Page 3966 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a shift. However, given the track the federal government is on, I believe even this protection is under threat.
The number of women in the work force in the ACT with children under four is some 10 per cent above the national average. I was therefore heartened by the recent family test case decision in which the ACT government is proud to have played a part. We joined with the other states and territories in arguing for these changes. That decision meant that an eligible employee will be able to request an extra year of maternity leave to work part time until their child is school aged and a further four weeks of simultaneous unpaid parental leave in addition to a right to four weeks simultaneous unpaid parental leave at the birth of a child or an adoption of a child. This will give the employee the potential for up to 104 weeks unpaid shared parental leave.
Under the decision, employers would have to consider the employee’s circumstances and may only refuse these requests on reasonable grounds related to the effect on the workplace or the employer’s business. These grounds can include cost, lack of adequate replacement staff, loss of efficiency and the impact on customer service. However, this decision is under threat. Instead of using the IR reforms as an opportunity to finally implement the 14 weeks maternity leave protection that Australia is obligated to protect under ILO conventions, the Prime Minister has refused to guarantee even the lesser protection of the family test case. Future decisions like the family test case will no longer be possible. Frustrated that the independent umpire has stepped in to help parents where the federal government refused to tread, Mr Howard has announced that the AIRC will be stripped of its power to hear cases like these.
I am fearful of the impact that increased use of AWAs, unmitigated by the family test case benefits, will have in the ACT. I am not alone in my fears for the future of women in the territory because of the appalling policies of the Howard government. The three national secretariats for women, WomenSpeak, Security4Women, and the Australian Women’s Coalition, have all spoken out against Howard’s industrial relations changes. They, too, are concerned that there is no in-built flexibility within these changes to respond to the complexity of women’s lives and family situations. I support their call that they and other relevant groups have the opportunity to review this legislation before it is rammed through the Senate.
But these are not the only women’s groups speaking out against the damage caused to women by this federal government. I was delighted to find on the Canberra Liberals’ web page that the Liberal Women’s Forum have identified key issues facing women in the ACT. Under the heading of work, the forum lists problems women in the ACT are facing. These include: problems with casualisation of jobs; the impact of childcare on funding, presumably at the federal level as the ACT government has never funded childcare; and limits on career advancement of women in general. It is these women that will suffer most from Howard’s ideologically driven reforms.
Unfortunately, when we are discussing women at work and disadvantaged workers, we cannot help but look at casual workers. A third of the working women are currently employed as casuals, with no access to paid sick leave, annual holidays or public holidays. Eighty per cent of young women are employed casually. But, whether you are male or female, young or old, these changes will affect all casuals in a negative way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .