Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister and it seeks clarity as to the government’s submissions to Fair Work Australia in the equal pay case. Does the government agree that equal pay for these workers should be forthcoming as a matter of overriding principle? Or, will the government argue to Fair Work Australia that its self-imposed budgetary restraints are relevant to ending discrimination, effectively asking already underpaid workers to shoulder an unfair burden in getting the budget back into surplus?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. It gives me the opportunity to clear up some misapprehensions which I believe have been created in recent newspaper reports. There have been newspaper reports on this matter which are simply wrong. The government entered into an arrangement with the Australian Services Union before the last election on pay equity for workers in the social and community services sector. We were able to enter into that agreement because we had introduced the Fair Work Act to get rid of Work Choices. When we introduced the Fair Work Act to get rid of the Work Choices of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer—which did so much damage to the pay packets of working families, particularly working women—we deliberately chose to make sure that the equal pay principle in the Fair Work Act was a broader principle than had ever been in federal legislation before. That is, it did not simply provide equal pay for equal work but it provided equal pay for work of equal value.

It is the existence of that broader principle that has enabled the Australian Services Union to bring the pay equity case which is now before Fair Work Australia. And the government has been very clear. Under our agreement and in the submission that we filed with Fair Work Australia, we support pay equity and we support this case. What we have also done, entirely in accordance with our understandings with the Australian Services Union, is provide Fair Work Australia, the industrial umpire, with the full range of facts. Our heads of agreement and our discussions with the Australian Services Union before the election were certainly about the need for pay equity but they were also about the need for properly and appropriately dealing with the increased costs that governments and the not-for-profit sector would end up sustaining if this case was concluded in favour of the union’s application. In recognition of that, the union agreed that there would be a five-year phase-in period for pay changes flowing from the pay equity case, if that is what Fair Work Australia awarded.

So in providing Fair Work Australia with details of the amount of money that this could cost, we are acting in accordance with our agreement, that is, providing information to Fair Work Australia that it needs to have and information that the union in its discussions with us recognised was important. They too were obviously concerned about the cost burden that could potentially flow from the case and that is why the agreement specifically deals with a five-year phase-in period. So there should be no misapprehension about this matter. I support and the government supports pay equity. I always have; I always will. My conduct and the government’s conduct in this matter is entirely consistent with that deeply held belief that I have had all of my adult life, and our conduct in this matter is entirely consistent with the heads of agreement that we entered into with the Australian Services Union.