At Parliament House Sydney last night — when the New South Wales government officially entered caretaker mode — a theatrette had an almost totally female audience. There were three candidates on the stage, two of whom were ex-journalists — long-term Liberal feminist Pru Goward and the member for Newcastle, the ALP’s Jodi McKay — with Greens activist Cate Faehrmann. The organiser of the night was WEL NSW, but other women’s groups were there to ask questions and see what was on offer.
It was civilised and friendly and the questions failed to show very clear differences in what the major political parties had on offer. The questioners were quite pushy and most obviously hoped to get firm commitments to some quite tricky issues, but the experienced ex-journalists and party loyal representatives were careful not to say too much.
Abortion, discrimination against burkha wearers, the commercialisation of state TAFE services, possible new state-based controls of s-x workers, equal pay and possible discrimination against migrant women all presented them with some difficulties in answers.
The obvious question on abortion was interesting as all those there declared they were pro-choice and were ready to state their conscience support. The Greens went further to state that they would introduce a private members bill to bring on the vote. Then things became less unified as Faehrmann asked the other two to join her in the lobbying that would be needed to convince more members to support a bill for the decriminalisation. Her criticism of some members of both major parties as conservative Christians, started the other two in defending both the conscience vote and the right to strong anti views of their colleagues. This suggested they were not convinced they could enlist the necessary support. They also raised the possibilities of worsening the present situation, leaving the implied threat of more conservative laws.
The various questions on discrimination were interesting as Faehrmann raised the Greens draft human rights bill as a possible solution to the question of religious discrimination i.e. burkha wearers and other discrimination examples. Interestingly, both the major party reps suggested that a separate human rights bill could be an option. However, the question on equal pay, a major current issue for women’s groups, was somewhat avoided by the ALP and Coalition. Only the Greens stated they would support better funding for community groups to allow their workers’ pay to be raised if the ASU current case was won, and suggested higher pay should be offered anyhow.
The other two ducked the issues and diverted the debate. Goward avoided the question of gender-based award pay differentials and claimed the gap was due to types of jobs and industries. She started by pointing out the gaps were actually larger in higher-paid workers and then moved into getting more women into high-paying industries such as mining and highly paid tradies jobs such as electricians. She moved the pay differences into another issue entirely by suggesting the problem was that there were too many women in low-paid jobs and we needed more women in the male-type highly pay areas. McKay picked up this tack too and later they both used the same argument for a question on migrant women in precarious jobs.
This approach suggests a lack of understanding of the basic principles of comparable worth in equal-pay cases, which tries to change the gender biases in wage determination. The principle is that women majority-type jobs are undervalued vis a vis men-majority jobs, because they actually require similar skills bases and knowledge. Trying to blame women for not taking up mining jobs ignores the need to recognise the value of the feminised skills and the needs of funded services to offer wage rises to maintain and extend the quality of community and other services.
Hopefully, the s-x workers got some reassurance for their pleas to keep the future state government and bureaucracy out of their business. However, there was little more in actual commitments by the more likely future Minister in the next government. Goward and McKay showed the limits facing any Minister for Women, however sympathetic in shifting the views of their colleagues. They were very careful to make sure their views were not read as any commitments, apart from what was already on the record. The chair, another TV journalist, but current, asked why neither of the major parties had put their women’s policy on their website, both stated, with some regret I suspect, that these were part of the election policies and were not to be released by them at this stage.
This unified view suggests neither major party leader put a sufficient priority on the event to give them something new to announce. The gap in itself casts doubts on how seriously the political parties actually take the questions raised by women’s groups. It is good to know we have competent, sympathetic representatives such as the ones last night in the major parties but does this mean influence? I wonder whether these viewpoints are seen as serious and mainstream, or just fringe special-interest ones.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Great article.
Top questions in conclusion.
“Trying to blame women for not taking up mining jobs ignores the need to recognise the value of the feminised skills……” tells us Australia has more ‘Neanderthal’ running around with jaws japing than we dare admit… and they don’t do complexity at all well.
Eva Cox is too polite to infer this but she deserves credit for her tough excellence on all matters she gets into.
Hi Harvey – Good on the Greens candidate! They are constant in their attitudes to the importance of every aspect of most womens’ lives. I’m very disappointed with both the women representatives of the two major parties at this meeting, but not surprised! It’s depressing to find that women who could speak out for women’s issues, while making out that women workers should be in predominantly male occupations cow tow to those in their parties who make the rules; who decide what’s important and what is not in the lives of women – the ‘men at the top’?
As to migrant women? At least, both major parties should be championing the necessity of English speaking classes for all workers, but particularly women in the workforce and
‘stay at home mothers’ who are raising kids; stop raising the cost of TAFE courses that sadly puts many courses out of reach of new citizens of the country, who are trying to keep up with just living expenses. Then they could champion an educational program that educates bigots against racist views, and ensures that child care is available to women workers and those who wish to study at an affordable cost. I understand that NSW has the most expensive child care costs in the country. This area wasn’t canvassed either?
These two women would be outraged if someone suggested, that they should receive less salary than their male colleagues – and I would agree with them. How would they feel if they had to work 65 more days than their male colleagues in order to receive the same income? That’s the reality of women who work in the community sector who receive less income than their colleagues who have govt as their employer. How would Pru and Jody feel if when they complained they were told it was their own fault for not being employed in the mining or banking industry or as a CEO of David Jones or Myers? Their answer to this issue was pathetic and disappointing!
