FEDERAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LEGISLATION
Matter of Public Importance
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [7.30]: I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter of public importance. Before canvassing some of the specific matters about the industrial relations policies of the current Federal Government I shall consider the particular circumstances of women and their employment in New South Wales. It was ironic that today Mr Harry Woods, the newly elected member for Clarence, stood on the front steps of Parliament - another man welcomed into Cabinet! It must have been disappointing to the many women on the Labor Party backbenches who have some considerable talent.
Mrs Lo Po': Where are your women?
Ms MACHIN: The coalition has the same number of women on its frontbench, and it had more in government than the current State Government has. The Carr Government is a little transparent when trumpeting its track record for women members. Of course, we could consider that fantastic resolution at the Australian Labor Party conference a couple of years ago of setting a quota so that by 2000, 35 per cent of its parliamentary members would be women.
Mrs Lo Po': Not everybody's daddy has got the money to buy them a seat.
Ms MACHIN: "Not everybody's daddy has got the money to buy them a seat." Let me get that on the record to show the level to which this Minister for Women will stoop. I shall refer to a few other quotes from this Minister for Women, who is supposed to be lifting the standard of politics. The House has been told that women were entering politics to lift the standard, but that is the type of remark that the Minister makes. No wonder women do not find politics a viable job alternative. The Minister referred to my colleague the honourable member for Lane Cove as the Minister for shop till you drop; a chorus of Government members said, "She doesn't like male interjections so we girls thought we'd give her some non-sexist interjections"; my colleague the honourable member for Lane Cove was referred to as the Minister for lipstick; and another Labor member told me to get back to the beauty parlour. That is the Labor Party's approach to women in politics!
It is a farce for the Minister to ponce about and be so sanctimonious about what the Howard Government might be doing. A record number of women have been elected as members of the Howard Government, and the Labor Party hates it. That is what underlines this motion. The Minister, by her catty remark, indicates that her understanding of women's issues is stuck in the 1960s, if it has progressed even that far! She has no idea of women's needs in the 1990s, and that is reflected by the policies and lack of achievements by the State and Federal Labor governments. Federal Labor was in power for some 13 years, yet the New South Wales Minister for Women talks about pay justice and pay equity for women. What happened during the last 13 years? When the Labor Party was in power for more than a decade why did it not address the issue of pay equity? If the Federal Labor Government was so good, why is this Minister still complaining? Why did the Carr Labor Government not establish the committee to consider pay equity, as it promised during the election campaign?
Mrs Lo Po': It has done that.
Ms MACHIN: We have not seen it. The Minister might enlighten the House about its achievements. Women want flexibility in their workplace arrangements to accommodate a range of needs - different types of work and child-care arrangements. This Premier -
Ms Meagher: Why didn't your side sign the national child-care agreement?
Ms MACHIN: Why don't you just be quiet. You will get your go in a minute. You should ask the Premier why he has not signed an agreement to set up a child-care facility in Macquarie Street for those who will benefit, such as the honourable member for Badgerys Creek. If Government members are so concerned about women in the workplace, perhaps they could progress the child-care facility that Premier Carr has stalled since September last year. The Howard Government wants to introduce a degree of workplace flexibility.
Mrs Beamer: It is called exploitation.
Ms MACHIN: For the benefit of Government members, I will outline the options the coalition is considering. I am grateful that the honourable member for Badgerys Creek talked about exploitation. Previously the Minister for Women spoke about sweatshops. If the Labor Party was so concerned, why does the budget show a decline in the number of industrial inspectors going to those sweatshops?
Page 1615
Mrs Lo Po': Why are there any sweatshops? Why are they there?
Ms MACHIN: The Labor Party has been in Government for a year and a half. Why does it not start doing something about the sweatshops? Government members cannot forever say to the coalition, "You were in government." Why has the number of industrial inspectors been cut? The Minister cannot say she is doing everything for women in the workplace. The Howard proposals present three situations for Australian workers: those currently on awards, those on certified agreements and those on Australian workplace agreements. Employees currently covered by awards and certified agreements will continue to have access to the Industrial Relations Commission for above-award discrimination cases.
Legislation proposed by the Howard Government strengthens the commission's capacity to address discrimination by requiring it to take into account aspects of the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. I suggest the Minister check her facts. Proposed section 93 of the Federal legislation will require the commission to take into account the principles embodied in the International Labour Organisation family responsibilities convention, particularly those relating to preventing discrimination against workers with family responsibilities or helping workers to reconcile their employment and family responsibilities. Again that is a key issue about which many women are concerned and are struggling to address. Again the Howard proposal demonstrates that degree of flexibility.
