Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House acknowledges the Australian Government’s significant achievements in improving the economic position of women.

It is a pretty extraordinary anomaly that, in this day and age, women on average still earn less than men and save significantly less for their retirement. Women make up just over half of Australia’s total population and more women than men are now educated in secondary schools and in universities. More women than men graduate from university with bachelor degrees. More than 30 per cent of Australia’s small business operators are women. And of course this government has a Deputy Prime Minister who is a woman and eight other women in ministerial or parliamentary secretary positions. We also have the highest number of women ever in our parliament today. Australia has a female Governor-General and three women on the High Court.

I am proud to say that this government has shown clear and unequivocal leadership—long overdue—in introducing practical measures to improve equality between women and men. New initiatives in the 2010-11 budget are a key part of our ongoing efforts to progress the long-term security of women. First, there is superannuation. Increasing the superannuation package guarantee to 12 per cent by 2020 is a big win for women. It will generate more super savings for women. It lays the groundwork for economic security. It helps provide certainty and peace of mind.

We have improved equity for low-income earners by reducing contributions taxes for those on a marginal rate of 15 per cent or below. This means that, in 2012-13, one million women will be eligible for the up to $500 low-income earners superannuation rebate. Sixty per cent of the recipients of this rebate will be women. We are also helping over-50s top up their super balances when they are most able to do so by keeping their $50,000 concessional contributions cap. What will this mean in real terms? Because of the government’s reforms, a woman aged 30 now and on average weekly earnings with a broken work pattern will have an extra $78,000 upon her retirement. In anyone’s language, that is a stronger and fairer superannuation scheme. These reforms are the next step in the government’s agenda to improve the economic security of women. And this has been a feature of all three budgets that this government has delivered.

A second issue is Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme. This is a clear win for women. It will help working women during the crucial early months of their baby’s life and help women stay connected to their workforce and their careers while they have children. And, being fully funded, it will continue to encourage and support family friendly workplaces, particularly in the important small business sector.

Thirdly, there is the Fair Work Act 2009, which restored fairness to the industrial relations system. It makes it easier for women and men to balance their paid work and family lives. It delivers pay equity. It is a fact that more women continue to be in low-paid jobs. Fundamental measures like a fairer safety net and facilitated bargaining are essential to women’s economic security. Under Work Choices, AWAs stripped away conditions like overtime and penalty rates without any compensation to employees. Women working full time on AWAs took home, on average, $87.40 per week less than their colleagues working on collective agreements. We got rid of the Work Choices rip-off.

Fourthly, the Rudd government is investing $273.7 million to support the introduction of the new National Quality Framework for early childhood education and child care. When Australian parents make the decision to place their children in child care they deserve to know that they are receiving high-quality care and education wherever they live across Australia. The Australian government is committed to ensuring that families have access to high-quality, affordable child care. We have invested $14.4 billion in this sector over the next four years to help more than 800,000 Australian families annually. Better child care means more women will have more options in regard to work.

Finally, this government has delivered a significant increase for pensioners and carers. We have delivered $100 a fortnight for single rate pensioners. Seventy-two per cent of single rate pensioners are women. This will make a real difference in the lives of many women.

There has been a long and vibrant history in this country of singular voices raised in support of the rights and welfare of women. But it was only 44 years ago that the bar on married women being permanent employees in the federal public service was lifted and a mere 27 years ago that Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. There is still more work to do, but I applaud this government for its strong commitment to improving the economic lives of Australian women, and I commend this motion to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just cannot believe that we are being asked to stand up tonight and acknowledge the government’s achievements in improving the economic position of women, because all of the statistics, all of the commentary out in the community today, and of course all of the despair and worry of women is about the fact that their economic position under this Labor government is deteriorating. The member for Ballarat began by calling our attention to the gender pay gap. This is the difference in wages paid to men and women doing the same work or work of equal value. Under Labor, since the Rudd Labor government has come into power, this pay gap has widened. It has got worse. And in the developing nations, the OECD comparators, we find ourselves almost a joke in that we have amongst the highest-paid women in the developed world, but we have the biggest gender pay gap. It is 17 per cent on average today. Women are only paid 83 per cent of the same wages that men receive for work of equal or comparable value. The finance and insurance industry pay gap is on average 31.9 per cent, the pay gap for female CFOs and CEOs is about 50 per cent, and getting worse. Women are only about 8.3 per cent of board directorships; two per cent of CEO roles and 10.7 per cent of senior executive positions are held by women, and under Labor it has got worse! Our government boards reflect their total failure to address an area of board position appointments under their control. Board positions under Labor are more likely to be male. I just find it extraordinary that the Making it fair report, with more than 60 recommendations to improve this situation, still languishes on the minister’s desk gathering dust.

