ࡱ> bda` 9bjbj 7L 0 vvv8F$j$.$h vMo@MMiiiMRviMii:a,T"v jP| 0.R(!(!(!vi po.MMMM   COUNTRY WOMENS ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES  S U B M I S S I O N TO THE SEX DISCRIMINATION UNIT HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ON THE STRIKING THE BALANCE: WOMEN, MEN, WORK AND FAMILY DISCUSSION PAPER 2005  FROM: Mr. Colin Coakley, General Manager, Country Womens Association of NSW, P.O. Box 15, POTTS POINT NSW 1335  HYPERLINK "mailto:personalassistant@cwaofnsw.org.au" personalassistant@cwaofnsw.org.au 30th September 2005 STRIKING THE BALANCE The whole area of sharing responsibility for running a home, caring for a family, earning a living and somehow having all parties achieving acceptable levels of satisfaction within those working and family roles has also to meld with wider issues. What sorts of workplaces are currently operating to allow employees (and indeed employers) to achieve as both career builders and wives/husbands and parents? What are the ramifications of the proposed Industrial Reforms for partners and parents? If Australia is to raise its birth rate, as politicians are currently urging, what provisions for caring for those resultant families and nurturing individual careers and caring for ageing parents are contemplated? So far, there are no or few answers to these questions in the public arena. If there is to be a fairer sharing of parental responsibilities, as this Discussion Paper is espousing, this can only come about through education. Legislation is most unlikely to change attitudes in this area. Legislation may sharpen awareness of the objective, but it is hard to imagine how a fair parenting/family raising balance can be policed, let alone enforced. While an increasing number of younger men appear to WANT to play a greater role in their childrens lives and do share (though not generally equally) household work and responsibilities (dropping off and picking up children at school or extra-curricular activities, for instance), such changes are not compatible with all cultures represented in our society. This would include our own culture and perception of shared responsibility in addressing the balance between work and home life. There is no doubt that more women are participating in the paid workforce than, for example, 15-20 years ago. Their reasons for so doing are complex. Some do so simply to put bread on the table; others to pay the mortgage or the rent, not always for a dream of a house but for a roof over their and their childrens heads. Some work because they find the challenge stimulating and the success fulfilling. Some do it to provide role models of preparedness to work, especially in those families where a wage earner has not been in evidence for two or three generations. Some work for the social aspects, an opportunity to interact with other adults as opposed to the mandatory duties that surround maintaining a family unit. Increasingly, there are going to be women who have to find paid employment because of government reforms to the welfare system. The impact of this absence from home can create situations such as latch-key children, lack of parental supervision, children denied access to extra-curricular activities, including sport and fitness. How do you quantify the loss of opportunity for these children as it relates to the necessity of entering paid employment? Research needs to be undertaken to determine the negative and positive benefits of balancing work and family, and there is a need to create situations, either by legislation or federal initiatives, that allow the best possible outcomes for children and their parents/grandparents. The high cost of child care, when it is available, must take away the so-called benefits of paid work for some families. It seems improbable (and an unfair expectation, considering the costs) that small workplaces will be able to afford to provide child care facilities for their workers, but larger employers should be able to provide these. Corporations, like the larger banks, universities, parliament at both state and federal level, major insurance and legal firms, all should (and many do) provide facilities that mean valued employees are not forced to take more time away from work than they really want to, to care for their children. Many women feel threatened that their career will suffer if they take extended maternity leave. Whether this is legitimate or not, it is a reality that having a family sometimes hinders the career path of a woman while there is societal pressure for women to become mothers. Women who for whatever reason, due to balancing work and family responsibilities, find themselves in casual employment which is employer-driven when it comes to hours of work required, child care facilities and placement, may find it extremely difficult, and these women are heavily reliant on family when it comes to care due to the very nature of their work. Where child care facilities are made available for full-time employees it creates engagement, loyalty, increased productivity and general job satisfaction. A more important part of this type of arrangement is taking the pressure off the family unit. As maternity leave has been negotiated over many years in industrial instruments or legislation, the right of women to access this leave is appropriate and more could be done by government to provide paid maternity leave into the future. There is a view that some women feel pressure and fear for their job security when accessing this leave. Unscrupulous employers that do not hire or for that matter recognise a womans right to maternity leave do so at a cost in loss of skills and experience, and not taking into account the cost of recruitment and training of new employees. The whole question is highly vexed and complex with no easy or simple generic answers. Socially, in this century, many women simply choose not to have a family as do many men. The choice of contraception in many ways, with its introduction, allowed women to have choice as to whether or not they would have children. With the ageing population and declining birth rates which have been the focus of government for some time, measures will have to be put into place to make having a family achievable, taking into account their financial and work commitments, and government needs to address this issue. The proposed change to single mothers accessing benefits is skewed the wrong way if you look at what assistance is available to a woman with a partner and child. As employment continues to be casualised, house costs continue to rise, and the working poor become an increasingly important class in Australia. The working poor need to be at the forefront of this issue, in particular, single mothers without support of family when trying to do their best for their family, finding the whole issue of striking the balance near impossible. At the same time, evidence points to the fact that many women who decide to pursue a career and a family are unwilling to risk that career to stay at home and raise their children. Whether they use government or work provided child care places or employ a nanny, as career women they are tax payers, and often quite high tax payers. Why not then have child care as a tax deduction? How are men to be encouraged to do their fair share in raising families and carrying out