," said Hakim, "that we should stop thinking of women as a homogeneous group; that women want choices in their lives" "We have to recognize," said Hakim, "that one-size-fits-all policies will no longer suffice. Policy-making must become a more complex enterprise, recognizing that competing family models require diversified social policies that offer different types of support to each preference group. At best, we should be developing flexible and neutral policies, such as the homecare allowance, that leave people free to choose how to spend their benefits. Most important, we need to redress the current bias towards policies supporting working women exclusively, at the expense of policies supporting full-time homemakers and full-time parents." (C. Hakim, "Competing Family Models, Competing Social Policies, Melbourne, 2003). It is appropriate and fair that the government fully recognise the unpaid work of parents. In doing so it should not allow those who stay at home on a full time basis to care for children to be mis-categorised as long term unemployed. Nor should such parents be forced back into the workforce before their children are old enough to cope on their own. The age of sixteen should be seen as a minimum for such circumstances. The age of the youngest child affects workforce participation rates, especially for mothers. It is mothers, not fathers, who generally make the major accommodations in balancing family responsibilities with employment, and clearly, having children and the age of their youngest child, determine whether women choose to work part or full time. The overall pattern for women is full-time work when young, withdrawal or part-time work when a child arrives and ultimately, a return to full-time work. Social researchers Mariah Evans and Johnathon Kelly have published a study ("People and Place", vol.9, no.4, 2001) which shows that the overwhelming majority of parents, in excess of 70%, would prefer to stay at home and care themselves for their pre school age children. The survey shows only 2% believe that women with children under six should work full time. The study does show that by the time children actually start school 53% of mothers are back in the paid workforce, though most are part-time. This study complements earlier studies done in Australia and Europe which provided similar results. Eurobarometer studies, the 1995 Wolcott and Glezer research and the more recent Probert research, all indicate that there are significant numbers of women who wish to stay at home and care for their children, especially where those children are under six years of age. Research by M. Evans and J. Kelley, published in "People and Place", vol. 9, no.3, 2001 shows that only 2% of all mothers, and only 7% of mothers born in the 1960's or later, believe that mothers should work full-time while they have pre-school age children. Clearly most mothers believe that pre-school age children need, where possible to be cared for on a full-time basis by their parent. Moreover, a major determinant in the choice women make as to whether, when, and on what basis they return to paid employment, is their family income level. Women are less likely to return to work while their children are young if they do not need to for economic reasons. Women have therefore generally adopted employment patterns which have very much been shaped by their family responsibilities and income levels. It is tertiary educated women who are most likely to return to full-time work. They make a clear choice that they want to work and return to the workforce relatively early while their children are young. It would appear that the nature of their job, as well as the attractiveness of the attached salary, plays a key part in the decision making process involved here. According to a recent independent survey, 85% of SDA members with children say they work for reasons related to economic necessity. In the past decade: the proportion of single wage-earning families with children (including sole parents) has fallen from 48% to 38%; the proportion of dual wage-earning families with children has risen from 40% to 47%; and the proportion of families with no wage earner has increased from 12% to 15%. The critical issue here is choice, but underpinning the concept of choice must be recognition that parenting is a worthwhile occupation. Government policy should be aimed at facilitating return to paid employment for those who wish to do so but it should not focus on forcing mothers of school age children back into the paid workforce against their wishes. Government policy should be to ensure that no family needs two incomes simply in order to survive and that all families are free, economically and socially, to choose whether they have one or both parents in the paid workforce and on what basis. Support to families through the taxation system could result in real freedom of choice being available to all parents. Financial Support for Families Financial well-being for themselves and their family is a key driving force in workforce participation by both women and men. Work family balance cannot be achieved unless due cognizance is taken of the economic needs of families. For families to have sufficient disposable income there needs to be a revision of the taxation system. The current taxation system acts as a disincentive to many people to begin families, it makes it