To have or not to have-Babies in Australia

Dr. Kerrie Allen, AFA

Recent ABS data has shown a growth in the numbers of babies being born to Australian women. The number of births in the six months to September last year show more than 133,000 babies were born, the biggest six-month total in the past fourteen years. This increase has resulted in around 255,000 births over the past years, the largest twelve-month total in nine years. The federal government says its $3000 ‘Baby Bonus’ established on 1 st July is not a factor contributing to this increase, however professors from Australian National University are divided as to its effect. Professor of Public Policy, Glenn Withers links the increase in births to public confidence that more family-friendly policies were on the way. Whilst Professor of Demography, Peter McDonald says its too early to tell if the increase is a direct effect from the baby bonus.

Despite the surge in births over the past six and twelve months, the fertility rate itself has not really changed, with figures showing 1.773 babies in 2004, just up from 1.735 in 2004, and a far cry away from 2.859 in 1970 and 3.451 in 1960. So why hasn’t the fertility rate risen with this surge of births? It would appear that the reason for this is that women are still not having more babies, but that in the past year there has been a greater cohort of women having babies. This may be due to women who delayed having babies in their twenties and early thirties. Could it also be that many babies born are those born to migrants? When we look at ABS data, we fid that the highest fertility is among women bon in the Middle East and North Africa, the fertility rate for these women being 2.7 children. Middle Eastern women are also likely to have more children, with 28% having four or more children.

Eminent demographer, Nicholas Eberstadt from Harvard University declared that anyone who found the determinants of fertility decline, deserved a Nobel prize. Well here are some considerations about what those determinants might be. According to Public Health scientists there are four determinants of population health. These are: biological, environmental, social and psychological determinants, and are often interlinked in complex ways.

Biological Determinants

Includes things such as age, gender, genetics. With regard to the declining fertility rate in Australia, an association between these cannot be made as there is not a shortage of women of childbearing age, nor is there a shortage of men. Despite this we do see many women in their mid to late thirties finding it difficult to conceive. This however may be seen as a social determinant, as many social factors have led to the delay rather than biological ones.

Environmental Determinants

There are two categories here – built environment and natural environment. The built environment includes policies regarding family, air quality, housing, water quality, public infrastructure, provision of basic services (health care, education), unsafe work environments, sanitation. The natural environment includes things such as disease-causing agents and vectors, climatic conditions, topography, air quality, condition of soil for growing food stuffs etc. With regard to Australia, it could be argued that certain environmental determinants may be associated with the low fertility.

• The taxation system which does not allow income splitting for single-income families may be associated with choice to have children and the number of them.
• Housing may be contributing factor. That is, the affordability of housing, and the more often than not dual income required to pay a mortgage.
• In considering provision of services, the wide availability and affordability of the contraceptive pill and other prophylactics has made it easy for women to delay childbearing. The availability of abortion services funded by Medicare also is a determinant of fertility levels with close to 100,000 babies aborted last year.
• The economy is said to require women’s labour and therefore they are encouraged to return to work soon after birth. Funding given to child-care agencies rather to encourage mothers to stay at home and have more babies.

Social Determinants

Includes such things as: distribution of wealth & low income, unemployment, work (type of work, stress, job security), social support, social exclusion (isolation), food, transport, level of education, material deprivation, issues of gender and power, religion and culture, and social thought and ideological constructions.

With regard to fertility levels in Australia, it seems there appear to be many social determinants.

• Underemployment and decline in marriage: Financially, many people do not have the resources to contemplate marriage and beginning a family – this may be due to work instability (underemployment, contract work), low income, and not having post-school qualifications. Men and Women Apart: The Decline of Partnering in Australia (2004) by Dr. Bob Birrell et al., (based upon 1986 and 2001 Census figures) shows that there is a growing underclass of single low income males (SLIMs), not in full-time work and lacking the economic resources to marry and begin a family.

• Work: The growth in casual jobs is a grave concern when considering the links between SLIMs and fertility. Casual jobs are unstable in terms of predictable earnings due to low pay and hours, and there is no paid sick leave or holiday pay, and limited opportunity for training. The workforce it may also be argued favours men and women without children. Women who have children present a problem to the work force with maternity leave, breastfeeding needs. Some positions do not offer women maternity leave and returning to work may be uncertain.

