The workplace change that could fix our declining birth rate

It’s no secret that parents are struggling. Around the world, almost every developed country is grappling with the implications of shrinking and ageing populations. And while some talk about women like dairy cows, encouraging us to breed as much as possible and get back into the workforce as fast as possible – the incentives on offer from governments and employers simply aren’t cutting through. Whether it’s a one-off baby bonus, better childcare rebates or tax breaks, no matter how many carrots are dangled, these heifers are increasingly refusing to take the bait.

Compared with 2022, Australia’s birth rate dropped by 4.6 per cent in 2023, with Melburnians having the lowest national fertility rate of 1.44, compared with 1.57 for Sydneysiders.

Working from home meant the number of people using parents to care for their children has fallen.Credit: iStock

In Scandinavian countries, where childcare is cheap and parental leave is generous, population growth is also stagnant. Perhaps this is because, like Australia, the vast majority of incentives come with one crucial trade-off: spending less time with children.

Almost every initiative across the world that has been aimed at encouraging parents to have more children has been wildly expensive and wildly unsuccessful. That is surely, in part, because the burden of parenting has been placed onto the children. Extending school days, making daycare hours longer, having grandparents step up as makeshift nannies. But we – the adults – have created the problem. It’s unfair to demand young, adventurous and malleable brains to exist in a way that benefits the economy long-term while simultaneously appeasing it in the short term.

As a society, we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. You can’t demand a thriving economy fuelled by dual incomes and maximally effective households, and simultaneously expect people to keep procreating at the same rate, despite having no time to raise their kids or enjoy their lives because they’re spread so thin.

For some, the number of children they have is entirely dependent on financial constraints. For others, it’s not that they can’t afford to have more children, it’s that they simply don’t have the time to raise them. As damaging as this could be for our population long term, that’s responsible parenting.

Instead of asking children to stay cooped up, why aren’t we looking at reducing the number of hours parents work? The four-day workweek has been touted as one solution, whereby employees work four standard eight-hour days and still take home a full-time salary. This model is based on research that shows people can do the same amount of work in less time when there is an incentive (like having to work one less day without losing income) to do so. But what if we still worked five days a week, and instead of 9 to 5, our operating hours were 9 to 2.30, and as with the four-day week, still bringing in a full-time wage?

Despite the incredible technological strides of recent decades that have allowed us to become more efficient in our jobs, we’re still working the same number of hours, if not more. Instead of freeing up time, the expectation on output has simply increased.

It has been almost 100 years since the five-day, 9-5 work week was introduced, and decades since women being in the workforce became the norm. But despite the burden of the economy being spread across more shoulders than ever before, the rat race seems entirely insatiable.

Instead of expecting women to concede our gains and retreat back to the kitchen for the good of the children, a better solution is to overhaul of the workday and give fathers, who repeatedly say they want to be more active parents, the same opportunities as mothers, and ensure neither party is financially penalised. The 5½-hour work day offers this.

At the crux of this debate is also whether you consider GDP to be the best indicator of a country’s success. Sure, it can tell you how wealthy a country is, how hard its people are working, and how much money they’re making. But it can’t tell you how debilitating parental guilt is, how many parents are so stressed they’re mentally or physically unwell, how many kids are acting out because they don’t have enough time with their parents, or how much happier both parities would be with a few extra hours in their day.

Tax concessions and targeted policies that support parents are a vital piece of the puzzle, and must be available and accessible to every family. And while there is no question that they help, we shouldn’t pretend they alone are making or breaking population growth.

Charlotte Mortlock is the founder of Hilma’s Network and a former Sky News anchor.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.