harder for many families to function effectively, it actively discourages participation in the paid workforce and it makes it harder for parents to balance work and family. Low income earners are particularly disadvantaged. The absence of tax indexation has led, over the years, to low income earners moving into brackets where they are paying a greater share of their income in tax than previously. NATSEM has shown that the impact of bracket creep has been to push people into higher tax brackets, thus rapidly consuming the benefits of the tax cuts introduced as compensation for the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax. Today the average rate of tax paid by individuals is 22.5% as compared to 21.5% when the GST was introduced. The issue of bracket creep must be addressed by the government. Increasing government revenue by stealth through bracket creep, is not sound economic policy. NATSEM argues that unless there are changes to the tax thresholds the average rate of tax will rise to 23.5% in 2 years. Vertical equity in the taxation system must be increased through a restructuring of the income thresholds which gives genuine tax relief to low and middle income earners. There is no basis for precipitating further flattening of the income tax system. As NATSEM says, cutting the top marginal rate of tax would be regressive, and impose severe cost burdens upon the government which would inevitably lead to either higher GST imposts or cuts in government outlays. Both outcomes are unacceptable. Low and middle income earners need a fairer tax system but this should not lead to an overall more regressive system which would result from an increased GST. Further, there is a need to actually increase government outlays in a range of areas such as social security, education, housing and health if Australia is to have an overall fairer and more just society. Many low income working families are facing high effective marginal tax rates. High effective marginal tax rates occur as a result of income tests for social security payments overlapping with each other and/or the income tax system. They provide a disincentive to people engaging in or increasing their involvement in the paid workforce. In particular it is families with children, especially low income working families who are most disadvantaged by high EMTRs. The Discussion Paper has amply made this point. NATSEM has drawn similar conclusions. In Work incentives under A New Tax System: The distribution of effective marginal tax rates in 2002, Gillian Beer, has shown that 60% of the population face EMTRs of between 20% and 60%. A further 8% have EMTRs above 60%. For these people, when their private income increases by one dollar, they pay more tax and/or lose some government cash benefits. Where the level of extra tax paid, or government benefit lost, is substantial then this acts as a disincentive to them seeking to earn extra income. 41% of couples with children and 36% of sole parents have EMTRs of 40% or above. In contrast only 18% of single people without children are in the same position. Clearly high EMTRs are more likely to impact on families with children. If one looks at the situation of individuals with earnings it is even clearer that high EMTRs affect families. Of couples with children 54% have EMTRs above 40% and 79% of sole parents have EMTRs above 40%. 20% of couple with children and 51% of sole parents have EMTRs above 60%. NATSEM argues that the reason so many people with children face EMTRs is due largely to the impact of the withdrawal of Family Tax Benefit A. 57% of all individuals facing EMTRs in excess of 60% have the reduction of Family Tax Benefit A as one of the factors causing their high EMTR. Almost 80% of individuals in the couple with children family type and 30% of sole parents have withdrawal of Family Tax Benefit A as one of the factors impacting on their EMTR. The problem of families with children facing high EMTRs is compounded when one looks at the relative impact of high EMTRs at various income levels. In general most working individuals facing high EMTRs are in the low or middle income categories or deciles. 17% of those in the lowest decile, 17% of those in the 4th decile and 23% of those in the 5th decile face EMTRs in excess of 60%. In contrast only 1% of those in the highest decile face EMTRs of the same magnitude. NATSEM also shows that despite the promises accompanying the introduction of the New Tax System the problem of low income families facing high EMTRs is as great today as it was in 1997. Patricia Apps gives another example of the inequitable operation of the taxation social security system. The largest inequality, however, between single-earner and two-earner couples with the same joint incomes is in working hours. The latter almost always work much longer hours. Lets assume our single and two-earner couples on $60,000 each have 2 children, one under five. The single breadwinner works 40 hours a week whereas in the two-earner each parent works 35 hours a week. The single-earner couple pays $16,420 in tax and Medicare levy but receives Family Tax Benefit Part A of $2,059 and Part B of $2,752, or a net $11,609 or 19.3 per cent of income. The two-earner couple pays $11,660 in tax and Medicare Levy, and receives Family Tax Benefit Part A of $2,059, or a net $9,601 or 16 per cent of income. The single-earner family works 7.7 