Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON BALANCING WORK AND LIFE RESPONSIBILITIES

Ms PORTOLESI (Hartley) (11:01): I move:

That the report of the committee be noted.

The select committee has spent over 12 months considering the issue of balancing work and life responsibilities. Whilst the committee's hearings were mainly held in Adelaide, members were determined to give all South Australians an opportunity to be heard on this matter, so we travelled to Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, Renmark, Mount Gambier and Murray Bridge in regional South Australia; and to Mount Barker, Paradise, Salisbury and Noarlunga in the metropolitan area. Evidence was provided to the committee by interested parties, including individuals, large and small businesses, unions, professional associations, researchers and demographers, tertiary institutions, NGOs and local government representatives. All submissions (both oral and written) provided a very valuable and diverse source of evidence for which the committee is grateful and appreciative. I thank each and every member of the community who took time to present their views on this matter.

Now I turn to the committee's findings. The report of this inquiry provides a policy and action framework to take South Australia forward as a community that values and encourages a healthy balance of working life. The capacity to balance work and life responsibilities is largely perceived as a challenge, but one made easier by working conditions that recognise that women and men have obligations external to their working lives. A report of the OECD prepared in 2002 sums up perfectly for me the importance for governments of reconciling working life. It states:

The reason why the reconciliation of work and family is increasingly important to so many governments is that it is hoped that getting the right balance will promote all sorts of other goals of society: increasing aggregate labour supply and employment (so increasing national income); families with more stable and secure sources of income; families better able to stand the stresses of modern life, and if relationships do break down, better able to move on in their lives; better child development outcomes; less public expenditure; higher fertility (or at least enabling families to have their desired number of children); and more gender equity, are often primary government objectives.

The committee heard evidence from many organisations that they aspire to be an 'employer of choice' and for South Australia to be the 'state of choice'. Evidence indicates strong support for embedding a strong work/life balance culture across both public and private sector organisations, and that this is achievable.

The committee heard evidence of numerous factors preventing a reconciliation of work and life. They include:

lack of access to high-quality child care and (incompatible) school and preschool hours

taxation arrangements not supportive of a shared approach to paid work and care

increased reliance on in-home care for the aged

current household debt levels

career disruptions and stereotyping based on gender, leading to inequalities in terms of paid and unpaid work.

Making a choice between work and family is no longer acceptable, particularly for women. The significant caring role and household work generally assumed to be the tasks of women are becoming unattractive as a full-time option. Why they were attractive in the first place is beyond me! Male-female partnerships in the 21^st century are increasingly conditional on a shared approach to paid and unpaid work and to life responsibilities.

On the other hand, best practice employment conditions that support a work/life balance include:

personal leave and leave to attend to family responsibilities, including paid maternity leave, carer's leave and parental leave

flexible working arrangements, including compressed working weeks, gradual return to work after maternity leave and home-based work arrangements, job sharing and part-time work

care provisions, including breastfeeding rooms (which I think was reported in The Advertiser today), employer-sponsored or subsidised child care.

At this point I would like to refer to some of the evidence that the committee heard which formed the basis of its recommendations.

I refer to witness A, a sole parent who moved from Adelaide's southern suburbs to regional South Australia when she graduated from the Police Academy. She loves living in the country and is raising two young children, both with ADHD. She works a six week shift roster, which might mean working eight days straight, including three afternoon shifts, two day shifts, two early night shifts and another afternoon shift. Witness A does not want to give up her shiftwork because that is part of being a police officer and does not want to burden her employer, but she cannot find affordable child care that suits her shift.

Witness A was using family day care but had to discontinue it because she could not afford the $350 to $500 per fortnight. Faced with the prospect of witness A resigning from SAPOL, her mother moved from Adelaide to the country to become the full-time carer for her grandchildren—an enormous act of self sacrifice, although not a systemic solution. Witness A's child care crisis could have been averted if she was able—I notice members opposite are laughing, and they are all men.

The SPEAKER: Order!

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms PORTOLESI: Beg your pardon, the ones who are laughing are all men, not Liz. Witness A's child care crisis could have been averted if she was able to find in-home care for her kids. For instance, registered carers who care for her children in their home. Although there were local people willing to provide this care, she was unable to afford it because the federal government rebate for in-home care is 19¢ per hour.

