Prev
Next

Australian industry need women leaders

Kate Lundy

by Kate Lundy

08 Mar 05:30am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Industry, International Womens Day, Small Business, Women, Work

59 comments

Today is a day to reflect on the progress made towards equality for women, but it is also a day to consider the road ahead.

I'll show you boys

We know that women are innovators who are increasingly making a serious impact in industry and in business. 

This is backed up by findings of the first national survey of women business owners and female entrepreneurs released this week.

The report by the Australian Women Chamber of Commerce and Industry shows that the number of women who run their own business has doubled in the last five years. This groundbreaking piece of research challenges assumptions about industry and business.

There are now more than 700,000 women running a business in Australia. The stats don’t lie: female entrepreneurs are seizing opportunities and contributing immensely to our economy.

Studies in Australia and overseas have continually demonstrated that companies with more women directors on their boards perform better financially – they are more creative, more innovative and more flexible. 

Yet some industries could be doing a lot better. One close to my heart is the Information Communications Technology (ICT) sector. Females accounted for just 23.3 per cent of all full-time ICT professionals in February 2010. 

This International Women’s Day, let’s seize the opportunity to reassert our commitment to improving women’s participation in the very industries that will drive our economy in the future.

Australia’s future lies in creating a high productivity, innovative and digitally enabled economy. But the use and development of ICT is the key driver of industry innovation and the best indicator of our future competitiveness.

The National Broadband Network (NBN) is the economic infrastructure of the 21st century and will be a primary driver of productivity gains this century.

But like tracks without trains, it’s only half the story.

The engine is ICT innovation and how well we build this industry will determine how fast we travel. There are multiple policy levers; governments are both the largest ICT consumer and the biggest investor in research and development.

As the Prime Minister has said, the NBN is not about faster emails. It is about shifting the way we work, new services, living where we choose, evolving systems to manage global networks – it is about reaching new markets and creating new industries.

Australian industry couldn’t have a better advocate in Minister Combet and I am heartened by his strong record on gender equality. He understands that successful industry policy must recognise that women account for over half the population. Yet ICT is missing out on a share of 51 per cent of our greatest national asset.

Female participation in ICT starts with our universities and research training engines. Yet in 2009, men represented 78.6 per cent of IT graduates, and women only 21.4 per cent. So where are all the women?

If we want women in Engineering and ICT, we need to encourage women to choose ICT and address the high levels of attrition among postdoctoral women. We’re losing them. We need to be persistent and build on our efforts to date to boost the number of women in leadership roles in the science and technology sector.

Having women trailblazers to look up to counts.Young Australian of the Year Marita Cheng is leading the way for young women in engineering. We need to do more to encourage the Maritas’ of the world.

I want to use this International Women’s Day to call for a renewed focus on women in information and communication technology - in business, as technologists and as leaders.

I am used to working in industries where female participation is in the single digits. My first job was as a labourer removing asbestos. But I loved the building industry and I know many women who have successfully forged their careers there.

Women are audacious and determined; women are pioneers and leaders. Their skills need to be recognised and fostered, in leadership in business and particularly across the broad technology sectors.

Most commented

59 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:21am | 08/03/12

      I have acted as manager and subordinate to women who have been supervising science laboratories in manufacturing industry.  Like all women, they always do their job conscientiously and mostly with competence.  I have only good things to say about them.

      Reply

    • Erick says:

      07:36am | 08/03/12

      @acotrel - All women are perfect?

      What a pedestaliser. If I was a woman, I’d rather hear sincere appraisal than mindless flattery.

      Your attitude is condescending and sexist.

    • Tchom says:

      09:28am | 08/03/12

      Good bosses and workers are good - bad bosses and workers are bad.

    • RyaN says:

      10:30am | 08/03/12

      @acotrel: In my experience, business is business and what is between your legs makes zero difference, although there seems to be some like this OP that would like to try and make out like there is something in having a different chromosome that makes you suddenly a better leader or business person.
      The delusion is astounding!

    • MarkS says:

      12:38pm | 08/03/12

      I have had males & females as managers. Some have been OK & some have not been any good.

      Of the men the only one I would say was horrid happened to be gay, but I doubt that had anything to do with his problems as a manager. Of the women the only one I would say was horrid was horrid in a different way than the man, but I doubt that had anything to do with her being female.

      But both when the issues came to a head tried to allege that I had problems with them because they where female or gay.

