Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 introduces a number of significant innovations aimed at improving gender equality. It will broaden the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to encompass women and men, particularly their caring responsibilities. Also, for the first time, employers will be required to report on the gender composition of their boards. This is particularly dear to my heart, and I am very pleased that it is included in the bill. Smaller organisations with fewer than 100 employees will not be required to report, but they will be able to access the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's advice, education and incentive activities.

It is important to note that reporting will now be made easier for businesses and that it will be more meaningful and useful to them. Contrary to what those opposite have said, the minimum standards have been developed in consultation with industry and will provide employers with the capacity to assess and understand gender equality within their workplaces compared year by year with other workplaces within the industry.

We are removing red tape by allowing businesses to report online. The requirement for organisations to develop workplace programs will also be removed, and employers will now report against a set of gender equality indicators focusing on outcomes for both women and men in the workplace. Over time, the improved and standardised data will enable the minister to set minimum standards to target attention on areas where improvements are most needed. Minimum standards would be intended as an evidence-based way to identify and focus assistance on employers that require some direction on gender equality.

I am sure that, through this new reporting mechanism, many businesses will be able to focus more on gender equality, which will have a long-term benefit for their business. We want this bill to make reporting simpler and more useful for business so that business can achieve measurable progress. Many businesses may not be aware that, for example, having more women on their board will bring a different perspective to problems and issues that arise. I have spoken to many crusty old men on boards who are really appreciative of the views women can bring to the table on a whole range of issues, such as disability and access. I am sure that they would not mind me calling them 'crusty old men', because they are the ones who brought these issues up and have acknowledged, themselves, that they are crusty old men.

Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—

Mr Alexander interjecting—

These are men who I have been on boards with in the past. They are wonderful men with a wealth of experience and expertise, and I am sure they would not mind me calling them that. They get it. They understand that greater diversity on their boards is in their companies' best interests. They understand it is a good thing.

We need to help more businesses realise this potential. It is reassuring that the big four banks are actually leading the way when it comes to increasing the number of women on boards. Other sectors doing well include diversified financials, telecommunications, transportation and insurance. However, companies engaged in commercial and professional services, consumer services and our big retailers rate poorly.

Another important element of this bill will enhance the agency's advisory and education functions. One of the functions of the agency will be to develop industry based benchmarks in relation to gender equality indicators. The agency will also have a more specified role in providing assistance and advice in relation to improving performance against any minimum standards, and it will have an important role in developing, maintaining and reporting on the data it collects across business, government and the community.

This bill improves the transparency and fairness of the compliance framework and the consequences of noncompliance, but it does not actually alter the compliance from the original legislation—the legislation introduced by the Howard government. Contrary to suggestions by those opposite, we have not changed it. More resources will mean the agency will be able to better ensure that all employers who should be reporting are actually reporting. The agency will be able to do small-scale compliance reviews to make sure employers are fulfilling their obligations under the act. Employers will be required to inform employees and shareholders that a report has been lodged, and employers will need to notify employees and employee organisations of the report's lodgement and be provided with an opportunity to comment.

A consequence of not complying with the act without any reasonable excuse is that in the company or business may be named in parliament or more widely. Fairer, more consistent measures for ensuring that the government deals only with organisations that comply with the act will be developed.

It is important to outline exactly what the new objectives of the Workplace Gender Equality Act will be. The key new principal objectives are to: promote and improve gender equality, including equal remuneration between women and men, in employment and in the workplace; support employers to remove barriers to the full and equal participation of women in the workforce, in recognition of the disadvantaged position of women in relation to employment matters; promote amongst employers the elimination of discrimination on the basis of gender in relation to employment matters, including in relation to family and caring responsibilities; foster workplace consultation between employers and employees on issues concerning gender equality in employment and in the workplace; and improve the productivity and competitiveness of Australian business through the advancement of gender equality in employment and in the workplace.

These new objectives are more far-reaching and put the focus more on gender equality in the workplace. The bill now strikes the right balance between the need to drive and encourage change within business, without increasing the regulatory burden.

Those opposite might try to argue against the qualities of this bill. They may try to argue it is not necessary legislation and that these are not issues our parliament should be concerned with. But I disagree. There has been extensive consultation with industry, employee organisations and the women's sector in the drafting of this legislation. There is a need for this legislation and we have reached a point where the all parties are comfortable with what we are proposing.