hours to pay tax (i.e. for public benefit). The two-earner couple works 11.2 hours. If a bumper sticker slogan were needed to highlight the unfairness in the treatment of two earner families, it should be: How many hours a week does your family work to pay tax?. ACOSS has pointed out that the interaction of the income tests for Family Tax Benefit, Youth Allowance and Child Care Benefit is a particularly crucial factor for low income working families. For example, where a family has more than one child attracting these payments such as where one child is under 16 and another is a dependant student over 16, the income tests stack together to produce very high marginal tax rates, perhaps in excess of 80%. Family Tax Benefit (A) is withdrawn at the rate of 30% (lower than previously) but when a personal tax rate is added, the effective marginal tax rate becomes 60%. There is a strong case to argue that poverty traps caused by the "stacking" of income tests should be ended. Earned income tax credits would overcome the problem of high effective marginal tax rates. Given the growth in wealth inequality and the accumulation of very substantial wealth by a small section of the community there is a strong argument for the imposition of a wealth tax on those with substantial wealth. A wealth tax would reduce the wealth gap and help fund the establishment of greater vertical and horizontal equity in the system. In some ways Australia has an unfair taxation system. There are still loopholes which can be exploited to allow some high earners and businesses to pay less than their fair share of tax. Closing down taxation loopholes must become a priority. As a first step towards this end, the Fringe Benefits Tax should be remodelled to prevent salary packaging. This tax tends to benefit higher income earners. The current FBT exemption for employer provided child care and the concessional treatment of company cars should be abolished. Concessions associated with employee share and options schemes, especially where such schemes are targeted towards high earning senior executives, allow such beneficiaries to avoid paying their full rate of tax. Trusts and private companies must not be able to be used as vehicles to avoid tax. The presence of children places a significant economic burden upon families. The more children, the heavier the economic burden. The government should provide greater financial support to families. According to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, the average family will pay $448,000 (as adjusted for price and wage inflation) to raise two children from birth to age 20. For the average couple with two children today, those children cost around $310 per week or 23 per cent of average gross household income of $1,324 per week. (AMP-NATSEM Income and Wealth Report, Issue 3, October 2002) Not surprisingly, young children are the cheapest to care for at an average of $102 a week, while the costs of feeding and clothing teenagers aged 15 years or above averages $320 a week. Even for low income families the average costs range between $55 and $214. Food is the biggest expense in all demographics and for low-income families it amounts to a quarter of the overall cost of the child. Transport, recreation, housing, clothing and other costs, such as medical and dental, are the other big-ticket expenses. These figures do not include the estimated costs of parents' lost earnings. For low income families with one child, the weekly costs of a child as a proportion of total family income ranges from 10% for a child aged 0-4 to 38% for a child aged 15-24 years. If we look at the average costs of children by the number of children in a family, rather than the age of the children, we see that a low income family with one child spends an average of $111 per week on that child, for 2 children such a family spends $196 per week, and for 3 children, $266 per week. Middle and high income families spend more. Clearly children are a major expense for families. This expense grows as children become older. As such it is important to take this factor into account when determining appropriate support payments to families. The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found that having one child reduced a woman's average lifetime income by $162,000. (NATSEM-Personal Investor Magazine). Raising children places great financial and social pressures upon parents and families. The government has a responsibility to ensure that all Australians have sufficient income to live decently and with dignity. The provision of income support to families either through the taxation system and/or the social security system to allow them to effectively carry out their functions should not be seen as providing handouts. Rather this should be seen by the government and the community as a long term investment in the future of the nation. The social security system must be based on the principle that where families do not have sufficient income to function effectively they are provided with additional support from government sufficient to enable them to function effectively. This is the purpose of a social security system. Any government concerned with the well being of the nations families must accept this basic premise. "Social security is very important for the well-being of workers, their families and the entire community. It is a basic right and a