And then we move to paid parental leave. Yes, it is essential for women. The scheme introduced by Labor is a disgrace. That is why, when we come into power, we will change it and deliver to women a replacement salary or minimum wage, whichever is the highest, and superannuation. As the member for Ballarat said, women are absolutely discriminated against in the workforce with their come-and-go career breaks because they are the major carers in our society, and did Labor put superannuation into their Paid Parental Leave scheme? No, they did not—in other words, they are perpetuating the problem of superannuation continuity for working women. How can they stand up and ask us to celebrate that fact?

I have to say that I am ashamed every time I think about how this government is representing women today. Yes, 73 per cent of single age pensioners are women, and that is not going to change as long as we have Labor perpetuating the problems for working women. Women in work need child care, very often women between the ages of 20 and 40. What has this government done to child care? Let us look at it: they have cut the childcare rebate from $7,778 to $7,500. They said it is only about rich parents. No, it is not; it is about parents who have at least a baby or toddler in care four or five days a week paying the average childcare fees. They hit that cap very quickly, and this government has made child care less affordable. It has introduced a national quality framework, along with COAG, which we know will increase costs of child care up to $22 per week. This government does not care; it slashed childcare rebates.

It has also made it very hard for rural and remote women to survive and get child care. If you are in Western Australia in the wheat belt, particularly if you are from the towns of Darkan, Dalwallinu, Cunderdin or Corrigin, forget it! Those towns do have child care right now, but unfortunately their child care does not have the sort of demand for 48 weeks a year, eight hours a day, Monday to Friday. They are part-time centres, but they are excellent centres and they make it possible for women to work in those small rural wheat belt towns in Western Australia. They are also places that give their children a break from the social isolation they often experience in such small communities. What has this government done? The minister, Kate Ellis, has said: ‘Look, we’re not so sure about you. We’re not going to give you ongoing registration as a childcare centre. We’ll give you six months if you’re lucky.’ How can you employ paid professional staff on that basis? And you cannot go instead and set up a family day care centre because Labor slashed the $1,500 start-up payment in this budget. In particular, it has also slashed the remote area family day care start payment of $5,000. That starts in July. Family day care is an extraordinarily valuable service for families. No more start-ups for them and, unfortunately, that particular service, family day care, was also where a lot of women started their small business careers—working from home with their own children, being able to provide professional child care. This government does not care. It has slashed, done away with, those day care start-up payments. I have to say in relation to Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, there is no money for them either. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to support the member for Ballarat’s motion before the House tonight, and I have followed with interest the member for Murray’s comments. I should indicate that I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations that brought down the Making it fair report, a report on pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce. I say to the member for Murray: I find the opposition’s new-found enthusiasm for dealing with these issues of great interest and somewhat amusing in the context that we saw, for 12 years, that so little was done on the things that the members of the opposition now complain we are not doing enough on.

In the evidence that we took during the Making it fair inquiry, it was quite clear that one of the outstanding issues over years in Australia that had not been addressed—if we want to make OECD comparisons—was the lack of a paid parental leave scheme. It was something that, when they were in government, the opposition clearly had very little interest in; in fact they often expressed an active lack of interest in introducing a paid parental leave scheme. I am pleased to see that the member for Murray is so passionate about it. I did not hear her being quite so passionate on that issue when the coalition had the government benches and I did not hear her insisting on a scheme that is in fact even bigger—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Better?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not better—I will have that argument with you. In fact, you might want to talk to some of your National Party colleagues, who also have a view about the equity of providing women who work in cities and earn a good income paid parental leave that reimburses them for those opportunities and denies justice to women who work in country areas and do not have the capacity to earn the same income.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m sorry, country people have the same need to work as metro people.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest to the member for Murray that, rather than arguing across the table with me, she could continue that debate in her own party room, where I understand it has been raging with some considerable disagreement. The importance of a paid parental leave scheme is that it provides equity to all women who apply for it—that is exactly what the government’s scheme does. I was listening to the debate on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 earlier in this place and I welcome the newfound enthusiasm of those opposite for a paid parental leave scheme. However, as they struggle within their own party room to find a scheme they can all agree on, one can only be thankful that they have finally realised in this modern age that it is something they should actually support.

