Australian companies with more than 1000 employees would have to publicly reveal how much they pay women compared to men under a federal Labor government.
Labor says the gender pay gap is “stubbornly high” and women working full time still get paid almost 15 per cent less than men working full time.
“It is unacceptable this has barely changed over the last two decades,” said a joint statement from Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek and opposition employment spokesman Brendan O’Connor on Sunday.
On average, a woman working full time earns around $27,000 per year less than a man, the statement said.
“We must do better,” it said, adding that a Labor government under Bill Shorten would “act to shine a light on the gender pay gap in Australian companies”.
Labor would also change the Fair Work Act to prohibit pay secrecy clauses, and require the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish a list showing whether large companies had undertaken and reported a gender pay gap audit.
Companies already report their gender pay data to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency but Labor would make it public, the statement said.
“People will be able to search a gender pay equity portal to find out a company’s overall pay gap, and the pay gaps for managerial and non-managerial staff.”
The policy is an important step towards fair pay for women, says the Australian Council of Trade Unions.
President Michele O’Neil says it will ensure employers won’t be able to punish their employees for discussing pay with each other.
“Working women need measures to combat the systematic society-wide undervaluation of work done by women,” she said in a statement on Sunday.
“This must include moving away from reliance on the narrow and failing enterprise bargaining system.”
All Australian government departments and agencies would also have to conduct gender pay audits within the first year of a Labor government.
Top Comments
So what about when you work in a mostly female organisation & everyone is underpaid according to national averages?
Seriously? Seriously, this is a load of rubbish. There is no pay gap. Women are paid the same as men. It is simply that women take time off to have babies, hence less wages and super. Certain occupations are deemed more risky and thus higher paid - e.g in 1998 during the waterfront dispute, I remember the salary of the wharfies was mentioned to be 70 thousand per year. That was back then, imagine what it is now! These people for example, work with containers weighing an enormous amount of tonnes, then there is the cranes, machine/movement, it is very risky, so they are paid higher. Most wharfies are men. Contrast this with a female teacher or admin assistant or receptionist. It is quite clear those in my last sentence would not be making the same money as wharfies.
It is a SKILL gap. Not a 'wage' gap. And a CHOICE gap. Women don't tend to take on the types of high-risk jobs men do that attract a higher salary. But, that is women's individual CHOICES. Women CHOOSE the safer occupations that pay LESS. Encourage women to become wharfies or tradeswomen, then you will see an improvement. However there is ever so clearly not a 'wage gap'. There is no such thing. It does not exist. It isn't even legal in this country.
I was on around 25 thousand or less I think in 1998, as an admin assistant. While wharfies made 70 thousand. Yet, that is/was my choice. I chose to take the lesser paid job because I would not want to be a wharfie or tradeswoman, I like working with computers, writing, and I like airconditioning. So I voluntarily made that choice to take 25 thousand instead of 70 thousand. I cannot turn around now and whinge that I wasn't paid the same as a wharfie. That would be absolutely ridiculous of me to do so. I made an employment choice on my personality and what I like most. I could have become a wharfie or steel worker, but that is not for me. Therefore, I chose the lesser salary. I am ok with that; with forgoing a huge salary. It was my choice. Women make choices regarding their employment every day that they have to live with. It was my choice to pursue a lesser paid but less risky occupation.
So....What I am thinking is that if Mamamia seriously believe in this wage gap, perhaps Mamamia could start an occupational shift and write an article about feminism in occupations and choice for women, and through that encourage women to to become wharfies (or tradeswomen/army/brickies/carpenters/mechanics/steel workers etc). Then writers would actually be doing something about it. Instead of glossing over that most women will take a 'safer' job over a physical one. And you know something? It is our choice to do so. But if you change women's mind regarding choice of occupation, you then change the wage gap. It cannot be done while we women aim for teaching/admin assistant/receptionist/law positions instead of being a wharfie or steel worker. The more I think about it, this is a Choice Gap. Not a wage gap.