household chores? Before they are educated in their new roles (yes, some of them already do them, but they are the minority) their mothers probably need to be educated it appears that more young people are opting to remain in the parental home or return there and anecdotal evidence suggests they continue to expect to be waited on. Hardly makes for the equal-sharing partner syndrome. The next group to be educated are the wives or partners when these men do decide to enter a relationship. Men complain that women want them to do their share of household chores, but complain that they do not do them to the womans satisfaction so the men opt out altogether. After those two groups, the men in question still have to be educated to do equal shares. There appears to be a long way to go still but such things cannot be legislated. This Discussion Paper covers so many areas. What can be done to help single mothers? So often they are compartmentalised and categorised in less than a good light in Australian society. These perceptions fail to take into account widows, divorced or separated women, often through no fault of their own. Our own Australian Government seems to see single mothers as fair targets for its so-called Welfare Reform packages. Single mothers are to be forced into paid employment as soon as their children reach school age, at the same time as mothers with a partner are encouraged to stay home through government allowances. Why the discrepancy in approach? Striking the Balance raises the issue of unpaid work. We live in a society where to a very large extent we are defined by our jobs or careers. The first question we seem to ask when meeting someone initially is What do you do? In society, those that choose to stay at home feel the need to speak defensively of their home based role. If we as a society truly value the family unit, how do we reconcile such differences? Even more than the mother who is not in paid employment, society and government appear to ignore the work of carers. There are carers who live with their charges and so earn the princely sum of around $40 per week in government allowances; then there are the carers who do not live with their charges, usually but not always parents, and who are eligible for no allowance. Again usually, these carers are women either a daughter or daughter-in-law. While the topic of carers is raised in this Discussion Paper, little solution is offered to their plight. Our Association is particularly concerned with those carers who are sandwiched between generations acting as unpaid babysitters for their grandchildren and at the beck and call of their parents. No entitlements are nominated in this document for either role. Yet both roles are allowing their children to contribute to the countrys tax pool while saving governments the costs of caring for the ageing in nursing homes or hostels. Balance is what such people do, but it is usually at the cost of the carers health, financial position and freedom to live her own life. While mens salaries remain higher than womens, in the overall work place, it is the woman who is expected to sacrifice her career aspirations when the time comes for one or the other of the partners to be at home to care for a baby, a child or a parent. Family leave, Carers leave, Maternity and Paternity leave all have to become an ordinary part of our work place language. Far greater flexibility of hours actually in the work place has to become part and parcel of the working day. Increased use of and improvements to technology should mean far greater flexibility in working hours and place of work, if not in all positions, certainly in many more than is the