Is Australia a working woman's 'paradise'?

Over the past year mainstream media reports have consistently told us that Australians have never had it so good. Even the arch-conservative, former Treasurer, Peter Costello described Australia’s economic growth as “remarkable”; a rare accolade indeed. Productivity has been consistently high, unemployment low and federal coffers overflowing with surplus.

Added to this, in 2006, the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Gender Gap Report described Australia as “leaders in closing the gender gap”. Based on the WEF Gender Gap Index data, Australia achieved a rank of 15, out of 115 countries, and a score of 0.716 (1=equality). It seemed that Australia women had not only reached OZ but had successfully engineered a take over bid.

But, just as Dorothy found that all in OZ was not well, many women in Australia have wondered what has happened to their share of the rewards. In a land of such prosperity how is it that women in full-time work continue to earn, on average, 16 per cent less than men (in Western Australia its 27 per cent less)?

And, while increasing numbers of women participate in the labour market and higher education, how is it that they have come to dominate in insecure, low paid jobs? Is Australia really closing the “gender gap” or is the praise under-investigated and short-sighted?

What the WEF report highlights is that any claims of closing the gender gap, when women continue to earn significantly less than their male counterparts and dominate low paid, precarious jobs, demands closer analysis. In particular, this essay focuses on the Economic Participation and Opportunity index used by the WEF to measure the gender gap, examining the three specific areas which constitute the index: the participation gap; the remuneration gap and the advancement gap.

Australia is now a nation of dual-breadwinner households, although women continue to be positioned as second or marginal income earners and responsible for family-care roles.

While orthodox economists and neo-liberals consistently point to women’s “choices” as the primary reason for the gender wage gap, a closer analysis shows that the dominance of normative gender discourses in policy making and research, particularly in relation to care-giving responsibilities, plays a significant role in shaping women’s and men’s choices.

At a time when other western countries are integrating gender into the policy development process and adopting programs to monitor women’s labour market outcomes, Australia appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Compared to the 1970s and 1980s, the climate within which gender equality is pursued today is significantly chillier.

The benefits of affirmative action policies and feminist strategies of this era are now distant memories for many women, including Aboriginal women, women who identify as lesbian and women living with a disability remain marginalised within the labour market. Australia’s earlier commitment to feminism and gender equality has been sacrificed in the pursuit of economic growth, which in turn, threatens future convergence in men’s and women’s economic opportunities.

The participation gap

Recent years have seen strong growth in the Australian female labour force participation rate and a corresponding convergence in the female-male participation gap. This performance has afforded Australia the rank of 30 (out of 80 countries) in the WEF (2006) report of labour market participation. However, this positive trend in women’s employment must be considered in the context of shifting discourses of gender and the changing financial needs of individuals and households.

The Howard government’s reform agenda, particularly the widespread reforms to industrial relations and tightening of the welfare-to-work criteria, have also had specific implications for women’s labour market participation.

The pressure on people in receipt of Centrelink payments to undertake work of any sort, alongside the work-requirements for single parents (the majority of whom are women) while contributing to women’s labour market participation, pose a significant threat to gender equality.

Reinforcing women’s position in low paid sectors of the economy rather than face the penalties for non-compliance and breaching, it is difficult to claim such participation and opportunity as a success.

Part-time and casual work has grown significantly in recent years, in part underpinned by global competition and employers’ preferences for non-standard forms of employment. While younger generations of women seem to be showing greater levels of attachment to the workforce, much of the employment growth has been in the part-time labour market where a significant share of jobs performed by women are casual and short-hour.

In some sectors (for example, in hospitality) a growing trend towards offering shorter shifts can be identified as a way of minimising costs (i.e. saving on payments for breaks). Part-time work is particularly favoured by women in the key child-rearing years (35-44).

While business groups and employers claim that women elect these hours, evidence suggests that this it isn’t a complete supply side phenomenon. Women may indeed choose to participate in part-time work over full-time work; however, it is important to understand how such choices are made. As research consistently identifies, many women take into account a range of internal and external factors including, difficulties faced in securing child-care, required participation among single-parent (mother) welfare participants, changed employment demand preferences by employers and a changed IR climate supporting more atypical forms of employment.

While part-time employment does facilitate labour market retention its contribution to narrowing the economic or financial gap between men and women is debateable. Part-time jobs tend to be poorly paid relative to full-time position.

Research elsewhere has highlighted the other less than favourable features of part-time work - for example, reduced promotional opportunities, reduced access to education and training; reduced certainty concerning employment security and reduced superannuation accumulations.