I was interested in the comments by the Minister before the dinner break. I was also interested in the comments of one of her colleagues in another place at a forum discussing women in politics. The issue of union representation of women came up for discussion, and it is interesting that the trade union movement, to which this Labor Party is so wedded, is dominated by males. In many cases women's issues are not considered because of male dominance in many key unions. Members opposite know that is the case. When the coalition was in office in New South Wales, women were directly involved in enterprise bargaining in workplace deals, and women's issues were raised in the discussion process. The Labor industrial relations model is a real men's club, and women's issues just do not get a look in. That is the way it has always been - that is the paternalistic model that these Labor Party women opposite obviously want to retain. However, I have digressed. The Labor Party member in another place -
Ms Meagher: It is good to see that you actually know that the President of the ACTU is a woman. Haven't you noticed?
Ms MACHIN: That makes everything fine, does it? We have a woman president of the ACTU and that makes everything fine. The member in another place made the remark at this function that women cannot represent themselves and are generally incompetent. I shall check Hansard later, but my recollection is that prior to the dinner break the Minister for Women said that basically women with families could not possibly negotiate any sort of workplace deal. I do not know what makes women with families so stupid that they cannot get out of the house and negotiate a workplace deal! I am sure many women find that remark patronising, as I do, that only the male-dominated union movement can look after women in the workplace. That is an outdated view and it is why women's issues have not proceeded through the union movement, despite all the rhetoric.
The coalition rejects that paternalistic model and the paternalistic notion of setting quotas. The coalition's track record on the number of women elected to Federal Parliament is clear. The whole-of-government approach to women's issues is reflected in the Federal industrial relations proposals. The Howard Government is committed to ensuring that women get a fair go in the workplace. The coalition does not consider that women cannot look after themselves or that they are such airheads that the union movement, Big Brother, the Labor Party and ACTU have to say it all for them. The Minister for Women made the stupid remark before the dinner break that women who have children cannot get out of the house and negotiate with an employer. Talk about underselling women! The honourable member for Cabramatta should not look so puzzled; she can check Hansard.
Ms Meagher: You have failed to acknowledge any structural barriers to women's participation.
Ms MACHIN: I have not ignored that at all. If the honourable member for Cabramatta had listened, I was talking about the need for greater flexibility, and how one of the structural barriers is the lack of child-care facilities, which is something that her Premier should address. [Time expired.]
Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [7.40]: It is ironic that the party which boasts about its number of women in the Federal Parliament will, as its first legislative initiative, kick the guts out of working women. It is an absolute disgrace. The proposed Federal industrial legislation is designed to undermine the three pillars that have protected the working conditions of Australians for the past 10 years. Firstly, the Federal legislation will undermine the award system; secondly, it will dismantle the role of the industrial relations system; and, thirdly, it will undermine the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively. It will without doubt reduce the living standards of all Australian workers and wind back the clock on the fight for equal pay.
The Prime Minister seems hell-bent on breaking his rock-solid guarantee that no worker's take-home pay will be cut. He will do that by, first, attacking women and, secondly, breaking the back of the union movement, because if women are not members of a union they are not in a position to negotiate individual bargains or to maintain their
Page 1616
current living standards. The legislation will shatter the hopes of working women and deliver body blows to dreams of equality within society. The first blow will come with the abolition of the equal pay provisions. By winding back the definition of equal pay, the Federal coalition will deliver a kick in the guts to working women. The second blow will come in the form of the abolition of paid rates awards. Women's pay in the public sector, where paid rates awards predominate, is 10 per cent higher than women's pay in the private sector, where women must negotiate for above-award payments.
The third blow that the Federal Government will deliver to working women is to strip back awards to 20 core conditions. Women will have to bargain for over-award payments. That is a deliberate attempt to increase the pay equity gap between men and women and send women back home, where the Prime Minister thinks they belong. Let me point out the problems with going down that path. Women earn 94 per cent of male award wages at present - that was achieved under a Federal Labor government - but they achieve only 54 per cent of over-award payments, compared with their male counterparts. The Federal Government is designing a system that will reduce the pay and living standards of women in the Australian work force.