fundamental means for creating social cohesion, thereby helping to ensure social peace and social inclusion. It is an indispensable part of government social policy and an important tool to prevent and alleviate poverty. It can, through national solidarity and fair burden sharing, contribute to human dignity, equity and social justice." (International Labor Organisation, Report of the Committee on Social Security, Conclusions Concerning Social Security, 6 June 2001) In a paper presented to the 7th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference on 26 July, 2000, NATSEM (The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling) showed clearly that introducing and then increasing payments to low-income working families with children has been a resounding social policy success. NATSEM shows that government initiatives in regard to increasing family support payments and in improving access to education and health services for all members of the community during the 1980's significantly ameliorated the financial position of many low income families, especially for those with dependent children. Largely as a result of these developments, the overall poverty rate (based on the half average poverty line - which is set at half of the average equivalent family disposable income of all Australians) declined over the period between 1982 and 1997-98. As a result, the number of children in poverty declined from 18.2% in 1982 to 13.3% in 1995. This represented a one-fifth decline in the child poverty rate. Low income families are very reliant upon adequate government payments to make ends meet. (ABS Income Distribution - 6523 - 1999-2000). Without these payments many more families would be in poverty and many low income working families would be better off relying totally on social security. Public education and health services also play a hugely important role in income redistribution. For SDA members and their families, an effective social welfare or social security system is critical. Income support payments from government often make the difference between whether low income families can enjoy a basic but reasonable standard of living or otherwise. Government payments have helped many low income families escape poverty. Nevertheless there are still large numbers of Australians, many of them children, living below the poverty line. As such maintenance and improvement in our family payments and support structures is critical if large numbers of families are not to fall back into poverty and if those below the poverty line are to be given a better chance at a reasonable standard of living. The social security system should not prevent or discourage an individual from entering, re-entering or remaining in the workforce or from taking additional part-time work. The current system, in some circumstances, does exactly this. It should be noted that public expenditure as a percentage of GDP in Australia fell between 1993 and 2003. Moreover total expenditure by Australia is actually less than for most other OECD countries. (Economist, March 20, 2004) In July 2000 Family Tax Benefit Part A was introduced as a means of providing basic financial support to those families with children. A family can earn $32,485 p.a. (at March, 2005) before payment is reduced. Above that figure, a withdrawal rate of 20 cents per dollar applies until the Base Rate is reached. At $84,023 (plus $3,358 per extra child) a 30 cents withdrawal rate applies to the Basic Rate. The withdrawal rate applying to Family Tax Benefit A is very low. Under this scenario two shop assistants earning a full-time base award rate of pay ($526 per week) would have the income test applied to them. They would receive only part of the additional rate payment. Indeed, if they have only one child they will receive only the base rate. On the other hand a family can earn up to $141,766 and still receive some payment. The structure of this payment is theoretically progressive. However the point at which the full payment is withdrawn is too low. The withdrawal rate should be adjusted. The minimum figure at which any withdrawal should cut in should be $55,000. The current large family supplement $4.62 per week (for the fourth and subsequent children only) is little but a token gesture. Large families should be treated equitably in regard to being able to access adequate income support payments. The large family supplement should be increased. During 1999-2000 FACS undertook a survey of potential Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Benefit recipients. That survey showed that (66 per cent) the vast majority of families prefer to receive their Family Tax Benefit as a fortnightly payment, 9 per cent as reduced tax instalment deductions, and only 22 per cent as a lump sum at the end of the tax year (3% were unsure). Households preferring tax system delivery tended to have higher incomes. Choice in how payments are made should be fully available. The purpose of the Parenting Payment when it was first introduced was to provide additional income support to low income parents. The subsequent tightening of the income test applying to it means that today most Parenting Payment recipients are those who are in receipt of some form of income support payment. The vast majority of families with a parent in the paid workforce do not receive the Parenting Payment. The effective payment