      This may mean to women & gay people are likely to see discrimination when it is not there, or maybe it just means that horrid people are horrid & likely to blame anybody else but themselves.

    • SteveKAG says:

      06:21am | 08/03/12

      Why do we allow politicians to come on to the punch and spout their rubbish.  I don’t even know why this article appears other than to try and make their riddiculous leader somewhat more palletable to the community.

      This article has nothing to do with pushing the womens movement in Australian and the workforce, it does though have everthing to do with pushing the ALP movement and their loony fringe supporters (see above).

      Reply

    • Mik says:

      09:53am | 08/03/12

      How lucky we all are, for the moment anyway, that we can spout our rubbish. The senator, recognizing how very important free speech is, is obviously looking for feedback from all perspectives - she wouldn’t have come to The Punch if she had only been looking for sycophants.

    • n_dude says:

      12:23pm | 08/03/12

      Maybe Andrew Forrest should write an article for the Punch to counter the policitcal ones trying to influence us.

    • Craig says:

      06:53am | 08/03/12

      What are we going to see next: the Government spending other people’s money to create special jobs for women in ICT, having already spent enormous sums creating women’s work in the Community and Government sectors? How much longer do we have to put up with this mining of tax revenue to create faux work while the genuinely productive aspects of our economy (the almost exclusively male preserves of manufacturing, agriculture and construction) are allowed to wither and die?

      I’d like to know what sort of “innovation” Senator Lundy thinks the ICT sector has created in Australia and how emplying more data entry people is going to create anything more than a burgeoning bureaucracy.

      As a smallbusinessman who has just closed down as a result of the poor conditions in the construction and manufacturing sectors, I can state with hand on heart that ICT has not assisted my business in any significant way. If anything it has created waste and lost time. As a retail customer who has to wait in lines while people process their sales through EFTPOS (an ICT product), I am aware that my cash payment will take less than half the timne to process and all the people behind me in the line will be better off.

      As a customer ringing a business (or a Govt Department) with a telephone queuing system (an ICT product), I am all too aware that the business has reduced the cost of employing reception staff by shifting the burden of doing their job onto me, the customer.

      I suggest that the good Senator might usefully consider some genuine innovation in the way her Government approaches the problems of industry, instead of playing gender politics. It would be a stunning and welcome change and it might even attract the female vote that she and her Party are so desperate for.

      Reply

    • Mik says:

      07:28am | 08/03/12

      I know a lot of women in high level jobs and a number of them are in “male dominated” areas. They just get on with the job just like the blokes around them. Time to stop the male /female “crap” (to quote the pm) - it’s just being used as a divisive measure in mainstream Australia (like that old furphy “childless”)- it’s time to put the energy into helping the women who have real problems http://rawa.org/women.php
      and those Australians male, female and children who are victims of physical and emotional abuse, often intergenerational (those who know no differently cannot do differently so need to be guided out).

      Reply

    • Tubesteak says:

      07:54am | 08/03/12

      We don’t need more women just the best person for the job regardless of sex.

      The studies you cite re more women = better financially are all mistaking correlation with causation. The conclusion of poor analysis.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      08:47am | 08/03/12

      I think the point here is not to get lesser qualified women into these jobs, it’s to get women to think about studying and working in non-traditional fields.  And why not?  People, male or female, with engineering or IT qualifications have better employment and income prospects than people in the “caring” industries which women have flocked to in the past.

      If the so-called “glass ceiling” is going to be broken, women are going to have to move into different occupations that pay better and provide different skill sets, and this is one way to do it.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:06am | 08/03/12

      marley
      It is true that women flock to “caring” industries where the pay is lower (mainly because it’s government funded with no profit motive).

      But I’m not convinced we should be pushing women to do something different just because it might smash a glass ceiling (something which this discussion disproves ie it’s people’s choice to do what they want so if women aren’t choosing to go into that field then the fact there are few senior women in that field isn’t evidence of a glass ceiling but rather the result of much fewer candidates. Evidence supplied by Tator below).

      We already have many motherhood programs encouraging women to choose to do whatever they want in life and Lucy’s article today is a good example of this (women know they can do whatever they want).

      Therefore, if women wanted to go into IT, for example, then they would. But they don’t. I don’t see the point in wasting resources on programs designed to encourage to do something they wouldn’t normally choose when they clearly have the ability to choose that. It just seems like a waste.

    • Sarah says:

      10:23am | 08/03/12

      @Tubesteak

      I couldn’t agree more.

