Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Quite a trip! It is quite a change in policy from the Leader of the Opposition and almost as big a joke, frankly, as the shadow Treasurer trying to lecture us on economics. This is a party that had 12 long years in government to truly value women’s participation in the workforce. Whilst I know there are many women members of the Liberal Party who would like to see a substantial improvement in and a recognition of the value of women’s work, it is fair to say that, if we look at the evidence of the last decade or more, the position of women in fact went backwards. I know this from recently having chaired an inquiry into pay equity and matters associated with women’s participation in the workforce where we had 150 or more submissions over 29 public hearings and 17 months consideration of what actions we should take as a government to improve the position of women.

In terms of the previous government’s record, I know that they were criticised for abolishing the Affirmative Action Agency, one of the agencies that had been committed to advancing women’s employment status; that they were criticised for relegating the Women’s Interests portfolio from Prime Minister and Cabinet to the portfolio of family and children’s services; and that they oversaw the introduction of Work Choices and other employment policies that saw the rights and living conditions of many women workers go backwards. For me, of greatest concern was that the gender pay gap widened.

So much of our life is involved with work, whether working for someone or for ourselves. One constant—at least until the Howard government’s so-called Work Choices legislation—was the minimum award safety net. No matter what type of employment arrangement you were in, there were legal minimum payments below which it was unlawful to go. Of course, Work Choices changed that. We know from question time today and from the Howard government’s own review of AWAs in May 2006 that the AWAs of 64 per cent of people cut annual leave loading, 63 per cent cut penalty rates, 52 per cent cut shift work loadings, 51 per cent cut overtime loadings and 48 per cent cut monetary allowances.

I referred earlier to the inquiry that led to the Making it fair report of the Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations. I am sad to say that, of the 63 recommendations in that report, only some, not all, were supported by members of the opposition. But I am pleased to see what appears to be a change of heart. I would say that, if people had listened to or read the submissions, they would know that there are many changes occurring in the workforce, particularly towards the participation of women. Many are being initiated, especially by large companies, and many people are trying to attack the barriers to women’s greater participation in the workforce. Frankly, it is a much broader issue than simply that of paid parental leave.

I am disappointed that today there was no reference made to changes in child care. There was no reference made to flexible working hours and the new right that women have under the Fair Work Act to request part-time work. There were no comments other than, I think, from the shadow minister for the status of women about pay equity, an issue I know she is passionate about. There was no discussion of the need for greater professional development and training, and there was nothing in any of the presentations today about the discrimination that we still need to address in the workforce.

The Rudd government is determined to make real progress in advancing the status of women in the workplace and we are leading by example, with women occupying and excelling in many of the most senior positions in the government. I know that there is further work to be done but I look forward to—hopefully with this new change of heart—some bipartisan support for the recommendations of the Making it fair report so that we can genuinely begin to tackle and properly value women’s participation in the workforce. (Time expired)

See this speech in context