• Education: Australian women who are university graduates have fewer children than non-graduates (People & Place, 2004). This is because their most fertile years are filled with education and career. This coupled with reduced mate-selection choices affects fertility.

• Feminism, which has touted ‘women are equal to men’, has proclaimed to three generations of Australian women that they have equal ‘right’ to achieve, earn, lead as men do. Unfortunately what feminism hasn’t told women is that they aren’t equal when it comes to fertility, for whilst a man remains fertile his whole life, a woman does not. And it is here that the so-called fertility revolution forgets to empower women as to their uniqueness! And so many Australian women, like their international sisters, have sought careers, financial security and independence to the detriment of their fertility. Feminism has told women it is also their right to control their fertility through contraception and abortion.

• Societal views of motherhood: Women are constantly bombarded with the message that it is only outside the family that they can find fulfilment. Women who choose f ull-time mothering are often constructed as: ‘lazy’, ‘brainless’, ‘unempowered’, or ‘submissive’. This construction leads women to return to the workforce and limit fertility.

• Individualism has taught: “ the essence of human behaviour lies in what is within man, not what exists between man and his institutions” (Nisbet, 1953:226). We have seen in the past thirty years a pursuit of self-sufficiency and autonomy which echoes: “I can do what I want, because I have a right to do it” (Nisbet 1993). This has resulted in dislocation of people from community and social institutions, and has caused alienation and dissatisfaction in people. Subsequently, rampant capitalism has emerged – a desire for more and more goods, which requires more income. These ideologies, supported by feminism have led women to think they can make it alone in life without a man and without children; family is subordinated to acquisition of wealth and attainment of autonomy. Often by the time a woman realises she wants children, she is infertility (see Virginia Haussegger).
• Rejection of marriage. We have seen in the past twenty years an increase in de-facto relationships. Often these relationships are transient and therefore associated with childlessness. Thus women in de-facto relationships may delay fertility longer than if she had married. Furthermore, even though they only account for a small percentage of Australians, homosexual unions are increasing which naturally precludes natural conception.

Psychological Determinants

Includes: cognition (perceptions, capacity to learn and remember, problem-solving skills, thought processes); motivation; self-efficacy and human agency (person’s capacity and belief in their capacity to do something in the first place); personality traits.

There is limited research examining the influence of these determinants upon women’s fertility. However despite this many modern women are reflecting upon the tension between feminism and individualism and motherhood. It is very confusing and like negotiating a mine-field. Mokros (2002) writes: “ Because of expectations placed on young women by their parents, the men in their lives, and even other women, many will admit their desire to stay home and raise a family only to the most trustworthy of friends and of those, only to the ones they suspect feel the same way. Even then, such enticing desires are often expressed in hushed tones and with half-raised hands in a gesture characteristic of a guilty and reluctant confession”.

In a similar vein, de Marneffe (2004) today says: “maternal desire is constrained by a contemporary model of self that has developed in response to more recent economic and social realities…The whole arena of pregnancy, childbirth, and the daily activities of mothering involve decreased personal control, and loss of control is among the cultural and personal anxieties that maternal desire raises. For some young women struggling toward a sense of identity, it is not surprising that motherhood comes to symbolise everything antithetical to the independent life they want to pursue”. Further, it is argued that those who chose motherhood face a fear of failing, combined with the complicated, uncertain, and ever-changing cultural zeitgeist about what constitutes being an excellent mother (Mothershock, 2004).

It seems women may be realising the ‘un-doability’ of what Haussegger (2005) refers to as ‘Superwoman’ syndrome. With regard to fertility and childrearing, women’s self-efficacy and agency may q uite possibly be affected by the tension of the dichotomy between the ‘have it all’ promoted by feminism and the ‘I want to give’ desire inherent in themselves. Although one cannot make a direct association between women’s actual conflicts with these ideologies and the low fertility levels in Australia, it remains nevertheless an area that demands further investigation.

The decision ‘to have or not to have’ children in Australia seems greatly to be influenced by many determinants. Further research is recommended to further illustrate the direct associations between these and the prevailing low fertility levels.