The Forgotten Australians, an example of an apologetic history

Apologies by the government are meant to open door for community groups who have been marginalised in the past by an event that took place. As the world becomes linked globally, apologies are becoming common and are a form of reconciliation. In 2009 the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd along with opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull publically apologised to a group of people who are known as the Forgotten Australians who grew up within institutions. A senate inquiry in 2004 began and uncovered the culture of silence of a people whose experiences were ignored. These people are known as the Forgotten Australians otherwise known as ‘Care Leavers’. The ages of the Forgotten Australians range from people in their nineties to those who are in their thirties. There is not one small group of people that have been affected. The words “Forgotten Australians’ were first used within the 2004 senate inquiry report and are similar to the words used for the Stolen Generation. The government had uncovered the dealings with the group while they were researching the Stolen Generation who were Aboriginal people who had been taken from their homes.

Before the apology in 2009 by the federal government there were several reports produced including one in 2004 about what was occurring within the institutions to child migrants and Australian children who were left there too. After people had been placed into institutions such as places for children there had been a history of abuse, neglect and trauma that would stay with them throughout their lives. The government are aware of problems arising with the people who were taken into care and that they may suffer from problems including many medical and issues about those who have authority. A booklet was created by the Alliance of Forgotten Australians to help understand those who have been in state car at some point in their lives. The stories of the Forgotten Australians began emerging after the 1980s when people began looking into the Stolen Generation as both groups can be linked together. Children along with child migrants had been placed into the care of institutions under schemes that had operated between 1947 to the 1960s. Within a two year period in 2008 and 2009 the Federal government had apologised to both groups.

Before the government apology in 2009 there had been three national inquiries into the experiences of children who had been placed into institutional care. The reports had uncovered information that had not been known before and would lead towards the government making an apology, although there would be hurdles to go through first. Some of the advocacy group’s objectives were for there to be a senate report into what had happened within the organisations or institutions so that they would not be forgotten by the Australian public. They did lobby the government for the inquiry. There were requirements about how the apology was to be conducted by the government both state and federal along with the institutions who had been involved. Words like ‘if’ and ‘regret’ were not to be used as the apology was meant to be for all people who had been in care and not a select few.

The Howard government had rejected calls for an apology to be made to certain groups between 1996 and 2007. The thought by the government at the time was saying sorry was not their responsibility or appropriate. The Australian states and several institutions between 1999 and 2012 had issued their own apologies through the state premiers. The states paved the way for the Federal government to do the same to the people. The apology on 16 November 2009 tried to rectify the injustices carried out on child migrants to Australia and those who were in institutions within Australia. These people had been known by the name of ‘Forgotten Australians’. Both sides of the government, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull both spoke when they came together for the national apology. There were a number of people gathered to watch the talk who had been part of the group the government were talking about and giving the apology to.

In the wake of the apology there have been projects to document the history of the Forgotten Australians and the people’s access to the archival information that may help them to access records. There are some people who think the apology is a start, but does not go far enough. There is a view that the institutions involved need to be held accountable for what has occurred in the past. Some of the problems maybe the fact that people who were in the care of institutions need help in some way or form for the rest of their lives and need help from not only their families, but also from the government. Out of the apology and recognition for the forgotten Australians a traveling exhibition was formed to showcase information about the life if Children’s homes and institutions. This exhibition was called Inside and looked at the different aspects of life in regards to institutionalised children and child migrants to Australia. The national apology by Kevin Rudd has lead into the Royal Commission into child abuse. One of the Federal Members of parliament was actually a ward of the state.

The Apology in 2009 for the Forgotten Australians was a long time coming since the senate inquiry in 2004. The problems that stemmed from the people who had been institutionalised through many different organisations would be on going and many of the cases would have been recent in history and not something that had been far off down the track. The records are slowly being accessible for all who had been involved and technology has helped with gaining the people with some form of identity especially with many who had the same experiences. Governments apologise for many reasons and the Australian Federal Government’s apology in 2009 recognised the problems of the past as many experiences were unique and the fallout from the apology is still ongoing today especially when other events have occurred like the current Royal Commission.  Apologies are not just an end all and forget about everything that has occurred, but taking responsibility for what has happened in the past to help those involved to move on with their lives.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

‘Apologies’, Alliance for Forgotten Australians, 2014, http://www.forgottenaustralians.org.au/apologies.html, accessed 5 March 2015.

