WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (14:53): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for the Status of Women a question regarding boards and committees.

Leave granted.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The South Australian Strategic Plan Target 30 is to increase the number of women on all state government boards and committees to 50 per cent, on average, by 2014. Can the minister provide an update to the chamber on the progress of achieving this target?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (14:54): I thank the honourable member for her most important question. As the Minister for the Status of Women, I obviously have the lead responsibility for ensuring that more women are able to make a contribution as leaders and key decision-makers in the South Australian community and for women's leadership targets in the South Australian Strategic Plan (SASP). The SASP Target 30 is to increase representation of women on state government boards and committees. We set ourselves an ambitious target of 50 per cent by 2014, and there is no doubt that meeting this target has presented its own challenges.

We are serious about improving these numbers and we have strategies in place to help us do just that. I am very pleased that as of 1 September 2013 women held 47 per cent of positions on state government boards and committees—in fact, it is 46.91 per cent.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Rounding up.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rounded up, I took the liberty—a 0.19 per cent embellishment. This represents an increase of 13.23 percentage points from 34 per cent (33.68 per cent) at 1 April 2004, following the release of the SASP.

I think this is our best performance so far. South Australia continues to be one of the leading jurisdictions in Australia for the inclusion of women on boards and committees and we are the first amongst the states, and only minimally behind the ACT, who have reached 47.6 per cent. As I said before, I am convinced that our excellent figures have only been achieved because we set ourselves a publicly accountable target and then worked hard to achieve that target.

Targets and quotas have been proven to work and that's why we can stand here today and speak proudly to the change that this SASP target has achieved. Quotas have been proven to work internationally, and I am advised that when Norway introduced a quota for representation on boards their figures jumped from just 7 per cent in 2003 to 39 per cent in 2009.

However, it appears that reliable figures and hard evidence can be confusing, particularly to our Coalition counterparts. You only have to see their position on climate change to understand that facts seem to trouble them. Last week saw the announcement of a federal cabinet so lacking in women that we now trail behind Afghanistan on the number of women ministers. Current and past Coalition women, members of parliament—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Current, including the Hon. Michelle Lensink, and past Coalition women members of parliament fell over themselves to defend the decision of Mr Abbott, and what was their explanation for the disappearance of women from cabinet? Merit. So what are they saying? It appears the Coalition government simply cannot find meritorious women from within their own ranks. That's what Mr Abbott is saying. Mr Abbott is saying there are no meritorious women within their ranks at present. Apparently, they only have one meritorious woman; they have no others in their ranks. Is this because those women are not there? Well, I find that extremely hard to believe, having seen a number of current women there perform.

Instead, I believe that the Liberal and National parties simply don't see that there is something fundamentally flawed about their party structure which, it seems, does not concern itself with non-traditional innovative ways to find, attract and retain women. Apparently, the Abbott government doesn't see a problem in excluding women from key decision-making roles in their cabinet. Women are only half the population after all and, although women are generally better educated than men, apparently that is not meritorious enough for the Coalition.

Organisations like the Australian Labor Party have long recognised the cultural and structural barriers that prevent women from participating fully in public life, and we are still striving with those challenges, but at least we accept that those structural and cultural barriers are there and we are prepared to do something about it, rather than deny that they even exist and blame it all on merit.

We have implemented changes necessary to increase the representation of women in parliament. A career in politics can be often more difficult for women, who still often bear the larger burden of family caring responsibilities, and so it is imperative that flexibility and innovative solutions are found to ensure that women can fully participate. The appalling lack of women in the Abbott ministry is not about skill or talent. We know that women complete university degrees more than men. The female workforce participation has grown to almost 59 per cent. Organisations that make a point to embrace succession planning, flexible workplace arrangements and cultural change are doing the smart thing and the right thing.

I would like to take this opportunity to stress that arguments that use merit to explain the absence of women in public life only serve to perpetuate dangerous stereotypes that gender inequality exists in our society because women are not yet as accomplished as men, ignoring the inherent social structures that inhibit a woman's full and equal participation. Women represent half the talent pool of our nation and should be encouraged and supported, not just out of a sense of fairness but to ensure that the very best minds are brought together to address the issues our society faces.

Mr Abbott said that he, too, was disappointed in the number of women in his ministry. He was disappointed—he is the one who excluded all those other women. It was Mr Abbott who was the only one who chose one woman, and he is disappointed. Is he then, too, disappointed in the calibre? Is he saying to us that he is disappointed in the calibre of women in his party? Is that what Mr Abbott is saying—he is disappointed in the calibre of women in his party, that he can't find anyone else meritorious enough? I am unsure if anyone has informed our new Prime Minister that he is, in fact, the one who selects the ministry.

So, if he is disappointed in anyone, he should be disappointed in himself, as he failed to develop women in his own shadow ministry when he was opposition leader and he has failed as Prime Minister to ensure women—other than one—participate in his cabinet. I think it is fair enough that he should be disappointed in himself because I think that we are all disappointed in him, too.