Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I congratulate the member for Hasluck, the chair of this committee. I know that we are looking at the report we have before us today because of her total commitment to this issue. I was a member of the committee very early in the piece—in fact, up until June of this year. I was overwhelmed by the number and quality of the submissions that came before the committee, just as I was overwhelmed by the dedication of the people who have worked in the field and fought this battle for pay equity for women for decades.

I find it really disturbing that it was not until 1972 that women were granted equal pay. In the first job I had I did not receive equal pay. I completed my high school certificate and worked in a job where there were males who had completed the exam when I did and had not performed in it as well as I did but who received 30 per cent more pay than I received. I thought it was very unfair. They were also given better jobs than I was given because women like to do very routine, methodical, rather rote jobs rather than jobs where they need to think and have ideas and express themselves! I think this was what was put to me at that time. I think I lasted only 12 months in that job—and I am sure that, if I had not left, they would have asked me to leave—because the whole philosophy and mentality of that organisation did nothing to inspire a woman to achieve anything or to aspire to any sort of career.

Over the years, things have changed. In the past, women had to resign when they got married or when they had children. I remember applying for a job not long after that which was rather like that job. I had to assure the employers that under no circumstances would I get pregnant. But, woops, I actually did get pregnant, and I left and did not tell anybody that I was pregnant at the time, because, in a way, I suppose, I felt guilty. I think things have changed, but that there are still a lot of barriers that women have to get around, and to say that women are equal in the workplace and have equal opportunities is not quite true.

We had to face a number of stereotypes whilst I was a member of the committee. There were statements such as: ‘Women don’t like to work in technical jobs.’ It was said that women do not like to do this kind of work or that kind of work. It was said that women would rather be with their families, that women would rather stay at home with the children and that women really are quite happy if they do not have to accept a job with high pay because it means that they do not have to put their private life on hold. There were numerous stereotypes like those put forward.

As for barriers, there are enormous barriers still in place that prevent women from obtaining equal pay to men. Some of those barriers are unintentional and they are unconsciously placed, but they are still there.

I should also acknowledge the fine contributions by the member for Pearce, the member for Hasluck and the member for Throsby. It is really inspiring to hear such depth of knowledge about and commitment to the fact that women really should receive equal pay for equal work. And that is all that everyone has been arguing for for a very long period of time.

Discrimination still exists at all levels. Even in the most basic or entry-level job, discrimination still comes into it and impacts on the level of pay that women actually receive. As was very ably put to the House tonight by previous speakers, the role that women play as carers means there is an expectation that they put their careers and their lives on hold to provide this caring role, yet they are given no prior learning recognition for that kind of work in the workforce. They are given no credit whatsoever for the work they do as carers, where they do develop transferable skills. In addition, as I said, their careers, their working lives, are put on hold.

Like many members of this House, I have women who come to see me who married 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago but their husband has died and they are short of the pension age, so they are in a situation where they are being asked to re-enter the workforce but they have no skills, no recent work experience. This means that they are not in a position to obtain employment without undergoing retraining, which would probably take them up to retirement age in many cases. For those women, that means that they are doomed to a certain lifestyle, a level of poverty and wage inequity because they do not have superannuation, which is a very big issue when it comes to women. The fact is that once they do reach retirement age, because they have usually spent time out of the workforce having children, they have less disposable income upon retirement.

Pay inequity impacts at every job level. Even in jobs where men and women work alongside, it is still the men who tend to fill the jobs in the upper echelons. We had some very interesting presentations from the Public Service and from the CPSU, the Commonwealth Public Sector Union, which showed—I do not have the figures in mind at the moment—that, once you got up to the ASO5 level and above, the number of women in those jobs dropped dramatically. But, when you went to the base level, there were more women than there were men. So the jobs that pay the highest are more likely to be held by men and the jobs that pay the least are more likely to involve women.

It was also pointed out to us by the Community and Public Sector Union that, whilst women in the Public Service are very lucky because they can access maternity leave, simply the fact of accessing maternity leave and returning to work on a part-time basis is detrimental to their career. I know a number of young women that that has happened to. They have gone back to work and because they have decided that they will work for two, three or four days a week they have to resign themselves to staying on a certain level within the Public Service because they cannot aspire to higher levels until such time as their child-rearing days are over. This is a form of discrimination against women and this leads to pay inequity. The public sector is one area where we as members of parliament can direct some effort towards addressing that pay inequity.

I must say that the recommendations in this report are fantastic. I am a bit disappointed that not everybody could get behind them, but there was not a dissenting report, which is great. I think that the report sets everything out. I do not think that there is one area that the committee has left neglected in looking at this issue. Look at CEOs. Less than two per cent of CEOs are women. Look at the number of women who go to university. They certainly are not two per cent of the university population. Look at the number of women who achieve in the top 10 per cent at school, in their HSC, and at university. It certainly is not two per cent. I see the fact that there are so few women represented in the upper echelons of every occupation as a missed opportunity for Australia, because Australia is losing a valuable resource. We are losing the expertise and the ability of these women who could offer so much to Australia.

The other issue that I think is really important that was touched on in the report is how enterprise bargaining, individual agreements, work against women. Women do not tend to negotiate a pay increase or conditions quite as well for themselves as men do. I think that all wage agreements should take into account all the aspects of a job. I think there is a very strong argument in favour of the fact that individual agreements do not work well for women.

Finally, I would like to say that I strongly support this report. I am looking forward to reading it in more detail over the break. As well as being impressed with the recommendations and the whole of the report, I think the foreword written by the chair is outstanding; I really do. I think that it touches on so many different aspects. I have to say that it is one of the best that I have read in any report. Member for Hasluck, I can see that you have a passion and that this is an area that you have invested a lot in over your working life. That comes through in the report. I think that this is a blueprint for what government and our society should adopt and accept in relation to pay equity for women.

I think it has been far, far too long that we have sat back and accepted that this is okay, that this can continue. It is not okay. It cannot continue. It is really a blight on our society that we have a situation where 50 per cent of the population are receiving a 30 per cent lower income and where two per cent of our CEOs are women. If we look at these recommendations and if this report is adopted, Australia can then be proud of its achievements in this area. Thank you, Member for Hasluck, for this wonderful report.

Debate (on motion by Ms Vamvakinou) adjourned.

See this speech in context