Equality enabling parental leave: prevalence and distribution in Australian universities

Abstract

The university sector has been at the forefront of advances in employer-paid parental leave in Australia, with provisions in most universities predating and more generous than the entitlements introduced under the government-funded Paid Parental Leave scheme introduced in 2011. Given these achievements, the sector provides a useful opportunity to examine parental leave arrangements in terms of their capacity to enhance gender egalitarianism. Our research aims are to identify the presence and distribution of gender egalitarian models of parental leave in the university sector and investigate possible explanations for the patterns observed. Based on an analysis of enterprise agreements current in 2012, we find considerable variation in the degree of gender egalitarianism in parental leave provisions across the sector, and describe three distinct parental leave models: ‘equality impeding’, ‘limited equality enabling’ and ‘extended equality enabling’. Our analysis suggests that explanations for this variation are complex: we find limited statistical associations with the organisational characteristics of universities, and interviews conducted with members of bargaining teams highlight considerable local variation in the likelihood that gender egalitarian arrangements will be on the agenda and considered favourably. We argue that while incremental gains in the gender egalitarianism of parental leave provisions in the sector may continue under enterprise bargaining, a coordinated approach may be needed to achieve significant advances.

Keywords:

• parental leave
• gender egalitarianism
• enterprise bargaining
• universities
• Australia

Notes

1. The term ‘parental’ leave is used throughout to refer to leave for parenting purposes that is, at least in principle, available to either parent. We also use the terminology of the specific provisions under examination: where leave is available only to mothers it is termed ‘maternity leave’, while leave available to fathers or partners that is not part of a shared leave entitlement (and is typically for a short period of a few weeks) is referred to as ‘paternity’ or ‘partner’ leave.

2. The other criteria used by Ray et al. (2010) – wage replacement rate and additional incentives or disincentives for fathers to take leave – could not be utilised because there was no variance across the sector: full replacement salary was consistently available and no additional incentives or disincentives were present.

3. Some respondents were on negotiating teams in more than one university.

4. ‘Primary caregiver’ leave is parental leave that can be taken by whichever parent assumes the main caregiving role for the child.

5. Throughout this section, in cases where conditions are attached to entitlements (for example, where entitlements rise incrementally depending on length of service), the figures reported are based on the ‘maximum’ entitlement available.

6. For universities that allowed a portion of paid leave to be converted into a return-to-work scheme, the entitlement has been included in estimations of the main paid leave entitlement, reflecting its primary classification as paid leave in the enterprise agreement.

7. Only one university made no mention of partner leave, and one other did not provide a separate entitlement (allowing special leave to be used as partner leave and specifying this in the parental leave clause).

8. One other – albeit rare – variation in paid primary caregiver leave was noted: where primary caregiver leave was a universal entitlement, the total amount of leave could not normally exceed the stated entitlement for one employee, however in one case the full entitlement was available to both parents when both were employed by the university.

9. In one case, the first in the ‘limited equality enabling’ group, the main leave entitlement was categorised as maternity leave provided solely to the mother; however, when both partners were employed by the university, either could avail of the return-to-work bonus, provided they were the primary caregiver for the period.

10. An ongoing issue in the sector, noted by some of our interviewees, is whether a proportion of the overall leave entitlement should be reserved for mothers for health reasons. A number of universities adopt this approach, and it is only situations in which all leave is reserved for the mother that have been deemed ‘equality impeding’ for the purposes of our analysis.

11. An alternative measure of size, based on student numbers, was also tested. No statistically significant results were obtained.

12. According to a recent report, Go8 universities receive 69% of all university research funding (Ledwith 2012).

13. Alternative classifications of university types were also tested but no statistically significant results were obtained. Similarly, location (metropolitan or regional) was tested without any significant results.

14. It has not been possible in this analysis to examine the potential influence of women as bargaining team members and senior managers given multiple changes over the relevant time period. This remains an issue for further research.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Brona Farrelly

Brona Farrelly is a PhD student enrolled in the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland. Her research examines the impact of parenthood on the career progression of general staff in the university sector in Australia.

Gillian Whitehouse

Gillian Whitehouse is a Professor of Political Science in the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland. Her research focuses on employment rights and labour market inequality, particularly gender pay equity, parental rights and the impact of parenthood on employment trajectories.