What? No, Women Shouldn’t Be Paid More Super Than Men

Posted by on May 26, 2017

On Wednesday’s Mark Latham’s Outsiders live FB show the panel discussed a NSW Union ad that clearly stated more superannuation for women than men. 

The ad, which ran on Seek, specified 9.5% employer contributions for men, 11.5% for female employees.

Mark labeled it ‘sexual discrimination’. 

He asked, “Where’s Kate Jenkins the Sex Discrimination Commissioner saying, ‘Hang on, you can’t pay less to a man than you’re paying to a woman for the same job.”

NSW Unions secretary Mark Morey stood by the policy, which has been in place for four years. “Mark Latham is a small-minded, irrelevant, angry man,” he ranted to Daily Mail Australia after the show. “We stand by our policy of trying to achieve equity in retirement for women.” 


The hours you are at your desk, sweating over a keyboard, years you spend frazzled at work. They, and only they, should determine your superannuation. 

Having children is a choice. 

It is not up to society to offer financial rewards for going down that path, if you choose to do so. 

Not every choice is easy. 

With every choice come consequences. 

Feminists really don’t like equality do they? 
I do not have children, do I still get paid more super? At what age am I supposedly “entitled” to that? 

And please tell me how do I look my colleagues in the eye around the boardroom table? Why am I worth more than the men? I am not. 

Shove your preferential treatment. That’s not equality.

Discrimination is defined as “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age or sex.” 


To advertise, and be paying more to women is blatant discrimination. That is impossible to deny. 

Before the show, I called Unions NSW and spoke to Senior Campaigns Officer Salim Barbar on Wednesday. “If you’re female you get a higher rate in accordance with NSW Unions policy,” he told me. “Men get 9.5%, females get 11.5%. Females are obviously more disadvantaged in the workforce there are greater community needs, to have families, and so on. To level the playing field we ensure they’re not disadvantaged when they take on… responsibilities… in life. This is a policy for us at Unions NSW. It’s not legislation, legislation is 9.5%. Our organization chooses to pay higher because women are disadvantaged.”

The Unions NSW website claims, “Today Unions NSW is the voice for working people across the state. As the peak body for the state’s trade unions, we campaign in workplaces to ensure union members get a fair go, with decent wages and conditions. We argue publicly for policies and laws that support the right of working people to live with dignity.”

NSW Union – you’re not the “voice for working people across the state”, you’re the ATM for female employees across the state. 

That’s not a “fair go”. 

It’s sexual discrimination. 

You dismiss Latham as “a small-minded, irrelevant, angry man”. In a Twitter exchange on Thursday you dismiss criticism as “nonsense”. You declare the “Only person obsessed with identity politics is you [Mark]” rather than answering the very valid question regarding equal pay for equal work. Does that no longer sits at the very heart of the labour movement? 

Hear me. 

I repeat, you have advertised sexual discrimination in black and white. 

I presume you are in direct contact with CSA to ensure that calculations of child support are offset to compensate for this gender bias?

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.