Page 542 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: We are capable of listening to what people say, unlike you guys. I think it is very important to look at how women are being affected by unemployment in the ACT, and in Australia, on a wider base. The Chief Minister forever speaks about her programs for women, for mature women - again, 10 women for six months each. Somebody has to employ them at the end of that time. That is the thing that we seem to continually overlook. If there are no jobs, and there are certainly no jobs in the public sector, where are they going to get jobs? In Canberra, at the moment, the private sector is not in a position to be offering any jobs at all. The situation is just too tight. Women are continuing to suffer from the last in, first out principle that the friends of Mr Berry and Mr Lamont in the union movement seem to think is somehow fair. It certainly is not fair to women who choose to stay home and look after their children, at least for a time, until they are regularly forced back into the work force by the economic situation that the Keating Government has provided for this country.
We also should not overlook the women in Canberra who are underemployed - those who do not end up on the statistics because they have more than one hour of work each week. That is all you have to have not to end up on the statistics.
Mr De Domenico: Even ironing.
MRS CARNELL: You are quite right, Mr De Domenico. People who have cleaning jobs and people who have ironing jobs do not end up on our unemployment statistics even if what they want is a full-time job. Also, as we know, the women who have just given up do not end up on our statistics. Women who would love a job, women who are trained, women who have university degrees or TAFE degrees, women who have trained for many years in their jobs, who have chosen to have some time off to have families and who now have absolutely no chance of re-entering the work force, because their husbands or spouses are in work, are not on the statistics. This means that the level of problems for women is substantially higher than the figures suggest.
We already know that in the ACT, on average, the level of female unemployment is substantially higher than that for men. Take into account as well the level of women who are underemployed or whose husbands or spouses are at work, and you really see why we have a huge problem in the work force, an unaddressed problem, because those women are not in a position to get into most of these training courses, assuming that training courses do any good at all. Ms Follett suggests that training 10 women for six months each somehow addresses this enormous problem for women who have been out of the work force for a period. It does not even come close. The only way you can do that - I stress again, the only way - is to give the private sector some sort of opportunity to expand their work force. The only way you can do that is to cut business costs.
Mr Berry: Well, go out there and do it. Do not sit here whingeing. You are in the private sector.
Mr De Domenico: We are not the Government, Mr Berry; you are the Government.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! I believe that Mrs Carnell has the floor!
Mr De Domenico: Give us a chance. We will take over. Give us a go.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .