Evidence of undervaluation
101 The evidence led in the Union case to support the view that the work of those covered by this award was undervalued, referred to the general position of female dominated industries. Dr Lyons, for example, referred in his evidence to research conducted in 2001 and 2002, which had demonstrated that 'female domination of a workforce reduces the relative pay.' The research suggested that differences in gender pay would continue in Australia, despite substantially increased labour market participation and experience of females. Other studies conducted in the 1990s had shown an hourly pay gap of up to 32 per cent as between industries almost wholly dominated by men and those almost wholly dominated by women.
102 In Dr Lyons' opinion, the child care industry was an obvious example of an industry which had become sex-typed and subjected to stereotypical views of the abilities of females in relation to their caring nature and experience in household related work. He referred to the 2004 research by Smith, which had considered the low participation of males in the primary education workforce, which also had relevance to this industry. Low pay and status were concluded to be an important factor in this phenomena.
103 Dr Lyons found difficulty in making comparisons between this award and others which applied to male occupations with similar characteristics, because award wages are often established by consent and not as the result of work value exercises. In his opinion, comparison of the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations ('ASCO') assessed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics ('ABS'), gave some evidence of undervaluation. Comparisons were sought to be drawn between the work of child care workers and prison officers, (of whom some 75 per cent were male) and various awards which applied to their employment, given that both occupational classifications have been assessed at major group 6. Nevertheless, in Dr Lyon's view, the uniqueness of the work of child care workers, limited the usefulness of selecting any particular male dominated industry as a 'comparator'. It is convenient to observe at this point, that this is a conclusion with which we agree, particularly having in mind difficulties demonstrated with the basis upon which Dr Lyons' comparisons were made.
104 In Dr Lyon's opinion, the views expressed by various employer witnesses that there had not been much change in the work of child care workers, showed gender based stereotypical attitudes about the nature of the work and skill levels of the staff. The importance of formal qualifications in improving the quality of care provided was, in his opinion, not sufficiently appreciated, nor was the changing nature of the work, which flowed from government initiatives, designed to improve the quality of education and care provided at centres. Dr Lyons gave an example of how such views had in the past also affected the decisions made about this industry by some industrial tribunals. In Queensland, in 1991, for example, the view taken was that the work of child care workers was 'simple' and both trained and untrained workers performed the same work and exercised the same responsibilities. (See Child Care and Kindergarten Employees' Award - State (1991) 137 QGIG 399 at 402-403).
105 In Dr Lyons' opinion, such views were influenced by gender based attitudes that work in child care services has strong connotations of mothering and child rearing, a capacity which any female has, thereby permitting them to become proficient child care workers. Surveys Dr Lyons' conducted in 2004 however, suggested that over 90 per cent of students, staff and parents of those attending child care services, took the view that both male and females required training to work in the industry and that the ability was a learned skill, which did not come naturally to either sex.
106 Areas emphasised by the Federal government in the QIAS principles involved 'soft' interpersonal and communication skills, which in Dr Lyons' view, were not necessarily given the same value as 'mainstream' skills, such as use of machinery and technology, or exercising management or supervisory responsibility, when skill levels are assessed for remuneration purposes. In Dr Lyons' opinion, given that in this industry many workers were engaged in small workplaces, in teams responsible for the care of babies, toddlers and pre-school age children, their work was performed in a confined and intimate environment. This necessitated an additional skill, often overlooked and undervalued, namely the necessity for teamwork. This opinion was contested in the employer case, given the requirement for teamwork in other industries and classifications.
107 It was also Dr Lyons' opinion that the historical charitable and philanthropic origins of this industry, where many employees worked for non-financial reasons, had ongoing consequences for the low levels of pay still fixed by the award. 2002 Census information showed that now 85 per cent of staff in the industry had similar formal qualifications and experience, across the for profit and not for profit sectors of the industry, with the majority of services commercial operations operating on a for profit basis. In his opinion, the absence of any work value consideration of that work of child care workers by the Commission, itself evidenced gender undervaluation.
108 Comparisons of 1999 and 2002 Census of Childcare Services also showed that vacancy rates had declined across the industry and utilisation rates had increased. 2003 studies by Pople and Martin, referred to by Dr Lyons, suggested that funding arrangements had made child care more affordable for parents, resulting in increased demand for places. The 2004 survey conducted by Sumsion suggested that quality of services or staff was more influential on parent choice (33 per cent), than location (10 per cent), cost (4 per cent), or hours of operation (4 per cent).
109 Dr Sumsion's view was that the care and education which child care workers provide involved highly complex and challenging work, requiring a myriad of high order and specialised skills, referred to in Curriculum Framework documents. She described the impact of training and experience in the performance of that work and the impact which the work had on children's well being and development. Dr Sumsion also reviewed the complex legislative accountability which child care workers had and compared their work and responsibilities with those of teachers.
110 Dr Elliott explained the impact which various government initiatives had on the work of child care workers, in producing quality outcomes for children and meeting the expectations of parents. She also explained the consequences for children of participating in high quality early childhood programs, which government initiatives seek to ensure. On her evidence, research established links between literacy and numeracy and the capabilities of early childhood staff.
111 Dr Elliott also described the value of early childhood services for children considered 'at risk' and those suffering disabilities; as well as the reduction in juvenile offences and welfare dependence resulting from attendance at such centres. She explained the impact which various government initiatives had on the work of child care workers, in producing quality outcomes for children and meeting parental expectations. In her opinion, program effectiveness was highly dependent on staff skill and experience. The links demonstrated between quality of care in early childhood years and children's later cognitive growth, social development and school readiness, were also explained.
112 Dr Elliot discussed the importance of attracting and retaining appropriate staff and the difficulty faced by the industry, given current rates, career structure and conditions, by comparison to other industries where such staff have employment opportunities.
113 Ms Press described how, in recent times, children have been spending increasing time in formal care and the concern which resulted for both State and Federal governments, to institute mechanisms which established standards for quality in the centres they attended. She outlined the initiatives taken and the consequences for those who work in such centres. She also explained her opinion, that the work required had become more complex as a result and that this had been inadequately recognised in remuneration paid. She observed that the Australian Background Report of the OECD had commented on the low wages and wage discrepancies between teachers and child care workers' rates and the impact of expectations that unpaid work would be performed. State and Federal government studies had made similar observations about child care workers' poor pay and had discussed the consequences for the industry.
114 On Ms Lymbery's evidence, given teacher shortages in the industry, in over 1,000 children's services in the State, the most senior member of staff was a child care worker, responsible for increasingly complex activity not formerly required of them. The responsibilities were similar to those imposed on teachers. The responsibility of child care staff and authorised supervisors for ensuring compliance with various government initiatives, were also described. Rates of pay ought, in Ms Lymbery's view, to reflect differences in qualifications, not skill or responsibility.
115 Evidence which Ms Kelly had given in the Pay Equity Inquiry as to her views in relation to undervaluation, was also put before us and updated in various respects. In part, those views were accepted by Glynn J and in others, rejected. We will later deal with her Honour's conclusions as here relevant, and accordingly do not outline Ms Kelly's evidence at this point.