Ms JULIE BISHOP (3:17 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer the minister to her approval of a $4 million grant to the homeworkers committee for the textile, footwear and clothing industry. Is the minister aware that the address and telephone details for that committee are in fact the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, a union investigated by her department for its standover tactics to extract cash payments from small business operators? Why did the minister calculate the $4 million grant on the union guesstimate of 330,000 outworkers when the official Australian Bureau of Statistics figure is actually 48,000?

Ms GILLARD (Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion) —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. What the government has provided in the budget—and it was a policy we announced before the last election—is $4 million, over four years, of assistance to go to a body that is participated in by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union, certainly, but also by employers and the fashion industry in general. The purpose of the committee—and I went to the launch—is that they seek to have employers sign up to an accreditation standard which is about how they treat their workers, most particularly on the question of outwork. Having signed that standard, it enables them to display on the garments that they make a No Sweat Shop label. I am sure that there are people around this country, including people sitting in this chamber right now and people in the galleries and people listening to the broadcast, who would if they could, through a label like a No Sweat Shop label, use the power of their purchasing dollar to indicate that they would prefer to buy and wear clothing that has not been made by outworkers in exploitative conditions. Many people would choose to do that. I think that is an important step forward.

Many people would have heard it on the radio and it has been investigated by a number of parliamentary committees: the evidence on this is very, very clear. Indeed, until this question, I would have said it was bipartisan policy in this House to provide special provision to outworkers. I note that even in the context of the darkest, darkest days of the Howard government when it was imposing Work Choices on working Australians—

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question!

Ms GILLARD —Even in their darkest, darkest days, they realised that outworkers needed some special protections. I note that the industrial relations extremism they are clearly headed towards—

Mr Baldwin interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Paterson is warned!

Ms GILLARD —is even worse than Work Choices. That is all that can be assumed from this question. But from parliamentary inquiries around the country it is clear that it is almost impossible to get a real count of the number of outworkers because, by definition, the work is hidden. It is in garages. It is in homes. It is paid for in cash. It is paid to people who are exploited. Outworkers have given direct evidence of earning $3, maybe $4, an hour for the work that they do. No-one in this country could say that they have got an absolutely accurate count of the number of outworkers. What do we therefore do? What does anybody working in this policy area do? You make the best possible estimates available to you.

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question!

Ms GILLARD —The policy construct here is clear. I think it is wrong and the government thinks it is wrong for women predominantly from non-English-speaking backgrounds—

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!

Ms GILLARD —mostly recently arrived in migrants, to work sewing at home in conditions where they are exploited. Clearly the opposition does not think that is wrong.