withdrawal rate is set at a level where very few families with an adult income earner can actually receive it. This payment is failing to meet its original intention of providing support to low income families. The Parenting Payment income test should be adjusted to make this payment accessible to all low income families. Alternatively, the inaccessibility of this payment for most families provides further justification for the argument to increase Family Tax Benefit A. It is time for the government of Australia to accept that parents who care for children carry out a function critical to the future well-being of the nation. Financial support paid to parents should therefore be seen as more than welfare, it is also an investment in the long term future of the country. Narrow economic analysis of the utility of parenthood often ignores this fact. Policy which forces parents into the paid workforce while leaving their children in the care of others or unattended is bad policy. Parents should not be forced into the paid workforce until their children have reached at least 16 years of age. Parenting Payment should be used to facilitate low income parents make such choices. Family Tax Benefit B was designed to provide additional assistance to single income families, including sole parents, especially families with children under 5 years of age. Family Tax Benefit B is paid in addition to Family Tax Benefit A. Further, a recipient may also receive payments such as Maternity Allowance, Child Care Benefit and Rent Assistance. The primary income earner's income is not taken into account to calculate Family Tax Benefit B. The second income earner can have $4,000 p.a. before payment is affected, with a reduction of 20 cents for each dollar earned above that figure. A relatively small amount of work by the second income earner can significantly reduce a family's entitlement. A mother who stayed at home all year on a full-time basis to care for her children but decided to take on 6 hours per week of paid retail employment or take 8 weeks full time paid employment in a shop at Christmas, in order to pay for the additional costs of Christmas and sending children back to school, would have the income test applied to her in a way that she started to lose 20 cents in the dollar. Clearly the income test is harsh. The amount able to be earned before the income test begins to apply should be increased. The introduction of Family Tax Benefit B for single income parents was a welcome initiative as it recognized that single income families face particular financial difficulties as a result of having one spouse at home effectively on a fulltime basis. Research by NATSEM shows that this initiative has materially improved the position of single income families. This initiative redressed the situation which occurred during the Keating government where single income families experienced a real drop of 4% in their disposable income (after taking inflation into account (The Age, 25 August, 2001). However Family Tax Benefit B is a taxation benefit which flows to all families irrespective of the income level of the primary earner. Moreover, a policy which facilitates choice should, as a matter of principle should be supported. Any Australian government genuinely concerned to support families should support such a position. There is no evidence that the existence of this payment deters parents sharing the care of children. The provision of reasonable financial support to families will enable them to cope more effectively. As such it will facilitate choice and assist parents to better balance work and family. Several European countries currently provide substantial financial support to parents who have young children. In Norway women receive a maternity payment equivalent to approximately US $6000 per annum for three years after the birth of a child. This payment is equivalent in value to the state subsidy of a child care place. The parent receiving the payment may choose to stay at home or transfer it to a child care centre. In Finland a homecare allowance is paid. France provides a flat rate payment to all mothers caring fulltime for children. Some other European countries provide similar systems. The introduction of the Maternity Payment was a welcome initiative. It should be means tested. Home ownership is a fundamental factor in families being able to avoid poverty and have sufficient income to function effectively. It is also becoming increasingly difficult for many low income families. According to research from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) (reported in the Australian Financial Review, 13 March, 2000, p.1 and 47) the only social groups that have increased their home ownership rates during the past two decades are wealthy couples with children and single women. The biggest decline in ownership rates were among couples aged 35 to 44 with children. The AHURI postulates that over the life span of the next generation that the rate of home ownership overall will fall from the current position of 70% to about 50%. Whilst a number of factors will play a part in this decline, those factors will include rising costs and the decline in the number of households with children. Housing costs are also related to life cycle stages with higher costs at earlier ages and lower costs as people age and acquire ownership of their homes. In other