Category: Workforce Discrimination

From the mid-1980s until 2014 Australia published a Women’s Budget Statement each year which analysed the impact of a particular budget and its policies on women. This was groundbreaking when it was introduced and has been adopted by many other countries.

Since 2014, when the Federal government ceased publishing the statement, the National Foundation for Australian Women has worked with experts from a range of organisations, to undertake analysis of the implications of the budget through a gender lens.

This is critical because the consequences of some policies, whether intended or unintended, affect men and women differently. As the NFAW writes: “The impacts of public expenditure, revenue raising, and deficit reduction strategies are not gender neutral. Government expenditure and taxes don’t impact equally because men and women occupy different economic and social positions.”

https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/eds-blog/what-women-should-but-wont-get-in-the-2017-budget/

Coinciding with Mother’s Day, Diversity Council Australia is drawing attention to the gender pay gap and the challenges mother’s face in returning to work.

DCA CEO, Lisa Annese, told Pro Bono News the “motherhood penalty” was a uniquely female experience and one Australia needed to be aware of.

“It is a very broad definition but essentially it means that women who become mothers, or really take on caring responsibilities, have a penalty in the workplace in terms of their pay, their ability to progress, sometimes their conditions of employment, and essentially it is as though your career gets derailed once you become a parent,” Annese said.

https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2017/05/calls-stop-mums-missing-work-mothers-day/?

The word ‘women’ wasn’t mentioned during Treasurer Scott Morrison’s Budget Speech in Parliament last night. But we’re not alone. ‘Climate change’ also didn’t get a mention, nor did ‘sustainability’ or ‘environment’.

https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/women-budget-didnt-get-mention/

Whichever way you cut the ATO’s most recent release of data relating to taxable income, the gap between what men and women earn is stark.

Women in Australia are earning substantially less than men. The cost of this is compounded over the course of their working lives and it explains why the path to poverty is so crowded with women.

https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/eds-blog/proof-pay-gap-not-myth/

The issue of gender quotas for Australian businesses has again hit the headlines with a suggestion from the Human Rights Commission that the federal government use its procurement processes to become a “model industry” when it comes to improving representations of women in the workforce.

The HRC has proposed a model which would encourage organisations to reach a 40:40:20 gender balance comprised of 40% men, 40% women and 20% unspecified, to allow for flexibility.

Given women do, and have done since time immemorial, comprise half the population and yet still hold a minor proportion of board seats, is this such an outrageous proposition?

According to Abbott, yes. He suggested the federal sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins ought to “pull her head in”. (I mean, seriously, what exactly does Jenkins think she is doing mooting suggestions to minimise ‘sex discrimination’?)

https://womensagenda.com.au/business/entrepreneurs/small-businesses-required-40-female-staff-land-government-contracts/
https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/tony-abbott-blasts-anti-men-politically-correct-rubbish/