Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

To revisit the question that I have just asked the assistant minister, the question really was about a range of issues in respect to women's workforce participation. It is important to revisit one of those questions. The minister did go to the question of early learning, education and care in his answer but he did not answer the question that I actually asked, which was: why has the government delayed those childcare reforms to 2018? If the economic benefits of them are so clear and so important, and certainly improving access to affordable and high quality early learning is important, why has the government delayed those reforms to 2018? Related to the question is this question: if it is the fact that not having child care is an obstacle to getting back into the workforce then why make it more difficult for jobseekers to have child care while they are looking for a job so that they can get back into the workforce? In other words, you will be aware that there has been some criticism of the design of the package in terms of the activities that people will have to be undertaking to be eligible for the package. Obviously writing resumes, knocking on doors, writing letters, getting in touch with prospective employers takes as much time and energy as being at work so you need to have your kids in care if you want to be able to do that so why would the government not design a package with a view to jobseekers as well as to people who have already got the benefit of participating in the workforce?

I also wanted to go to some related issues about the broader question of gender equality in this country. Gender equality, as I made clear in my previous question, is important for women and it is also important for our economy. It is really important that we have strong leadership from parliamentarians, from governments and from alternative governments in relation to gender equality in this country. That is why we on this side went to the last election with a really strong suite of policies to improve the status of women, to reduce discrimination against women and to reduce barriers to women's full participation in the economic, social and cultural life of this country.

The government, on the other hand, had a policy about surf lifesavers, about truck drivers but did not have a women's policy. The government did not have a women's policy as it went into the federal election. It is a bit of a surprise that there was no women's policy. We did have a marathon campaign. It seemed like a long time to me. You would think that there would have been time in that eight-week campaign period to announce a women's policy. I suspect that the minister would agree with me when I say that demonstration matters, role modelling matters. The minister spoke about a demonstration project that is being done with Uniting Care, but I am sure that the minister would agree with me that demonstration through the leadership of the nation is also important.

I want to ask the minister: are reports that an EL1 level staff member within the Office for Women is eligible for a salary that is $10,000 lower than an equivalent staff member within the general social policy division of PM&C? Are those reports correct? Is this pay differential replicated at any other employment band within the department? This matter first came to light in September this year and I would like to ask the minister: what steps has the Prime Minister or anyone within his department taken to address the pay disparity? If it was the case, is it still the case that an EL1 staff member within the Office for Women receives less pay than an equivalent staff member elsewhere within PM&C?

I also want to take the minister to the question of family violence prevention. It is an issue that I was intending to ask the Attorney-General's representative about last night but unfortunately was denied the opportunity. Specifically, the Prime Minister last year in September announced a women's safety package. We discovered earlier this week that for one of the initiatives, under that package for $12 million, that only $180,000 of that $12 million had actually been spent in the more than a year that has passed since then.

A new package is to be announced next week. It was confirmed at the national summit. Of that new package, the Attorney-General says $30 million will be going to legal assistance in family violence. Is the minister able to shed any light on how that $30 million will be allocated, and what the process will be for allocation? Will we see another example of what happened with the health justice partnerships last year, which was that the Attorney-General just seemed to choose a few without consulting anyone or going through any sort of rigorous process and announcing them by press release rather than through consultation with the sector? What does the government intend to do in relation to domestic and family violence leave for government employees?

See this speech in context