Page 3661 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 24 November 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and driven on those roads? They are full of potholes. It is no wonder they are being upgraded and improved. But it is not about women’s safety in the community, and it is pretty poor form to try to position it as such. If you are going to make some random example as the main point of your women’s safety in the community, at least you could make sure that it appeared on the women’s safety map, if that is what you are referencing as demand for it.
Another thing in this budget was the initiative to progress gender equality in construction, which was allocated the best part of $700,000 over a five-year period. It is an exciting initiative. I go along to a number of National Association of Women in Construction ACT events and they are very, very active in promoting the role, the involvement and the support and the mentoring and the training of women in construction. It is an important thing and, thanks to many people’s good work, we are seeing some little gains in those areas.
At lunchtime today I was really privileged to be able to go to a lunch at the Press Club and Sam Mostyn was the guest speaker. Sam is the President of Chief Executive Women. She talked about the need for more women in positions of power and on boards, and that is what then flows down to become a safer and more inclusive workforce.
Unfortunately, with the CFMEU being given this $700,000 grant, we discovered there are no women on the board of the CFMEU. How are they going to encourage the participation of women in the construction industry? They cannot even get it right themselves. What does it say about this government’s commitment to gender equality and representation if they cannot even do a bit of due diligence on the organisations they give their grants to and make sure they are actually walking the talk in this regard, instead of giving away money to organisations that quite clearly have no interest in progressing women’s equality on their own boards? It is embarrassing once again and shows a lack of foresight from this government.
I note that the public accounts committee had several recommendations to improve the current uninspired approach this budget has taken to gender. Recommendation 1 is:
The Committee recommends, in evaluating the stimulatory effect of Government spending, a gender lens should be applied so as to ensure equity in the use of Government monies.
Recommendation 2 is:
The Committee recommends the Treasurer appear before the Economy and Gender and Economic Equality Committee to explain the gender impact of the Budget.
I was pleased to see the government agree to the first recommendation. How this works out in practice, I look forward to seeing. But the second recommendation was noted by the government. Apparently it is not important enough for the Treasurer to appear before the EGEE committee to talk about how this budget affects the women of Canberra. He is obviously far too busy. It is disappointing. The whole point about
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video