Witness B, who is a young mother of school-aged children, is employed in a senior role in a local regional council. She considers herself lucky enough to have an employer who is flexible and supportive but, despite this, she eventually ends up using all her sick leave and all her annual leave, which leaves no time for a proper break (as she describes it) with her children. Every time her boss changes—and that has happened three times since she has been there—she needs to renegotiate the flexibility because it is an arrangement borne of goodwill rather than a formal entitlement. When managing her own staff, witness B says that she is able to retain them because allowances are made which give them flexibility to juggle all the demands of their life.

Also we heard from a leader on this subject at the University of South Australia, which uses a suite of work/life balance provisions as a way of attracting, retaining and competing for staff. They include compassionate leave and paid carers leave, 22 weeks paid maternity leave at full pay, and phased-in return to work for staff who have exhausted maternity leave. In order to avoid any ambiguity, these entitlements are written into collective agreements and AWAs.

From a small business perspective, Denise Delsar of the Hackham Business Association manages her own private business. She suggested that work/life balance needs to be about more than maternity leave and child care—and I could not agree more. She says that small business needs to embrace more flexibility or suffer a high turnover of staff, but that this should not be subject to a great deal of compliance. Again, I could not agree more.

On the subject of economic development, the committee found that current skills shortages around the country should provide South Australia with the unique opportunity to market itself as a family-friendly state and, therefore, attract interstate migration. This was a consistent theme marking the committee's hearings and submissions. This is particularly relevant in those instances where some enterprises could not compete with interstate wages but where family-friendly employment conditions could provide a comparative advantage.

Overwhelming research and evidence suggests that enabling a balance between work and life for employees makes good financial sense for business. The benefits include increased retention rates, decreased absenteeism, improved job satisfaction, and increased loyalty and productivity. The importance of the South Australian government taking a leadership role in this policy area was emphasised by many witnesses, including those from Business SA.

In my view there is a clear role for the state to champion and oversee the introduction of genuine flexibility in all workplaces, both private and public. In the public sector, for instance, while significant achievements have been made already, up until recently these initiatives lacked a whole of government direction or accountability. The committee recommends that the South Australian government establishes an office for work and life, located in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, to assume this role.

A national system of paid maternity leave and paid parenting leave was strongly supported by witnesses. The committee recommends that the South Australian government urge the federal government to take steps towards the introduction of a national paid maternity leave scheme. While paid maternity leave is unequivocally a national issue, the committee urges the South Australian government to examine options for a state-based maternity leave scheme until such time as a national scheme has been implemented. In the context of ongoing skills shortages in South Australia and an ageing population, this is crucial for the maintenance of this state's economic prosperity.

An amalgam of the evidence provided suggests that the development of a policy and action framework for the achievement of a work/life balance which the committee proposes should be implemented through a collaboration between employers, employees and the government. The key areas for action include:

Structural elements, such as the development, implementation and evaluation of legislation and industrial conditions to strengthen the foundations of a work/life agenda in order to ensure policy coordination within and across sectors.

Cultural elements, which include strengthening leadership, focusing on workforce diversity in order to attract and retain labour, and strengthening advocacy to increase gender equality and universal access to quality work.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, practical elements which include support for pilot programs in the private sector that champion innovation and continue to support research which will provide the evidence base to continue to inform policy and practice.

Since the commencement of this inquiry there has been a change of government federally. The election commitments and policy agenda of the new Rudd Labor government include the establishment of an office of work and family, whose aims are to help working families to balance their work and family responsibilities and to assist businesses to manage their workforce in order to achieve greater participation and productivity. A strong focus on work/life balance within the South Australian government will enable the state to respond to and work collaboratively with the federal government.

Therefore, this report is very timely. The inquiry has provided evidence of the fundamental importance of creating workplace environments where all South Australians are valued and where they are able to balance work and life responsibilities.

I extend my gratitude to all members of the committee: the members for Reynell, Norwood, Goyder and Unley, and in the early stages the member for Napier. I especially acknowledge the member for Reynell whose experience in this place was a great source of support for me, given that I had been here for only one year when I became chair of the committee. Each member brought a valuable focus to the direction of the committee.

The members for Norwood and Reynell made important contributions on so many fronts, in particular in relation to the challenges South Australia faces as our baby boomers are faced with dependent parents and family members. The member for Goyder brought an important regional and business perspective to the committee, and even the member for Unley demonstrated himself to be a strong advocate for community-based child care.

David Pegram and Rachel Stone did a great job supporting me in the committee. It did appear to me that the member for Unley was frustrated because for every rule that existed I made him find a way in which to break it. I am sure all members would agree that the staff supported us very well, as did Hansard who had the misfortune of travelling with us in the regions, and I thank them also.

