JULIE HARE, HOST: This policy has had a tricky passage through to today’s announcement. It was ALP policy for a long time and then it was jettisoned before the last election. It’s now back. Can you explain for us why it’s had such a troubled time getting through to this point, and especially considering it’s still not assured because it doesn’t come into place until after the next election?
SENATOR THE HON KATY GALLAGHER, MINISTER FOR WOMEN: Thanks, Julie, and thanks for the question. Well, it’s always been Labor policy. I mean, we never jettisoned it as a policy. It’s been part of our policy development, our platform and the work we do with the labour movement more broadly and the community sector. But when we went to the ’22 election, we had a refined set of policies that were affordable and responsible in terms of the Budget that we were going to inherit. But we made no secret, I can recall many, many conversations with the Treasurer, many media interviews where we were both very clear that when we could find room in the Budget, this was a priority for us. Now, in our first two Budgets, like I said in my speech, we’ve done a lot of investments that are targeted to supporting women. Through child care, single parenting payment, aged care wages, you know, through the submissions we make to the wage review every year. We’ve had a focus on that. And we work through these things, you know. And this was a real priority and it’s an enormous privilege for Jim and I to be in a position where – and the government, together, have been in a position to put it in the Budget. Your point about it not coming into effect until 2025, we will need legislation to pass. So that needs to be done. And we need to get the systems in place about how it’s administered. We’ve got a bit of a window now where we can talk with people about how that will best work, but it will be in the Budget. It will be published as a decision taken in the Budget, and we will deliver it.
JOURNALIST: Minister, thank you for being here. I feel like I’m pitching to the ERC, but is this the end of Labor’s story on both paid parental leave and closing the super gap? Labor’s national platform tasked Labor with continuing to expand and modernise PPL. There are many voices, including the Taskforce, that want PPL to be expand out to a year, match lost wages and incentivise men. On the super gap side, PPL, super being paid is not going to close the gap entirely. Super groups suggest even a super baby bonus that would be paid directly into superannuation accounts. So, is this the end of Labor’s story?
GALLAGHER: Well, there is no end to Labor’s story. Labor’s story, as progressive politicians, our story always continues and the work is never finished. And like you say, I mean, we’ve got legislation on expanding PPL in the Senate. Hopefully, it will pass in the next sitting period. But we haven’t got that through yet, before we talk about where we go to next. But you know, these issues, I think the Women’s Economic Equality Taskforce, the work, the policy work that’s done across government – I hope in my speech today I outlined to you how central addressing women’s inequality is across government. Because I don’t want people to think it’s the Minister for Women. It’s not. We are looking right across government. The work that every minister does is informed by that priority. So it’s never the end. But, you know, we don’t also take a step back from having to manage the Budget responsibly and take those decisions about what we can afford, when we can afford it, and how it competes with other pressures on the Budget. But on the closing the super gap, I mean one of the biggest things we can do is make sure that women’s work is paid properly. And you’ve seen that with aged care. There’s a fair bit of work underway for early childhood educators at the moment. And our submissions to the Annual Wage Review always draw attention, and the Fair Work Commission now needing to take gender equality into consideration, is about how we make sure – you know – properly renumerate the care economy and those feminised industries. And that’s a big thing. I mean, aged care workers now will have a lot better super because they’re wages more accurately reflect the work they do.
JOURNALIST: Can you explain the gender equality commitment rule for procurement? How exactly will that work and when will that start?
GALLAGHER: So, we’re doing a fair bit of work around procurement more generally now. And you know, about using our purchasing power to leverage other outcomes that we want to see across government. So, we’ve made some changes around climate, for example. We’ve done it for years in relation to small business. So, we would see this as another step. There’s some – in the first instance, and I would again say this isn’t the end of the work, it’s around getting a voluntary way that suppliers can indicate that they’re a women-owned, led business and that information is available through that procurement process. So, I would expect that could happen reasonably soon. It’ll need some adjustments to AusTender. But that’s an initial commitment. Obviously, the work through Mary – and I’ve no doubt when she comes and gives her address too, she’ll talk about this – but the way that we can use the data that WGEA’s collecting to seek to deliver other outcomes, as I said. Showing action towards gender equality and reporting about that is also an important lever we have.
JOURNALIST: I just wanted to turn your view to some of the things the Report says the Government will consider when it comes to health, particularly. It says the Government will consider reforms to make access to sexual and reproductive care easier. I wanted to ask if that includes abortion. You paid tribute, obviously, to Tanya Plibersek for her work in Opposition. Something which she did do during her time was announcing free abortions and a policy that would require public hospitals to offer termination services as part of their Commonwealth funding arrangements. Is this an area that the Government will look at again? What are you thinking when it comes to that access to reproductive care?
GALLAGHER: So, there’s a Senate committee report, which you know, I think. Ending the Postcode Lottery, I think it’s called. So, the Government’s finalising its response to that report. But, you know, I think this is an issue that many women have raised with me around access to healthcare, but including access to reproductive healthcare, including termination of pregnancy or abortion. So, we’ll consider that. There were some recommendations around it in the Senate report. And we will have a comprehensive response to that. You know, I’ve been a long-term supporter. One of the reasons I got into politics was to make sure that we were, well, decriminalising abortion in those days. It's only in the last 20 years that that’s been happening. It’s a real issue for women about how they access reproductive health services, and you know, governments need to look at what they can do to support women, particularly in regional and rural communities where access to healthcare or reproductive healthcare isn’t as accessible. So, we will come back on that, in terms of the Government’s report, we have a response, we haven’t finalised it yet.
JOURNALIST: Minister, thanks for the address. A couple of issues. The PPL scheme, the government PPL scheme doesn’t cover all women, obviously. So, I’m wondering what impact do you think this will have on those women who are not covered by that scheme, and whether they’ll get superannuation on their paid parental leave if it’s not already supplied by the employer. And also, obviously this has been modelled. What does it mean in practical terms for a woman who enters the workforce, has a couple of children. On retirement, how much more money will she have in super?
GALLAGHER: So, a couple of things there. In terms of what does it mean for an individual woman, it depends, obviously. But it would be thousands of dollars for an average income, a woman on an average income. I mean it’s difficult because it depends on the job you have, how much you work, what you get paid, how many children you have, how you’re coming in and out, whether you’re working part time. All of those issues that do impact on women’s gender – the gender super gap. I guess it’s two things, and I tried to cover this in my speech. One, to help close that gender super gap and to – you know, it’s 12 per cent paid on your PPL entitlement. But it’s also about sending a message, and I think most women in this room realise it, is that we value the care that you are doing when you chop in and out of your career. That the government values that. We recognise it. And we don’t think you should be financially penalised for it. And that was very much part of our thinking as well. What was the first part of your question? I’ve rambled on there.
JOURNALIST: For those who aren’t covered.
GALLAGHER: Oh, who aren’t covered. So, they’re covered by their own employer’s scheme or on income support payments or something like that? Well, on income support payments, PPL doesn’t apply. But for – I guess for us, and many employers do pay super on PPL through their private schemes, and I was just talking with Westpac earlier. They’ve been paying it since the 90s, mid-90s. Thirty years or so. So, I acknowledge that it has been operating in the private sector. For those that don’t, I hope – you know, it’s difficult for government to say we think you should do this if we’re not doing it ourselves. I think by us, you know, demonstrating through this decision that this is an important measure, an investment put in place, I hope that it means for those employers that don’t, that they look at that as well. Because ultimately, that’s going to deliver better retirement savings for women, more loyal employees, and I think women, more and more, are looking at what employers offer as they make choices about where they work.
JOURNALIST: You were just saying there that you hope that private businesses will look at super if they don’t already have that. The Women’s Economic Equality Report recommended legislating payment of super on all forms of PPL. Will you legislate that to ensure all businesses apply super to PPL?
GALLAGHER: Well, we’re going to legislate our system first. So, the first priority is the announcement today. And then, you know, we will continue to work with employers on these matters. I mean, that’s this – this National Strategy for Gender Equality is exactly about this. It’s about how we bring business, community, government together to look at the issues. Government can’t solve these on their own. But our position at the moment would be that we’re showing the leadership that we needed to show on this, and over to employers that don’t. And I think increasingly their employees will be expecting this of them. The more it becomes a standard workplace condition, or workplace entitlement, which is what super is, the more likely that employers will recognise that. And many, many have. I mean, in some respects the government is lagging the private sector, where these arrangements already operate.