Australia’s WEF ranking with respect to labour force participation must, therefore, take into account hours of work, the quality of the jobs and the number of jobs (multiple job holding) if we are to make a more informed assessment as to whether or not such participation does indeed contribute to enhancing the economic security of women.

In this context the extent to which women are integrated into employment as opposed to marginalised, casual, vulnerable part-time jobs, is critical for their economic and financial outcomes as well as their empowerment, status and well-being.

Remuneration gap

In the 2006 WEF report Australia ranked 45th on the “wage equality” measure and 8th on the income ratio, with the female-male income ratio equal to 0.72. By way of comparison New Zealand ranked 59th on the wage equality measure (with the ratio equal to 0.63) and 14th on the income ratio (equal to 0.68).

At the aggregate level the Australian gender pay gap (measured using mean earnings data) has exhibited remarkable stability. There has been little variation in the gap in the full-time labour market, notwithstanding radical economic and social reforms. At November 2007 the gender wage ratio in the full-time labour market was equal to 83.9 per cent. It was lower in the private sector where, in contrast to the relative stability of earlier periods, it has recently been in decline.

Bargaining arrangements also influence the pay gap with part-timers and casual workers (the majority of whom are women) less likely to be covered by a collectively negotiated agreement and more likely to experience a wage penalty relative to full-timers (most recently available ABS figures suggest a part-time/full-time pay gap of about 20 per cent).

The strong growth of part-time and casual work in low paid sectors (i.e. sectors where wage growth has been below average) has also contributed to the widening part-time/full-time wage differential. This raises additional questions and concerns as to the quality of work and the sorts of new employment opportunities being created and celebrated in Australia.

Advancement gap

On the basis of the 2006 WEF gender gap report Australia has an enviable record in the area of women’s employment opportunity. Relative to other countries in the WEF sample it would seem that the share of women in professional and technical occupations is particularly commendable, with the WEF giving Australia top rank against this indicator.

Sex-segregation is, however, deeply entrenched in Australia and likely to become even more entrenched if current patterns of employment see an increasing share of women move into the current limited set of part-time job opportunities.

In 2002 55.8 per cent of all employed women worked in highly feminised jobs (jobs where the share of women in employment was equal to 70 per cent or more). Research shows that although women have been making inroads to some areas of management such as sales and marketing management, policy and planning management and information technology management, other areas such as health professionals and educational professionals have, in recent years, seen increased feminisation.

Vertical segregation also remains endemic. In 2006 in the Higher Education sector, for example, women accounted for 54 per cent of the lowest promotional level, but only 23 per cent of those in the top two levels.

On-going sex segregation and current patterns of employment in Australia are contributing to acute skill shortages in particular areas, especially non-traditional areas such as resources sector and IT where attraction and retention is a particular problem. The masculine cultures in these sectors not only inhibit women’s progression they also affect other outcomes, such as wage equality.

Recent research shows that the major forms of discrimination in these sectors revolve around sexual harassment and the unavailability of quality, career level, part-time work to accommodate family responsibilities.

A suggestion

A more useful assessment of Australia’s advancement gap could be drawn from indicators measuring the “brain drain” from professional level jobs generated by rigid employment practices. If part-time employment is to continue as the main vehicle through which women in Australia balance their work and family responsibilities then it is critical that Australia offers a broader set of part-time employment opportunities to facilitate women’s career retention and advancement opportunities.

While the aims of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Gender Gap Report are laudable, and may be useful for policy making, the highly aggregated nature of the data together with the “authoritative voice” of the WEF is of concern. We need to consider the range of issues associated with the gender gap, particularly as related to women’s labour market participation, remuneration and advancement.

There are a number of areas where Australia is significantly behind other western countries. For example, Australia is one of two OECD countries without a paid maternity leave scheme (United States is the other). Women’s increased participation in Australia has been driven through growth in part-time, casual work. These developments will not deliver the sorts of economic and financial security that women in Australia require for true equality (on this indicator).

Through close analysis, it is apparent that Australia’s gender gap status is not only premature but fails to adequately address the complexities and intricacies of a globalised economy and its relationship to broader social and political discourses.

Within the Australian context women’s economic participation and opportunities cannot be divorced from wage determination, the provision of family-tax benefits, the tightening of welfare-to-work arrangements and the unresolved tensions relating to gender roles and family responsibilities. Women’s decisions about work are made within a milieu of competing discourses and interests. To ignore or underplay these complexities as seems apparent within the WEFs Gender Gap Report is inherently problematic.