Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (9) together.

(1) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 46, page 12 (line 8), omit "13C and".

(2) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 46, page 12 (lines 8 and 9), omit "sections" (wherever occurring), substitute "section".

(3) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 46, page 12 (lines 10 to 20), omit section 13C.

(4) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 46, page 12 (line 31), omit the note to subsection 14(2).

(5) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 48, page 13 (line 21), omit "13C,".

(6) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 55, page 15 (lines 24 and 25), omit "gender equality indicators, ".

(7) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 55, page 16 (lines 15 to 29), omit section 19.

(8) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 55, page 19 (after line 32), after section 19E, insert:

19F Agency to make publicly available the names of employers who submit compliant reports

     The Agency shall make publicly available the names of relevant employers who regularly submit reports which comply with this Act.

(9) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 71, page 21 (after line 23), after section 33A, insert:

33B Minister to repeal a legislative instrument when a new instrument is made

     If making a legislative instrument under this Act which imposes a requirement on employers, the Minister must cause an existing legislative instrument which imposes a requirement on employers to be repealed.

As the Minister for the Status of Women, who is at the table, reminded us, this bill was introduced into the House on 1 March. It has finally lurched to its conclusion. It has taken months and yet there is not a single member of the government behind this minister here and now to wave this exciting piece of reform through, even though it has been described as such by every single speaker from the government.

If this bill made a single bit of difference to the women that I meet in my life as an opposition spokesperson and a local member—women struggling with participation in the workforce, with the cost of child care, with working the hours they want to work at times they want to work and with balancing very difficult work and family responsibilities, with, as my friend the member for Calwell said, issues surrounding recently arrived migrants and refugees—I would be supporting it without hesitation. But, if we apply the ultimate barbecue stopper, what members of the government will be going out into their electorates after today and talking about this bill? What members of the government are writing this bill up in their local newsletters or issuing media releases to say, 'Everybody, we've created a new agency. It's called the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. It's led by a new individual called the director of workplace gender equality. Our departments are putting together gender equality indicators and then there will be an enormous amount of ministerial discretion over how to apply the new rules that we have not yet worked out in the workplaces of Australia'? Mind you, it only affects private workplaces. If you work in public workplaces, this bill does not apply to you. We think that is incredibly unfair, by the way.

What members of the government are talking this up? I would challenge any one of them to send me the literature that they are putting out in their communities to support this, because this is meaningless. It is meaningless to the average Australian who is struggling with the cost of living and the issues of balancing work and family, which are supposedly what this bill is about. As I said, it covers a new agency, new indicators and vast-ranging ministerial discretion to do things which we are not sure about. The minister at the table said, 'Relax, it won't apply to businesses with fewer than 100 employees, so small businesses won't be affected.' But, because the discretion exists, it actually might. Articulated in this legislation is a mandate to consider these businesses as strategies are developed around resources et cetera. Those businesses are not automatically removed or ruled out of this legislation. In future this legislation may capture businesses with fewer than 100 employees. As it is, every business in Australia will be caught up in learning about this new legislation, what it means, whether they have to report, to what degree they might have to report and whether something will come down the track that will trap them into more red tape, more regulation and more explanations.

We are moving amendments to this bill, and I encourage members of the government and the Independents to consider them carefully. The amendments are varied, but the key amendment which I think should wave a red flag in this place is the one that says that, for every piece of regulation that is added for businesses under this bill, we expect one piece of regulation to be taken away. We do not think it is fair. I have heard speaker after speaker explain that this will take away the burden of regulation on businesses, so I would like to see that demonstrated by the government. I asked for that in my second reading speech, but I have not heard back. I can only assume that this is going to add to red tape and regulation.

The coalition has formed the view that this bill, which is being promoted as a bill to increase gender equality in the workplace, is in reality an artificial contrivance by the government to increase union power and leverage in workplaces. The government, when questioned about the impact of this bill, is unable to tell us how many more women will be employed, how many more jobs will be created or what is to be the actual increase in gender equality in the workplace as a result of the measures provided for in this bill. It is employers that will have to implement these proposed workplace changes, not the public sector, unions or lobby groups. It is employers that will have to bear the additional costs of these changes, notwithstanding that the government cannot tell us what those costs are. Our amendments are very much in the interests of the employers, the families and the communities that we on this side of the House speak up for.

See this speech in context