JOURNALIST: Thanks for your speech, Minister. I just wanted to follow up on that question, really. We had the gender pay gap data, at least for individual companies. Employers were generally pretty keen to acknowledge the problem, but there was also a lot of comparing themselves to industry benchmarks and overall, not a huge number of concrete commitments to do better. Do you think the response from employers was a little lacking? And if so, can you give us some examples of what you would like to have seen and what could have been done?
GALLAGHER: Look, I think, and you know – I’ll tell you the feedback I’ve had. I’ve had some really positive feedback. I’ve had – particularly from employers that had a very, that sort of feel like they’ve been trying to do the right thing for a long time but have been hidden by those industry benchmarks. And then I’ve, you know, unsurprisingly I’ve had employers saying oh but this is the reason why and trying to explain them. I think the most important thing that came out of last week, and again, Mary will go to this in your address I’m sure, was the conversation it started and the awareness it raised. I’ve never – it’s very rare for me to do a press conference where the only questions are about women and their pay. And that happened. We had story after story written. We had women – it was a watercooler discussion for many women. Non-political friends of mine reached out and gone, thanks for that data, I’ve just found out what’s happening in X industry or whatever that I’m working in. And you know, so it really did cut through. I think we’ll see what happens to the data in a year. Whether we are seeing improvements, and we will work with business around this. I mean, one of the big areas that we can make a difference is in the gender segregated nature of our workplaces. I mean, for us in the APS, where we look at our gender pay gap and try to get to the bottom of what that’s about, it’s about some of our big employers, employing departments, being highly feminised. And getting more men into those jobs will actually help close the gender pay gap. So, there’s a range of things that can be done. But yeah, we’ll be watching. Don’t worry. We’ll be watching. This isn’t just releasing information and then seeing that nothing happens for 25 years. That’s the whole point of releasing it. So, I guess people are on notice about that.
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. You mentioned the companies that are paying super on top of their paid parental leave schemes, but only 60 per cent are offering their own paid parental leave schemes. So, is that figure high enough? Are companies doing enough of the heavy lifting? And also, just on the cost, are you expecting super on paid parental leave to cost around $200 million? As has been previously estimated. Or how much higher could it be?
GALLAGHER: Okay. So, to the second bit of that question. Look, it’ll be a significant investment in the Budget. It’ll be in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. It gets more expensive because we’re expanding PPL. So, you know, we’re expanding the entitlement from 20 to 26 weeks, so it grows over time. We’ve got a few more details to finalise but we’ll release that in the Budget paper. But, you know, I know Finance Ministers get bad press for always saying no and trying to cut corners and things and I do do a fair bit of that, but we very much see this as an investment. An investment in women. An investment in their future earnings and their retirement savings. But we’ll have all that detail published in the Budget. I think there were some Budget figures that had it at a couple of hundred million. It’ll be more than that.
JOURNALIST: Has it been costed, the policy?
GALLAGHER: Well certainly, the information that went through our processes was clear. We don’t take those decisions without understanding the impact that they will have on the Budget. But we’ve got a few more details to finalise and that’s why we’ll release the final costings as part of that Budget process. Sorry, the first bit? I’ve already – I’m terrible this.
JOURNALIST: Companies that aren’t offering their own paid parental leave schemes, there’s only 60 per cent…
GALLAGHER: Oh, sure. Yeah, we’d love them all to. And I think increasingly women will want that. And if you, you know, when we all hear about labour shortages and attracting and retaining quality staff, you know. As we rebalance care and the nature of care and value care in this economy and society, I would expect employers are going to have to continue to offer those conditions if they don’t already.
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. Women approaching retirement have about 23 per cent less in savings than men. For the older women who have already had children and won’t be able to get their super back, how will you compensate for that gap?
