The report draws on responses from 1,479 participants who had au paired in Australia households in every Australian state and territory.
Key findings include:
- Most participants came to Australia looking for a traditional ‘cultural exchange’,
- almost 60% however found themselves working for around 36 hours a week, doing not only childcare but daily cooking, cleaning and other household tasks.
- Average working hours were 34 hours per week; nearly a third (30%) worked 40 hours per week or more.
- Taking into account a generous value of room and board, a majority of participants (58%) were paid less than the national minimum wage.
- A third of participants worked in families who lived in the most advantaged 10% of suburbs in Australia.
- Cultural agencies promote au pairing as a cultural experience. However, participants who used an agency to arrange their placement fared no better than others in relation to working hours, rates of pay or inclusion in family activities.
- Most participants did not understand how Australian visa rules relate to au pairing and the consequences of breaching visa conditions.
This report presents the first comprehensive study of living and working conditions of au pairs in Australia. It draws on responses from 1,479 au pairs across 34 nationalities to an online survey in 2017. The study seeks to provide an evidence base to indicate the contours and variety of au pair experiences across this country.
The concept of au pairing has arisen informally in Australia as a version of a European tradition where young women spent a year-long cultural exchange with a host family in a different European country, learning a foreign language and earning ‘pocket money’ while undertaking light childcare duties. It seems likely that the use of au pairs by Australian families has increased in recent years. Media reports have revealed both the growing dependence of families on au pairs as a source of flexible and affordable childcare, and the risk of au pairs’ exposure to exploitative working conditions. However, there is no official au pair program, dedicated visa, or even any official guidelines for families or au pairs, and so we lack even an agreed definition about what an au pair is.
The cornerstone of au pairing, in popular culture around the world, and as it is promoted by Australian au pair agencies which facilitate placements, is that it is a ‘cultural exchange’ where au pairs are hosted as part of a family. Accordingly, Australian agencies, industry associations and matching websites carefully distinguish au pairs from live-in nannies or housekeepers in ongoing employment. They often use the term ‘pocket money’ or ‘stipend’ to describe their pay and most stipulate that au pairs undertake mainly childcare-focused tasks, including cooking for, cleaning up after and driving children, rather than regular domestic work for the whole household. However, the distinction between cultural exchange and work (if it was ever observed in practice) appears to be breaking down. Courts in Ireland and New Zealand have ruled that au pairing constitutes employment. In Australia, select agencies have explicitly pegged au pairs’ remuneration to legal minimum wage rates in Australia.
Critically, because au pairing is an informal arrangement, very little is known about the day-to-day experiences of au pairs in this country, or how prevalent this practice is. One government agency adopted an estimate of 10,000 au pairs in Australia in 2013. Despite press interest in the apparent upsurge of au pairs in this country, almost no empirical research has investigated the living and working conditions of au pairs in Australia, how they arrange their placement or which visas they hold during their stay. Still less is known about how experiences vary between different cohorts, such as nationality groups, host families’ locations, and au pairs who use agencies to arrange their placements as compared with other means.
This study begins to fill these gaps. It reveals participants’ demographic profile (including nationality and visa used while au pairing in Australia), the characteristics of their first au pair placement (including tasks they performed in the home, rates of pay and hours), problems they encountered in Australia and how they sought assistance to resolve these, and their motivations for au pairing, benefits gained and overall appraisal of their experience, including whether they considered the experience to be closer to a cultural exchange or to work. The survey was conducted online between November 2016 and April 2017, in four languages in addition to English. The survey was anonymous and open to any individual who had been an au pair in Australia.Further
The vast majority of participants were young European women. Classic Au Pairs had the greatest proportions of nationals from Western and Northern Europe. Nanny Housekeepers comprised larger proportions of participants from native English-speaking countries.
• Almost all participants (97%) were women.
• Women were more likely than men to be Nanny Housekeepers (focussing on childcare and housework). Men were more likely to either be Classic Au Pairs (only carrying out child-related tasks) or to also routinely undertake gardening and pet care.
• Two thirds of participants (67%) were 23 years old or younger at the time of the survey. More than a quarter (27%) were 18 or 19 years old.