‘Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children’ Parliament of Australia, 2004, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2004-07/inst_care/report/index, accessed 16 March 2015.

‘Inside Life in children’s homes and institutions’, National Museum Australia, http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/inside_life_in_childrens_homes_and_institutions/home, accessed 12 March 2015.

‘Prime Minister Transcript of address at the apology to the Forgotten Australians and former child migrants Great Hall, Parliament House 16 November 2009’, Prime Minister of Australia, http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/110625/20091116-1801/www.pm.gov.au/node/6321.html, accessed 7 March 2015.

Lane, Sabra ‘National apology for Forgotten Australians’, ABC News, 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-16/national-apology-for-forgotten-australians/1143490, accessed 7 March 2015.

Unknown 'Forgotten Australian' wants more than apology’, ABC news, 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-06/forgotten-australian-wants-more-than-apology/1131860, 7 March 2015.

Secondary Sources

Edwards, Jason A. ‘Apologizing for the past for a better future: Collective apologies in the United States, Australia and Canada’, Southern Communication Journal, 75, 2010, pp. 57 – 75.

‘Forgotten Australians’, Lotus Place, http://www.lotusplace.org.au/redress/forgotten-australians, accessed 17 March 2015.

Harrison, Eris Jane ‘Forgotten Australians: supporting survivors of childhood Institutional care in Australia’, Alliance for Forgotten Australians, 2014, http://www.forgottenaustralians.org.au/PDF/MiniAfaBooklet.pdf, accessed 17 March 2015.

Irons, Steve ‘Forgotten Australians’, http://steveirons.com.au/national/forgotten-australians-2/, accessed 10 March 2015.

Irons, Steve ‘Forgotten Australians’, Open Australia, 2009, http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2009-11-23.124.1, accessed 10 March 2015.

Jones, Michael and O'Neill, Cate ‘Identity, records and archival evidence: exploring the needs of Forgotten Australians and Former Child Migrants’, Archives and Records: The Journal of the Archives and Records Association, 35, 2014, pp.110-125.

Marian, Cherie ‘Forgotten Australians Still Searching for ‘The Road Home’, Parity, 22, 2009, pp. 36 – 37.

Penglase, Joanna ’Forgotten Australians: the Report of the Senate Inquiry into Children in Institutional Care’ Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal, 11, 2004, pp. 32-37.

Swain, Shurlee Sheedy, Leonie & O'Neill, Cate ‘Responding to “Forgotten Australians”: historians and the legacy of out of home “care”’, Journal of Australian Studies, 36, 2012, pp. 17-28.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs

The Tolpuddle Martyrs are an interesting bunch especially when I have family during the same time period living in Beaminster, which is close to where this occurred. They would have known about this event in time occurring. The other interesting part to the story of the Tolpuddle Martyrs were that they were sent back. Not a story that you hear about often in regards to the convict story. What I will be telling is not a complete account as there is others out there who would have the complete story

Labour relations in nineteenth century, England was changing dramatically, which would lead to conflict between the government, local landowners and the labourers who wanted fair treatment. In a time when wages were decreasing in Dorset, labourers wanted wages that could help them provide for their families instead of being below the poverty line where they would need assistance from their Parish. Poor Law became heavily relied upon when farm labourers had several children and their farm labouring wage was not enough to support the family. Small farms were becoming enclosed and creating bigger farms meaning people were forced off their land to work for the land owners. George Loveless in 1834 founded a union to help the local farm labourers with the falling wage situation amongst the local farms. The local government within Tolpuddle feared the impact the fledgling union would have in the local area. Trade unions were not illegal during 1834, although other movements appeared in earlier time periods that involved breaking machines, which took jobs away from labourers. The authorities wanted to use the case against the Tolpuddle Martyrs as an example by charging six men involved for taking false oaths including George Loveless. The punishment received was seven years transportation, where the trouble makers would hopefully not return. The local government and land holders sent a message to the community showing what could happen to the Martyrs could happen to them if they caused trouble.