I also take the opportunity to point out how important the report found the issue of superannuation and retirement incomes for women to be. Many women—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is your report? Why isn’t the minister dealing with it?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not interrupt the member for Murray once while she was speaking; I would appreciate the same respect. In terms of superannuation, the report made it clear that the over-the-lifetime income of working women was one of the major issues contributing to the pay equity gap in Australia. That is because women quite regularly have a form of broken employment that means that they do not actually have the capacity to accumulate superannuation at the same rate as men. Also, because, sadly, we have one of the most gender segregated workforces in the world, they are quite often in the lower income types of jobs, which are often casual and part time. So, over a lifetime of working they often end up with around only 60 per cent of the superannuation that males accumulate. Furthermore, women do tend to live longer than men—unfortunately, some of my colleagues may think. If you look at single-income homes of people in the retirement age bracket you will often see women living by themselves. Their having to sustain themselves on significantly less super is a real issue.

The government’s commitment to the low-income super contribution rebates, which provide an opportunity for those earning up to $37,000 a year to take benefits of up to an additional $500, as announced in the budget, on top of the existing co-contribution payment scheme, is important to encourage people on low incomes and incomes based on casual and part-time employment to put away more for their super. I also think it is really important that we maintain and deliver on the commitment to raise the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. It is well overdue, and it will make a huge difference for those on low incomes in particular at the point at which they retire. In fact, by the time she retires, a woman now aged 30 who has broken employment will have $78,000 extra. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In his maiden speech to parliament, former Prime Minister Paul Keating said:

In the last couple of years the government—

meaning the coalition—

has boasted about the increasing number of women in the workforce. Rather than something to be proud of, I feel it is something of which we should be ashamed.

Then, as now, the coalition is well ahead of Labor in advancing the economic and social role of women in Australia. So many of Labor’s pronouncements these days are breathtaking in their audacity, and this motion is no different. The success Australia has had to date in improving the economic position of women has very little to do with this government. Insofar as this government has been successful in creating positive outcomes for women it is because it has continued the policies of the previous, coalition government. Where it has not—where it has deviated—we have seen an undermining of the economic position of women. This government has made promises that it now refuses to honour.

This is a massive problem for everyone, but for women in particular. Before the 2007 election, Labor promised that they would be economic conservatives. They said that they would be prudent with our money and that, in their words, ‘this reckless spending must stop’. Instead we see spending with reckless abandon through botched government programs and billion dollar cost blowouts. The government promised to build an additional 260 childcare centres. They hailed this announcement as a solution to the double drop-off that was a crisis for Australian families. Not only have these 260 childcare centres not been built; before completing even their first term in government they have scrapped this idea. Now they say they will build a total of 38 childcare centres—though, given it has taken all of this time to complete just three, the women of Australia should not hold their collective breath.

By contrast, the Howard-Costello government delivered for the women of Australia. Apart from building a strong economic foundation for this country, the coalition also implemented important reforms that remain central to Australia’s social policy framework today. The baby bonus, implemented in 2004, provided one-off payments to families to assist them in making the necessary changes to work and family arrangements as a result of the birth of their child. The greater flexibility provided by the bonus increased fertility, with the number of babies per woman rising from 1.77 to 1.81 in 2005, breaking a 40-year decline. The childcare tax rebate introduced by the coalition remains an important policy that gives working mothers greater flexibility in managing work and family life. It removes the pressure from families by helping them meet the financial costs of child care.

But in this year’s budget, as my colleague has outlined, Treasurer Wayne Swan announced that the current childcare rebate of $7,778 per child will be slashed. Indexation of the limit has been scrapped and the rebate has been frozen for the next four years. The government knows it will have difficulty keeping inflation under control and it has ditched indexation as a pre-emptive measure. The coalition superannuation co-contribution scheme was also vital in assisting women in planning for retirement. It matches the contributions of employees each year and ensures that women are able to supplement their retirement savings over the course of their career.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Higgins will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.