• Four in five participants (81%) were from Europe, with over a third (35%) from Germany, followed by France (14%) and the United Kingdom (11%).
Participants’ first placement was more likely to be with a larger than average two-parent family, in a major city, and in a suburb of relative social advantage.
• The proportion of participants in each state or territory corresponds roughly with the distribution of families with children under 15 years in Australia, as recorded in the 2016 Census.
• Four in five of participants’ first placements (80%) were in a major city.
• Families in outer regional areas hosted greater proportions of Nanny Housekeepers.
• A third of first placements (32%) were with families who lived in the most advantaged 10% of suburbs and localities in Australia.
Participants overwhelmingly held Working Holiday visas while au pairing in Australia, and frequently used matching websites to arrange their first placement. A majority did not sign a written agreement prior to starting that placement.
• Visa held during first placement. The overwhelming majority of participants reported holding a Working Holiday visa while au pairing in Australia (94%). Only 2% reported holding a tourist visa while au pairing, which would have constituted a breach of the visa condition prohibiting work in Australia.
• A majority of participants did not accurately understand how Australian visa rules relate to au pairing, and the implications of breaching work-related visa conditions.
• Use of an agency. A third of participants (31%) used a cultural exchange agency to arrange their first au pair placement. Over two thirds (69%) arranged their first placement without an agency. The greatest proportion of participants used a matching website like AuPairWorld to arrange their first placement (40%).
• Written contract. Only two in five participants (39%) reported having signed a written agreement with their host family.
• For the majority of these, the family presented the participants with a final written contract rather than them negotiating the terms together.
• A much greater proportion of participants who paid an agency to arrange their first placement signed a written contract with their family beforehand (81%). Among these, an even greater proportion was presented with a final contract by the family.
• Just under half (44%) of participants indicated they had obtained either a Working With Children Check or police check or both. This proportion increased to 88% for participants who paid an agency to arrange their first placement.
On average, participants worked full time in their first placement for less than the national minimum wage ($17.70 per hour) at the time of the survey. Most had a weekly schedule that was honoured in the breach. Early termination, notice and prior agreements as to notice each revealed asymmetries in the power relations between families and au pairs.
• Average weekly hours. Survey participants worked an average of 34 hours per week in their first placement.
• Just under a third (30%) worked 40 hours per week or longer. Nearly one in twelve (8%) worked 50 or more hours per week.
• The few male participants worked shorter average hours than females.
• Long hours were more frequently reported by Nanny Housekeepers than Classic Au Pairs.
• The average notional hourly wage2 for all participants was around $17.10 including the inferred value of in-kind board and lodging, while the median was $15.31.
• The average notional hourly wage was 25% higher for male than female participants.
• The average notional hourly wage was a little higher for Classic Au Pairs, and a little lower for Nanny Housekeepers.
• The distribution of notional hourly wage rates did not differ substantially between participants who used an agency to which they paid a fee, an agency to which they did not pay a fee, or did not use an agency.
Participants in major cities earned the highest average notional hourly wage. The few participants in very remote locations earned the lowest.
• Signing a contract before starting the first placement raised the floor of notional hourly wages for the bottom quartile of earnings for all participants, but did not result in higher notional hourly wage rates in higher quartiles.
• The notional hourly wage rate fell below the national minimum wage for 58% of participants and below the lowest rate in the Children’s Services Award for 77% of participants.
• Four fifths of participants (79%) reported having weekly schedules setting out expected hours in advance.
• However, a similar proportion (82%) was asked to work extra hours. Over half (53%) of these were not given 2 days’ notice of these extra hours, and less than half (47%) were paid for them. Half (52%) of those who were paid extra received $10 per hour or less.
• Larger proportions of Nanny Housekeepers were asked to do extra hours, compared with Classic Au Pairs, with smaller proportions paid for these extra hours.
• Early termination, notice and prior agreements as to notice each revealed asymmetries in the power relations between families and au pairs.
• Over half of participants (56%) reported having agreed that the au pair would give notice if they decided to end the placement. By contrast, only 46% of participants had an agreement that the family would give notice if they decided to terminate the placement.