Rural farmers knew agricultural labourers could be paid less wages since there would always be someone willing to work for the rate provided and sometimes the parish would supplement the income from the Poor Law Rates. Labourers felt they were being undercut when farming machinery appeared on farms and disturbances like the Swing riots would occur when people went around breaking machines. Labourers in England, especially those living within areas affected by downturns relied on the goodwill of their parish to help due to the labourers not earning enough to live comfortably. Farm labourers often had little in the way of food and would regularly go without food. There were numerous complaints about their living conditions, which went far back as the late 1780s if not further. It was not until the middle of the Nineteenth Century when conditions began improving for the labourers. Dorset agricultural labourers found their weekly wages in 1833 decreased well below the average agricultural wage in England. The falling wages hurt many workers who already lived in poverty situations especially when they had large families. Before 1834, farm labourers wanted liveable wages so they would not starve to death and to be treated fairly.

George Loveless was a ploughman and a Methodist, who would become the centre of the Tolpuddle affair during 1834, when the authorities would not tolerate his stand when creating a union in the town. George was one person amongst six, who would become known as the Tolpuddle Martyrs. The other Martyrs were George Brine, James Hammett, James Loveless John Stanfield and Thomas Stanfield. George Loveless had approached a local magistrate, William Morden Pitt searching for information about getting the wages raised for the local labourers. William Pitt would later inform magistrate James Frampton of the situation. The opposite occurred instead when wages were lowered. The wages lowered from 9 shillings to 7 shillings would make life tougher for labourers who were already struggling. The local farmers who were provided with the suggested wage of 10 shillings, offered 9 shillings before threatening to lower the wage lower than 7 shillings. Rural locations in England were isolated from the rest of the country, especially during the Nineteenth Century, where events could have been entirely different were they closer to larger cities and within easy reach of larger organisations like unions. The trial of R. v. Loveless in 1834 shows how an obsolete law, known as the Unlawful Oaths Act can still be used when they are not repealed. The case provides an insight into why trade unions began growing and difficulties the members had. Trade unions were not illegal in 1834 as the Combination Acts of 1799 – 1800 had been repealed in 1824, which could explain why the men from Tolpuddle had been charged under the Mutiny Act of 1797 for giving an ‘illegal’ oath. The authorities might have hoped the general agriculture labourer would not understand what they were being charged over.

The Mutiny Act of 1797 was passed during a time of war when mutiny was occurring on military vessels and was only meant to be temporary as an emergency measure. To be used against a union would be taking the Act further than it should be used outside of the period of war. The language of the law at this time was confusing and people had problems understanding the wording of the laws. Even to modern views it could be confusing let alone for someone living in the nineteenth century. There was the view locals did not have a fair idea regarding to legal cases in their local area. Before the 1830s, parliamentarians would most likely take the word of gentry that were land owners than speak to the farm hands or labourers. The land owners might not have the best interests of the labourers in hand at all. The labourers would be stuck with the plough on the farm and were mostly illiterate. It was felt the judge involved and the government handed down too harsh a sentence when other crimes received smaller sentences like a Master beating a child to death was given several months jail. The Martyrs were said to already be at sea when people questioned the sentence. Throughout the early 1830s farmers and landholders did petition the government informing them of the conditions the labourers had to endure, especially their poverty and unemployment. The government of the time were paying little attention to what was occurring.

Magistrates within the English counties were powerful men especially when they were wealthy landowners themselves like James Frampton, who could be considered to be an anti-unionist, who was worried about the reoccurrence of the swing from the creation of the union in Tolpuddle. The magistrates in rural England held in their hands the power over life and death. Some within the English government held the view the lower and labouring class needed an example of what happened when people resisted the law and upset the status quo. If the government relaxed their position, then the people would view this as a form of weakness to be exploited. Many trade unions were going under the guise of friendly societies and the government discussed the role of such groups. One issue the law offices of the crown were trying to work out was the illegal oaths taken in Tolpuddle on the 10th of March 1834. They wanted to know if people could be punished for using the oaths. The jury in the Tolpuddle trial consisted of local farmers who would have had a stake in the outcome of the trial. There were no ministers or general workers amongst the jury, which would mean the men, would not be before their peers. The authorities were against the Martyrs for proclaiming an oath. An oath taken was viewed as treason towards the country at the time and was used against them during the court case. On the 24^th February 1834, the six farm workers were marched 7 miles in chains from Tolpuddle to Dorchester where they would stand trial. George Loveless and the other men were charged under the Unlawful Oaths Act of 1797 in 1834. The authorities used the 1797 Unlawful Oaths Act instead of using the 1799, Unlawful Societies Act, which would have bought a lighter penalty. In Dorchester Prison the men had their heads shaved and were in miserable conditions. The trial would begin on the 17^th of March in 1834 and the crown would use the evidence from Edward Legg and John Lock against the Tolpuddle Martyrs, which also revolved around the oath that was taken. Edward Legg provided information that he was read a passage in a bible before being told the labourers would pay a fee to enter the union and were expected to strike when ordered to do so.

