Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Women. Friday next week, 8 March, is International Women's Day, a day to celebrate women's achievements. On 28 September last year, Minister, you wrote:

… we know there is no point encouraging more women into the workforce, if the workplace is not safe.

Female unionists have driven change in this country for more than a hundred years. They have a long history of suffrage, standing up and fighting for change that makes Australia a better place. This morning I brought a bill to the chamber seeking to protect vulnerable women from the construction division of the CFMEU and men like John Setka and to help these women be safe. Instead of supporting this bill, this government, a government that you are a minister in—the Minister for Women no less—said it will not support the bill. Minister, how do you reconcile your lack of support for these working women with your role as the Minister for Women?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject any assertion that I don't support women or working women or women's safety, and I have spoken about that. A big part of my career in public life has been focused on improving the lives of women, particularly around women's safety. In relation to the bill that was before the parliament this morning, as the representing minister said, the government recognises the issue that was put forward in the bill and the motivation behind the bill. We understand that there are ongoing discussions between the relevant parties within the organisation and we're not going to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. That's why the government isn't supporting the bill.

But I'm not going to sit here and in any way accept the fact that we are not a government that is focused on women's safety or on improving the lives of women, whether it be in health, whether it be at work, whether it be in economic security, whether it be ending violence against women and children, whether it be supporting the work that Minister Rishworth does, whether it be in working with the states and territories. I have a women's ministers meeting tomorrow where women's safety is a standing item. I am involved in other ministerial councils. I put women's safety on the agenda of those to make sure that they are being driven through other councils, including data and digital ministers, to make sure that we are doing everything we can to improve women's safety, reduce the amount of violence and improve working women's conditions.

I'm very well aware of the suffrage movement through the union movement. All of us have been involved in that for all of our careers. We don't need someone to lecture us on that. It is part of our DNA. It is a part of the organisations we represent. We're proud of that. We're proud of being Labor people, and we're proud of the union movement and the work that women have done within the union movement. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, first supplementary?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Enough talk—more action. A hundred and forty years ago, in 1882, Melbourne tailoresses went on strike to protect vulnerable people—women and children in this case—from unsafe working conditions. This industrial action, which was considered sensational and absolutely extraordinary at the time by many of the male commentators, enabled the factory reform act 1883, which led to greater workplace protection for children. Minister, how do you think you and your government stack up against these women?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're continuing the work of those incredible women. Those women, through the work in the union movement, fed into the foundation of our political organisation. All of the women involved in the Labor Party—and, indeed, all of the men involved in the Labor Party—build on the work of those women and those men who were very brave as they fought for industrial rights in this country. That fight continues today, as we know.

We've had the 'closing loopholes' bill. We've had all the claims that any improvement in industrial relations is going to be the end of everything, the end of the world. We have the resistance to what was occurring back in the 1800s sitting in front of us today. We absolutely are committed to improving the lives of working women. We understand that within the organisation there are discussions, and it's absolutely appropriate that those be allowed to occur.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, second supplementary?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the last two years the CFMEU gave the Australian Labor Party $4.8 million—hush money to keep the ALP quiet on the fact that the CFMEU is using standover tactics, bullying and harassment to keep these women quiet and to ensure these women know their place—they are to be seen and not heard. Is this why Labor won't support these women? Is $4.8 million what it costs to keep the ALP in lock step with John Setka and the CFMEU?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely reject that question, absolutely. If there is a scrap of evidence to support that then the responsibility is on Senator Lambie to bring forward that evidence. There are electoral laws in this country. There are laws governing political donations.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People can come in here and point the finger about political donations—and I can certainly hear those opposite relishing it. Well, they get plenty of political donations themselves! Is there any evidence at all to support the claim that you are putting? We abide by the law. Those who donate to political parties should abide by the law. That information is important so that people have the transparency and accountability that comes with accepting those donations. That is the framework that operates in this country, and, unless there is any evidence to support your claim, Senator Lambie, it reflects on you. (Time expired)