Equal opportunity as a policy change process doesn’t work if the failed equal-pay commitments of our first female PM are an indicator. The government has undermined its election commitment to support the ASU equal pay case to Fair Work Australia by putting in a submission that says quite clearly that it is unlikely to provide any extra funding to the services to cover any possible increase.
This decision by the government means that the community service agencies affected by increases in award payments will be faced with reducing staff and services as they are nearly all government funded. As these provide a range of essential community and personal services, the dilemma is obviously designed to influence Fair Work Australia to not deliver wage justice and continue an unfair wage differential.
The government boasts in its submission that it has shaped this legislation to allow such cases to be brought, then undermines its own rhetoric by claiming it can’t afford to be fair. Would they do this in a male-dominated industry such as the defence forces?
The decision by the government to undermine the case is a serious breach of its commitment to the fair pay and to gender equity. The extensive submission shows clearly in its data that there is lower pay, particularly for the many women dependent on award payments in this sector. It also shows that those women, who were covered by agreements under the old Work Choices model, did even worse than those on awards and that all of this contributes to the continuing gender gap that persists 40 years after the first equal-pay decision.
Putting the budget surplus ahead of equal pay for women, undermines the spirit of the deal made by then Workplace Minister Julia Gillard last year with the Australian Services Union pledging support for the first test of equal pay rights under the Fair Work Act. The case is designed to test the pay of women in a female-dominated industry vis a vis men in a comparable sector and could spread wage rises into other areas where women’s work has been traditionally undervalued.
Women should see this as a major setback because the government tries to justify its actions by quoting extensively from its other, quite unrelated, initiatives for women such as paid parental leave and more women on boards. The inclusion of these items suggests clearly that this government sees women as a singular category to be wooed, placated or done over, depending on the electoral cycle and the other priorities.
This gets me back to the questioning the often too optimistic assumption that having more women in power makes for better policy. The very junior female parliamentary secretary that signed the Fair Work Submission says it all in The Australian.
Parliamentary secretary for workplace relations Jacinta Collins insisted yesterday that the government was committed to pay equity.
“Equal pay is a serious issue,” Senator Collins said. “The Gillard government values the important contribution of the social and community services sector and wants to improve economic outcomes for women and their families.” She then goes on to tout the need to consider the impact of a significant wage increase on services and the economy.
Not good enough, Julia.
Indeed Eva. I wonder what Julia would’ve said if she was told, that she’d only receive about 80% of what Kevin Rudd was paid per year? Or that she’d have to work 65 days extra a year than a male PM would? How convenient that the Budget is in surplus! No doubt they’ll find the money for new fighter jets, the troops have new uniforms, and how many war ships are there on order??
The wealthy in the country owe $$$$$$billions in unpaid taxes! Why doesn’t the Government go after them? Who knows what they could ‘afford’ then? I’m disgusted, but not surprised! Talk’s cheap!
The Australian Services Union has given an undertaking, that they are more than willing for the increases to be implemented gradually – not all at once!
How many more Labor Govts will pay lip service to this blatant act of injustice? I understand that the Federal Parliament will investigate the pay of politicians. No doubt any increases will be voted for unanimously, and the decision will be given by an ‘independent body’? Yeah right!
(those pink pigs are flying as I speak!)
Australia has one of the lowest budget deficits of the developed economies.
If we can’t afford equality, who can?
As a male working in the social and community services sector, I’m disappointed but not surprised by this result. The fact is that pollies of all tribes and of all genders are usually ignorant of the scale and scope of the sector. When their minions actually qualtify the impact of any proposal to provide SACS workers with wage parity with public sector colleagues doing precisely the same work, they head for the long grass as fast as their power-dressed legs will carry them.
The sector is dominated by women, many of whom have well-developed skills and ample qualifications. It’s not that the nature of the work is not valued, I think it is. The real issue is that governments deliver these services via contracts with not-for-profit, church-based and sometimes private service delivery organisations. Government really screws down amounts paid to these organisations via hard-nosed competitive tender, contract management and funding acquittal processes. In this way, it “does more with less”. Also, there’s no guarantee that additional service funding will find its way into the purses and wallets of SACS workers in a sector that’s been reducing, casualising and otherwise pushing its workforce hard for many years.
Well ladies, I am sure the extra money paid in baby bonus’, paid maternity leave and family benefits A & B will more than make up the difference of a lower pay packet. Alternatively get qualified and become independent of govt handouts while throwing away this notion of “family friendly” working hours – they don’t exist in organisations that pay you real money. You can’t have it all.
Lorna, you are an ignorant fool. I demean myself and any others reading this by responding to your obivious and childish provocation.