Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Wong. Can the minister outline to the Senate some of the challenges faced particularly by women in the workplace? Can the minister particularly advise the Senate on how women fared under the Howard government’s Work Choices laws?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to answer this question from Senator Brown, who, like everyone on this side of this chamber—unlike those opposite—understands the issues facing women in the workplace and the ways in which the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation made life harder for so many Australian working women. We know that, despite all the advances over the years, women continue to earn—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that women continue to earn less than men in our society. For example, starting salaries for graduates show that female graduates still start work on about $3,000 less than men. I am sure senators will remember that, when we debated Work Choices in this place, Labor senators—and I also acknowledge the contribution of the crossbenchers on this—said that women, in particular, would be impacted by these changes. We know that many Australian women, courtesy of the Howard government’s extreme laws, had basic employment conditions stripped away without compensation under Australian workplace agreements. We know that women on Australian workplace agreements have lower earnings when compared with the earnings of men. In fact, women on AWAs earn nearly 20 per cent less than men on AWAs.

Those on the other side should hang their heads in shame for imposing on already low-paid workers in this country a regime which stripped away wages and conditions, a regime which ensured too many women were on AWAs and earning less than they ought. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame. I am pleased to say that soon they will have the opportunity to remedy this mistake. They will soon have the opportunity to vote with the government to remove their extreme Work Choices legislation. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer. Can the minister also outline to the Senate some of the benefits of the Rudd government’s Fair Work Bill for women in the workplace? In particular, can the minister outline how the 10 National Employment Standards will benefit women?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor government’s Fair Work Bill will put in place a comprehensive safety net of employment conditions which will be made up of the 10 National Employment Standards as well as industry- and occupation-specific modern awards. This is to ensure that workers across this country have a comprehensive safety net—something that was removed by those opposite in their extreme and ideologically driven agenda to reduce the wages and conditions of Australian workers. Those opposite keep saying, ‘Let’s have evidence based policy.’ Well, the cold, hard evidence is that your policy led to many women on AWAs earning less and certainly earning less than men on AWAs. Under our legislation, crucial employment benefits will now be protected, including rest breaks, redundancy, overtime, and weekend and shift work—  (Time Expired)

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order in relation to Senator Evans’s answer to Senator Cormann’s primary question. I raise standing order 193(3), which states:

A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament or of a House of a state or territory parliament, or any member of such House, or against a judicial officer, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.

Mr President, I would ask you to look carefully at the Hansard transcript, as there was a lot of noise in the chamber at that time, because I believe that the Leader of the Government in the Senate was transgressing standing order 193(3) in his reflections on a duly elected member of another house who was elected by an overwhelming majority.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I do not believe that there is any accuracy in the statement that Senator Ferguson has made, though I do accept that an opportunity for you to reflect on the Hansard record is probably a sensible course of action for you to take. The words that appeared to upset some members of the opposition went to a description of ‘personal characteristics’. They were the words used, I believe, by my leader in this chamber. I actually happen to believe that it was the interpretation that members of the opposition had about those words that is critical. I do not believe that, under any circumstances, that terminology be considered to be unparliamentary. It is merely an interpretation that some members of the opposition have. However, the substantive point that Senator Ferguson raises in relation to reflecting on the actual Hansard transcript is, I suppose, a sensible way to go in these circumstances.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, speaking to Senator Ferguson’s point of order, I reinforce standing order 193(3), which does refer to ‘all personal reflections’ and indicates that they are ‘highly disorderly’. There was a lot of discussion and noise in the chamber and perhaps, Mr President, you did not hear it, but I think the conduct of the Leader of the Government in the Senate really does require recognition as being highly disorderly.

I would just say that, if it is about one of us in the chamber, well, we are all big boys and girls and we can take it and give it back as much. But, when you are talking about someone in another house, who has no opportunity of refuting those personal slurs, I think it deserves a ruling from the President that the conduct of the Leader of the Government in the Senate was indeed highly disorderly.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President, can I indicate that I am perfectly comfortable with the course of action suggested by Senator Ferguson. It has always been followed in the past. If the President has any concerns with anything I said—which I take to be in order—I would of course, as I always do, accept the ruling by the President. Senator Ferguson’s suggestion is perfectly reasonable. My intention, I thought, was expressed appropriately. But, if that is not the case, Mr President, you will obviously come back to the chamber. So, rather than delay the chamber by trying to debate the issue, can I say that I think Senator Ferguson’s suggestion is a perfectly reasonable procedure for us to follow.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On the points of order, I will take the path suggested by Senator Ferguson. I think that is reasonable. But there is one thing I want to say at the start of my considering this matter. The behaviour at that time was completely reprehensible. I do not know what Hansard were able to record. I look forward to seeing what they were able to record. But it makes it difficult for the chair to intervene in these matters when both sides of the chamber are shouting at each other across the chamber. We need reasonable order. I understand that people will react and I expect people to react in certain circumstances, and that is understandable. But you need to give the person sitting in the chair a reasonable chance to hear what is going on as well, because some people in this place have very strong voices indeed. I will reflect on the matter and I will report back to the Senate.