The Federal Government will systematically reduce the take-home pay of women by breaking the back of the union movement, it will deny unions access to the workplace, and it will ensure that women are in poorly organised workplaces and a weaker bargaining position. We see the results of that in the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. A unionised male earns 8.5 per cent more than a non-unionised male; but a unionised woman earns 25 per cent more than a non-unionised woman. Clearly, if we remove the trade union movement from the Australian workplace, as the coalition is attempting to do, it will be the women who suffer. I am a little worried about the message being sent by Canberra, and I am very worried about the message being propagated by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Jocelyn Newman. I am concerned that she has taken it upon herself to boast in the Sydney Morning Herald that she is enlightened because she has never read a feminist book; indeed, she is moving back from negotiating with traditional women's groups in favour of the Country Women's Association of New South Wales and other conservative groups.
Indeed, the Minister went so far as to say on national news this evening that the last Federal budget was so disgraceful that if a housewife had been responsible for it, her husband would have sent her packing. We can see the whole theme coming out of Canberra. It is an absolute disgrace. It is reminiscent of the message that was sent to the women of New South Wales by the previous Minister for the Status of Women when the honourable member for Lane Cove had carriage of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act. The women in my electorate suffered, as did the migrant women and women working in sweat shops. The coalition Minister did nothing to address the situation. More of the same will come from Canberra, where the Minister is promoting the scones and tea set for women. We will have lessons in sewing collars back on shirts because she has never read a feminist novel - [Time expired.]
Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [7.45], in reply: I shall put a few matters on the record. On the notion that a great number of women were elected to the Federal Government, let me tell honourable members what happened. When the coalition thought that it did not have a snowball's hope in hell of winning a seat, it selected a woman as its candidate; when it thought that it had a chance of winning the seat, it selected a man. So the coalition selected male candidates in the electorates of Parramatta, Blue Mountains and Southern Highlands. The coalition won many seats by accident. The new Federal member for Lindsay said that she got the surprise of her life when she won that seat; she expected to be at her workplace on Monday morning. In three years time when the electorate swings back to Labor, what paltry excuse will be given by the coalition?
Jocelyn Newman has announced huge cuts to the Office of the Status of Women. The budget and resources cuts have been by 46 per cent, a downgrading of its role of consultation with women's organisations, the wiping out of $1 million of grants for funding programs targeting women's organisations. Let me tell honourable members about the sorts of women's groups that will miss out. The Opposition should take this on board because this will hurt its heartland: the Young Women's Christian Association, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Women with Disabilities, the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia, the National Council of Women, the Maternity Alliance, the Catholic Women's League, the Coalition of Participating Organisations of Women, and the Association of Non-English Speaking Background Women of Australia, to mention just a few. The Federal Government will cut funding for those organisations. Members opposite must wear that; it is a minefield for them.
In the lead-up to the 1993 Federal election the coalition, then in opposition, promised to abolish the Office of the Status of Women. This created a tremendous furore at the time. This time round the coalition has been much smarter. The Office of the Status of Women is there with its key functions gutted. How effective can it be? How should women respond to these actions - with optimism and positive expectations that the Federal Government has women's interests at heart, right up there on its agenda? Mr Reith's industrial relations reforms will systematically dismantle all avenues women have for achieving a fair deal. There appears to be running parallel to this a systematic dismantling of the Office of the Status of Women. This is not only a matter of public importance; it is a matter of national concern. I shall address a couple of issues raised in the debate. On the weekend we had notable women making comments about these appalling industrial relations restraints in Canberra. In the Sydney Morning Herald Adele Horin said:
Page 1617
What is the point of having 26 women elected to the Federal Government if in fact those 26 women have not uttered a single solitary word in the defence of women's issues?
Seriously, they do not understand the issues. In 1969 the Australian Council of Trade Unions won an industrial relations case relating to fair pay. Women in Australia, unlike the honourable member for Port Macquarie, who knows absolutely nothing about women's issues, are up there -
[Interruption]
Tell us what you know about atomic theories; you are a man.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister should disregard the interjections.
Mrs LO PO': The honourable member for Port Macquarie does not understand that at present women have protection under this Act. Women earn 94 per cent of men's wages at present. Australian women are up there with the rest of the world. We are concerned that the Howard Government is depleting that percentage. We are going back to the 1950s and 1960s. We have made great gains. We are amongst the leaders in the world in terms of equality for women, but the Howard Government will turn all that back. There is no need to tell me the coalition has women in Canberra because they are as useless as can be. They do not even care about this. If this were not the case, we would be hearing about the women in Canberra marching on the Prime Minister's office and saying, "You can't do this to women, you can't send them back to the fifties, you should be doing something else." They have not said a word, not a single solitary word. We also have a report from Jennie George, who said that already women were disadvantaged - [Time
expired.]
Discussion concluded.