The ALP Govt in NSW (as has the Federal ALP govt’s)has shown initiative in the area of Domestic Violence for instance, and it’s a shame if this area was not covered at the meeting, as it affects more women than almost any other sphere of their lives, regardless of age, culture or financial position. One in 3 women will be physically abused in their life time, and one in 5 women will be sexually abused. Every 7 -10 days a woman is murdered in Australia by her husband or partner.
The NSW Govt,(and some of the other states have or will follow suit) has a new body that will review past deaths of women, to find out if there was a history of violence, the role of the police etc and what could have been done to prevent those deaths. It’s called “The death review team’ or similar. This is evidence at last, of the willingness to heed the advice of those people, mostly women(in the occupations that the two women referred to at that meeting, as should be in other jobs, like mining?) who have submitted for years, that most women have a history of calling out for help but are either being ignored or those in authority have not taken positive and serious steps to investigate.
The nonsense put forward by Pru Goward and Jody McKay re women’s employment shows at best, their ignorance of just what female employees do in the community sector. For example, I’m on a local committee to eliminate domestic violence; the co-ordinator is the man attached to the city’s police command – almost all the people who attend the meetings, guest speakers etc are women – women who work in rape crisis centres; women’s refuges; women’s health; youth support centres; child sexual abuse centres; crisis counselling for women and many other services are managed and run by women – very few men are employed in these fields; most are highly qualified, or in most cases have equal qualifications as those employed by govt, but are paid much less. To blame women for their own poor incomes; to suggest that they should be ‘someplace else’ or in mining, is just plain stupid – in fact, totally ignorant of reality, and demeans their vital role in every community!
Pru Goward rightly criticises DOC’s in NSW when there’s evidence of failure to act. She speaks harshly when tragically, a child is killed or found to be living an awful life, but obviously gives no thought, nor does she educate herself as to the people who are involved in this field every day in some manner, are overworked but paid less than govt employees. Shameful! Apparently, there was little emphasis put on the care and safety of children in NSW either?
It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to work out, that if you have more people in the community sector who have a relationship with women in the community; with sufficient monies spent on numbers of workers plus funded programs by people being paid a decent income, many of the issues wouldn’t reach DOC’s, the police or other state govt utilities, such as visiting new mothers on a weekly, fortnightly and then a monthly basis until the child is at least two. In SA, this has been found to have many positive outcomes, the best of which, is the ability to sense if there’s a problem in the early stages, negating many medical/psychological realities, including post natal depression and domestic and family violence. Why can’t NSW commence such a program?
Eva Cox has been a champion for women’s rights(all of them, including the rights of their kids) for as many years that I’ve known of her – since the mid 1970’s! This is another example of her knowledge and support for rights and justice for all women – and their kids!
Working for the government, in my experience, means your salary is essentially fixed based on your job title and “seniority”.
Do you have any examples of government jobs where the salary is specifically different based on gender ?
DRSMITHY – It’s not just on gender. Many women who are employed by either State or Federal govts are paid more than those who work in the community sector in a not for profit workplace, usually funded by Govt or the churches or other such groups. These mostly women have the same qualifications and perform similar tasks, but still are paid much less. Women are now where they were in the 80’s – they went backwards under Howard, as illustrated in Anne Summers book, ‘The End of Equality’ – worth a read!
The way that it’s continually excused by Employers groups for example, is that these organisations couldn’t afford to pay higher salaries – this would not be a legitimate reason for not paying female politicians or doctors or these days male and female teachers for example. It’s not suitable, just or logical to use this excuse for these workers. There would be more information on the ASU website – Australian Services Union is the body that lodged the equal pay case before Fair Work Australia.
I’m on the management committee of a women’s health centre, and have accompanied these workers on their last big rally to Sydney(held in other States also) to support them. The speeches and other info would be on their website, and be far more accurate than I could tell you – I’m not employed, I’m a volunteer!
To give an idea of how mean and tricky the situation has been, is to tell you what happened to my late sister in the 80’s. She trained a younger man in her particular skills, she spent a few weeks doing it. After this time, he was given a car, a different title and paid more than her – she left in disgust not long after. This situation was and still is not unique. Employers have used devious means to avoid paying just and appropriate incomes to their female employees.
I await the decision of Fair Work Australia. Both Victoria and Queensland recently won claims for equal pay, so a precedent has been set! We’ll see!
It should be noted, that the last increase via Fair Work Australia that was supposed to flow on to all workers was not paid to these mostly female employees – the Employers First(now called something else) went to the Industrial Commission and argued against it – they won! How unjust was that? I was shocked when I learned of this – shocked and disgusted!
I am sceptical. In my experience, whenever this topic gets brought up, it’s justified with numbers that are averaged across the entirety of society and/or whole lifetimes, and not adjusted to account for the facts that women typically work fewer hours, for fewer years out of their lives, and in jobs that simply pay less anyway.
My wife is an Engineer, and I know for a fact that before we left Australia a few years ago she was paid as much as her male peers (and in some cases more).
Ultimately it boils down to this: if employers can get away with paying women less for doing the same job, why aren’t workplaces flooded with women ? Salaries are huge expense for any business, so being able to save on them without losing productivity is a big thing.