WORKCHOICES

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (15:06): Can the Minister for the Status of Women inform the house on the outcomes of recent research into the commonwealth WorkChoices legislation and, in particular, how these results will stand to affect women in the workforce?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Volunteers, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development) (15:06): We have just had the second anniversary of the Howard government's extreme WorkChoices legislation being passed. At the time, the Rann Labor government, along with those in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, challenged the fairness of this legislation in the High Court. While the challenge was subsequently rejected, as the Minister for Industrial Relations has pointed out, this government's opposition to WorkChoices has continued to be validated by solid academic research about its effect, particularly on men and women in low paid and vulnerable positions in the workforce.

I will outline a few examples from other studies that illustrate the level of damage being inflicted on South Australian workers, and in particular on women since the introduction of this legislation. In June 2007, the National Foundation for Australian Women produced the report 'What Women Want: Consultations on Welfare to Work and Work Choices'. This report found that women with disabilities and women coming off welfare payments are not receiving sufficient federal government support to enter the paid workforce and that there is widespread concern that, under this legislation, young women workers, as well as those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and other marginalised groups, have poor bargaining skills and, as a result, are being exploited.

These findings are replicated in 'Going too far: WorkChoices and the experience of 30 Victorian workers in minimum wage sectors', which indicates a drop in real wages in the two lowest paid industries of retail and hospitality. It also highlights the problem that John Howard's Welfare to Work strategy, combined with WorkChoices, creates a larger pool of people who churn through low paid jobs and are forced to continually rely on supplements from the welfare system, even when they are employed.

Another report, 'Women and WorkChoices: Impacts of the Low Pay Sector', published by the South Australian Centre for Work and Life in August this year, indicated:

Increases in employer prerogative have resulted in direct cuts to workers' conditions—cuts which have not been compensated for by other positive changes in wages or conditions.

It went on to say:

Greater insecurity at work, flowing from changes in the operation of unfair dismissal, is having a significant impact on women in many workplaces.

Recently, the University of Sydney released 'Australia @ Work—A Benchmark Report', which assessed changes to workplace bargaining since the introduction of the government's WorkChoices industrial relations laws. This study has been billed as the most comprehensive yet around the impact of WorkChoices, concluding that those on AWAs earned on average $106 a week less than those on collective agreements, with both groups working an average of 44 hours a week. Most recently, as we now know, the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission has found that WorkChoices:

is unfair and lacks balance;

is not a simplified system of workplace relations;

has created a pervasive sense of job insecurity;

has increased the gender gap and detrimentally affected the ability to manage the work/life balance; and

has failed to result in any benefits for workplaces, employees or employers in terms of increased productivity.

This government's opposition to WorkChoices has been validated repeatedly by research from respected organisations, including the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission. WorkChoices has a disproportionate effect on women who occupy many of the lowest paid and most precarious positions in the workforce. It is oppressive legislation that impacts on those most vulnerable in our community.