This afternoon, I emailed The Minister for Women, Marise Payne. I requested the Anti Sex Discrimination Act be amended to define how section 5 should be applied in terms of maternity leave and superannuation.
Bonnie Jackson-French
13 Plumpton Rd
Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650
5 March 2022
The Hon. Marise Payne, MP
Minister for Women
2-12 Macquarie St
Parramatta, NSW 2150
Dear Minister Payne;
I am writing to you to highlight the inconcsistency that exists between current State superannuation policy and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (the Act).
In New South Wales, in the public sector, employees are entitled to up to 14 weeks paid maternity leave from their emoloyer of over 12 months. This 14 weeks of paid leave, however, is not inclusive of accrual of superannuation. If we consider a very basic equation, stating the average woman accrues $50 superannuation a week (these are not real figures). In 14 weeks, she will have accrued $700 in superannuation payments. Now consider she has two children, that bring us to $1400. Although this amount appears relatively small, with compounding interest on superannuation over decades, this may amount to thousands of dollars. This plays a determinative role in the financial stability of many women when they reach retirement age.
This lack of a guaranteed superannuation payment whilst on paid maternity leave from your employer is further puzzling when considered alongside other forms of leave. For example, if an employee is to take annual leave or sick leave, they are still entitled to the accrual of superannuation payments. I understand that there exists certain allowances which are not paid during leave – first aid allowance being an example – however, what distinguishes these payments from superannuation is that they are also not paid during annual or sick leave. Due to the lack of clear reasoning why paid maternity leave payments are treated differently than other forms of paid leave from the workplace, an assumption must be made that this is both gender-based and discriminatory.
Section 5 subsection (2) of the Act provides a legal definition for what constitutes sex discrimination; “[where] the discriminator imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons of the same sex as the aggrieved person." As a large percentage of individuals who take maternithy leave from their workplace are female, it is obvious that the exclusion of mandatory superannuation payments whilst on paid maternity leave from your employer directly discriminates against women.
The overwhelming discrepancy between males’ and females’ superannuation accounts when retiring has long been spoken of and so I will not cite the multitude of studies here supporting such an assertion. I also understand that this discrepancy is made up of a multitude of different factors and I do not suggest for a second that fixing the issue of superannuation payments whilst on paid maternity leave will correct this discrepency. It is, however, certainly a start in the right direction, and would display a continued commintment by the current Government to removing discrimination within the workforce and across the nation.
If the Government were to amend the Act to include a more clear definition of how sex discrimination occurs – possibly even an example of how it can be experienced regarding a person’s income – this would provide legislative authority for the creation and adaptation of consistent State-based policies requiring the payment of superannuation payments whilst individuaals are on paid maternity leave from their employer.
This approach, which promotes solidarity among the States and Territories regarding superannuation payments, as well as consistency among employers, further benefits the nation by helping to ensure that both men and women experience financial stability when they reach retirement age. With an aging population, creating environments that support financial wellbeing for individuals toward the later end of their lives also supports the Australian economy more generally and may reduce expenditures in the decades to come.
I am asking that you please take my request in this letter into consideration.
Faithfully,
Bonnie Jackson-French