      Women have been screaming for equal rights for so long now and I believe (in the Western world anyway) that we got them, quite a while ago to.

      But regardless of what shape and form your genitalia takes, does not make you superior for a certain role. Those jobs that require people with superior strength generally are undertaken by men - but its not because men are ‘better’ its just because men tend to have more strength then women.

    • marley says:

      10:35am | 08/03/12

      @Tubesteak - I’m not saying we should give incentives to women to go into “non traditional” fields.  I am saying that making them aware of the opportunities there is a good thing. 

      I had a female friend who decided she wanted to be a mechanical engineer back in the early 70s - she was the only female in her class and almost the only one in the faculty of engineering at the time.  She did well out of it, but I know a lot of other women with good maths and sciences who simply never thought of going into engineering back then.  I think that attitude still exists. 

      And my point about the glass ceiling was that if you want to increase the average wage of women, there are various ways to do it without messing around with affirmative action - and one would be to encourage women to go into roles that are traditionally better paid than teaching, social work or nursing.  Note, I said “encourage” - not force, not offer incentives, just encourage.

      The same thing with women in the trades.  No reason a woman can’t be a carpenter or an electrician - but most women never even think about it.  A successful female tradie can be a pretty good role model for girls who aren’t especially academically inclined and don’t want to spend their lives waiting on tables.

      And if you don’t see the point in programs encouraging women to do other things, how do you feel about programs encouraging boys to stay in school?  All of this should be about getting the best out of everyone’s potential.

    • Tubesteak says:

      10:49am | 08/03/12

      “It is true that women flock to “caring” industries where the pay is lower (mainly because it’s government funded with no profit motive).”

      I should clarify this statement.

      I’m saying caring roles are lower paid because they are typically government funded and have no profit motive. I am not saying women flock to caring roles because they are government funded or do not have a profit motive.

      Caring roles are dominated by women for different reasons that are related to individual choice. Whether the reasons for those choices are common is a different discussion.

    • Tubesteak says:

      10:58am | 08/03/12

      marley
      I think in this day and age women are perfectly aware that they are free to choose to do anything. I think Lucy’s article today is a good example of that.

      I don’t think there is any sort of bias against going into something and I don’t think women shy away from things they want to do simply because it is seen to be male dominated.

      I do agree that this used to be the case. My mother didn’t go to uni back in the 60s because it was male dominated (she wanted to be a librarian - as it is she’s earning more money now in a job than a librarian earns but that’s a different discussion).

      I don’t think that exists anymore. I think women are thoroughly encouraged through school the media, the arts and politics to pursue their interests. I agree with this encouragement. Just as I agree with the same for boys.

      However, I think Ms Lundy is advocating exactly that. Encouraging women into IT, specifically, with the potential for targeted programs (you know where her type of talking leads = soon there will be an announcement after they’ve tested the waters of community opinion). I don’t agree with that.

      I don’t like the idea of programs specifically encouraging boys to stay in school. I think it should be to both boys and girls. I don’t like that sort of thing, at all.

    • thatmosis says:

      08:05am | 08/03/12

      To those women that made it, great , but what about those women who think they have made it but are destroying what they set out to protect. Joolia for one, obviously the most incompoetant and hated PM we have ever had the misfortune of ever almost electing and Anna Bligher who has helped turn the Smart State into the State of decay and a few other would be leaders who have led their parties to defeats in a short period of time. We mustnt forget them.
        Women must earn the place as men must and through hard work and diligence but its time, as already said, that this man/women thing was done away with and the person best suited for the job be given the opportunity to shine.

      Reply

    • Tator says:

      08:30am | 08/03/12

      Kate,
      and how will you get more women into IT.  Quotas don’t work if women just don’t want to get into an industry.  I am sure that there are plenty of capable women out there who would work well in the IT industry but if they are not interested, you cannot force them into the industry just to make up the numbers.
      Just for a counterpoint, you say 78.6% of IT graduates are male, and 21.4% are female, what was the starting percentages of people starting IT degrees because if people are just not applying as the ATAR required in 2011 for the various IT degrees were between 65 and 86 so average students from year 12 can access these courses and not just the elite academics who dominate the law and medical courses. 
      As for engineering, considering that engineering has a solid base of mid to high level mathematics and physics which restricts entry to those with good mathematical skills.  Now when we look at the paths followed by women who do have those skills as described in an article in La Griffe du Lion in 2005 called SEX DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL APTITUDE - a Prodigys Journal
      “A study by Lubinski and Benbow followed the careers of mathematically precocious youth from age 13 to 23. All were in the top 1% of mathematical ability. At age 23 less than 1% of the girls were pursuing doctorates in mathematics, engineering, or physical science, while almost 8% of the boys were. Equal aptitude not withstanding, girls pursued doctorates in biology at more than twice the rate of boys, and in the humanities at almost three times the rate of boys. For all these reasons, we should regard 29% as an upper bound to the percentage of women in the technological work force. In practice, their numbers will be significantly less.”
      http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm

      So it appears that it is not that the females cannot work in the industries such as IT and engineering when they have the capability, it is that they are choosing not to, whether that is due to industry stereotyping but with 21% of women in the workforce, it is probably that most women who have the capabilities to do such work, actually prefer to utilise their abilities in other areas away from the hard sciences..
      So rather than looking at the industry trying to fit females in, maybe you should consider the above and realise that women are just choosing careers that are more appealing to them rather than ones just to balance the genders up.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      10:40am | 08/03/12

      @tator - see my comment to Tubesteak above.  My engineer friend was ahead of her time - only woman in mechanical engineering in her university, first woman mechanical engineer to work for a major firm in Canada, and so forth.  She did it because she had grown up in an engineering environment and it seemed a natural thing to do, plus it was the early years of women’s lib and women were out there challenging stereotypes.  But her friends, who had the intellectual capacity, chose other occupations because they simply never thought about being engineers.  I suspect a lot of that is still a factor in play in the lower interest women show in engineering and IT.  Take a look at the shift in other fields which were once traditionally male - law schools and medical faculties are full of women students these days, because attitudes have changed.  I don’t see any particular reason why attitudes about going into engineering shouldn’t change in exactly the same way.

    • SteveKAG says:

      10:58am | 08/03/12

      Stop ruining this debate with intelligence, reasoned argument and well research examples.

      Yours is the reply of the day!

    • n_dude says:

      01:32pm | 08/03/12

      Perhaps females are smart and they know that engineering and IT jobs will be sent offshore to India, China and Phillipines.

    • TChong says:

      08:56am | 08/03/12

      I wont answer for Eck,
      but,‘at a rough guess, I reckon the ALP will probaly have a minister for men, about the same time as the Coalition do.

    • TChong says:

      08:47am | 08/03/12

      Heres a crazee, whackee, idea :
      The best qualified person takes the job.
      If that person is a woman - great.
      If that person is a bloke - great.
      Gender divisions, or quotas,  arent necessary for intelligent people.

      Reply

    • M says:

      09:04am | 08/03/12

      I’ve got a whackier idea.

      A trial mandate of a 50/50 wrokforce everywhere. No excuses. Nursing, teaching, construction, mining, defense, law, police, parliment, university, manufacturing, the whole kit and caboodle.

      Once that fails, can we finally stop listening to the feminist left?

    • Peter says:

      09:39am | 08/03/12

      TChong, “Gender divisions, or quotas,  arent necessary for intelligent people. ” That explains why the Labor party have quotas for female candidiates in winnable seats:)

    • TChong says:

      10:40am | 08/03/12

      Peter
      Could well be the case, but I still believe they aint necessary.
      (despite my Far Of Left leanings, I dont speak for , or feel under any obligation to defend the ALP, - too Right Wing for me))

    • thatmosis says:

      10:49am | 08/03/12

      Here’s a whackier idea, how about we have a level playing field, no special rules for women working in any industry but one set of rules for all. While we are at it lets get rid of any special considerations paid to anybody for decisions that they themselves have made, like parental leave for instance and no special deals made because of their ancestry.  One set of rules for all and may the best person win.

    • Arthur says:

      08:54am | 08/03/12

      Until women and the courts start being fair regarding men’s parental rights, and how the whole separation thing works, I don’t want to hear or read another thing about poor, poor women…The glass ceiling (whatever that means)....blah blah blah….....

      Women want the cream. They now have it. What more could or do you possibly want?

      Reply

    • Black Dog says:

      08:54am | 08/03/12

      Just take a look at the pic Blokes filthy dirty and bloody tired looking woman grinning like a Cheshire cat and nice and clean.
      Think how many times do you see this….having worked in a wide variety of areas I learned one thing….. all jobs are equal untill there is physical effort or dirt involved and then its a males job.
      Fair is fair I have known women who will get stuck in and work beside you but they are few and far between.

