Jacinta Collins,
Senator for Victoria
First Speech - 21/06/1995It gives me great pleasure to enter this place at this time when
the government is forging a refined national identity, for I am of a generation
which has long questioned the relevance of the constitutional monarchy. Firstly,
I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Senator Olive Zakharov. Coming
from different sections of the Victorian Labor movement, I did not have a personal
acquaintance with Olive, but her work towards achieving social justice for several
disadvantaged groups was well known and well respected. Olive did not seek reward
in high profile other than in pursuing the issues she saw as important to Australians.
She was, however, well known, liked and respected amongst the many people associated
with this place and within the Australian Labor Party. Not a day has gone by in
recent times without my receiving a reminder of the challenge I face in following
her work. I, too, adopt the Labor tradition of an overriding concern towards
achieving greater social justice. There are three are
as upon which I will
focus on this occasion--that is, income distribution, industrial relations policy
and the position of women in our society. Recent commentary on income distribution
has focused upon the extent of inequality within Australian society. Most recently,
the opposition appears to believe it can gain the confidence of the Aussie battler
as representing their interests towards a more just society. But let us look at
the facts. As indicated in the Economic Planning Advisory Council income distribution
survey released recently--and I quote: Changes in the distribution of earnings
in the 1980s and into the 1990s have been a concern both in Australia and overseas,
with an increase in measured inequality in most developed countries. Nevertheless,
despite the increase in inequality shown by the figures, the dispersion in earnings
in Australia has not been marked by international standards. Recent studies
have demonstrated that this government's policies are having the desired impact
of reduci
ng inequality amongst Australian families. The National Centre for
Social and Economic Modelling has confirmed that the distributional impact of
social wage measures significantly narrows the gap between rich and poor.
This government has improved the social wage, with measures such as: a 12 per
cent increase in the real value of the base pension; a doubling in the real value
of family payments to low income families and an extension to low income working
families; the introduction and the maintenance of Medicare; a doubling in the
proportion of the population with superannuation coverage; an enormous increase
in child-care provision; child maintenance measures through the Child Support
Agency; expanded labour market programs; more than doubling the proportion of
young people completing secondary education; and expanded assistance with housing
and rental assistance. Such measures mean that the average incomes of the
top 20 per cent of Australian families fall from 13 times to only four times those
in
the bottom 20 per cent once the benefits of government expenditure on
social wage are included. But the government has not viewed these indications
as grounds for complacency. As indicated in the EPAC report: The extent of income
disparities are such that questions arise whether the social and economic needs
of the disadvantaged are being met and whether the economy is operating as efficiently
and as equitably as it might. Recent initiatives have focused on ensuring that
these issues continue to be addressed--for instance, those under the government's
employment white paper, Working Nation, last year, that is, the jobs compact,
the parenting allowance due to operate from 1 July this year, and also the current
budget initiatives of the maternity allowance, expanded child-care initiatives
and increases in the guardians allowance and rental assistance. Non-cash benefits
are strongly redistributive and act to reduce income inequality. Increases in
the social wage strongly suggest that focusing on cash inco
mes only exaggerates
the extent of inequality. Yet the opposition would focus upon cash incomes. For
the conservatives, equality and social justice seem secondary to the efficiency
of the free marketplace. Their promises of tax cuts would be funded by cuts to
government spending in those very areas which make Australia a more equitable
place in which to live. The opposition has played up some recent reports on
the level of inequality in Australia in a bid to attract the vote of the Aussie
battler. But, as pointed out in the Weekend Australian of 3 June, an Australian
underclass is a myth, and Australian voters deserve more respect on these issues.
They knew at the last election that the GST would impact unfairly on the Aussie
battler. They knew the importance of access to health care and the likely impact
of proposals to end bulk billing. The Aussie battler knew what ending unemployment
provisions after nine months would mean. Australian voters made a different
choice from New Zealanders in their choi
ce of federal government. In New
Zealand, which seems to be the opposition's model, the only income group better
off over the period March 1981 to March 1994 were the top 20 per cent. My commitment
is to work to ensure that this does not occur in Australia; to work to maintain
systems which lead to improvements in living standards for all Australians; to
ensure that the level of growth is fairly distributed between all income levels.
Industrial relations reforms were a significant component of the conservative
government's changes in New Zealand leading to a decline in living standards for
all but the top 20 per cent income group. As the EPAC report noted: The growing
number of "working poor" has been a concern in a number of countries. In Australia,
the effect of award and minimum wage arrangements have set a floor for wages for
most workers but there are concerns that moves to less centralised wage bargaining
would give rise to very low wages for some workers. Once again, the Aussie battler
knew thi
s at the last election. She still knows that the opposition policy
of emphasising wage increases solely through productivity based enterprise bargaining
would apply only to a privileged few. The opposition has retained its Jobsback
policy which leaves workers vulnerable. Many women workers are not in a strong
bargaining position. For instance, the 16-year-old casual shop assistant working
for a major company like Coles Myer or Woolworths is not in a strong position
to bargain. Under successive accords the Aussie battler has accepted wage
restraint, which has allowed for more distributive improvements to the social
wage and workplace reforms under considerable industrial harmony. Despite this,
opposition policy would see more deregulation without the protection of adequate
social or industrial safety nets. Enterprise bargaining opposition style would
not involve any no-disadvantage test. The Labor government's record of improvements
to the position of the disadvantaged groups within the work force woul
d be
laid bare to the free hands of the marketplace. The closing gap between men's
and women's wages would be put clearly into reverse. The federal opposition
proposes minimal, if any, award protection, like the Victorian government, which
has succeeded in cutting conditions to the core and which recently sought to reduce
centrally fixed wage rates to a single across-the-board $8.60 per hour. Even employer
groups, such as the Australian Chamber of Manufacturers, have called for a multi-tier
minimum wage system and greater consistency between the state and federal industrial
relations systems. Victorian style unconstrained individual contracts may
not survive in conservative vogue with scandals such as the Smith affair. However,
despite the announcement of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) overnight,
the federal opposition has made no significant changes to Jobsback except to specify
that the Industrial Relations Commission would be able to set and vary safety
net wage rates. But any such r
ate is likely to be similar to the single across-the-board
$8.60 per hour being sought by the Victorian government rather than an adequate
safety net. The federal opposition has also proposed a flat across-the-board
youth wage of $3 per hour. The Aussie battler remembers these things. The
opposition's agenda is not hidden behind its beat-up against the principles of
natural justice and procedural fairness incorporated within the unfair dismissal
provisions in the Industrial Relations Act. The total number of unfair dismissal
claims has not risen over the last 15 months as evidence of an unfair advantage
to workers. Rather, there has simply been a shift from state jurisdictions to
the federal level. It is important to note that these reforms, along with
national minimum entitlements, such as the right to a fair minimum wage, 12 months
unpaid parental leave, protection for workers with family responsibilities and
equal pay for work of equal value, are based on International Labour Organisation
conve
ntions and the use of the external affairs powers, which the opposition
will not support. Members of the opposition have expressed in my time here
on several occasions the view that there are too many unionists represented on
the government's benches. I have been privileged to represent Australia internationally,
where our record of Labor government and trade union participation is well respected.
I am pleased to have been part of the reshaping of the trade union movement in
heightening its relevance to young women workers. I cannot, and I would not
wish to, overlook that I am the sole woman Labor representative from Victoria
in this federal parliament. I am confident, though, that this will change significantly
after the next federal election. Women comprise a disproportionate level of persons
in several disadvantaged groups, for instance, low income earners and sole parents.
I believe that the government has been heading in the right direction in recent
policies and initiatives, such as the pare
ntal and the maternity allowances.
They acknowledge that women are not an homogenous group but rather that they have
varying interests which should be addressed. The parental allowance acknowledges
the work performed by a parent for children at home. The maternity allowance recognises
that women often move in and out of the work force at different stages of their
working lives. However, the opposition seems to continue to perpetuate division
between women in the work force and women at home. It has jumped upon the government's
record on superannuation as not encompassing women at home without acknowledging
the base from which this government's reform agenda arose. That is, very few women
previously had access to superannuation at any stage in their lives. Labor
can be proud of its record of achievements for women. I am committed to working
towards further improvements in the position of women throughout Australian society.
In closing, there are some people whose support I would like to note. I
am happy to acknowledge my background of 15 years within the trade union movement.
There are many people who have assisted me within the shop assistants union and
the broader industrial and political wings of the Labor movement. There is
one man in particular I will recognise, as have others from this place in commentaries
on the Labor Party. I first met Jim Maher as a 16-year-old shop assistant. His
career has demonstrated a strong and selfless commitment to improving the lives
of ordinary workers. Jim Maher has been a significant force in the modernisation
of the trade union movement. His leadership of the shop assistants union saw it
grow manyfold to a membership of over 200,000. His stewardship within the union
was well ahead of current initiatives promoting the participation of women and
young workers within trade union structures. The vast experiences I have had
access to from within the union movement commenced, for instance, with an early
version of the current ACTU recruitment traineeships. M
any of these experiences
have been as a consequence of the support of Jim Maher. My parents have also
been a significant support. Their guidance and friendship have been and will continue
to be vital components of my life. Finally, my presence here--or should I say
our presence here--would not be possible without the unconditional support of
my husband Daryl. My confidence is that we will meet the significant challenges
that lie ahead. In conclusion, I look forward to participating in the framing
of our nation's future identity to reflect the Australian ethos of a fair go. 
| 