Unions were formed between miners and manufacturing workers in northern England where movements were common. There were magistrates in southern rural parts of England who kept a close eye on union movements. The local authorities would move to quash such movements located within their area, which included friendly societies like in Tolpuddle. Delegates from the trade union Grand National Consolidated Trade Union visited Tolpuddle in 1833. One of the group who had been arrested had written a letter to the Grand National looking for guidance and hoping they would visit. The reason for the visit was to talk about the falling wages and how to resist them. They urged the labourers to create an organisation of their own. The in November of same year, the labourers formed what would be known as the Friendly society of Agricultural Labourers or the Agricultural Union. George Loveless wanted to establish a union as the local farm labourers would be members and withdraw their services as one to force the local farmers to bargain with the labourers for better conditions. Villages viewed trade unions differently compared to towns since both had different requirements and life was vastly different. Other issues included the closing of commons and how poor relief was dealt out to people. The Tolpuddle story was used to inspire trade unionists in the 1830s and the 1840s, when used as an example of the consequences of what could happen and was one of the better known events involving unionists. The main consequence of the Tolpuddle Martyr event meant agricultural unionism within Dorset was killed off for the next four decades.

After the agricultural labourers in Tolpuddle formed a union their wages had been reduced. The local land owners wanted to move quickly and make an example out of the labourers in fear the group would riot and cause uprisings. The severity of the punishment handed down to the Tolpuddle group had mixed feelings. Many from different counties had signed petitions, which were handed to parliament and The King. Others were unsympathetic to the plight. One parliamentarian did proudly mention the trade union in his county had vanished. It took two years of public outcry and petitions from different parts of England against the severity of their sentence. At one stage 1,563 signatures were presented to the government.

The consequences for the events that took place in Tolpuddle in 1834 were many. The six Tolpuddle martyrs involved with the creation of the union were sent to a prison hulk to wait for their time, where they would be transported to Australia. Their charge was the maximum of seven years transportation that could be given. After being sentenced to transportation it had been mentioned there was a book in the possession of George Loveless with the names of other members of the union. The authorities wanted to enquire with the local farmers to speak with the union members. The threat used was for the labourers to either quit the union or be dismissed from their employment. The authorities were warned communication with union members in such a way might bring trouble and unions were not illegal unless they did something that was. The Australian colonies seemed to be used to remove trouble makers from the community and deposit or exile them nearly a world away out of sight and out of mind to the government’s relief. There was the belief that farmers and landlords belonged to one class and those who were considered to be labourers to be in another class. This would cause tensions between all groups including the labourers who wanted to make something of their lives. George Loveless and the other Martyrs were considered to be pioneers to the labour movement. The only problem would be they were not the first trade unionists. The trade union by August 1834, ceased to exist in Dorset, although the cause for the labourers remained alive even when they were sent to Hobart Town and Sydney.

When looking at the consequence of the Tolpuddle affair it had been thought the growth of trade unions had been stunted for a period of forty years. The role of the Tolpuddle Martyrs tends to range from being overlooked in history to having a bigger role than what was actually occurring during the time period. The Tolpuddle Martyrs could even have a lasting effect on the local labourers, which could be felt to this day. The Tolpuddle Martyr event in Dorset united many workers as they came to the defence of the Martyrs. An activist within parliament, William Cobbett thought the Tolpuddle event might galvanise the workers to start a revolution within England, although he had his own views on what was happening during this period of time and could have had his hand in many pots since. William was himself within the political environment as a parliamentarian in London during 1834. After the trial in April, the men were transported from Dorchester to Salisbury in irons. They then travelled further to Portsmouth where they would be placed on a prison hulk. By the 25^th of May the first ship carrying George Loveless had left England for Hobart arriving in September and the others arrived in Sydney in August. The reputations of the Martyrs did follow them to the colonies. It would take nearly two years for the men to be released and sent back to England in June 1837, although not all returned at the same time.  James Hammett would be the only one who would live in Tolpuddle upon their return, while the others farmed in Essex before migrating to Canada where they would spend their lives.