words, the costs of housing are highest for young families or for those wishing to start or add to a family. It is not surprising that, as reported in "Australian Social Trends 2000" many households suffer housing related income stress as a result of the combination of low income and high housing costs. Undoubtedly high housing costs are a key factor in declining fertility levels as families find that they cannot meet the costs of housing and the costs of children. Simon Kelly of NATSEM ("Trends in Australian Wealth") has shown the ownership of the family home is likely to be the largest holding of wealth for most Australians and is a critical factor in helping many Australian families to avoid poverty. Those who own their own house are more likely to have lower housing costs, and therefore not to be in poverty, than others. Facilitating families to be able to afford to purchase their own home would constitute a major step towards helping them establish their future security. Greater financial support to families would lead to parents having a greater capacity to better share caring and domestic roles. Achieving better balance between work and family requires a realisation that there needs to be created in Australia a workplace culture where employers treat workers with respect and take fully into account workers family needs along with the needs of the business. This requires employers to be prepared to make adjustments, where necessary to accommodate to the family needs of workers. Adequate legislation and industrial regulation will be necessary to achieve this. De-regulating the labour market will work directly against achieving greater work family balance. Unfortunately too many employers will only embrace cultural change if required to do so. The history of anti discrimination and equal opportunity legislation is adequate testimony to this point. To bring about a better balance between work and family also requires an understanding that this will be not be achieved unless families have a basic level of financial security. This requires greater financial support to be available to families on a needs basis.     PAGE  PAGE 43 Response to "Striking the Balance" Response to "Striking the Balance"  PAGE 1  EMBED Word.Picture.8     '(+\]fzygUC4hU(xhWuCJOJQJ^J"hU(xhWu5>*䴳ϴ",³ܒ56Cϴ",³ܒ56Cϴ"(³ܒ5>*䴳ϴ(³ܒϴ,³ܒ5C"ϴ(³ܒ䴳"ϴ(³ܒ(³ܒ5C8³ܒ5C>³ܒ5C:³ܒ5C<^JhWu5CJ<^JhU(xhWu5CJ:^J '(yyyR&$d %d &d 'd N O P Q gdWu)$$d %d &d 'd N O P Q a$gdWu+ !$d %d &d 'd N O P Q gdWu1$ !dh$d %d &d 'd N O P Q a$gdWu BBB()*+]^_`abcdefgh&$d %d &d 'd N O P Q gdWu)$$d %d &d 'd N O P Q a$gdWu)$$d %d &d 'd N O P Q a$gdWuhz       * + , - 5 @ ^@ `gdigdi$a$gdigdWu&$d %d &d 'd N O P Q gdWuz{     ( ) * + - 4 5 6 f |jXLB5h5iyh~aJmH sH h5iyh~5aJhOCJaJmH sH "hOh@5>*CJaJmH sH "hOhO5>*CJaJmH sH hO5>*mH sH "hOhX}5>*CJ aJ mH sH "hOhO5>*CJ aJ mH sH "hOhh5>*CJ aJ mH sH hWuh,lhU(xhWuCJH*OJQJ^JhU(xhWuCJOJQJ^J6jhU(xhWu5>*CJ$OJQJU^JmHnHu5 6 f g   GH"#opgdi $dha$gdi dh@& gdi $dha$gdigdi   wx12}~ (FOno;Yx@Auv123^_δά񬤬Γx#h+iih~6CJOJQJ^JaJh5iyhGaJh5iyh~aJh5iyhB5h5iyhG5h5iyh~5h5iyhTaJmH sH h5iyhGaJmH sH h5iyh~aJmH sH h5iyh~5mH sH h5iyh~5aJh5iyh~5aJmH sH /p<=yz34^_34$ & Fgdigdigdigdi $dha$gdi dh@& gdi dhgdi $dha$gd 1i#$O#P#####$$&&>'?'())++++--...0:0;0<00ҾҴҋҴ}}t}h5iyh5JaJh5iyh~5aJmH sH h5iyh~aJmH sH h5iyh~56h5iyh5J5h5iyh5iy5aJh5iyh5J5aJh5iyhG5aJh5iyhG5aJh5iyh~5aJh5iyh~6aJh5iyh~aJh5iyh~5h5iyhG5,$%<r|}8 9 [!\!H"I"""O#  & F^gdi & Fgdi $^a$gd5iy & Fgdi^gdiO#P###$$?'@'d(e(Y)Z)**++N-O-f.g.;0<0 dh@& gdigdi $dha$gdi $dha$gdi  & F^gdi & Fgdigdi01)1H1R1S1111122z333333333394:444444˹˹í˹xj[hs5>*CJaJmH sH h5iyh5iy5aJmH sH h~5aJh5iyh~5>*h5iyh~5>*aJh5iyh5J5mH sH h5iyh6x5mH sH h5iyh~5mH sH h5iyh5J5aJh5iyh~5h5iyh~5aJh5iyh6x5aJmH sH h5iyh~5aJmH sH h5iyh5J5aJmH sH <01111333394:4444444g7h777I8gdi p^p`gdi $dha$gdi$0dh^`0a$gdi dh@& gdi $dha$gdi44444c5555 7g7h77777G8H8I8J8K8599999źwi[M[?h 1hm5aJmH sH h 1h%5aJmH sH h 1h,P5aJmH sH h 1hLC5aJmH sH h 1h5aJmH sH h\mH sH h5J h%h\h\hOhJ\5>*CJaJhX}mH sH hmH sH h%hmH sH hOhCJaJmH sH "hOh5>*CJaJmH sH hOmH sH "hOhO5>*CJaJmH sH I8J8b:c:;;<<>>????BEE>'?4?R?S?T?U?y??Ⱥ}tfYRKDK h 1h,P h 1h? h 1hmh 1h5JaJmH sH h 1hm6aJmH sH h 1h?aJh 1hDXhaJhmCJaJh 1hmaJh 1hZaJh 1hmaJmH sH h 1h\xaJmH sH h 1h\x5aJmH sH h 1h,PaJmH sH h 1h5J5aJmH sH h 1h"M_5aJmH sH h 1h,P5aJmH sH ???@BBBBBBDDEE=FFFFG@GDGMGNGGżxj]jOjOjAjhsh5aJmH sH hsh?5aJmH sH hshDXhaJmH sH hshDXh5aJmH sH hsh+35aJmH sH hsh\&5aJmH sH h 1h5JaJmH sH h 1h\&aJmH sH h 1ha5aJmH sH h 1haaJh 1h+3aJh 1hDXh5aJmH sH h 1hDXh6 h 1hDXhh 1h\x5aJmH sH h 1h,PGGGHOHnHoHHH>I?I@II.J/J0JpJJJJJ)K漮wi[MM?hY"4hCqg5aJmH sH hY"4h?5aJmH sH hY"4hrA5aJmH sH hY"4h6@5aJmH sH hY"4h6@CJaJmH sH hY"4h+3aJmH sH hY"4h"M_aJmH sH hY"4h"M_5aJmH sH hsh\x5aJmH sH hshCqg5aJmH sH hsh5aJmH sH hsh%5aJmH sH hshDXh5aJmH sH hRv5aJmH sH ?I@I/J0JJJKKMMQ QSSWWSXTXrYsYZZ $dha$gdY"4 dhgdY"4^gdY"4^gd?P$dh^a$gd?Pgdi)K*K+K5K>KBKCK^KfKKKKKKMMMMQ Q$Q'QSSWWWWRXSXTXsYYZɻ㱪㱪㱎{rh^hY"4he5aJhY"4h+35aJhY"4h+3aJhY"4haaJh+iiha6aJhY"4hCqgaJh+iih+ii6aJhY"4h|aJ h+ii6aJh+iihCqg6aJhY"4h 5aJmH sH hY"4h aJmH sH hY"4hCqgaJmH sH hY"4hCqg5aJmH sH hY"4h5aJmH sH !ZZZZZZZ[5\;\`\\\\\l```abbbcccc8c9c:c;c?cȻȮȻȥwwnw`RhY"4hlj5CJmH sH hY"4h5aJmH sH hY"4haJhY"4haJhY"4h6@aJhY"4hCaJhY"4h\&aJhY"4h5aJhY"4haJhY"4hljaJmH sH hY"4hmaJmH sH hY"4haJmH sH hY"4hrA5CJaJhY"4h+35aJhY"4hrA5aJhY"4h6@5aJZ\\f^g^``:c;cccffffiijjkj?l@lmmgdi$dh^a$gd^gdigdi $dha$gdi dh@& gdi?ccccccffffffiiiiiiihjijjjkjkkekkkkkkl̾ukbYbYbPbYhhhaJhheaJhh\xaJhh\x5aJhh8Q_5CJaJh7h6aJh7h8Q_6aJh^hCJaJh7h 