BY SHUA GARFIELD
HOBART — Socialist Alliance member Peter Cahill, a public servant in the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services, launched action with the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (ADT) on July 29, seeking a declaration that the parental leave process was discriminatory.
While Cahill's partner, a social worker in the Department of Education, was able to access 12 weeks paid maternity leave at the time of their daughter's birth, Cahill was forced to use his one week compassionate leave and three weeks annual leave to be able to spend time with his newborn daughter.
In a front-page story, the July 30 edition of the Murdoch-owned Mercury reported that the state government's justification in opposing Cahill's case was that "maternity leave is designed to protect the job and health of the mother and those considerations do not apply to the male parent". On July 31, the Mercury's front page reported that the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI) asserted that "bosses would shy away from offering any form of maternity leave", if Cahill won his case.
TCCI industrial services director Mark Watson said, "What would be the point of putting in paid maternity leave for women if people are going to say it's discriminatory?". However, figures from a range of community organisations, including Unions Tasmania, the Working Women's Centre, and the Community and Public Sector Union, were cited supporting Cahill's claim.
On August 15, 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly spoke to Cahill, who cited several precedents for his case. These included North Laverton Steel, where a union negotiated two weeks paid paternity leave last year, Catholic universities' recent introduction of paid paternity leave, and the existence of paid parenting leave for men in several First World countries.
The Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has claimed that Cahill's case represents a misunderstanding of maternity leave. Cahill told GLW that according to the DPP, maternity leave exists only to protect women from disadvantage resulting from the physiological conditions associated with pregnancy and childbirth.
However, Cahill believes, like anti-discrimination commissioner Dr Jocelyn Scutt, that this is an "outmoded view of pregnancy". Cahill counterposes it to the understanding of pregnancy as a "system", where the support given to the pregnant women by her partner is recognised as important.
Cahill told GLW that, therefore, he supports feminist writer Naomi Wolfe's proposal of "community controlled parental leave" for both sexes. Under this plan, any parent would have access to up to six months of paid parental leave. If a parent chose not to use all of their allotted six months' leave, they could donate the extra time back to the community to be accessed by a parent who had a case for taking more than six months of leave. Cahill supports extending such a plan to adoptive and same-sex couples, as well as making some provision for foster carers to access paid leave.
Cahill expressed concern that maternity leave in the absence of equivalent leave for fathers, "reinforces the idea that looking after children is women's work. This action is to redress that." Cahill points out that the International Labour Organisation's convention 156, ratified by Australia in 1990, gives commitment to the idea of paid parenting leave for men.
"It's not about me... and not [just] about men", Cahill explained. Unusually, he has not applied for compensation, concerned instead with setting a precedent others can use.
"I've done it because events in 2001 such as the Tampa, SIEV-X, plans for a woodchip truck route through my town, September 11 and the backlash against progressives prompted me to act on my social conscience and awareness of any sort of inequality — whether that means going to a march or something more substantial."
The ADT has retired to consider Cahill's case, and Cahill is expecting a ruling within the next month.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, August 20, 2003.
Visit the