In starting, as a mark of respect, I would like to acknowledge the ancestors of the Ngunawal nation and their descendants on whose land we stand today.
The work of the last couple of months has been rewarding and exhausting, but I (and WWDA) are thrilled to have been part of the women's consortium. We would like to thank all those who have put in so much time and effort, especially the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) who have extended the greatest generosity in persevering to produce three valuable reports for us.
We now have the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, before Parliament, and as of Wednesday 9 November, the introduction of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Bill 2005 and the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005 into Parliament.
Although some adjustments have been made to the Welfare to Work proposals, WWDA is 'at a loss' to understand why virtually no relaxation of conditions has been extended to people with disabilities. The small concessions nominated on Tuesday for people with disabilities in rural areas will only be of small benefit to a relatively small number. The larger numbers of people with disabilities in urban Australia who are placed on the NSA will face huge barriers in finding work and risk being locked into a jobless poverty trap.With gender and disability discrimination working in tandem with the Work Choices changes and the Welfare to Work NSA conditions, women with disabilities will be more 'at a loss' than any other group.
Philip, Ann and Julia have looked in detail at the impacts which the twin proposals will have on workers, with emphasis on their effect on women. I propose to have a quick look at some of the 'chatter' over the wires about both proposals. Analyses of the Work Choices and Welfare to Work proposals have come from all quarters, with ideological and practical objections registered in a sustained fashion.
Although for more than a year we have been talking about the Industrial Relations changes, I will refer to them by their current ironic name of Work Choices.
More pertinent for us was an open letter issued by State and Territory Ministers for Women in which they expressed their concern that the Work Choices changes would significantly disadvantage women workers and their families. They sought assurances that working women will not be worse off under a changed industrial relations system, in particular that women will not be asked to choose between family friendly conditions and pay levels under the proposed changes [2].
The WA Minister for Disabilities [3] wrote directly to WWDA about the concerns of his Department and the WA Government, in particular highlighting concerns about the likely consequences for women with disabilities.
Victorian Premier, Mr. Bracks said the "key benchmark" to assess the package would be a legislative guarantee that no worker would be worse off under the changes. "If we don't see that, well then the PM has failed working families in this country," he said [4]. There is no such guarantee but Mr. Howard maintains that the Work Choices changes will boost the Australian economy and generate more jobs and higher wages.[5]
On 19 October, Senator Joyce began to voice his concerns, saying that he would not be able to afford to live on the NSA welfare incomes [6]. Coalition backbench politicians have also shown their concern about both proposals, and in particular have coordinated their efforts to be informed by constituents and community groups, and to consider appropriate changes.
In the Federal Government, Senator Penny Wong has been a tireless analyst of the Welfare to work reforms. Her call for a Senate Review, though rejected in early October has now been taken up as a Government initiative in the form of a short time-frame Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry.
Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward, says the Government's workplace reforms package will lead to worse working conditions for women [9]. In a series of forums held around the country, the predominant feedback from women was their apprehension of the impact of the proposed workplace changes. "I think for low income, low skilled people the (Work Choices) flexibilities will lead to more precarious working hours, particularly for women."
Academic research showed that a single woman on the Parenting Payment Single (PPS) risks being transferred to the NSA if she goes off the pension for any reason and then has to re-apply [10]
The Salvation Army [11] expressed the fear echoed by many other church leaders that the Work Choices changes could lead to the exploitation of the most vulnerable, as people desperate for work would sacrifice anything to get a job. This has the potential to undermine family relationships if people have to work at weekends and on public holidays with no penalty rate incentives.
The penalty for refusal of a 'job offer' could mean losing social security benefits for up to eight weeks. Similar erosion of work conditions and potential loss of benefits could occur for sole parents and people with disabilities on NSAs. Other analysts, and the 2004 OECD Employment Outlook report question whether it is valid to assume the outcomes imputed for Work Choices [14].
Age and veterans' pensions are benchmarked to 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings, or increased by the inflation rate, whichever is the greater. The cumulative effect of a 1 per cent reduction in wages growth will leave single pensioners almost $20 a fortnight worse off, and couples $30 a fortnight worse off within three years [15].
This long list of interacting factors means that the level of apprehension which WWDA holds for the employment futures of its constituents is high.
Before concluding I would like to comment on a couple of anomalies which haunt me.
[2]Open Letter from State and Territory Ministers for Women, accessed via ACT Minister for Women's news, October 2005.
[3] Email communication to WWDA, October 2005.
[4] Australian Newspaper 10 0ct 2005.
[5] Sydney Morning Herald, 9 October 2005.
[6] Karvelas, P & Gosch, E Politicians objections (syndicated to) Courier Mail, 19 October 2005.
[7] Relevant papers can be accessed online at the websites of all these organisations, with National Foundation of Australian Women, WomenSpeak, and Security4 Women carrying the information from the women's consortium.
[8] Raper, M. NWRN New financial disincentives discovered in "welfare to work" package: losses could reach 94.5 cents for every dollar earned, 6 October 2005.
[9] This NRWN paper on the deficiencies in the income support side of the Welfare to work package can be accessed at www.welfarerights.org.au.
[10] ABC Online Women worse off under IR changes: Goward 26 October 2005.
[11] ibid.
[12] Karvelas, P. & Gosch, E, The Courier Mail, 19 October 2005.
[13] Sydney Morning Herald, Industrial Relations Academics: Work changes will do only half the job October 5, 2005.
[14] Matthew, G (2005) Work Choices: Sign Up for Slavery, Green Left Weekly, November 2 Edition 2005.
[15] Gittins, R More slant than substance in jobs reform ideology, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 October 2005.
[16] Adelaide Advertiser/ Sunday Mail, 16 October 2005.
[17] Cook, T. Australian minister admits unemployed will be compelled to accept inferior conditions World Socialist Website, 1 November 2005.
[18] Dutton, P. (Minister for Workforce Participation) More Incentives for Job Network Members to Help Australians into Work Media Release, 28 September 2005.
This site was developed by Carolyn Frohmader for Women With Disabilities Australia.