The committee's research officer Chris Christensen, who was seconded to us from DECS, did a great job. She and I worked very closely together and one can only conclude that she is very patient. I cannot commend her highly enough. My thanks go to the Minister for Education and Children's Services and her department for releasing Christine to us.

In conclusion, I note that the government has four months in which to respond to this report. It is something to which I look forward. Given the timing of the report was largely unknown, I had no realistic expectation that the government would receive the report in time to respond in this budget. However, there are a number of recommendations which can be implemented without a great deal of cost to the state government; for instance, protections against discrimination can be drafted as amendments to the Equal Opportunity Bill tomorrow, if it was so desired.

In conclusion, tensions between work and life are not new, but the challenges of the 21^st century require new approaches and innovative solutions. We can take heed from those who have gone before us and who clearly understood the importance of maintaining the balance between work and other aspects of our lives. The American merchant John Wanamaker stated that 'people who cannot find time for recreation are obliged sooner or later to find time for illness'.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:15): It is my pleasure also to make a contribution on the presentation of this report to parliament, and to confirm that I had the great pleasure of being involved with the committee since its inception. I know that, as soon as the member for Hartley announced her intention to the parliament to form the committee, a call for nominations amongst the Liberal opposition went out, and I believe that not only were the member for Unley and I the only members who responded but we responded quite quickly. We demonstrated our commitment to ensuring that there was a collaborative and bipartisan approach to this matter.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Unley confirms that we are SNAGS—sensitive new age guys, and I think that description defines both of us quite well on this issue. It is very pleasing that the parliament has chosen to devote resources to this area. Those of us who were involved in the committee—indeed, any member in this house who has a perspective on the pressures that families and people in the workplace are under—would agree that it was important that this issue was considered and that we should get as much information as we possibly could before making recommendations, and there is no doubt in my mind that that occurred. There was a high level of interest among members of the community with whom we consulted, and we attempted to do that quite widely, as you would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker. Numerous letters were sent out.

We tried to engender comment from as many people as possible to ensure that the position taken by the committee reflected all the needs of the community and not just of one particular section. I did have some initial concerns at the start that a focus appeared to be on larger organisations where, obviously, there is greater capacity to create more of a work/life balance sensitive environment. There is scope within that environment because far more people work there and there is the flexibility that a larger number of people ensures that you can have in relation to working arrangements that suit more people. Compare that with the small business background from which the member for Unley and I come, and our involvement with our own lives and communities.

While small business would love to provide a more equitable work/life balance situation, it simply does not have the resources. It is pleasing in that regard that one of the recommendations in the report quite clearly explains that there should be no additional cost to business in pursuing, investigating and, hopefully, adopting the principles that are recommended in the report. The member for Hartley, in her excellent presentation of the report to the parliament, noted the skills shortage and workforce participation pressures that South Australia will experience in the future. In my shadow portfolio role, I am certainly aware of the fact that, over the next 10 years or so, something like 300,000 more people will be required to fill in for predominantly those baby boomers who are intending to retire from the workforce in the next 10 years.

I know that the workforce participation rate in South Australia is less than the national figure, and that in itself creates pressures, because there is a need to improve productivity or to get more people physically into the workforce who have not been there before. We think that some of the recommendations in this report will encourage people to stay in work longer, which is an important factor also; alternatively, it will allow those people who feel at the moment that the pressures of their family life make it impossible for them to be in the workforce to seek an opportunity to enter the workforce because employers will potentially provide them with opportunities to cater for their very important family needs.

The member for Unley and I, as well as government members of this committee, recognised that, no matter what we do in this house, the impact of our decisions upon families is what is most important to us. We want to make sure that families have a good future. There is enormous pressure on families paying high mortgage costs and for both partners to be working to reduce their debt as quickly as possible. In doing that you have the difficulty of finding the best possible child care that can be provided Where do you find the money to fund that child care? Do you use a combination of family support to provide that child care or professional services? That situation exists out there, and we understand that.

It is important that a suitable combination is found, be it informal or formal child care or the flexibility at work that will exist by the adoption of some of these principles and recommendations. I think that everyone on the committee would agree that the interaction between members was good. On some occasions a perspective was taken which might have caused some concern, but there was a reason behind that. It was not just for blatant political point-scoring but to ensure that the whole perspective of the needs of the community were considered.