Labour relations in England were tricky around the time of the Tolpuddle affair, especially when many farm owners thought they had large amounts of power over the common agricultural labourer who could be fired for mentioning the pay conditions of other farms. Protests during this period had been common with swing riots where machines were destroyed as they were thought to be taking employment away from the labourers who would be left destitute and have no employment. The local magistrates usually had conflict of interests especially if they were local land owners. They had power over people in their parishes, which meant they could dictate what they thought would be in the people’s best interests. The farmers thought they were justified when threatening to lower the wages of the labourers who could not survive on anything lower wages. Trade unions were becoming popular and when George Loveless and others formed a union in Tolpuddle, the local government intervened trying to convict them of getting people to administer an illegal oath, which was meant to be for something else that included mutiny and treason within the military. The local government wanted to make the Tolpuddle farmers an example to the rest of the country and other labourers to put them back in their own place to show literally who was boss. There were unexpected consequences in regards to sending the Tolpuddle Martyrs to the colony by transportation as people petitioned the government for George Loveless and the other men to be returned from transportation. Trade unions might have been stunted for a short time period in Dorset, but the trial of the Tolpuddle Martyrs would have been forever immortalised as an event, where the common worker won against the might of the landowner and the government. The Tolpuddles have cemented their place in the history books and were likely more effective than many of the riots that took place in the past like the swing riots even though many of those were sentenced to transportation like George Loveless and the others who were with him. The impact of the events in Tolpuddle could have had a lasting impact on other industries within Dorset and nearby villages.

Bibliography

Dickson, Ralph ‘The Tolpuddle Martyrs: Guilty or not guilty?’, The Journal of Legal History, 7, 1986, pp. 178-187.

Donnelly, F. K. ‘Ideology and Early English Working-Class History: Edward Thompson and His Critics’, Social History, 1, 1976, pp. 219-238.

Dyck, Ian ‘William Cobbett and the Rural Radical Platform’ Social History, 18, 1993, pp. 185-204.

Griffiths, Clare ‘Remembering Tolpuddle: Rural History and Commemoration in the Inter-War Labour Movement’, History Workshop Journal, 44, 1997, pp. 144-169.

Hammond, J.L. ‘The last labourer’s revolt’, The village labourer, 1760 – 1832: a study in the government of England before the Reform Bill, eds. J.L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond, London, Longmans, 1911, pp. 216 – 247.

Hurst, Gerald B. ‘The Dorchester Labourers, 1834’, The English Historical Review, 40, 1925, pp. 54 – 66.

Moore, Tony Death or Liberty, Millers Point, Murdoch Books, 2010.

Steedman, Carolyn ‘At every bloody level: A magistrate, a framework-knitter, and the law’, Law and History Review, 30, 2012, pp. 387 – 422.

Wells, Roger ‘Rural rebels in Southern England in the 1930’s’, Artisans, peasants and proletarians 1760 – 1860: Essays presented to Gwyn A. Williams, eds. Clive Emsley and James Walvin, London, Croom Helm, 1985, pp. 124 – 165.

Wells, R. ‘Tolpuddle in the context of the English Agrarian Labour history’, British Trade Unionism 1750 – 1850: The formative years, ed. John Rule, London, Longman, 1988, pp. 98 – 142.

Has Gender equality changed in Australia within the last 30 years?

Note: As you may notice the referencing is different as I wrote this for Sociology and uses Author Date referencing. I removed the in text referencing for easier reading, but included the sources I have used.

 

Gender equality in the last forty years within Australia has been challenging for women as they have seen many changes occur for the better while some ideals have not changed. The second wave feminism was active during the 1970s in Australia expressing issues expressed earlier in the 20th Century from people wanting equal pay and equality with their male counterparts. Women have been making roads to have their voices heard and control over their lives. Some of the older view that was relevant within the last forty years has still persisted following at women’s heels with ideas such as a woman’s place should be at home. The role of women have been politicised with both sides of parliament raising issues with female politicians holding many different positions within Australian politics including Prime Minister. The game of politics shows many the past issues are persistent regarding women’s roles within the workforce. There is still a deep divide between the sexes as both are treated differently. Women have gained many achievements in the last forty years that have helped them to gain freedoms they have not had before including having children and being employed at the same time. While some people hold onto the past notions about women through stereotypes. Women are actually striving ahead in leaps and bounds proving the detractors wrong within a flawed system where they have to prove their worth.

The world forty years ago was a different place where women were slowly gaining recognition through the civil rights movements taking place across the western world and Australia was not immune to that. During the early 1970s, Australia was experiencing its own Second Wave of feminism, a feminist movement that wanted women to be recognised and have more rights. Women like Germaine Greer and Beverley Kingston published books, which hopefully changed people’s perception of women especially within history. During the 1970s women were allowed to attend universities as teachers and students when before they could not. Women had been excluded as a topic of discussion within the history field by being misrepresented or ignored completely. Many of the historians were male and they did not view the role of women as relevant. With the rise of feminism, which meant the literature changed to include the feminine view regarding women in Australian history. During an interview with Inside History Magazine, Anne Summers an Australian author who wrote the book Damned Whores and God’s Police during the 1970s, mentions how much life had changed for women, but also not everything has changed. Laws have been passed in recent years making discrimination against women illegal. Even though there have been many changes from the past, gender stereotypes do still avail no matter what has been done by women movements.

Within the last forty years many changes have occurred within society including men and women living together without getting married, where they would in the past have raised eyebrows. Within the changes there are things that have not changed especially income gaps between the genders. The comparison for the pay gap between 1974 and 2011 are the same level being 17.2%. The media play upon the issues women still face providing information of issues that are still relevant in today’s world. Many laws that have hindered women have been removed especially one that barred married women from being employed and paid a basic wage. Women are still being employed part time or on casual basis with fewer women being employed full time. While many changes with women gaining recognition have occurred there are some women within society who have been marginalised or missed like Aboriginal women. According to some Marxist theories classes do exist in Australia between women. There are women who are at the top who have different views from the women in the lower classes.

Women issues of equality have become politicised with governments bringing up issues that had not been discussed before. Gough Whitlam during his campaign speech in 1972 put the idea through for women to receive equal pay and introduce anti-discrimination legislation. The government wanted women to have more equality with their male counterparts especially within education and employment. Since 1979 changes occurred where women working long term could have access to 52 weeks of unpaid maternity leave. It has become easier for women to divorce their partners with changes to the law and separated families during the 1980s could claim child support from absent parents. The most recent changes, which have occurred, include several parliamentary Acts. These include the sex discrimination Act of 2011 and Industrial Relations Reform Act. By 2012 the Workplace Gender Equality Act was created with the aim to eliminate gender discrimination with regards to family and caring responsibilities. Politicians like Tony Abbott, a past Prime Minister have changed their mindset where they thought a woman’s place is at home to them being in the workplace as a contributing member of society. Women are now able to be paid maternity leave to help care for their children once they have given birth.

Traditional roles have changed where once men were viewed as the primary breadwinner of the family and women the main carer for the children and looking after the household. In later life she would re-enter the workforce once the children were old enough or stay at home, which would be her primary responsibility. Gender roles within the home have changed even with the views of people changing from women being the primary caregiver in the home to that of women in the workplace. There have been dramatic shifts within households as many families have both parents working, although male family members have been known to stay at home to look after the house and children by taking more responsibility. Between the 1970s and 1980s, women were becoming more independent as traditional roles shifted, where women no longer needed a male counterpart to survive. Their fertility could be controlled by themselves and were able to have access to welfare even if they were not married. People with children always tend to be pressed for time through their employment and flows onto when they are at home. 90.5% of mothers are rushed, compared with 66.2% of men in the same situation. Usually once women have had children then their participation in paid employment is reduced, which is different from women who do not have children or women with older children who do not need the range of care that younger children need.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics throughout a woman’s life her priorities change. Younger women are likely to stay in the workplace until their mid-20s, where they would leave paid employment to have children. Today, women are staying in the workplace for much longer to further their careers or not having children at all. To measure the pay gap between the genders, the National gender wage gap is used to measure the status of women in the labour market and their progress thus far. It is used to measure those who are working full time. Employment is balanced out when comparing men and women to how they are employed. In Australia more men are employed full time up to 45 hours a week and more women work part time than men do. Even though there seems to be a balance there is a huge gap between women being employed full time and part time. Women make up 35% of the full time workers and in part time work they make up 70%. Questions that have been raised in the past including about the differences in the wage gap between the sexes continue to today that have truly left unanswerable, when there has been talk about equality in the workplace and all people are meant to be equal.