6aJh7h76aJh7hj96aJh+iihlj6OJQJ^Jh^hljaJh^hj9aJ hlj5hljhj95hljh5hljhlj5mH sH l?l@ll mmmmmnnnnp=qoqqOrPrrrsssssstttt!uuuuuuuvvQvhvv w w{{q{q{hh\x6aJhh\xaJhh\x56aJhh\x5aJ hhhhaJhhljaJhhaJhh\x5aJhh S5aJhh SaJ hhhhh"M_5hh\x5 hh\xhh\xaJ,m>q?qOrPrssttuu w wxx^y_yzy{yzz  & F^gdi & Fgd^gdi^gdi & Fgdigdi dh@& gdi $dha$gdi wxxu||||2}}}}}e~f~g~h~n~o~}~ ǃĻĻĉsh7hj6CJaJh7h76aJh}(hK&CJaJh7h6aJh7hK&6aJh7hj6aJhhaJhhjaJhhK&aJhhj5CJaJhh5aJhh\x5aJhhK&5aJhhK&aJ)zzz={>{*|+|||1}2}}}g~h~}~ $a$gdA $dha$gdAgdi$dh^a$gdA & Fgdi  & F^gdi & Fgd ɃʃnoRS $dha$gdi dh@& gdigdi  & F^gdi & Fgdigdi$dh^a$gdAǃȃɃʃMlmnoRS؈tv~ڼڣ}pcpUpLCLh}(h-aJh}(h\xaJh}(h\x6aJmH sH h}(h-aJmH sH h}(h\xaJmH sH h}(hs 5aJh}(h>6aJh}(hs aJh}(h5aJ h}(h\xh}(haJh}(haS;aJh}(haS;5aJh}(h}(5aJh}(h5aJh}(h\x5aJ h}(hK&hjCJaJh7hK&6CJaJ%(*pqUVtu"LN 9BIIJ븏††}tktktktahmXh! 5aJhmXhJ\aJhmXh! aJhmXhpaJhmXh-aJhmXh>6aJhmXhs 5aJmH sH hmXh}(aJhmXhs aJhmXhs 5aJhmXh\xaJh}(h-aJh}(h-aJmH sH h}(h\xaJh}(hs aJh}(h\xaJmH sH "%&pqUVtu45#$Z[Egdi dh@& gdi $dha$gdiEF12 ڢۢKLݤޤݧާҩө«ë,^gd7gdi $dha$gdi $dha$gdigdi dh@& gdiu,-<=T=B!&)*=>?غϺϨ|si_VhOhs aJhOhs 5aJhOh! 6aJhOhOaJ h! aJhOh! aJh_2h! aJh_2h%6aJh_2h! 6aJ hmXh! hmXh! CJaJhmXhs CJaJhmXh>66aJhmXh! aJhmXh! 6aJh756aJhmX56aJhmXh! 56aJ ,-=>ST)*w$dh^a$gdO$dh^a$gd_2$dh^a$gdA dh^gdmX dhgdi$dh^a$gdmX dh^gdi$dh^a$gdmX $dha$gdmX *>?efúĺlm $dha$gdO$0dh^`0a$gd.G$ dh^a$gd.G$dh^a$gd.G $dha$gdO $dha$gdO$dh^a$gdO#$:;ST KL$dh@& gdi dh@& gdigdi $dha$gdi $dha$gdi#$lnP L+,-ޥޛޛޛޛޑ~sޥޥjhOhYlaJhOh! CJaJhrh! aJh.GhYl6aJh.Gh! 6aJhOh! 6aJhOh ~aJhOhYl5aJhOh ~5aJhOh%5>*CJaJhOh! 5>*CJaJhOh! aJhOh! 5aJmH sH hOh! 5aJ(LWXyz,-/09 $dha$gdi $dha$gdi$dh^a$gdi5(l|=?]^hipqrúúìÐyoe[Rh,h'aJh,hJ?5aJh,h'5aJh,haS;5aJh,hJ?aJh,h! 5>*CJaJh,hJ?5>*CJaJh,hbc5aJmH sH h,h! 5aJmH sH h,h ~aJh,h! aJhOh ~aJhOh! 6aJhOheaJhOhs aJhOh! aJ hIaJ9:abgh]^rsBCgdi dh@& gdi$ & Fsdh^`sa$gdi$ & Fdha$gdi$0dh^`0a$gdi $dha$gdihiqr$%>?<= $dha$gdi $dha$gdi $$dha$gd, dh@& gdigdir#=>?<>?u4жЬݖ{rh^^Th,h! 6aJh,h! H*aJh,h! 6aJh,h%(aJh,haJh,haJh,h,aJh,h! aJh,hIaJmH sH h! aJmH sH h,hYlaJmH sH h,h'aJmH sH h,h! aJmH sH h,h! 5aJmH sH h,ha5aJh,h! 5aJ JKxyDE: $dha$gdi$ !0dh^`0a$gdi$ !dh^a$gdA$ !dha$gdi $dha$gdiQy:-./JKL    }~WHеugh,h! H*aJmH sH h,h! CJaJmH sH h,haaJh,haaJmH sH h,h! 6aJmH sH h,h! aJmH sH h,hQaJmH sH h,hQ5aJmH sH h,h! 5aJmH sH h,h#DaJ h! aJh,h! 5aJh,h! aJ#:;./KL?@R S * +   }~dh@& ^gd, dh@& gdi $dha$gdigdi $dha$gdiZ[RS?@'(ophi$dh@& gdigdidh1$@& gdi $dha$gdi dh@& gdiS?@ _aphZ   """"##%%%()T*Ϳͱ͖ͤͤͤͤqgͤggght@h! 5aJht@h4'5aJmH sH ht@h! aJht@ha5aJmH sH ht@h! 5aJmH sH ht@haaJmH sH ht@h! 6aJmH sH ht@h! >*aJmH sH ht@h! aJmH sH h,h! aJh,h! 5aJmH sH h,ha5aJmH sH (i  ""##%%&&((T*U*++--..0011gdi $dha$gdi$0dh^`0a$gdi dh@& gdiT*O----!0#0000000111123333A4C444W5X555$666=7\777;8Z87:X:;;l<μųżγΡΘγΎzpΘγΘppht@h! 6aJht@hZV5aJht@h! 5aJht@h! >*aJht@ho aJht@hdsaJht@hFBaJht@hZVaJht@hB(&aJht@h4'aJht@h! aJht@h4'5aJmH sH ht@h! 5aJmH sH ht@h! aJmH sH +12244W5X5]7^7[8\899::k<l<==>>??AAB $dha$gdi $dha$gdi dh@& gdil<==>>????AAABBBBBBBBBBB%B&B'B)B*B+B,Bǿ|k|T-jhQhQ0JCJOJQJU^JaJ h9/hCJOJQJ^JaJh h0Jjh0JUh4jh4UhrAh mH sH ho mH sH hrAmH sH hFmH sH h mH sH ht@h aJmH sH ht@h\xaJmH sH ht@hrAaJmH sH ht@hrAaJht@h! aJBBBBBBBBB'B(B)B*B+B7BZB[BBBBBgdWu $dNgd'$dN]gdQ &`#$gd:h]hgd1oh]hgdAL &`#$gdQ,B2B3B5B6B7BYBZB[B}BBBBBBBBBBxgZgKg:62h4hGL hTRVhTRVOJQJ^JmH sH h1o0JCJaJmHnHuh'h'0JCJaJ!jh'h'0JCJUaJh'CJOJQJ^JmH sH $hTRVhTRVCJOJQJ^JmH sH h: h9/hQCJOJQJ^JaJ hQhQCJOJQJ^JaJ)h1o0JCJOJQJ^JaJmHnHu-jhQhQ0JCJOJQJU^JaJ$hQhQ0JCJOJQJ^JaJBBBBBBBBhrAh mH sH hGL,j>G9 hWuCJOJQJUVmHnHuhWujhWuUBBBB dh@& gdi6&P1h:p,l/ =!"#$7% @ 00&P1hP:p'/ =!"#$7% `! K 4 XP`%p x ~dQLLH'21$%,2e˜ DFT-B ̹gԹsu~wBDtrQҨ(&wH.qE ~fpayuog Xz~۟HagZ;#soo%ţ~jP;9lέ!t EV`kT{"fmEnpWc lu]QJY͑z]^&?9a22[LcL` `atbڱ$Z,YYX UY yng E./o_cNc8Nb ECc:b6b YX]X،m؎Lkق}V;6k=NY9xb5 U@b2aFg4jDup-:tztF{xo`Yfb,atX}p1# F3|.=ӧ]Ji 9.u5tOw=g^tQ5ȷвFXG|􍴯oO:>BGz_':W|mkiɾW>T ޗ FnhH#*c47 02ƿF2G4 Ah8x p ~}, Ľ7Q+j6B $P) |8X#߆q {"ߐJ~u9[\]0R]Q$b s. sFwxm] tmšp5 Tq#Qэn JY(f#%["n vV{:&x궁n11ݍ\݋=zz〕w;z#(*ZXi!j1z=1e]oF]zzKo/&IJ]wkk~^?TT'n22=)>#W:IiÁ!R# HYhmb$9rr$d $ d>8%pA'ID/1-/Q mQݴ^AD#>1h֨ou50U0w9aTL\܎rʘVN܆Q [iY" ಭ.Vd$N4 Qyߕn;Qq y2e ' >+slN.]]l;ʮK%rC1іK#e [.n`D:ud= f -F\$F%b/Vz=(imvSi$BGI]( 󤊦I)4KA ODj7[ye9S TXβQ(e*xxkb'k[ƪk+k 2,)ldUc:` a"{y(98 zr$p4:p,r˺,&XpN31<,I!皇g|"2[,6-:>A V;X a`-3,Z&Fc 0 Kو+GG`67Rhc;ɬY_۽g,FC_E,/ٮ!?Jd#~^} #ԨjLqo(Μ{r~('Q|(W'N~>;u_6~1[%Kܧ1ҧ_F_F5FIQРpxż%o]*Ϛ8^ d~fsKIv)&3M78npc΍,Wpø 27inS]?.qk.\:qdמI.gZŒV.hm7.[<wK݇pcۉ7-e8V[-'{y1Ѽ1-Ϭ[v~txM4ŘiJ__u9j:tX}p1# F3|.=ӧ]Ji 9.u5tOw=g^tQ5ȷвFXG|􍴯oO:>BGz_':W|mkiɾW>T ޗ FnhH#*c47 02ƿF2G4 Ah8x p ~}, Ľ7Q+j6B $P) |8X#߆q {"ߐJ~u9[\]0R]Q$b s. sFwxm] tmšp5 Tq#Qэn JY(f#%["n vV{:&x궁n11ݍ\݋=zz〕w;z#(*ZXi!j1z=1e]oF]zzKo/&IJ]wkk~^?TT'n22=)>#W:IiÁ!R# HYhmb$9rr$d $ d>8%pA'ID/1-/Q mQݴ^AD#>1h֨ou50U0w9aTL\܎rʘVN܆Q [iY" ಭ.Vd$N4 Qyߕn;Qq y2e ' >+slN.]]l;ʮK%rC1іK#e [.n`D:ud= f -F\$F%b/Vz=(imvSi$BGI]( 󤊦I)4KA ODj7[ye9S TXβQ(e*xxkb'k[ƪk+k 2,)ldUc:` a"{y(98 zr$p4:p,r˺,&XpN31<,I!皇g|"2[,6-:>A V;X a`-3,Z&Fc 0 Kو+GG`67Rhc;ɬY_۽g,FC_E,/ٮ!?Jd#~^} #ԨjLqo(Μ{r~('Q|(W'N~>;u_6~1[%Kܧ1ҧ_F_F5FIQРpxż%o]*Ϛ8^ d~fsKIv)&3M78npc΍,Wpø 27inS]?.qk.\:qdמI.gZŒV.hm7.[<wK݇pcۉ7-e8V[-'{y1Ѽ1-Ϭ[v~txM4ŘiJ__u9j:?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry  FrM@Data WordDocument QObjectPoolmMrM_971851582 FmM8pM1Table!CompObjhObjInfo [0@0NormalCJOJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph FontP$PEnvelope Address&@ /+D  l,2$$(ADU'$c9 @`(  <   B%MC>6DETF^UUE0xgtkf3gvo|JN  9& k    ^   &# l9NXL OpI3:H}TK,~uR(W=+~c"J3# %|  /! !!:"""G## #S$$(%4^%A%O&_g&o&'h'' (\((( O)=)\){>***&+ s+2+[,P,,, $-^-. .i.f/)/?00^ 1o191+2 22 *3 x3 3 4 E4 4 4 V575q5666W655U5434N3ad3k2j1` +1J!H0'"T/_"/".". #7.G#-#-#F-#,/$,g$D,$+$+%:+.%*Y%*%.*%)%)%))%(&a&&S&&N&&S&&a&c')z'd)')'*'Z*'*(*I(O+t(+(+(?,),6),j)(-)s-)- *.?*L.u*.*.*/+/9,0,@1-1.~2W/32031 41w4243-54v55565768696:6;6<5<5L=5=5=56>5>5>v5!?d5o?P5?;5 @#5V@ 5@4@47A4A4Aw4BT4UB.4B4\C3Cw3Cm3Cr3C3C3C 6C-6C;6C>6L>6M;6!M-6%M 6MQ!M!M Mv M, LLLPLLLsL+LmLWLS?L 'LLK:KK'KApJIHlGQFME`[DCA(o@ ?+=)<:v39q7564 =3y21=1J0/`/X.5.*--,, ++*3*4)])^((}(`(F(8-(q((''W''''Az'|f'S'>')&'a'&&&a&&& &&&&2&&&0 ?eE0@`$  B.C>1DEF)v')(f(('H'& &X,%P$v#K"!  w( ]^]Rq47} @&  T1   wE 4  Y v :r0X!SIU{'T2nP3p\iG0DZs-G~, _ / y!5 ! "# " t# #T Z$$4%>%|&O& 6&M&d&z&^&,&&&&_&*''$'2'Z>'&J'T'^'d'2''''101=12>1'110e0"0d0,0P//`/n / . f.{ .% - G-s ,w, ,T+.+1*t**`*3**r)))(H)e )(([(Q(''i'6-'p&&g&7&{%r%%<$zm$$#([#`""B"!/!`#! c  F:p_42MfPm!;Cf]J8c.6I_  ;X!""q # Y$j '% % &$ ' (} (f ))O u)7 )! * Y* * * <+ A. r.y .i .H .<.*.}.q.^.C. .--w- )v@`    BChDEFpp ;  + X_  /Xv _a8`~uN { j Q . >  Y K aITt- 8k :    f /   1 ?P K Q [2 a fU hhd^SOE2)i \L$,V4eApF{c^4B'  r @  k 51 ^ 8-kmhU[ .'s|K=@`   `BC~DExF^^Kp  B sD%>}g^^_j{ ~ H  s @- 'Ksm@~w" Rk   Q   4. P \ f oe u/ y | } ~[ }' {yvr`[E1z2 );T~e, [ m; B # K #1r[z#}FP/M:pjeMK@`B S  ?mbt  ^ttt@`@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& ArialK,Bookman Old Style"h2+2+!0n Catherine Catherine   FMicrosoft Word Picture MSWordDocWord.Picture.89qOh+'0  < H T `lt|HREOC SUBMISSIONIan Normal.dotsqusaObjectPool mMmMWordDocumentSummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8    X !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWY bjbjWW " ==]      , DDDDDD       $F:!N/|/ DD?D    DD      D8 @;       jUmH &P N N!"#f#$g#%Oh+'0X    ,8@HPss Catherine athNormaln Catherine 2thMicrosoft Word 8.0@F#@ @^' ՜.+,D՜.+,, hp|  sdaj  Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{504E0905-755F-11D2-9EE4-004005699FCF}1TablexSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8 (CompObjq2Microsoft Office Word@F#@@M@M.2 ՜.+,0 hp|  :r9 HREOC SUBMISSION Title  FMicrosoft Office Word Document H@H Normal CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH \\ p Heading 2$<@& 56CJOJQJ\]^JaJVV p Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJN@N \x Heading 5 <@&56CJ\]aJZ@"Z p Heading 6$$d@&6@CJKHOJQJaJR@R Wu Heading 7 <@&CJOJQJaJmH sH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListBOQB \xStyle1$a$56CJ\]aJhR@h \xBody Text Indent 2$ & Fdh^a$ aJmH sH FP@F \x Body Text 2$dha$5aJ2B@"2 p Body TextxR!2R pAttention Line56CJOJQJaJHO!BH pComment d6CJOJQJaJ@&@ pFootnote ReferenceH*TbT p Footnote Text$dCJOJQJaJ8@r8 ! Header  !aJHC@H ! Body Text Indentx^HH  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ4 @4 ALFooter  !.)@. AL Page Number:  :8 '()*+]^_`abcdefghz*+,-56fg  G H " # o p < = yz34^_34$%<r|}89[\HIOP?@d e Y!Z!""##N%O%f&g&;(<())))++++9,:,,,,,,,g/h///I0J0b2c2334466S7T777::::==<>=>???A@A/B0BBBCCEEI IKKOOSPTPrQsQRRTTfVgVXX:[;[[[^^^^aajbkb?d@dee>i?iOjPjkkllmm o opp^q_qzq{qrrrr=s>s*t+ttt1u2uuugvhvxx}x~xyy{ {{{n|o|||R~S~%&pqUVtu45#$Z[EF12 ښۚKLݜޜݟޟҡӡ£ã,-=>ST)*>?efòIJlm#$:;ST KLWXyz,-/09:abgh]^rsBChiqr$%>?<=JKxyDE:;./KL?@RS*+}~  Z [   RS?@'(ophi  T"U"##%%&&(())**,,W-X-]/^/[0\01122k4l455667799:::::::::':(:):*:+:7:Z:[:::::::00000X0X0X00000h000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Rw@0y00@0y00@0y00@0y00@0I0 0I0 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0y004@0@0|X E IKgvxy{:7::K00gK00K00@!0@!0@!0@!0@!0K00K00K00K00K00K00K00 00x@00 0 IIy|z 049?G)KZ?cl wǃrT*l<,BBB(h5 p$O#<0I8?IZmzE,*L9:i1BBBB  #mtv|!!! :l ,2$K 4 z@ (  `   0 A ? ?B S  ?z: e\t _Toc483925935 _Toc499487443 _971851530 _971851582 _1080475754^^::::@@@^^::::5  T d   L     ,  t# \# #  |"\w!    < | ; Ե  tn  ܳ‹TË ċ |ŋ Ƌ Nj<ȋ |ɋ ʋ "ˋ TG!̋ h"͋ ΋ ϋ Ћ D!ы tҋ Ӌ m!ԋ DF!Ջ ֋ |׋ ؋ |ً ڋ  ۋ ܋ t^ ^ ,,11r8r8}88AARRVVVffNiNiɿɿ׿ccRR@@ + +F,F,m,m,:      !"#$%&'()*+,-./01234h h --11|8888AARRVVV!f!fWiWiӿ## ll[[II++M,M,s,s,:    !"#$%&'()*+,-./01234k5*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsi4*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet/http://www.5iantlavalampft-com:office:smarttagsV2*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/h3*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags_/*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/=(*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypeZ**urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNamehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ H^543223/22/2**(322/2*(/22/2(*542(*32/22/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/x } 3(9({RR2[8[tt::::::::::::&:+:6:::::::}=Iy~ rwP((**S?w?bbnn p$p{m|o||~~+$(::::::::::::&:+:6:::::::3333333333333333333}~# # o o ^^,,,,????CCEEII$I'IOO^^^^^^aaaaaatt~x~xxxyy{{l|m|-->>TT**=>55=>>?-.\/\/Z0Z0556677:::::::::::::&:):):*:*:+:6:::::::::::::::::::: QSJw^R/ @Uwl*^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHpp^p`CJOJQJaJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHp0p^p`0o(. @Uwt QSJw^@s^`sCJOJQJo(J)                "j?P\s o "PYgGh9/m'7fX!_$B(&4'J'%(}(-_24Y"46j9:@:aS;J?@6@t@FBC#DG.G&J5JO.OQTRVmXJ\I^"M_8Q_CqgDXh+ii,ln1oRv4x6x\x5iy|%h 1QYl~WuK&OZVp>6? ~a.KAL,PrAr''*@ 7^ieds\&1KsAX}GL,TZlj bcza,\j! B+3F SILC:::W@\3P:P@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialK,Bookman Old Style5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1h皚f皚f뙆.2 :.2 : 4dr9r9 2QHP ?X}2HREOC SUBMISSIONIansqusa    MSWordDocWord.Document.89q