Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak about two matters of community importance. The first touches on the community of Charters Towers in my home state of Queensland, and the second relates to a recent report of the Australian Human Rights Commission relating to pregnancy discrimination.

On the first matter, I preface my remarks by saying that the Abbott government has no comprehensive rural health policy. It has abandoned preventive health in rural and regional communities and has now axed the Australian National Preventive Health Agency—the body that was dedicated to improving preventive health policy at the Commonwealth level. This can only hamper efforts to tackle conditions such as chronic diabetes, obesity and complications from heavy smoking, which have much higher incidence in rural and regional areas. In the past 12 months, Tony Abbott has cut health and hospital funding by more than $50 billion, setting our health system back decades. This government has cut over $125 million from Indigenous health programs, many of which were targeted at disadvantaged communities in rural and remote Australia. It has introduced budget measures that will rip $1.4 billion from rural and remote regional practices. Recently we have seen government senators justifying cuts to rural and regional health care on the basis that things they said before the election were merely National Party commitments and not coalition commitments. That is what the National Party have been reduced to under this Abbott-led government: a party that suggests policies for rural Australia but has no power to enforce them when in government. Health cuts will hit Queensland hard and, as Australia's most decentralised state, they will hit those regions of Queensland outside of the capital especially hard. Often government cuts are seen as an abstract concept, affecting only back-office inefficiencies. But it is useful to know of the types of services we are referring to in the real world when we hear of government razor gangs cutting funding.

Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting the Charters Towers Neighbourhood Centre, who are doing great work in a diverse region of Queensland in a challenging funding environment—to use a euphemistic term. This funding environment is brought about not only through federal cuts but also the cuts of the Newman state government. The centre does remarkable work across an area the size of Tasmania. Services provided by the Charters Towers Neighbourhood Centre include community support, disability support, personal helpers and mentors, carers' respite, disability accommodation support, community housing, an emergency relief fund, a no-interest loan scheme, family support, parent and community engagement and court support, among other services. The majority of their funding comes from the Queensland government, with some funding coming from the federal government. With Queensland health funding, the organisation had developed a healthy lifestyle program, which actually received a nomination for a national award. Despite the advancements the program made in improving Indigenous health, it unfortunately had its funding cut by the Newman government.

Southern Cross University undertook some research into the effects that community sector funding cuts such as these have had on Charters Towers Neighbourhood Centre. Professor Robyn Keast from the university states that:

A good example of the effects of austerity on the CTNC was the withdrawal of the Queensland government’s Healthy Lifestyle Program. This program was to provide a broad range of nutrition and health-related services to the community. The program had commenced in 2008, employed three staff members and had registered 15 per cent of the town’s population which had demonstrated tangible behavioural change. That is now gone along with opportunities for social and physical participation for local residents.

One of the valuable programs the centre is fortunately still able to operate is the parental and community engagement program, where they work closely with local parents and carers to achieve positive outcomes for Indigenous children and their families.

The centre works with a public school to reduce truancy rates by identifying those families with the highest truancy rates and working directly with them to help get their kids to school. This involves measures such as providing transport for the students and follow-up discussions with parents when nonattendance occurs. This scheme has resulted in the building of trusting relationships and an increased attendance rate in those families being assisted by the centre. I commend the centre for their efforts. I understand that, like many other community organisations, it is currently in need of government funding. I would urge decision makers to make sure they are properly across the great work that the centre does in any future assessment of their programs.

The second matter I wish to speak about tonight is a matter of crucial importance to working women and the social fabric of our daily lives. In July of this year, the Australian Human Rights Commission released the report: Supporting working parents: pregnancy and return to work national review. The national review examined the prevalence, nature and consequences of discrimination in the workplace relating to pregnancy, parental leave and return to work following parental leave. The report found that discrimination towards pregnant women is systemic and widespread, with 49 per cent of mothers reported as having experienced discrimination in the workplace at some point during their pregnancy, parental leave or upon their return to work. That figure is shameful in a modern and vibrant society such as ours.

I also note that an organisation to which I was previously an elected official—the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association—made a submission to the national review. The SDA, as it is called, is Australia's largest trade union, with over 218,000 members. The majority of those members are women and young people. The SDA's membership is in the retail industry, the fast-food sector, warehouses, drug and cosmetic manufacturing, distribution, hairdressing, pharmacies and modelling. The SDA submission to the review, which included 197 case studies, showed that there is also a systemic problem in the retail industry in regard to the treatment of women who are pregnant at work and parents who take parental leave and then return to work or try to return to work.

Going back to the national survey, the findings show that discrimination towards working parents and pregnant employees is inhibiting their full and equal participation in the workforce, which makes it a productivity issue as well as a social issue. Notably, the report found that if women's participation in the workforce increased by just six per cent, there would be a boost to GDP of approximately $25 billion—a substantial figure by anyone's reckoning. Whilst the government has responded to the report by providing some funding to the Human Rights Commission to develop resources for employers and employees on obligations, rights and entitlements in relation to pregnancy and parental leave, a full response and detailed consideration of the report's recommendations is well overdue.

In relation to the recommendations, I particularly commend to the government for consideration the recommendations which related to the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to:

I would also commend to the government:

And in particular:

There are also recommendations relating to the national employment standards of the Fair Work Act, which are to:

There is also a recommendation there to develop and introduce:

… a ‘code of practice’ to have effect under Work Health and Safety laws in every jurisdiction.

That is, regarding the legal obligations of employers:

… in relation to the work, health and safety needs or requirements of pregnant employees, employees undergoing IVF and employees returning to work after miscarriage or childbirth…

I urge the government to properly consider the report. It would be my hope that the government would immediately implement the recommendations of the review and address the startling prevalence of discrimination against employees who are pregnant, parents on parental leave and parents returning to work after parental leave.