Page 819 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 21 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The decision to cut take-home pay makes that weekend time spent away from their family instantly less valuable and more burdensome. The suggestion that people should work more hours in order to make up the cut to their pay is disgraceful and highlights how out of touch the Liberals across the lake are with working people. Working mothers have taken these competing priorities in their stride, all the while having to listen to comments from some who share the ideology of those opposite that they are lazy, that they are undeserving and that they are welfare-dependent.
We have heard a lot from some businesspeople about how important this cut would be for them and their staff. In particular, I refer to Harvey Norman boss Gerry Harvey, who opined on the day of the decision that the cuts to penalty rates would save Harvey Norman $900,000 a year. There was no mention of employing more staff; no mention of giving employees more hours; no mention of any benefits to employees that are routinely peddled out by those who champion wages cuts. No, his first priority was the savings to his business.
Further, let me refer to the equally illuminating comments by James Pearson, CEO of the Australian business chamber. Like Mr Harvey, Mr Pearson also demonstrates complete ignorance on not only the gender pay gap but the marginalised status of women and single parents in the labour market. His contribution to this debate came in the form of comments on International Women’s Day that “women stand to benefit from changes to penalty rates”. This is absolute nonsense. Mr Pearson, the women of Australia’s retail, fast food and hospitality sector do not agree.
For them, the gender pay gap is real. For them, saving enough money to pay rent or buy shoes for their growing children is real. For them, securing more hours, getting a promotion or landing a consistent roster, all while juggling parental responsibilities, is a daily challenge that cuts to their take-home pay will not alleviate.
Sadly, these comments are what we have come to expect from those opposite, their colleagues over the lake and their financiers. They fall in line with ideologues of a similar vein who believe single mothers are lazy. It compares with those who believe that support payments for single mothers should be axed because, according to them, being a single parent is a lifestyle choice.
We in Canberra pride ourselves on the diversity of our city and on the work we have done promoting the status of women. We see women as playing a critical role in the workplace, in the boardroom, at children’s sport and in the family. We see the contribution they make to our weekend economy, at the expense of time with their family, as one that is deserving of adequate compensation.
These cuts marginalise single mothers in precarious industries even further. They make it harder for them to get ahead and to enjoy increasingly shrinking time with their families and support networks. I will never turn my back on hardworking single mothers because, even though I stand here today as a member of this Assembly, I also stand here as someone who has been in those shoes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video