GALLAGHER: Yeah, you know, this measure is about people who are going to be taking PPL and there’s a range of reasons why, I guess, older women have less super than younger women who will have been in the system longer and perhaps have the benefit of, one… I mean, many women, older women who have low super balances, didn’t have a paid parental leave system to pay them paid parental leave. They’ve missed out on a lot. That’s for sure. And that’s why some of the improvements that we’re putting in place are really about, I guess, bolstering it for the future. Acknowledging that there is a gap and then making sure that we’re doing what we can do to address it. And you know, it isn’t the only way that you look at how you support people, older people who have low super balances. There’s a range of other payments the Government makes. Not every problem can be solved about women’s financial insecurity through the super system. But this is a good way of dealing with one of those issues. And for older women with low super balances, we look at a range of other levers to support them and we recognise that older women in this country are one of the toughest groups in terms of financial insecurity and poverty and links to housing and things like that. So, Government has a range of levers and we don’t forget those women either.
JOURNALIST: Minister, thanks for your speech today. Will you be seeking any assurances from the federal Opposition that if you don’t win government next year, they will implement this policy?
GALLAGHER: Well, I would hope this is a pretty politically uncontroversial policy, to pay super for women that are using the – primarily women, of course, but we are trying to encourage shared care under the PPL reforms. I would think it would hopefully be uncontroversial, but I’ve said that about things in the past and that’s turned out not to be true. So, we will legislate this. It will be in our Budget. If the Opposition doesn’t support it, or sees it as a way to, you know, return money, then they will have to make that clear before the election. You know, and so that’s over to them, really. But I would hope. I’ve seen some of the comments today about it being a welfare measure, from the Opposition. And I’d just like to say, it is not a welfare measure, it is a workplace entitlement. And so, you know, the early rumblings aren’t strong from the Opposition, but I would hope that they would come to their senses and read the tea leaves in this room and many others across the country, who see this as a very uncontroversial step. And a welcome step to ending gender inequality in the super system.
JOURNALIST: Last week, the Executive Director for the Office for Women was talking about while it was critical that Budget processes and gender analysis were part of the solution, it didn’t stop there and listening was a very important part of informing government policy and decisionmaking, particularly for marginalised interests. So, with respect to the 6 National Women’s Alliances which have informed government policy and decisionmaking so far, what’s your view on how we can bake in that as part of the Public Service’s approach to women’s policy issues?
GALLAGHER: So, working with the Alliances? Yeah, the Alliances have been a very effective way of reaching and consulting women across the country. We’ve used them extensively in putting together the National Gender Equality Strategy, and we will continue to work with them. And we’re always looking at ways to listen and work better. They’ve had an issue with resourcing, which we’re looking at and want to address. But they will be a very important part of ongoing consultation measures between government and Australia’s women. They all represent slightly different groups of women, and of course we have to consult more broadly than that. But the Alliances are a very important model to assist us with our work.
HARE: Second question from a member of the male gender.
GALLAGHER: I think you all got pushed down the line. Where’s Phil Coorey? That’s what I want to know.
JOURNALIST: You obviously canvassed the gender super pay gap. Are you prepared to put a target on when you would like to see that closed?
GALLAGHER: Look, we haven’t done that work. I think that would be difficult and it’s dependent on a range of different factors. So, how much women are paid, the nature of the work they do, the hours they spend at work. But that’s why – so, I think when government looks at what we can do, we look at the things that are within our control as opposed to the choice of individual employees and employers. Pushing for better wages in those highly feminised industries, you know, supporting those wage increases as we have done with aged care, taking steps like this to show leadership and funding, I think they’re the things that government’s available to do. I would like the gender pay gap to be gone today. I’d like the gender super gap to be gone today. That’s not going to happen. But the choices available to me, available to the Cabinet, they’re the steps that we can take. And we’re doing it. We’re doing it, as I’ve tried to make the point in my speech, we’re doing it across Government. It’s an absolute priority. I mean, you know, if we could magically get more men into the care sector, if we could make sure they’re paid properly, if we could make sure flexible working arrangements really worked for women, they could come in and out of the workplace with a lot of freedom, we’d be making a pretty good start.
JOURNALIST: In your Strategy, you said that you wanted to look at strengthening targets for women’s representation on Australian Government advisory boards. What are those targets? Have you settled them yet?
GALLAGHER: The area that we’ve got to focus on – so, there’s been a 50 per cent target for, I think, a little while now. I think we’re slightly above that. But we see areas where we fall below. And it won’t be any surprise. You know, we see women overrepresented on government boards and advisory committees in Health and Education. And in some of the other areas, Finance being one of them, some of the economic boards, Industry, Science, we haven’t had as much luck. And so, we’re looking across that. So, trying to reduce that and also have 50 per cent for Chairs and Deputy Chairs, which has also been an issue. I mean, we’re taking it to the next level, I guess, and making sure there’s opportunities across the board. If you took out Health, Community Services and Education, it tells a bit of a different story about government boards and I have to say, I can’t thank ministers enough. From the Prime Minister down, every single minister, when there’s appointments to be made, is asking for women candidates to be brought forward. It’s looking at where there is a problem and then trying to fix it. It’s a very strong commitment that we have across the Cabinet.
JOURNALIST: Do you have a timeline for when you’d like to see that?
GALLAGHER: Well, we report that annually. I guess it’s hard because some appointments are for five years and some are for one year and there’s different timing on those appointments, so I think it’s more about setting that and going forward, fixing it as those appointments come up and also reporting against it, because that will drive change, too.
JOURNALIST: Just in terms of the procurement policy, can you just clarify, so if you’re a company with 500 or more workers and you don’t either set those targets or meet those targets, you won’t be able to win government contracts? And just to the implications of that, how much do you think it’ll be a carrot or a stick that genuinely drives change?
GALLAGHER: It’s a carrot. And there’s a rule in place already, this is sort of enhancing that rule about you know, working with companies to sort of mark out a pathway or a plan forward. So, I see it as a carrot. And, look, WGEA do an incredible job. Their job every day is to work with businesses to support them either with their data, but also with how to make changes within their organisations to drive gender equality. So I really see it as an opportunity. There’s a range of factors that have to be taken into consideration in procurement, this would be another one.
JOURNALIST: I’m also seeking clarity on the same point, because in your speech, you talked about progress towards the gender equality indicators, but the document does say that the big businesses will need to commit to and achieve them. So, which is it? By when do they have to achieve that? And given you’ve said it builds on the current system, has any big businesses ever lost a government contract for failure to make progress so far?
GALLAGHER: I’m not sure on that last bit. I’m not aware – I mean, Finance, while it is all powerful across government, doesn’t actually conduct all of the procurement across government. That happens in individual departments. And again, I’m not sure – Mary might be able to go through that when she speaks, if she’s got more information about it. But we are serious about it. So, the document, we may have used slightly different language in the way my speech reads to what’s in the document, but the commitment there is real. We do want, we will be doing this. That’s the announcement the Government has made.
JOURNALIST: So, it’s achieve, not just progress?
GALLAGHER: Yeah, we will work with companies, we will encourage companies, we are being very clear and upfront that we want to see this rule, this procurement rule that’s in place. And we’ll be upfront with them. And my experience is, companies work with us. They want government work. They want to work with government. So, this, I think, puts more responsibilities on them, but I don’t think it’s one they’ll shrug or walk away from.
JOURNALIST: I was particularly curious around the pipeline issue with women in certain male-dominated industries, particularly construction, investment banking. If those women aren’t in those industries, aren’t applying, how can those companies lift their gender equality in the pay statistics if they don’t have the staff to push them up through the ranks? And how is that going to affect that procurement element? Would there be consideration of that in the construction sector?
GALLAGHER: Well, this is all about putting in place steps, measures. We’re not saying that something can miraculously change overnight, but we want you to take it seriously. And we want to look at what you can do as a company to drive gender equality in your business. Whether it be across boards, whether it be in your staff, whether it be in your policies that you have as a workplace. Because we think it’s important. So, I think, again, in terms of those industries, we have a highly segregated labour market in Australia. More concentrated than most. And in some areas, it’s gotten worse over time, not better, particularly in the care economy. But construction has struggled to get women involved. And it goes right across the board. I mean, you’ve got to have toilets for women on a construction site if you want women to go and work there. You’ve got to have other women and women in leadership positions so that women can see, there is a future for me here. You’ve got to have a sexual harassment policy in place. And a real way of pursuing that if there’s a problem with it in your workplace, that you won’t be sacked if you raise a problem. I mean, all of this is part of the change. And I guess, in some of those new and emerging industries, the work Ed Husic’s been doing in women in STEM and Chris Bowen and Jenny McAllister in climate is – we have to make sure that these new industries don’t develop and grow and women are still right at the back because nobody’s thought about how to make sure that they’re part of these jobs of the future. And that’s a much bigger, longer conversation which I could go on about. Has to start in primary school. What we’re doing there. We can’t let what’s happened in other segregated industries happen in the new ones, we have to be better than that.
JOURNALIST: Thanks for your speech and thanks for running it so smoothly that we get to question 17 today.
GALLAGHER: I feel like I should be giving longer answers, and there’s no clock, so I can’t tell when this part of the deal’s gonna end…
JOURNALIST: I would call it world best practice, so take that as a win. There were many shocking statistics in your speech. You mentioned violence against women. One woman each week murdered by an intimate partner. There are many things that you’re asked to tick off in terms of spending in the federal government, but that’s one area where I know a lot of groups come to the government and say look, this is an urgent problem, this is a shocking situation in society that needs to be tackled in some way. I’m interested in your thoughts on, obviously, whether you’re willing to invest more in that area, but also what the Government’s thinking is and what your thinking is on where the best investment return is, because there are education programs, I’d say on the stats right now, it doesn’t look like they’re working enough. But there are also support services that are needed for more women who are suffering from violence. What is your thinking on where the best spending is directed?
GALLAGHER: I wish I had a perfect answer for that. The reality is, and we’ve put in $2.3 billion since coming to government, into supporting the National Plan. And States and Territories have put in at least that much, probably more. If we could redirect that money, and a majority of it goes to dealing with the consequences of the problem that we have with violence against women in this country, a lot of it goes to the support side, the housing, the trauma support, the workers in the sector that do so much to support women. The hospitals. Everywhere. This is an issue that touches every part of public service. And I wish we could take all that money and put it at the other end. So, you have to do both. We have to have that, that end, which is dealing with the consequences of the violence. We have to put more effort into perpetrator support. I mean, there’s very good programs, and the National Plan does that. It’s, how do we deal with men who use violence in their relationships. And it’s got to happen in the schools. You know, as young as we can. There is – one of the big issues as I did roundtable after roundtable on this National Strategy, it was raised almost in every State by every group I met with – was the problem that we have with attitudes towards women in this country. It was from young girls, who were experiencing it at high school, to older women, who were still experiencing it and had to put up with it for a lifetime. How do we change attitudes towards women, which fundamentally comes to respect and treatment of women and a lot of that we have to do in the schools. So we’re running out a lot of those consent programs and things like that. We’ve got to do more, because we’ve got to change the attitudes that lead to the problems as young men get into relationships. If I had more money, I would be putting more money everywhere. I wish it was different. Because I feel like, imagine all that money, billions and billions that we could actually use for other things. But yeah, it’s a long-term goal. Our goal under the National Plan is to end violence against women and children in a generation, and that’s what every State and Territory government and the Commonwealth are working upon.
JOURNALIST: Lucky last.
GALLAGHER: Where will you go?
JOURNALIST: The gender statistics are absolutely incredible, they’re fantastic, they provide a real benchmark there. How long will it be, and will you guarantee within the next year, we can easily do exactly the same for people with disability, so that that way, we can measure the statistics, and even different government departments’ capacity to include people with disability in their workforce?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think the question you raise more broadly is around data and how we use data to design policy and report and be held accountable and transparent about the investments we’re making. And I think there’s a huge possibility with the data that government collects, and how we use that to share information with the private sector and the community sector, but also how we use that to understand what’s going on and what we need to do. In the public sector, we can do more in terms of employment for people with a disability. We’ve got a CALD strategy coming out that looks at how we can do more with culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and of course we have our targets that we’ve set around First Nations employment. So, I think, yeah. How we use data to drive outcomes is something that I’m very interested in, I think the Government is more broadly.
JOURNALIST: So they’ll be there by next year?
GALLAGHER: I think I’ve answered that question.
HARE: Please join me in thanking Katy Gallagher.