Children and housework take up large parts of women’s downtime while they are at home from work. In the past women would not usually return to employment after having children, which is different in today’s world. Social expectations have changed where society expects women to return to work after having children. Returning to work is not always easy due to overlap of responsibilities outside of work that could result in conflict. The normal family is made up of two children and two adults known as a nuclear family. This traditionally means women take on more responsibility towards caring for their children than the male counterpart, who would be considered to be the main breadwinner. During the last forty years these stereotypes have changed slowly within the Western society especially in Australia. Men earn a certain amount more than women who are working in similar positions within the same industry. The entitlements like Superannuation between the two sexes are vastly different. Women are more likely to stay at home looking after the children in perceived roles according to society norms. Throughout some studies women felt they were providing themselves as role models for their children were more important than being seen as just homemaker. They wanted their children to be inspired and learn from the role women played in society.

There have been many changes within the last forty years in regards to equality between the sexes, but not everything has changed for the better. The government has tried to make income between men and women to be equal, but there is still a huge pay gap between the two. Women since the 1970s have gained many rights that have helped them from being able to divorce their partners to controlling their fertility. The family concept has changed throughout the time period as women can now work after having children even though they do not have to stay outside of the paid workforce. Many of the views where a woman’s place in the home with the children still persist even though they have been welcome within the workplace for the last four decades. No matter the changes some of the older ideas still exist even with women making paths for many younger generations to proudly follow in their footsteps. The government has tried to make changes to discrimination Acts in parliament making it illegal to discriminate against women even though there were some over four decades ago who had great insight to make equal rights as something to strive for. No matter how much change there is within the government there have been small steps forward and backwards especially when Australia has had a female Prime Minister where the opposition had used her gender as cause for concern as she did not fit the usual stereotype. There will be challenges in regards to gender in the future as it would not be an issue that vanishes overnight.

References

ANZ. 2015. “Barriers to Achieving Financial Gender Equity” Accessed March 9. http://www.women.anz.com/the-conversation/anz-womens-report

Baird, Marion. 2012. “Women, Work and Policy Settings in Australia in 2011” Journal of Industrial Relations. 54: 326 – 343. Accessed March 9, 2016.

DOI:10.1177/0022185612443780.

Baxter, Janeen, Belinda Hewitt and Michele Haynes. 2008. “Life Course Transitions and Housework: Marriage, Parenthood, and Time on Housework” Journal of Marriage and Family. 70: 259 – 272. Jstor.

CFCA. 2013. “A short history of Australia's family leave policies” Dad and Partner Pay: Implications for policy-makers and practitioners, February. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/dad-and-partner-pay-implications-policy-makers-and-prac/short-history-australias-family

Chapman, Janine, Natalie Skinner & Barbara Pocock. 2014 “Work–life interaction in the twenty-first century Australian workforce: five years of the Australian Work and Life Index” Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 24:87-102, DOI: 10.1080/10301763.2014.915786.

Fieldes, Diane. 2013. “The impact of Women’s changing role in the workplace” Marxist Left Review, Winter. http://marxistleftreview.org/index.php/no6-winter-2013/93-the-impact-of-womens-changing-role-in-the-workplace

Gilding, Michael. 1992. The Making and Breaking of the Australian Family. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.  

Jericho, Greg. 2012. “Changing role of women in the workplace” Accessed March 10.

Lake, Marilyn. 2013. “Women’s and gender history in Australia” Journal of Women’s History. 25: 190 – 211.

Macionis, John J., and Ken Plummer. 2012. Sociology 5th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Press.

Rudman, Laurie A. and Kris Mescher. 2013. “Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma?” Journal of Social Issues. 69:3 22 – 340. Jstor.

Summers, Anne. 2013. The Misogyny Factor, Sydney: New South Publishing.

Trevor, Sarah. 2016. “Author Q & A: Anne Summers on Australian women’s history” Inside History, 5 March. http://www.insidehistory.com.au/2016/03/author-qa-anne-summers-on-australian-womens-history-now-and-then/

Todd, Patricia and Alison Preston. 2012. “Gender pay equity in Australia: Where are we now and where are we heading?” ABL. 38: 251 – 267.

Walters, Peter and Gillian Whitehouse. 2012. “A Limit to reflexivity: The challenge for working women of negotiating sharing of household labor” Journal of Family Issues. 33: 1117 – 1139. Accessed March 9, 2016. doi: 10.1177/0192513X11431566.

Weston, Ruth, David Stanton, Lixia Qu and Grace Soriano. 2001. “Australian Families in Transition: Some Socio-demographic Trends 1901-2001” Australian Institute of Family Studies. 60: 12 -23