      Reply

    • M says:

      09:30am | 08/03/12

      Word. I work in the construction industry, and have been to many mining projects around the country. The women are mostly employed in clean jobs, and those that are on the tools end up being carried by the blokes around them. The blokes keep mum, because they are afraid that if they point out the women on the tools are next to useless that they’ll be reprimanded for sexist or descriminatory comments.

    • MD says:

      09:00am | 08/03/12

      Maybe women have the capacity to think for themselves, and for entirely their own reasons, didn’t want to get into a specific industry.

      Reply

    • amy says:

      10:45am | 08/03/12

      think ourselfs? dont be silly!

      now who wants a sandwhich!?

    • Hanzel says:

      09:01am | 08/03/12

      Women in industry is great, but more women pursuing careers in their 20’s and 30’s means far fewer children and that leads to demongraphic decline and a country based on immigration and the end of our culture as we know and love it. So, we need to be careful about the consequences of girl power ideals.

      Reply

    • amy says:

      10:39am | 08/03/12

      plenty of women want to have babies

      some of us dont

    • rod sexton says:

      09:50am | 08/03/12

      Is there one listed public company that was started by a woman - I am interested to hear about it.

      Reply

    • Dementer says:

      10:02am | 08/03/12

      Im not really sure about your figure that 23% of women work in IT.

      Every time I hit the internet it would be more like 100%.

      Reply

    • che says:

      10:05am | 08/03/12

      Is this an ad for the NBN??

      Reply

    • Blind Freddy says:

      10:09am | 08/03/12

      What about the “glass floor” that keeps women out of the less well paid and dirty jobs?

      Reply

    • marley says:

      10:42am | 08/03/12

      - the same argument applies to women working as plumbers, sparkies and aircraft mechanics.  Encourage them to get into these fields (incidentally, working as a caregiver for the elder is not a well paid or clean job).

    • marley says:

      10:42am | 08/03/12

      - the same argument applies to women working as plumbers, sparkies and aircraft mechanics.  Encourage them to get into these fields (incidentally, working as a caregiver for the elder is not a well paid or clean job).

    • Antifeminist One says:

      11:17am | 08/03/12

      No, Kate.  Australian industry absolutely does not need people being forced into leadership roles based on gender instead of ability.  Especially if filling these quotas comes at the expense of missing a better employee.

      I’m not sure where you got your figures from, but a study by the University of Michigan determined that Norwegian companies that were forced to stuff their boards with women performed significantly worse than they had before: http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/adittmar/NBD.SSRN.2011.05.20.pdf

      What we need is the best person for the job, regardless of gender.

      And while we’re at it, Blind Freddy comes up with a great point.  What about forcing equality into the lowest pay/status, and most dangerous jobs?

      Read more at: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/06/quantifying-the-cost-of-quotas/

      Reply

    • amy says:

      11:18am | 08/03/12

      I don’t really see what the issue is

      I mean if a women wants to go into a feild and its made harder due to stupid gender related reasons..then yes I can see an issue

      but encouraging women to go into feilds “for the sake of getting women into feilds” seems a little silly

      Reply

    • James Mathews says:

      11:21am | 08/03/12

      Well Yes we do, but at the moment there doesn’t seem to be enough Women sticking there hands up to take on the roles which are currently held buy a number of Men in a majority of the Industry. There needs to be change but it is going to happen slowly.

      Reply

    • James Mathews says:

      11:21am | 08/03/12

      Well Yes we do, but at the moment there doesn’t seem to be enough Women sticking there hands up to take on the roles which are currently held buy a number of Men in a majority of the Industry. There needs to be change but it is going to happen slowly.

      Reply

    • M says:

      11:38am | 08/03/12

      Why do we need to encourage women into any industry in the first place? Is it because the feminists want to see 50/50 throughout society? Or is it because they need a new soap box to stay relevant?

      Reply

    • Peter Forde says:

      11:43am | 08/03/12

      This article is seriously out of touch with reality. There’s a word for people who suffer from it: insanity. If ever you want to know why we are losing the wonderful Australia we inherited, you’ll find your answer in ideas like this, conceived, spawned and then, like a destructive virus, spread throughout the society. Lundy has absolutely NO evidence to sustain her social-engineering idiocy. She is perfect evidence of what Donald Horne addressed in his book ‘The Lucky Country’ and to this day remains true - Australia remains a nation led by fools. At a time when we as a nation are already in manufacturing and industry death throes, this idiot offers a totally unproved theory as the solution? It won’t be - but should be - HER head that falls when her moronic ideas eventually do.

      Reply

    • Jimbo75 says:

      11:56am | 08/03/12

      Q:  What do women and yoghurt have in common?

      A: Neither of them grow on trees.

      Ms. Lundy - exactly which industry would you like to see lees women entering so that your desired increase in women in the ICT industry can be met?

      Reply

    • Testfest says:

      01:50pm | 08/03/12

      Hopefully it’s journalism.

    • John L. ex 3rar. says:

      12:39pm | 08/03/12

      Kate Lundy, here is a fact that you should be concerned with. when you voted against the fair indexation of military and widows pensions after you went to the election saying that you would support fair indexation in the senate, you forget that we veterans have brothers,sisters, uncles, nephews, neices, children and friends. 57,000 = 3,000,000 votes and rising. maybe after you get thumped at the next election you might rue the fact that you let the veterans and widows down. you only hold your seat by 0.41% and there is alot of veterans in your seat. as for women in high positions i have always said to my children that women should be given the same jobs as men, if they can do it.

      Reply

    • JJ of SC says:

      01:32pm | 08/03/12

      What a trite statement! Industry needs better leaders - and it doesn’t matter if they are men or women. Why not put your energy into better training and placement of leaders for industry. They are needed

      Reply

    • M says:

      01:52pm | 08/03/12

      I am so sick of these 50/50 articles calling for quotas to smash the glass ceiling of todays modern, empowered, but still somehow discriminated against woman.

      When is the punch going to change it’s name to Feminist Weekly?

      Reply

    • david says:

      01:55pm | 08/03/12

      In 2012, anyone can pursue any career path of their choosing. The fact that an ‘unacceptable’ percentage of women don’t involve themselves with ICT may merely point to a lack of interest in that area.

      Perhaps we should celebrate the equality of choice and opportunity rather than fixating on a 50/50 split in each and every career.

      Reply

    • maria says:

      02:24pm | 08/03/12

      Women leaders
      We have a women Prime Minister who never stop lying.
      The democrats under their women leaders who supposed to keep the bastards honest went to bed with the bastards.
      An inept GG etc….
      Not a very picture where do we go now?

      Reply

    • James says:

      03:12pm | 08/03/12

      What a load of rubbish. We dont need more women in any job, we need the right persons irrespective of gender. It makes me sick to think people actually believe women still need affirmative action.

      Weak, really weak.

      Reply

    • Smith says:

      05:10pm | 08/03/12

      In contemporary Australia, male employees suffer nearly twice the rate of serious work-related injury and disease compared to female employees.

      Likewise, among the work-related deaths that occurred during 2009-2010, a massive 93 per cent of these deaths were suffered by male employees, while 7 per cent were suffered by female employees.

      Why hasn’t this massive work-related gender inequality been addressed by Kate Lundy and her Labor colleagues? Pure and unadulterated sexism on the part of Kate Lundy and her Labor colleagues, that’s why.

      (See ‘Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, Australia’ and ‘Notified Fatalities Statistical Report 2009-10’ by Safe Work Australia.)

      Reply

    • Michael R says:

      07:05pm | 08/03/12

      What’s the point when our female PM Julia Gillard is decimating the manufacturing (and finance) industry by allowing the mining boom to ramp up the dollar, and make our manufacturers uncompetitive?

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      07:31pm | 08/03/12

      Yes Michael, The PM is allowing the miners to boom.

      Perhaps Hockey could show her where the levers are for the mining boom after he has found the levers for the bankers.

 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

tory_maguire

_Tors 22 May 13 03:00PM

@benpobjie @latikambourke Yes Ben, you are now the official arbiter of what is misogyny and what is not! Good luck. ;-)

tory_maguire

_Tors 22 May 13 02:55PM

RT @ThePunchHQ: They both look ridiculous, which is fine for Sandilands, but not fine for the PM says @_Torshttp://t.co/gK8MxYGl5H

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 22 May 13 02:26PM

There really are no words to describe this, @SamClench @newscomauHQhttp://t.co/nzgWuyM5we

Paul Colgan

Colgo 22 May 13 02:23PM

@jendudley I'm reassured that he says he doesn't want to put "food" out of business.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter