Ir Maternity Leave

On the 22nd of September, Peter Costello advised Australia of the state of the birth rate in Australia. Costello, in his interview with a 6PR radio journalist, described that the birth rate in Australia had been steadily declining since 1971 until it "bottomed" at an average of 1.7 kids per family in 2000 (Costello, 2006). He went on to declare that our current birth rate situation meant that Australians weren't "replacing the population" and that if this continued, the population will became aged and there will not be enough younger people to carry out the jobs that keep society going (Costello, 2006). The remedy was obvious enough. Costello advised Australian women to have 3 children through his infamous phrase, "Have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" (Costello, 2006). But nowadays, is it really possible for Australian women to have 3 children?

In 2005, John Howard introduced the WorkCover choices to the Australian workplace. These WorkCover choices were changes to the Industrial Relations laws that governed the relationship between employers and employees in the workplace. The Australian Council of Trade Unions reported that the new laws only obligated employers to include 5 significant conditions in any workplace agreement (ACTU, 2005). Included in these conditions, was the requirement that employers uphold 52 weeks of unpaid maternity leave (Australian Government, 2006). This meant that for women, paid maternity support while having children was no longer going to be guaranteed under the IR laws.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported overseas statistics in comparison to Australia, concerning their arrangements for providing paid maternity leave.

This table shows that many other countries provide arrangements for paid maternity leave, while Australia has no mandatory paid maternity leave. A report issued from Marian Baird, pointed out that Australian's deficiency in arranging mandatory paid maternity leave, drove the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission to take action, stating that the provision of paid maternity leave is a right for every Australian woman (Baird, 2002). Why are Australian women losing out in the workforce, when other women around the world have the rights to obtain guaranteed paid maternity leave? Not only is this a problem for Australia on a global scale, but the real ramifications is for the women, who are working right now, in our Australian workforce.

PART THREE

The workforce is comprised of two groups: the employees and the management. Often, both have similar economic interests. However, conflict arises when these interests clash (Holland P, 2002). Dabscheck describes a vital characteristic of workforce relations as the "collective bargaining" that takes place when conflict arises in the workplace (Dabscheck, 1981). This collective bargaining is the method in which unions balance the power that employers use to run their businesses. Indeed, it is the union's task to lessen the range of managerial judgment and therefore, even out the balance of power in the workforce (Hill et al, 1982). However, this balance of power is undermined by the new IR laws. Under these laws, employers are now able to remove benefits from one's award agreement, (including paid maternity leave), forcing an individual contract or agreement (or AWA) to accept less than other employees. Since these agreements are formed on an individual basis, ACTU argues that the new laws "make it harder for employees to collectively bargain" (ACTU, 2005). Thus, they make it harder for employees to obtain the benefits needed, including the right to obtain paid maternity leave.

This problem is not only a workplace issue; it also strikes at the heart of gender equality. Compared to men, women's ability to reproduce put them at a disadvantage in the workplace (HEROC, 2002). Ely suggests that the physical differences between men and women lead to the differences in employment opportunity, which create an "uneven playing field" (Ely et al, 2003). To disadvantage women in the workplace because they have the burden of their gender would be, like Ely describes it, creating unfair opportunities in the workplace. Thus it follows that if businesses do not provide financial support for women who are having children; they then are furthering the "unevenness" of workplace opportunities and ultimately, are discriminating against pregnant women (Robinson, 2003).

PART FOUR

Pru Goward, in an interview with an ABC journalist, warned the government of the impact of the new IR laws on the availability of maternity leave. She maintains that if more and more women are employed as a result of individual settlements with employees rather than collective bargaining, "maternity leave will disappear" (Goward, 2005). In the short-term, this may mean that women in the workplace may be accepting standards that are less than equitable. On Friday, 9th of March 2007, the Mercury reported on the state of women's earnings since the introduction of the new IR laws. It claimed that women's earnings were declining under the system of AWA's. It argued that Australian women on AWA's, who worked full-time, were earning an average $87.40 less per week compared to those on collective agreements (Mcinerney, 2007). The Public Health Association of Australia released a report in 2005 that women's earnings were 84.5% than that of the average male earnings (Public Health Assoc., 2005). It can be seen that women are accepting standards that are inequitable in the workplace.

But what about the long-term impacts of the new IR laws? The Public Health Association also noted that the effect of the AWA's may "create a barrier in to female employment and may influence women's reproductive