The member for Hartley was very fair all the time. She certainly ensured that there was an opportunity for any member of the committee to express an opinion. Again, we live in a democracy, so not everyone agreed with that, but we had the chance to debate it, and that is all I could ever ask. I also commend the member for Norwood and the member for Reynell (you, Madam Deputy Speaker) on their involvement in this committee. Our regional travels especially, when we had the chance to spend a bit of time together, gave us the chance to develop relationships which we might not otherwise have developed, and to understand people a little more and to appreciate the various skills and positions that we bring to the parliament.

Hopefully, that will stand us all in good stead in the future (from our point of view, we hope that the opportunity that members opposite now have will not continue for too long). Relationships that were built up over the last 12 months will certainly assist in the next two years at least, and we will see what happens beyond that. Like the member for Hartley, I also thank the support staff who served the committee. Chris Christensen had an enormous job, there is no doubt about that. We were very lucky that we managed to find someone who had a perspective on the issue as much as she had. The report is very detailed, and I was very impressed with the way in which many of the verbal submissions made to the committee were dealt with.

Chris has gone on to a different role now, and I am sure she is very suited to that. I have no doubt that she will be a high achiever in whatever position she takes on in the future, because she has a collaborative approach to things. She wants to make sure that it is not just her opinion but the opinion that most closely reflects the discussions taking place and the opinion of the committee as a whole. Not everyone who writes reports does that. Their perspective flavours a report without listening to every debate. I do commend Chris for her efforts, and I also commend the House of Assembly support staff, David Pegram and Rachel. It was very nice to have them with us, especially as we were travelling around quite often.

I must admit that my wife questioned me as to why I wanted to be involved in this committee, because it affected my own work/life balance.

Ms Portolesi interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: True; rather ironically. We had a couple of discussions about this. I respect the fact that the committee was trying to do a lot of work in a reasonably short time. We had to speak to a lot of people and we had to make a lot of visits, and it was important that we sat in between parliamentary sitting periods. I was quite happy to make the trip down: it is only an hour and a half in the car one way, so that is an easy one to do. The member for Hartley grimaced at that, but I do about three of those trips per week. So, I am used to driving and doing 60,000 kilometres a year.

I was very pleased to see that there was support from both sides to undertake regional consultation. It was challenging. We enjoyed the opportunity to fly around, and we visited Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, Renmark and Mount Gambier. They were busy days. We spoke to a lot of people and there was not at a lot of time to flush out some of the real issues. However, from each of those consultations, be they regional or outer metropolitan, it was obvious to me that the people who presented before the committee had real issues.

We heard some very sad stories about people who want to create a professional opportunity for themselves. They want to be out there in the workplace and contribute financially to their family, but the pressures associated with being responsible for children (and, in some cases, it involved single parents), make it very difficult. We heard from a female police officer from Port Pirie who had moved away from family support and who faced enormous challenges. She had worked hard to achieve her role in life. She wanted to continue in that role, but the opportunities to support her children, who were also critical to her, complicated her opportunities to continue in the force. However, I am pleased that things have been able to happen there.

There is no doubt that work/life balance presents enormous challenges to us—not only to government but also to society—to ensure that the policies are in place, and it will come at some level of cost. In the federal sphere, we have all heard (and this was one of the submissions received during the committee investigation) that the cost of the baby bonus scheme is more expensive than the cost of providing paid maternity leave. I found that interesting, because I did not think that that would be the case, until the evidence was presented to us.

I found the full range of the discussions that we held over that 12 or 13-month period to be enlightening. I hope that my small contribution to the committee was beneficial in the eyes of others, and I have no doubt that the things I have learnt over the last 13 months will impact on the decisions I make in future while I have the opportunity to be in this place. I sincerely commend the report to the house.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:24): I welcome this report. I think this is one of the very useful roles that committees of the parliament can fulfil, whether they be select committees or standing committees. Former premier John Olsen made an observation when he visited this place some two or three years ago (and I think that he received a bit of flak for it) that in the United States people live to work and in Australia people work to live. In fairness to him, I think he was suggesting that we could be more in tune with the American approach rather than our traditional approach. I do not agree with that, and it certainly caused controversy at the time.

This is a very complex issue, and I know that it goes beyond maternity and paternity leave—aspects that I have tried to push in this parliament for many years. It is pleasing to see that, at long last, we might see some action in regard to the provision of paid maternity and paternity leave.

I try to implement family-friendly working arrangements in my own electorate office. I am in the fortunate position of being able to do that. All my staff are women. I have several part-time staff who have young children and, if they cannot be at work until a little later or if they have an issue with a child at school, or whatever, we accommodate them. We operate on the basis of trust: if someone loses time they make it up when they can, and it seems to work well.

That is a privilege that can be enjoyed because, ultimately, the taxpayer is paying for it. However, it is not something that is easily provided in a small business. There are not many small business owners who can say, 'You can rock in half an hour after normal starting time and we will just make up the time later.' It is just not feasible. So, one of the key issues in relation to family/work balance is the capacity of businesses to pay.

The big organisations have some scope, but even then I would argue that, if we are to have paid maternity and paternity leave, it should be the responsibility of the whole community to fund it out of government and we should certainly not impose it on business. I heard the figures given this week in relation to a submission on paid maternity and paternity leave and the costs as a levy on individual workers. I am not sure whether I have the figure exactly right, but I think it was something like $150 per annum on every worker plus a levy on business according to turnover.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: It is a $250 a year levy on each worker plus a levy on business according to turnover. That is quite significant. The reality (and this was highlighted by the member for Goyder) is that we already pay for things without knowing how much they cost in aggregate, anyway, and the baby bonus is one example of that.

I wish to raise a couple of points, but not to make the issue more tortuous than it already is. Some people do not have children, for whatever reason, and that is their business. However, one has to ask whether they should be required to contribute to those who have children or who want to have children. I also ask: in any of these arrangements are we doing it for the benefit of the children, the parents or the community? One would hope that it is for the benefit of all.

There is no doubt that time spent with children at the earliest possible age by parents and other relevant caregivers is absolutely vital, in terms of helping a child to become established in life and to grow up to become a worthwhile citizen and contribute and have a satisfying life. However, I think we have to be careful to ensure that, in this push for paid leave, we end up with a system that is equitable and we are not simply giving out money to people who probably can afford to provide for themselves (that is one issue), and whether or not we are supporting people who see children as a trade-off in a materialistic sense.

If you are going to have children, you have to be prepared to make a sacrifice. Those of us who have children know that. This weekend we are acknowledging the role of mothers, and that is fine. You do not have motherhood without self-sacrifice. You cannot be a mother and you cannot be a father without being prepared to make a sacrifice. I am not saying that this is the majority, but I think there is an element of some people not being prepared to make any sacrifice themselves but wanting the rest of the community to cater for and support their particular material obsession. I have heard people say—and I think it is despicable—'Look, we're choosing between having a baby or putting on another room.' Well, I wish that child all the best because if you put it in those terms it is pretty abhorrent.

It is easy to say that the younger generation is hell-bent on having it all now, but I think there is an element of truth in some young couples wanting to have it all now. They want the big TVs, the big house, the family room all at once, and at the same time they want the rest of the community to pay if they have children or want their children looked after. If you are going to have children, both parents have to be prepared to make a sacrifice.

Some people, as we know, do not have a choice in many of these things. Single parents often do not have a choice. There are people in particularly low income situations who are struggling to make legitimate ends meet; and I am not talking about wanting the latest motor car or plasma TV; I am talking about basic necessities. I gather from what is being said in the press that the federal government will move in its first budget to target some of these benefits according to the financial situation of the family or the individual; and I think that makes a lot of sense.

I would not be supporting necessarily generous assistance to people who can afford to pay. Why would you want to give paid leave to someone whose salary is in the order of $700,000 plus a year? There are people in the community in that category. We recently had the despicable case where a professional person was found guilty of sexually assaulting a young girl. The judge said that the penalty is that that person will lose some of their $700,000 a year income. Well, many of us would dream of that sort of salary if we were motivated by money—and that is just one example. Why would you give that person support and put a burden on the rest of the community if they chose to have a family or to expand their family?

Once again, I am not being devil's advocate for the sake of it, but I have spoken to people who are trying to manage particular workplaces, and they say that it is almost impossible because there are so many people who are entitled to leave for all different occasions that it is hard to have any continuity or any provision of a service. I will not say where, but this is in a large church establishment and someone I know, a family relative—but this person says that almost every week someone has some sort of leave. They have community leave, parenting leave, all sorts of leave because grandma has to be assisted into this or that. That is fine, but it means that the people who are left in that unit have to carry the can and the load.

If you talk to GPs, who are around the age of 60, you will find that some of them carry the can in the clinic for the others, because the others want to work only part-time, limited hours. You find these exhausted GPs working from first thing in the morning until late at night. That is fine, but I think you have to take into account the impact on those people who are supporting the rest of their colleagues in providing so-called family friendly arrangements.

I make the point that, in this parliament, we have moved to so-called family friendly hours, but we are not all that family friendly in many other respects. I think charity begins at home, and family-work balance also should be part of what happens to MPs, and it does not, in my view, happen at the moment. So, I think this report is good. I am pleased that we are moving towards active resolution of paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave.

Time expired.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:35): I just want to say a couple of things very quickly. First of all, this is a very important topic for all members of parliament and also for families—I will not use the adjective that normally comes before that these days—

The Hon. R.B. Such: Working families?

Mr RAU: Oh, goodness me—yes. I also think, however, that, in addressing this problem from a point of view that is going to be useful to people out there in the real world, I favour those people having as much choice in their own lives about how they deal with these issues of dealing with family and work as they possibly can, rather than having solutions which are prescriptive or reliant upon external agencies.

In my view, one of the biggest things that could possibly be done to assist families to get this balance right between their work and their responsibilities to their children would be for the federal government eventually to consider the fact that the future of this country does lie, as people say in that great cliché, with the children of today, but it is more than a great cliché: it is absolutely critically true—

The Hon. R.B. Such: It's a true great cliché.

Mr RAU: It's a true great cliché; that's probably a fair comment. And also, the fact that if those children are to have the best opportunity to grow up and develop to be productive, useful citizens who have a productive, useful life, it is desirable at least for them to have parents—hopefully two—who are engaged in the process of looking after them and are not stressed out or drawn between work and the very important responsibilities of nurturing and assisting children through the years that they grow up.

So, the tax system at the federal level is something that ultimately is going to have to be considered in this regard. I have never understood why it is that a single man or woman, whose only responsibility to society is basically to support their entertainment, their motor vehicle or something else, should be taxed at exactly the same rate as the person next to whom they work who is supporting a family. I do not understand why the social utility of the fact that that person is supporting a family, whose members will ultimately be contributors to the society in which we live, should not be taken into account in the tax system.

Obviously, one way in which that could be done is for there to be an opportunity for families to be taxed as a unit, not as individuals. That is something that requires a lot of mathematics and thought, and I am not an expert on tax policy and I do not pretend to be, but I do think that if we are really going to address these issues properly in a way that is going to be most beneficial to families on the ground, the greatest thing we can do for families is to give them the choice as to how they, as a family unit, solve their problems without necessarily trotting out an array of very prescriptive solutions into which they must then squeeze themselves.

I support the report. It is a great thing that we are looking at these issues. I hope that the federal parliament also looks into these issues and tries to address the issues from its perspective because, after all, it can do things we cannot. I hope that that keeps this very important question on the agenda.

The other thing that I have mentioned very briefly is the family friendly hours here in the parliament about which the member for Fisher made a comment. I think if they are going to be family friendly hours, they should be hours to which we keep. I speak in particular about the idea that we adjourn at 6pm. If you are adjourning at 6pm and your family expects you to be home soon afterwards, then it is not unreasonable that that should occur. If that is not going to occur—and I realise we have jobs to do here and so on—in some respects, it is more disruptive now than it was previously because we did not expect to be getting home. But I know that the system has to accommodate the greater or lesser amount of material that has to be dealt with by the chamber and that is probably an insoluble problem. I congratulate the member for Hartley on the report and all the members of the committee who participated in the report. I look forward to seeing some further constructive discussion about this matter at both state and federal levels.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:41): I rise to speak to the motion to note the committee's report into family/work balance. I want to pick up the theme referred to by the member for Enfield. I ran a business for 15 years, and during that time my wife and I became parents of four children and I was involved in 32 local committees, as well as running the business. So, we were fairly busy. I support the member for Enfield's view that families should have choice, but I question whether the choice needs to be at an extra cost to the business or, indeed, at an extra cost to the taxpayer.

I think the system should be allowed where the family that wishes to have a child should be able to have access to their superannuation (albeit a limited access) to the amount argued in the report, which I think is 14 weeks of the basic wage, which is roughly $5,000, as the member for Unley informs me. That gives the family choice.

In our case, we combined some leave that was due—holiday leave and long service leave— and we constructed times that way where my wife could recuperate and spend time with the child. We ended up making the decision that my wife would leave the paid workforce for 10 years and be a full-time mum. That was our choice. But I do not see why—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Torrens says you have to be able to do that, and I accept that. That was our choice and we were in a fortunate position to be able to choose to do that. But I do not see why the business should have to pay another fee for maternity leave when it already pays a fee for superannuation. The superannuation accounts are there. Every worker has a superannuation account. The worker could choose to take three weeks' or four weeks' pay out but up to a prescribed maximum so that they cannot bleed the whole fund dry. That would place no extra cost on the employer; it would place no extra burden on the taxpayer and, as the member for Enfield argued, it would give that family choice. Some will take out all of that 14 weeks, others will take out 16 weeks, others four weeks and others will combine it with annual leave or holiday leave or whatever. They would all construct their own unique period of leave that suits them.

The reality is that families are getting smaller. I think we are averaging 2.2 children per family now. So, it is not going to be a huge drain, in that sense, on the superannuation accounts. I advocate that, if they are to bring in a paid maternity leave system, the system should simply be a reconstruction of the superannuation laws so that families can choose to have access up to a prescribed maximum so that they can then choose to design the amount of leave they wish to have to suit their circumstances.

I fail to see why it is my duty, as an employer who is already paying holiday pay, long service leave and holiday loading, to pay another levy or another cost because the family decides to have a child. If we are not careful, if we construct this incorrectly, it will be another reason not to employ young women.

I support the principle that the member for Enfield talks about: the more flexibility the better. I argue that it should not be at a cost to the taxpayer or the employer, because I think that there is money in the system that people should be able to access now via their super.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:46): I rise to support the recommendations as a member of the committee, along with my colleague the member for Goyder. We obviously would be seen, on perhaps this issue at least, as progressive members of this side of the parliament, and I just want to pick up on some of the concerns that some members have raised about reduction of choice.

What came out of this whole process was that parents do, in fact, want choice, and they want to manage, and have the ability to manage, their own affairs. That, of course, is something that cannot be legislated. You cannot legislate any prescribed self-management of your own affairs, but you need to give people an opportunity so that they can, in fact, have the benefit of choice if it is not available to them.

It is important to note that the member for Goyder and I were very aware that Australia is one of only two OECD countries that do not actually have some form of government-funded maternity leave. We could also see from the evidence that was presented to the committee that, because we are in a very tight employment market, small businesses are missing out on opportunities to employ good women in their businesses because their bigger competitors, whether they be banks, large accounting firms, even local governments or branch offices of multinational firms, have the ability and the profits to offer their employees paid maternity leave.

This was automatically a disadvantage for South Australian small businesses who are out there competing in the labour market in the private sector for talented women to work for them. They were competing against companies that had an unfair advantage because they had greater spending power, more ability, more flexibility because they were big business, to offer incentives such as paid maternity leave. We heard that that leave tended to be somewhere around about the 12 to 14 week mark.

I look at the experiences that small businesses have now, where it is very difficult and very expensive to get good staff in a tight labour market. The evidence that we heard from one of the professors (whose name escapes me at the moment) from Flinders University was that this is the best time ever for employees in the workforce. This is an employee market and so consequently they virtually dictate the terms. One of the things that I think attracted me to recommending some form of government-funded maternity leave was because it would actually bring the balance back in favour of small business—not give them an unfair disadvantage to their big business competitors.

I think that what should be emphasised in this debate today is that we heard time and time again (whether it was from a fruit-packing shed business in the Riverland down to a community care business run by the Anglican Church) that the main issue was that employees wanted flexibility, and employers were prepared to give it to them.

What was missing was a structure for that flexibility to be legal or for that flexibility to be recognised. This debate happened in the lead-up to an election in which the Labor Party had seen where it could exploit a complicated federal government policy of WorkChoices, so we saw a lot of the WorkChoices rhetoric being brought into this campaign.

I know that Labor members were very uncomfortable when independent witnesses said that they wanted flexibility in the workplace. It is not something that they wanted to hear, but it is a reality that, whatever size a business is, one size does not fit all. Flexibility to tailor that workplace was paramount. Obviously, the best way to secure these jobs and to secure this flexibility is a vibrant and strong labour market such as we have at the moment. We heard evidence that that is what we have.

I want to get back to the point that bringing up children really is a family issue and it is an issue that requires choice. We hear that often a solution is for one partner to work from home. The evidence we heard from some who gave evidence before the committee was that occupational health and safety requirements for a home office, for example, were often broken, and there was an unsigned agreement between the staff member at home and the employer, or they were ignored, and that there was no real facility for occupational health and safety to be adapted or to be flexible, if you like, so that a working mother could, in fact, choose to work from home rather than send their child to child-care if that is what they wished.

