Senate debates

Monday, 19 March 2018

Bills

Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015; Second Reading

12:15 pm

Photo of Helen PolleyHelen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania)) Share this | Hansard source

Labor agrees with what the Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015 seeks to achieve. We agree that pay secrecy is an obstacle to pay equity, and that putting an end to gag clauses that prevent employees telling each other what they earn is a step in the right direction. The gender pay gap is worst where pay is kept secret. All too often women find out they're being paid less than their male colleagues after years of doing the same work as those colleagues. But we have some serious concerns about the drafting of this bill and whether or not this bill, as it stands, will actually lead to a reduction in the gender pay gap. We're inclined to support the bill, but these are flaws and holes that need to be addressed and acknowledged. These are flaws that the Greens have known about for a long time, but have failed to address. Frankly, the Greens don't have a genuine set of measures to address the gender pay gap.

While this bill may benefit a part of the female workforce, in itself it is only a very small measure. As a sole measure, it simply doesn't go far enough to systematically shave down the known disparities in wages between working men and working women currently occurring in Australia today. This bill will also do little to address the pay of women who are not on enterprise agreements. The gender pay gap is a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted strategies, not more grandstanding by the Greens.

This bill has flaws that should be addressed. The fact that these flaws haven't been fixed highlights the Greens' lack of real commitment to the issue. This bill has remained unchanged since it was first introduced in September 2015. It was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which handed down its report to the current parliament in 2016—two years ago, so there has been plenty of time, ample time, for the Greens to see the flaws in this bill and to address the deficiencies.

The committee heard from a number of submitters, including legal experts, who identified obvious and unintentional flaws with the way in which this bill was drafted. Professor Andrew Stewart, a specialist in law and workplace relations from the University of Adelaide, also observed a clear limitation of the bill in relation to coverage. He said:

… it seems to me that the bill has a number of potential flaws in some respects—seeking to go too far and in other respects not going far enough.

Labor's dissenting report pointed out these concerns. We sought to have them addressed. Disappointingly, the Greens didn't listen and these issues remain in the bill as it stands today. The Greens on their high horse, as they normally are, have neglected to take on board any of the concerns raised by submitters or Labor senators. They made no effort to fix their flawed bill or put forward amendments before asking the Senate to consider it here today.

There has also been no attempt to discuss the bill with us, the Labor opposition, in order to make improvements. This confirms yet again that the Greens really have no sincerity about this issue. This is just more point scoring and grandstanding on another issue, which we are all accustomed to from the Greens. If the Greens were very serious, if they were serious at all about closing this gap, they would have put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review. So they do the grandstanding to get the media, but all they're about is trying to score cheap political points without actually taking the issue to the conclusion that is needed—that is, by making a submission to Fair Work Australia.

Last year, on International Women's Day, the Prime Minister encouraged everyone to be bold for change. He said that gender equality is the responsibility of all Australians. The Prime Minister should be judged by his actions, or should I say his inactions.

Debate interrupted.

Comments

No comments