• A third of participants’ first placements ended early, which suggests that au pairing is an extraordinarily insecure form of childcare.
• More than a third (36%) of participants who were asked to leave early were given one day or less to leave. Just over a half (53%) were given four days or less. By contrast, among the participants who chose to leave their first placement early, only one in five (20%) gave their family four days’ notice or less.
• A smaller proportion of participants who used an agency were asked to leave early, although they did not get more notice. Families appeared to benefit from their au pair using an agency in that a smaller proportion of these participants gave their family 4 days’ notice or less.
A substantial minority of participants experienced serious problems while au pairing in Australia, including coercive and exploitative working conditions and non-inclusion in family activities. Few who experienced serious problems sought assistance.
• More than two in five participants experienced one or more serious problems, including feeling compelled to work more than they expected (26%), feeling compelled to work different tasks than they expected (21%), non-payment of money promised (10%), verbal abuse (8%) and sexual harm (1%) ).
• Nanny Housekeepers were more likely to be subjected to psychological harm (including verbal abuse, and other disrespectful or predatory behaviour) than Classic Au Pairs.
• A third of participants reported exploitative working conditions.
• Nanny Housekeepers + were much more likely to report exploitative conditions (46%), than Classic Au Pairs (26%).
• Proportions of participants reporting exploitative conditions did not vary among those who had a written contract or used an agency (whether or not they paid a fee)
• One in five participants reported non-inclusion in family activities in their first placement.
• While agencies promote au pairing as an immersive cultural experience, they do not appear to be able to guarantee this. Use of an agency did not coincide with greater inclusion in family activities.
• One in six participants reported that they felt forced to stay in their placement even in the face of problems, most frequently because they lacked alternative accommodation.
• Few who experienced serious problems sought assistance from someone in Australia (27%), and were more likely to do so where they paid an agency to arrange the placement.
Participants’ attitudes towards their au pair experience in Australia were, overall, extremely positive.
• A clear majority of participants reported that their expectations for their au pair experience were met or exceeded.
• More than three quarters would recommend au pairing in Australia with almost half stating they would definitely recommend the experience.
• More than a third characterised the experience as more like work than a cultural exchange (37%). One in five (21%) characterised it as midway between work and cultural exchange.
• Participants who paid an agency to arrange their first placement reported the same positive averages as all other participants in relation to whether the experience exceeded their expectations and to recommending au pairing to their peers. They reported on average that the experience was slightly more like work than a cultural exchange, as compared with other participants.
• Participants who experienced non-inclusion in family activities reported, on average, lower degrees to which au pairing met or exceeded expectations than those who experienced exploitative working conditions, and were more likely to consider the placement to be closer to work than a cultural exchange.
The authors provide the following recommendations• The top five benefits of au pairing reported by participants all related to classical constructions of au pairing as a cultural exchange.
1. The government must resource flexible and affordable childcare alternatives to the precarious private employment of au pairs.
2. The Fair Work Ombudsman and other relevant government agencies, including occupational health and safety authorities, should provide clear guidance that childcare and housekeeping duties routinely undertaken by an au pair under a family’s supervision meet the legal threshold for employment in the vast majority of cases.
3. In light of the specific nature of the au pair role, and other live-in care work, the government should provide families and au pairs with guidance on acceptable minimum standards for au pair placements and information about applicable immigration restrictions.
4. The Australian Taxation Office should provide clear, detailed guidance on the superannuation liabilities and taxation obligations of au pairs and employing families. In the context of current arrangements, this should include information about applicable tax rates for Working Holiday Makers, the process for withholding tax and lodging a tax return and the requirement for employers of Working Holiday Makers to register with the ATO.
5. A government-funded service, whether within or adjacent to the Fair Work Ombudsman, should provide assistance and advice to au pairs and families. This should include mediation services for disputes and referrals of unresolved disputes to the Fair Work Ombudsman or other legal service providers.
6. A dedicated au pair visa scheme should not be adopted if validity of the visa would be subject to agency sponsorship, host family sponsorship, or continued stay in an au pair placement.