current practice. As has been pointed out, a working lunch of 2-3 hours is acceptable; why is it not all right then for a worker to take 2-3 hours to support a child at a concert or a sports carnival? However, there is a noticed trend in parenting where the highest income determines the full-time carer, be that male or female. The Association, in 2003, supported the work of the Sex Discrimination Commission and ACTU over the issue of paid maternity leave for women. To date, we are unaware that the Federal Government has done anything in achieving this important scheme for all Australians. We would hope that as a result of these submissions that the Federal Government will support any changes that address its position on population is that there needs to be fairness in the workplace, affordable child care, and assistance given to Australians who find themselves in appalling situations. In summary, the changes apparently mooted in this Paper if they ever eventuate will do so through concerted educational campaigns and time, and amended legislation where appropriate, and a society that respects and values the family regardless of its composition.     -  PAGE 2 - Striking the Balance: Women, Men, Work & Family Discussion Paper 2005 Submission from Country Womens Association of NSW  TO: Paid Work and Family Responsibilities Submission, Sex Discrimination Unit, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, GPO Box 5218, SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email:  HYPERLINK "mailto:familyresponsibilities@humanrights.gov.au" familyresponsibilities@humanrights.gov.au 123568LMPH I r s 㳬vk^k^T^T^C!jh7th/VUaJmH sH h2CJmH sH h7tho}CJmH sH h7tho}mH sH (jh7th2CJUmHnHsH uh25CJ\aJmH sH "hhMho}5CJ\aJmH sH h7tho}h7tho}6CJ"]aJh7tho}5mH sH +jh7tho}5CJ UmHnHsH uh7tho}5CJ mH sH h7tho}5CJmH sH 1245678LMl P  @@ ^` gdo}  @gdo}gdo}gdo}$V]^Va$gdX)$a$gdo} 889 ) M Z q r   p$a$gd2gd2dhgdo} @^gdX) @^gdo} @^gdo}  @^gdo}  @@ ^` gdo}s >L[+z!!!ο󲧘pbUKUKUKUKUKUKUKUKUh"OJQJ^Jh2h2OJQJ^Jh2h25OJQJ^J+h2hv5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "h2ho}56CJaJmH sH h2h2CJaJmH sH h7tho}mH sH h7tho}CJmH sH h7th/V0JaJmH sH !jh7th/VUaJmH sH 'jh7th/VUaJmH sH h7th/VaJmH sH pr()12""s$u$!(#(**004477 8 8888gd2$a$gd2!!(( 8 8 888888888#8%8&8,8-8.8/818{88θt^K$ho}56CJOJQJaJmH sH +hW+N56CJOJQJaJmHnHsH u-jh256CJOJQJUaJmH sH 3jh2h256CJOJQJUaJmH sH $h256CJOJQJaJmH sH *h2h256CJOJQJaJmH sH hPKjhPKUh2hvCJaJmH sH h2h2OJQJ^Jh"OJQJ^J88888828{88888888969E9Y99999gd2$a$gdo}gdo}88888888888W9b9c9999999999DZh2hvCJaJmH sH hS{Yh20JCJj/hS{Yh2CJUjh2CJU h/VCJ h2CJ ho}CJh"7ho}CJho}j ho}UhPKhD*ho}ho}56CJOJQJaJmH sH 5 01h:po}/ =!"#$o%  DyK "personalassistant@cwaofnsw.org.auyK Rmailto:personalassistant@cwaofnsw.org.au.Dd =)<  C A2v-p]-Bt|^.R-O}`!J-p]-Bt|^.>KM( -x{xw)E[n RZZZZP'@ŊSŭP w$/;;ȻIB]PC[#B /oحgp(c۞zuw@抡.j"BNqǴ"""$3? Ůʆ~ܱK^kn.y2⿞/ 1Wuk2$iC?HQ-Vb$e}m1!bӘ#92c9_s:+\u0G!y Mob)lQ1HMnC#:c"iBM6}sJ)̦ Np_%A2HddW }ZUmoaKlkn`Kcvޞ:ζGĦ6eiGmmiO{BoC$w 6=as333c {ΰj{{e}j[lpVV"'k۴$SoFK} :OƜX- τEeƆ+d9\ZG6TYtsU;|MU S[TbU0)y=]1:1-LQߍ/En7H$w=tQA\ >EtPNL JAA9->A-H-kX\ !1hlW3SqݍNTP x%PvCW(xF"M' 0*3r FڌY,Y6] W *-A}/=☋`;UQ~\/}>/oH|*Rz y?޸etmSp(ݦ } ؎.m2 .4%W> +A[O토 c/[>`Sl`̲o,cao7vMLߠvlqU;-8[hڷ8.apî/ͱm~,kSaA1}Y@ ^"E ; ÷P酩C7L):er.ֱS,6L7 761MQ,e2a!\5d27 9&pf3B?m੮90\'z Ӛ;M:t M^<㼼E54#U/SS}oRu߳<ցLr#MN^2t{2MYcxAC<ԅ4#d4! yM46‡T0ob SL aSg $2Wy/5B1JU(;4E/5 L~0l6i: Wx@  ږ\>-XNz\rkcOaG{&6 K[mhKhd !G{~kKלm+Z=e󭨥DUg_}`Z(n oL_ii>cZV-uxioچ'vM`I > $/)9?/GH8&|s/꽟o'DMOZY/\ .˟9WsOwCsgE+w@Tu[E~kBrŭ`8!bf[ >]v>ײ2AC##s={a+˶e?Kmi1~(-*b]P+RхQ|OBj+6R+S-qOMMD FFYF=TDfbm.ؖbm-ضIXσ_EwWtInWE ?TeWR%v#]@Q8n a4MjS4LP(Ap S wa4< /^Ɵ <]7\^)φG| sɷU'.#qbo~v籅,*SRVb2rkK\& -e_h p[#F UvWOYKJۇAR{)Hoٹ bv|Pe ZA][$hdS-l(hgN.8ZۮvmڂvMbGؗgiACru--M-ljؾZwcv0l?T1&Z xG,JgZ Kh>wq9|FQY(O!#9m^IKLOk`_`ksj9PtB 2oMVd2cNmrkY˙)ۙ9sF}kffkhVm4n:arM2u,obLdv&JYfq+?/t%׿r[!<MH$߀Ȃו" MLubƝ8_i!߭Ft(BDLUڄPM{JDWmGVZBi*jPۏ2W$quuAK:Mc(M4bO0}9HWw?ӯ&˻MdRB'X߇>B)9}K5{M&6# )m=F,a?PI-lۼΞD oYyW('WloR)=MIAVEv=Ywŷ( #]MZj7R.Tb YF{My7U3[dkum8ئ7ҬŒR<^#m-հlVm'saڌvMHՆSUUOUWUGU;{ P\$oB)gJJPh+ ZOai:Eh-a!Zc 5ƽTR<8M ԉ /@4PGFJ-45ԚXq= ->`-Ѣ`*fmЂaP65ftf dj&*lv*l'=#ہOmOWl;;o{9s|k?t~Mo x$8 NA<%0_[z+ip 6` Nܡt3:~Z$_3ceiA~ P̾QX%;]K8i=Kx{v O\ʃ8tM4vR:I9Č%#cx.RV5%q)쪐vU]P^ˠ)m߁;|gy.5RƮcM*"Hʃ6ؒa (/.mbe~ .?6W 7ΕU#\*|׈ۖ/ێݯxĺn5Vwkۈxۋ \Z FWrULqe+I]2Q Z잰u\znckIcHH_ׯ²˺Tw!S3Zy2#яr EIVC21]oSQXJ560~!\W' <3qlzA'Wp 'KH c0G?D(`6L0?6[3q.Ưq Níxe|1X4ف3pJCS(3ESN Tktqw%z*QsQg zڴAPTgp0+DMW{8o.)u{i-iin[Ozk7zˤpRnnj▨rnzxzQ ԰l\e2C[`gcv\kTDƜgRf琕y -&RXa^KXBga7xa8˸O\ q9ʳJ * E:Љ)$Vi3id?!mD= γX{'p _ {،!\3a$^0C_16׸JȶGXYa^xaތ=UT҇*F B`+um4vm`'[^Zh=p): zH-#:oK<|;1>M61Զ!mm7k;8v1+]:Ǣvf?c]oi%>exyh)5.p )(jè؝*`D)6ؐa]J(V#ߤAYJ56uL籩<b!ЁΘ.tf2_Ir@ b:G< rkH0ILNfES3iʈ37Cw8|a&ifbNFIdl8>0C p4©P gB) pdYI70z5Y|ߟN!?.W ʟ$T󇡤?>HÈC? w ιN0tiˋ\)ukVh}GLcvX~ |1Sg8gc= b2ȃ! X`)HU )،I;$~<72Pl 4Ɩ@.zb'9?e$b7F7:UD e>±/ʔCǽiֶբw<|mQ=4lma&v~GFNiom{: .ppQj&a3etӝNܯJ Ǣ)Oe(1XzPJAPsM]  l,;3L36!]`f<;7&\qUl7 t3"L2| +媰N8f0v5}1t1MmlhtyMcL`aZ S蝘\fbbtc Շq>3Qfӳ汷<ЗИ+L~bFP7Cx>zٹݺ3iы\=7Pz<3dڨ6=囥wگ^n5UITWy}@[aiU$̸cȠ*h&wi˼ R3 ]be2I]F>FQ̕&Ϸ4]I亙mލ2֍5&fg`y6낛&:x`OoF8kt,Gfw4aV Zb adp"y׹A 0 ŃLP$H Ԑ#H7l*`S)ڬdwv|]lb5FyFI_ zL>SWDˠ .>uKHO\ϜW-hs=I@zFVFn_Pyqݩ_@}Kl;p]'> ׈קA>-}X[#ct-gP]aY Aih7 A:I0^pԁKc8jN֚شo:W 7a ߺ >f$7_P-ϏIL 5eb}yЍkl0H㸝 aX! vfv)vC%43X0\]f ?sh}6Xuxk`=.B8띀,pE`'-Pׯ + fC]1v9cm(^$~ H$vcpc {'Z8Wn bĵf5sHk!_Fpķb ї ~$ 0nq|?`m"o[ʼ`*{)!Oe|!5}uWP?hof4 MMZl_LW 7[wf#sm0sy|n&~5M/ieB41I -MjĤn&c| gd<Ҥ'dޙeo^Y`枹6 %.2`.`8:$&1|isT!֍oPO_Ǵnj0zoi*ΦfZ^oza S@kLDݦ?`*ISҟ5%US6Dj0z?I^fx&O5&< xW\5m|h_ffGY'5~0Lv%܏6 }rNJ4I&^0nD׶y}l7sǎ4Tshe<<{ VAI,1Ƀy&FV\V]7}( 1C>ۂ|Y?2&]ZIe|ށk"LoLw7Nngnf:uM;ݎԴatﮦ^T6Gf)˾UĬycL퓛*>K>`_o¦y{˨p6>ƆS3 '4:yyȋWĮ]?NR4%]Vzͫ;,[HO 6`_6jj𢡊UTuU^SU em%-=TzHo]Y%)2ӔKB(҇>@>jRk:ԃ1@_6ڧ7 4L33OOQ|Lǧ:#eYJ壛(TehJ+U=Z) Uڪ)P-j#WD#ʯͫR<*ӕl>UTmmQ͖R1ܗnI}{=G鑾(_7#tM'~.u>Q./.nNm_RO{++G3?Ϻ_%Y ܏qzg1zcwzIO7>ΰʰ;ЧuYz2eCzWz)MnjIkLSi(tѽMo u3· Q7˙^-z١'z97Mn.p]'[:9 t8S]lկfe>2CۥYߚ`˙M`.t+@]RS,ЯM_/O]rCX; m7Uz Hk/4=ʌg;}'~znz%c=vG2>3\1_cf>a&13q?Z4?>u: ;Mߢmߩ*=? c*?2**ȿV ~w.5#Z:+>Rgut.2:&y~X_]O9.8 >>5~")N^UuOnPsV5oVcF5oP={>峱9n躼ʬg n X^AN5O9|s{wv}CUTm~M(IuU_Ϫ/c9502[-y_F TRYw yycg$e?Lq i!tc([A!(ȡ;BnSXrw*-PIpM8ޛ٢UBuT꬙3)j9jY2_q=5]v3%7Y]p#yKu1NwNIcWjj[vhY-۩.};tGSw\u'ǕgJ)3R.N8>NeWEW *Tm _S58"k>yP͘ɾ gc5U|5ۗW})S@5U=CE쪒Ϧ01R9}^ֱJ닫侬J諪0 9~;Jz&CT2^?I<>[_޹[~wsU}ӿ `8&{i.^pSV́j.V.T>l@*5gdc:8 i.AWu>ϰ < IHXT%*5P0v.7Fȥ<0E7x$syq= va{(w+r;/w_Us[!Y&/+o;)){,vOO$dJ1KK)&ޭo\|ˇGy͑Ly͐gtynʵn\'9m9qs-9%r))%Uk\Zn.Zy S#y|ˢ4K:T祉S6uHTKjt˩ª+:ʪzkPMtlD-v-j +gY3;M46- 05*!X' 6]&yq"(k`,5 H:\&bt?tng:+i6wc?#3 ..rd+FcWPuEeuf93pD/b'%6CdG,.c>YsȊY 27#=f1${%3&ObeK&70_JIz*SOxY2&x_F1z=9ǾKr<? Wwɉ2+.qLSe*^&odRz /+#J&V2 6ɰLXJ(0J1]jX\[6ďyMd[~?ۅe>/_Yr8g,c'wN_ƃ&c6Y7ʼZ3[h*BE)nwqG { Ɠh^|!b^𲘃xCLb Ζ;pڶ2Չ>eũ-?.°>@"D o}Title$a$56CJ \]mH sH 4U@14 o} Hyperlink >*phDBD /V Balloon TextCJOJQJaJ1"1L1245678LMl)MZqrpr()12su! # ""((,,// 0 0000020{0000000161E1Y111y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0000000000000000000000000000000y00y00y00y00y00y00y00y00y00y0y0PRRRy0y0y0y0y0y0 s !89!#%p89 "$9r1X "!"X8@J(  N  3  Z  S  B S  ?21! t.$ tuLd 11V*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNamehttp://www.microsoft.com [;DE ((,, 0 00000000000%0/000b1111 0 0 00000000000%0/00b11112277PHI 0 0 00000000000%0/012277PHI 0 0 0000000000%0/0{000W1b1111>@Ch캖 26k2^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.z^`zo(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. 26k>@CsU        x        &"2$NX)~7~[<6?@PKhMW+N/V>;Wf] _Ga{af?ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`cRoot Entry FPeData '<01Table@