That was something that my wife and I were able to establish, with my wife working as a hairdresser for close to 15 years, I suppose, before we decided to have children. We then decided to set up a salon at home when our firstborn was due to arrive so that Michelle could continue with her work. We needed that income, we were reliant on that income, so we set up a professional salon from home and her clients came to visit the salon at home. It was on an appointment-only basis, so Michelle knew what her whole day was going to be. We did not have any walk-ins off the street.

I suppose some could argue she was fortunate that she had a trade that enabled her to do that, but she also made her fortune, she made her luck, which enabled her to have that opportunity. Of course, I was in my own business and I had flexibility as well, so I was very fortunate, but again, it was a situation that I made. I come from a very working class background and my first job was on the factory floor, but I took responsibility for my life and went on to be self-employed—

Mr Pengilly: You have completely ruined it by coming in here.

Mr PISONI: But, of course, as the member for Finniss says, I have completely ruined that by coming into this place, but that is another story. I must mention the great visit and the private hearing we had with Dr Fraser Mustard. The work he has been doing on early childhood development is revolutionary, really, and I am looking forward to his report being tabled in this parliament. That report has been held up by the Premier. My understanding is that the Thinker in Residence Program has had that report for almost eight months—an extraordinarily long time. The education minister said it is because the grammar needs correcting, or there are some spelling mistakes or something like that, but I think it is more likely that there is something in there that they do not like. I have been advised that words such as 'disgrace' and 'chaotic' are used to describe the way some of our departments deal with early childhood development.

Another point that I should make is that the best results in a child's early development are achieved when a parent or a relative takes responsibility as key caregiver for that child, rather than the child going elsewhere. Dr Mustard has said in his report and on numerous websites that that is the number one outcome. That cannot always be the case, of course, but that is the number one outcome and that is what parents should consider and what the paid maternity leave system could help us achieve, so more parents can spend time with their children in those very early developmental years. As a member of the opposition. I support the committee's report and its recommendations.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Volunteers, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development) (11:56): I thank the member for Hartley and the other members of the Select Committee on Balancing Work and Life Responsibilities for the work they have undertaken. I understand that the select committee received submissions from a diverse range of individuals and organisations indicating that there is a high level of interest in this area, and certainly contributions this morning indicate there is a great deal of interest in this chamber.

The Rann government acknowledges the importance of work/life balance and in March 2007 appointed Michelle Hogan to lead the government's work/life balance initiative in developing a multi-agency strategic response to work/life balance. Finding ways to improve work/life balance is vital if we, as a government, are to retain and recruit skilled workers. It is also a real challenge to the private sector and to local government. More families have both parents in the workforce now. As a community, we need to recognise changes to the way our workforce operates and the changes that need to occur.

It is true that many of the caring roles within families are still essentially the responsibility of women, but not always. Workplaces that want to retain valued and skilled employees ensure their workers can support and respond to the needs of family members. This not only ensures the wellbeing of families and communities, but also brings stability into the workplace. Work/life  balance is not just an industrial issue for women. It cannot be discounted or dismissed as a social issue. It is fundamental to the health of our community and our economy.

This is why the government's population policy has stressed the need to improve the life styles of South Australians by actively encouraging family friendly workplaces, and that is why the Rann government promotes voluntary flexible working arrangements in all its government departments. Arrangements such as purchased leave, flexitime, compressed weeks, part-time, job sharing and working from home are all initiatives that assist in helping to balance work and family. Having access to such arrangements, however, is only part of the picture. There also needs to be a mindset change that allows workers to access arrangements without feeling guilty, without the worry their career may be penalised in some way, without being seen as lacking commitment to their job.

Of course, it is not just employees and employers who are affected, it is also our children. For many parents, a poor work/life balance can mean a disconnection from their children. Obviously the more time spent at work, the less time at home, impacting on the time spent supporting the learning and development of babies and young children. As Minister for the Status of Women, I want to ease some of this burden by supporting and promoting practical, workable strategies for women and men and, as the Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development, I aim to improve and support learning and development of babies and children.

Again, this is an economic as well as a social issue. Many parents have to juggle work and family, some just do not have a choice. Whether parents are working because of financial reasons or because of a commitment to a career, it is a juggle and, for the primary caregivers of children or aged relatives, the constant juggling of work and family commitments puts an inordinate amount of pressure on families.

The Rann government is committed to supporting parents. Every Chance for Every Child is a wonderful initiative. It is also removing the barriers in the childcare system where some believe the focus on the profit margin could well be at the expense of quality care. I do not want a childcare system that operates with its priority being profit first at the expense of the best possible early childhood development for children who are brought up by overworked and time-poor parents.

Debate adjourned.