WORKING WOMEN'S CENTRE

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (15:38): My grievance today centres surprising information I received last week, involving a proposal that has been put forward by our new federal government to defund working women's centres around the country. I have to say that, having worked as a director of the Adelaide Working Women's Centre for a number of years some 28 years ago, I was really concerned to receive this information.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Thank you. The issue was raised, certainly amongst the trade union movement and amongst the women's organisations, that if we did not have a Working Women's Centre in South Australia, we would have real issues with ensuring that the available services were joined up. Of course, the Working Women's Centre concentrates on supporting women who do not have assistance from anywhere else, so if a woman in the paid workforce is a member of a trade union or a professional association or has legal support, then the Working Women's Centre would rather that they followed through with that support. The Working Women's Centre concentrates on supporting women in the paid workforce who receive no assistance and, almost by the very definition of that service, one can imagine the type of cases that the Working Women's Centre is involved in supporting.

I know from my own experience as an advocate for that organisation that issues to do with workers compensation, unfair dismissal, sexual discrimination and harassment, and issues to do with underage workers, underpayment of wages and occupational health and safety issues—the ergonomic set-up of the workplace, just to mention one—were areas that the Working Women's Centre was involved in then and, sadly, is just as involved in now in 2008.

The Working Women's Centre has always been an organisation that has had an educative responsibility. I do recall, in my own case, having the opportunity to speak to all sorts of groups from the Kiwanis through to the Buffalo organisation, or Rotary organisations, local government, TAFE, universities and many high schools, and this was all over the state. We also had the opportunity to ensure that women in the paid workforce had a voice in the multicultural communities and also in the Aboriginal communities, which is a function that is still very important to the Working Women's Centre. More recently, the Working Women's Centre has taken up advocacy work for women refugees and new arrivals to this country who have had problems in getting support for the different work that they are doing in the paid workforce.

So, it is with great alarm that I hear that, if the federal government does go ahead with what I think is this inappropriate measure, South Australia's Working Women's Centre will lose $97,000 in the next financial year. I guess the only thing to be cheerful about is that the Working Women's Centre in South Australia also has state government funding, and I understand it is held in very high regard in the industrial relations portfolio and women's portfolios in particular, because of the great work that it has done and continues to do.

In the case of the Northern Territory, I understand that, unless the Northern Territory government comes up with some funding, that Working Women's Centre will close. Having had the opportunity to visit the Northern Territory Working Women's Centre, as well as working with it, I point out that that will mean that many Aboriginal women, in particular, will not receive support on different issues and initiatives that come up at their paid workplace. One of the startling things about the Darwin Working Women's Centre is its outreach program and the fact that Aboriginal women feel very comfortable going into that centre or going to the meetings that are held in regional Northern Territory. It would be a very sad day if the Northern Territory Working Women's Centre were to close due to budget restraints. In South Australia's case, though, I think it can be absolutely assured that a number of members here will advocate for that funding to continue.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order and, in particular, I refer to standing order 121 which, as I remind the house, provides:

A member may not use offensive or unbecoming words in reference to the Sovereign or the Governor nor may the Sovereign or the Governor be gratuitously referred to for the purpose of influencing the house in its deliberations.

This morning, during private members' business, the member for Little Para addressed the parliament and made several comments referring to Mr Jimmy Barnes. She referred to his visit to the area of Elizabeth and, whilst she said quite a lot about Mr Barnes, I will simply paraphrase that which is relevant to the offence against standing order 121. She said:

It would be really good if Jimmy Barnes put his money where his mouth is and, if he really thinks these things, he should get involved. I noticed that His Excellency the Governor made the same comment.

She then goes on and refers to Mr Barnes again.

His Excellency is referred to in two respects: first, during this tirade against Mr Barnes but, secondly, I suggest, offending the second part of standing order 121. For consideration by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in making a ruling on this matter, I am also happy to provide a copy of the 'Adelaide Now' Sunday Mail article referred to by the member for Little Para. There are four quotes in that article which refer to Rear Admiral Scarce, and the only quote that I am aware of in the article that is relevant to this is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Leader, points of order are supposed to be taken at the time of debate. Other concerns should perhaps be raised by means of substantive motion.

Ms CHAPMAN: Absolutely. I indicate that, immediately parliament resumed after lunch, I was reading a transcript for the purpose of question time and observed what I would see as a breach of standing orders. I approached the clerk and inquired of him as to whether this should be raised in relation to standing orders and he indicated that it was appropriate to deal with it at the end of question time. Grievances had commenced so I did not interrupt those, but that is one of the reasons I raise it at this time. The matter only came to my attention at the commencement of sitting this afternoon.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you provide the comment I will take it under consideration. The Speaker has been briefed.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The SPEAKER: I have had a look at the remarks of the member for Little Para. My reading of them is that what she meant was that she thought the Governor had agreed with the remarks of the member for Little Para. That was my understanding when reading what the member for Little Para said in her speech which, of course, is not in any way an adverse reflection upon the Governor—it is a positive one. I do not know whether that is what the member for Little Para meant. Either way, for the purposes of standing order 121, it is not offensive or unbecoming to say, to quote the member for Little Para, 'I notice that His Excellency the Governor made the same comment', so I do not uphold the point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: I make a further observation, without in any way dissenting from your ruling. Sir, you may or may not have heard, but I had referred to the second half of standing order 121, which specifically reads, 'nor may the Sovereign or the Governor be gratuitously referred to for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations'. You will have an opportunity to perhaps read the document that I have tabled, which is the article in which the reference is made to the Governor, the member for Little Para having said, 'I notice that His Excellency the Governor made the same comment.' The only comment I am aware of that was published is that appearing in the document that has been tabled, and that certainly does not suggest anything about putting his money where his mouth is.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Bragg for clarifying that. I still do not uphold the point of order. I do not really see how, from what the member for Little Para has said, anyone might take that as invoking His Excellency's name in order to try to affect the deliberations of the house, so I do not uphold the point of order.