This is progressive legislation. It is legislation that will take Australian businesses forward and help shape the kind of workforce we want for the future. It is not good enough that in 2012 Australia is ranked 23rd on the World Economic Forum's 2011 Global Gender Gap Index, way behind countries like New Zealand, Cuba and Spain. It is not good enough that the average superannuation balance for Australian women is 40 per cent below that of men, with average payouts half those of men. It is time to take the necessary steps forward to address this gap before it gets any worse.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is the result of an important review by the Office for Women in the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. It is clear that gender equality is essential if we are to maximise Australia's productive potential and ensure continued economic growth. As I said earlier, it has been estimated that closing the gap between men's and women's workforce participation could boost gross domestic product by 13 per cent. That really is the bottom line here. Gender equality is not just a social policy; it is an economic policy. The government is determined to improve women's economic security—and this begins with fair and equitable treatment in the workplace. It is simply good economics to improve gender equality in our workplaces, and this bill does so by placing gender equality in the workplace firmly under the spotlight.

This is a sophisticated and meaningful package of reforms. It is a significant step forward that will enable employers and the government to measure and drive better outcomes for women and men in Australian workplaces. I commend the bill to the House.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Canberra, and as an 'evergreen' male, rather than another adjective, I call the member for Mackellar.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 9 March, when this legislation originally surfaced, I said when I was acting spokesman on the status of women that this new so-called diversity regime was the sort of thing you would expect from a totalitarian regime' which would lead to 'tokenism and the promotion of women simply because they are women'. I further described the proposal as 'heavy-handed, half baked and wasting $11.2 million', which was part of an agenda to strip away the rights of employers to run their businesses efficiently and employ people on merit. I stand by those comments.

It is interesting to take a look at the explanatory memorandum prepared by the government to support this bill and read some of the interesting material that is in it, which actually undermines the manner in which the government is attacking this issue of equality in the workplace, which we on this side of the House thoroughly support. We acknowledge that the contribution of women in the workforce is essential to the performance of our economy. But the snapshot proposals that are published in the government's own explanatory memorandum make statements like:

Women are more likely to be clerical, sales and community and personal service workers, while men are more likely to be technicians and trades workers, machinery operators and drivers and labourers. Women are still substantially under-represented in the manual trades in Australia, with the number of women in manual trades being less than 2 per cent.

Australian women are more likely to work under minimum conditions and be engaged in low-paid, casual and part-time work. It says:

Women workers are concentrated in the sectors of health care and social assistance and education and training (30 per cent of all female hours worked). When combined with the retail industry, 44 per cent per cent of total female hours worked are concentrated in just three industries. There is not a single industry in Australia in which women are paid more than men.

It also says:

A woman is approximately 50 per cent less likely to be employed as a manager, despite being equally likely to be in a full-time role in a professional capacity.

I think those comments are very pertinent in setting the scene to take me back to a report in December 2006 of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, which I chaired, entitled Balancing work and family: report on the inquiry into balancing work and family. It was in that report that we made many important findings which are very supportive of the policy which is referred to in the amendment moved to this bill by the member for Farrer stating:

… whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that if the Government was genuinely committed to achieving equality for working women, it would adopt the Coalition s better, fairer Paid Parental Leave scheme …

which of course has something on the poor leave scheme that the government has put in place—minimum payments only and only for a lesser period of time than the coalition proposes. It also includes superannuation payments, which, of course, the government does not include.

In that report that I referred to we took evidence from a vast number of people, but one was from the Family Matters journal, where Matthew Gray and Professor Bruce Chapman investigated the issues of average loss of income for a hypothetical woman who completes secondary school and then commences having a family at the age of 25 with the option of further children. They said the simple fact of having a child reduces a woman's lifetime chance of being employed by seven per cent. The authors calculated that on average this hypothetical woman would lose 37 per cent of her lifetime earnings by having a child. They said the results for women with differing levels of education are similar. They went on to talk about the weekly earnings of an average employee who faces a decision, five years after finishing their education, whether to finish work, do part-time work or continue to work full time. They said employees who stay full time continue to increase their earning capacity. Those who change to part-time work or plateau and employees who leave the workforce face a reduced salary when they return, with the reduction increasing for the amount of time out of a job. In other words, at every turn there is enough evidence to say that real policies to see women remain in the workforce are gauged at enabling them to have a child, to be able to provide for that child in those early weeks with good financial backup and to feel that they can then go back into the workforce and not miss out on the important aspects that lead to increases in pay and not plateauing.

I think it is interesting to look at the statistics that came from one of the witnesses who gave evidence to us about what happens to women when they are using the education they have gained in more professional and higher-paid jobs. For instance, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia noted that, of their female membership, 69 per cent did not have children. By comparison, the current estimate for the Australian population generally is that 16 per cent of women are likely to remain childless. They said the very high proportion of childless female professionals found in the association's surveys reflects the reality that professional women with children are leaving the workforce or reducing their level of workforce participation due to family responsibilities.

It highlights one of the main reasons the government likes to criticise the proposed paid parental leave scheme that we are introducing and that would allow women to have 26 weeks at their replacement wage of up to $75,000: it would mean that we are acknowledging that there is important economic empowerment in higher-paid jobs as well as for those who are in lesser-paid jobs. This sort of inverted snobbery that the government likes to engage in does not recognise more women are now graduating from university than men. This potential to waste that education remains unrecognised by the government and, worse than that, in this legislation potential employers are being penalised.

The sort of additional red tape that this legislation imposes in its reporting requirements and the potential for so-called union involvement in investigating what is happening in small firms in particular means that people are going to be less likely to want to employ women at a higher level because of the nature of the legislation. I go to the point that we make: the failure to recognise that we want women who are utilising tertiary education to be able to do it in a way that they do not lose their place, dare I say it, in the pecking order.

When you look at the penalties that this legislation intends to impose upon firms, the Minister for the Status of Women has said:

Government trade with a non-compliant organisation will not just be discouraged, it will not be allowed by law.

Non-compliant companies will miss out on industry assistance, grants and government contracts—

and they will be non-compliant if they fall short of industry benchmarks or fail to improve over a two-year period. They will also be in breach of the rules if they fail to lodge a report as required, or fail to substantiate their report.

The fact of the matter is that this is to apply to any firm with 100 employees or more. These are the firms where we would hope that women with high qualifications would be seeking employment, yet the explanatory memorandum of the government's bill points out:

The workforce participation of mothers in Australia is low by international standards. Of Australian mothers with their youngest child under two, 82 per cent worked part-time and nearly half (45 per cent) worked 15 hours or less per week.43 The main barrier to full participation in paid work for women is difficulty balancing paid work and care responsibilities.

That is precisely what the opposition's policy is: to solve these problems so that women can continue in the paid workforce, utilise the education that they have acquired and see the statistics change so that they are not concentrated in the low-paid areas but are utilising that education to move up.

Red tape and penalising firms by preventing them from having government contracts is not the way to go. Nor is pumping $11.2 million of taxpayers' money into creating yet another piece of bureaucracy, this time called the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. It may be a make-work program for a number of people in the public sector to have yet another quango, but the fact of the matter is it is not going to assist women who are coming through education, as I said, at a greater rate than men in tertiary qualifications, yet this is not yet being reflected in workplace attainment.

The way forward is certainly not the red tape way in which this heavy-handed legislation is proceeding, but by accepting that the legislation—which, should we be elected, the opposition will introduce in government—for a fairer paid parental leave scheme will be one that will give real assistance to women to utilise their skills and not to find themselves plateaued or, indeed, falling behind and not making full use of those skills. Indeed, when we did this report back in 2006—and I have mentioned this before in a speech—we commissioned Access Economics to do an appraisal of women's participation in the workforce and what will happen if we do not improve the number of women who are in full-time work as distinct from part-time or indeed failing to participate.

The Access Economics report is at the back of the report I mentioned, and it simply shows that unless we do increase the number of women moving from part-time work into full-time work our economy will be seriously disadvantaged. So I say to the minister and I say particularly to women on the government side, particularly those who have got here by affirmative action: you do tend to make yourself a permanent second-class citizen if that is the way you wish to proceed. Women in Australia, as I see them, see that there is an opportunity to succeed on merit and to have the opportunity to utilise the skills that they are gaining. But it is not being done and it is not being helped by this heavy-handed legislation that is before the House.

I ask the government to reconsider the way it views women as being a political tool, and start looking at them as individuals who want to achieve and who aspire to contribute to the overall economy as well as being fine parents. Any publication you pick up about parenting shows that the number 1 concern people have when make their decision as to whether or not they wish to become parents is whether or not they can financially provide for that child. This sort of heavy-handed legislation does nothing to alleviate those concerns, but the splendid policy that has been put forward by the opposition for a fairer form of paid parental leave does answer many of those questions, and I would commend our policy rather than the government's as the way to proceed.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012, and I wish to briefly pick up on the point that the member for Mackellar just raised—that is, what many women, particularly mothers, are concerned about is making sure that they can make ends meet in relation to those cost of living pressures when you have a family. Certainly, as a member of this government I am very proud of our record of what we have delivered for working families—not just the paid parental leave but the dads' and partners' leave that has recently been introduced. You can also look at the increases to the family tax benefit B, the increases to the childcare benefit and the new schoolkid's bonus, just to name a small number of improvements this Labor government has made for working families and working women.

I know, as do all women of this parliament, how far we have come as a nation to instil quality in the workforce. The Labor Party has a very proud history of promoting and protecting equality, and with this amendment bill we aim to promote and improve gender equality in the workplace by recognising the vital importance of equal remuneration and family and caring responsibilities as central to the achievement of gender equality. Equality is core to the belief and purpose of the Labor Party, which was forged over 120 years ago out of a collective struggle for equality in the workplace, and as a government we have amended or introduced over 100 Commonwealth acts that eliminate discrimination. It is well over a decade since the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act was last reviewed and the economic, social and legislative landscape has changed significantly throughout that period. That is why Labor has acted. The former Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, initiated a comprehensive review of the legislation and of the status of women and men in the workplace. That review found that the act needed to be updated and modernised to be fully effective in supporting and driving change in Australian workplaces.

I believe that gender equality in Australian workplaces is important for women, men, business and the economy more broadly. It has been estimated that closing the gap between women's and men's workforce participation could boost Australia's GDP by up to 13 per cent. Furthermore, extensive consultation has been undertaken with industry, employer organisations and the women's sector in the drafting of this legislation. We went to the people who will be directly affected by this legislation to find out what their needs are. That is why with this bill we have made sure that these changes are comprehensive, starting with the amendment of the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 to emphasise the focus of the act on gender equality, thereby improving outcomes for both women and men in the workplace. The name of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency has also changed to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and the title of the director of the agency has changed to the Director of Workplace Gender Equality to reflect the new focus of the act. The objects of the act will highlight the expanded coverage to men, particularly in relation to caring responsibilities, as well as highlighting the importance of equal remuneration to gender equality. I think this is very important because in listening to the member for Mackellar's statement on this bill, at no point was it acknowledged that this bill actually picks up on men's caring responsibilities and equality across genders.

The objects also make clear the underpinning nature of gender equality to improved competitiveness and productivity, and the particular need to focus on removing barriers to women's full and equal workforce participation. Thus, this proposed legislation presents a new framework for promoting and encouraging gender equality in Australian workplaces. The bill fulfils a dual purpose of supporting improved workforce participation, particularly of women and carers, as well as reducing the regulatory burden on business. We heard the member for Mackellar claiming that this bill actually increases the burden, but this bill does not introduce more compliance measures, it is based on the compliance measures in the existing legislation, which the Howard government introduced. There has been some criticism raised about this bill creating too much red tape, but in fact the compliance measures in this bill allow for processes to be filled out online—and they are simple to fill in—which has been included at the request of business. It was business in the consultation period that identified that this type of compliance system was preferred and that is what this bill proposes, so I recommend that the members of the opposition actually go and consult with those employers about red tape and compliance because this change in the bill has come about as a consequence of what employers are asking for. Relevant employers will no longer need to provide descriptions of their policies and programs, but will report against gender equality indicators, focussing on tangible outcomes and practices. Reporting, while clearly easier for business, will also be more meaningful and useful. It will provide employers with the capacity to assess and understand gender equality within their workplaces, compared year by year and with other workplaces within their industry.

The agency's advisory and education functions will be enhanced. The contemporary data focus will allow the agency to see and target advice and education as effectively as possible as particular sectoral or industry issues emerge. Smaller organisations—those with fewer than 100 employees—will not be required to report, but will be able to access the agency's expertise and expanded online resources. Over time, the improved and standardised data set will assist the minister in setting industry specific minimum standards against the gender equality indicators. The minister will consult with relevant stakeholders, as she sees appropriate, in the setting of those minimum standards. These minimum standards will help the agency maximise the impact of its education and advice. The bill provides that the agency must provide any employers who fail to meet the minimum standard with assistance aimed specifically at improving their performance against that minimum standard. We heard from the member for Mackellar claiming that it is all about a big stick in cases when a particular employer does not meet the minimum standard, but what this bill does is provide those employers with assistance aimed at specifically improving their performance and meeting those standards.

In addition to the minister setting these minimum standards, the agency will set benchmarks in relation to the gender equality indicators, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, which will not be part of the compliance framework. The benchmarks are intended as a way for the agency to collect, analyse and express the data collected from public reports in a useful and meaningful way. These benchmarks will enable relevant employers to consider their workplace outcomes and practices in relation to their industry peers and compared to their own performance from year to year. The bill facilitates the engagement of senior management and employees. The chief executive officer, or equivalent, will be required to sign-off on organisations' reports. Consultation with employees is a defined gender equality indicator. This is to ensure that the legislation is not simply about filling out paperwork and reporting, it is about meeting real outcomes.

The bill also improves the transparency and fairness of the compliance framework and the consequences of non-compliance. The agency will be able to check compliance by seeking information from employers relevant to compliance. Employees and shareholders will be provided with access to the report, and employees and employee organisations will be provided with opportunity to comment on the report. There is nothing wrong with employees having access to reports that relate to their workplace and benefits for women in the workplace. The consequences of non-compliance build on the existing provisions, but with a focus on improving transparency and consistency of application. If an employer does not comply, without a reasonable excuse, they may be named in a report to the minister or more broadly. Employers may also not be eligible to compete for Commonwealth contracts, grants or other financial assistance. This is an existing policy, but work is being done within government to ensure greater consistency and transparency in its application. To enable employers to have sufficient time to adapt to the new framework, the provisions of the bill are being phased in. The first full new reports will be due in 2014. The new framework will also enable the government, policymakers and the community to have access to better aggregate information about gender equality in Australian workplaces. The bill provides that the agency report every two years on progress relating to the gender equality indicators. The bill achieves a clear balance in addressing the needs of business by making reporting simpler and more streamlined, supported by a new online interface. It also, however, ensures a much greater focus on outcomes to effect genuine and sustainable change over time.

The government has engaged in significant consultation with key stakeholders in developing the proposed legislation. In 2011, the government convened an implementation advisory group to assist with the improvements to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. Membership of the industry advisory group consists of key representatives from industry, unions and business, as well as experts in the fields of gender equality and workplace issues.

This legislation is about supporting employers to achieve cultural change; it is not about punishing employers or setting unreasonable standards that they cannot meet. Since the bill was introduced on 1 March 2012, a number of organisations and individuals have indicated support for the changes to the legislation. This support has come from industry, employee organisations and the women's sector. This amendment is one piece of a broader Labor effort to build stronger and fairer partnerships in the workplace. I commend the bill to the House.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 and I welcome the opportunity to speak specifically about the issue of gender equality in Australian workplaces. The bill being debated today seeks to amend the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 by firstly changing the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, with the objects of the act to be amended as wel1. The bill will expand the advice and education functions of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, with changes also set to be made to the compliance framework for employers. The coverage of the act is set to be widened, with men being covered as well as women, and it is extended to all employers and employees in the workplace.

The issue of gender equality is a very important issue for the coalition and is an issue which I personally find very significant, having graduated as a mechanical engineer and spent much of my professional working life in male-dominated industries. I would like to make it clear from the outset that women and men can and should contribute to all aspects of Australian life in their own ways. In relation to employment opportunities for men and women, I strongly believe that businesses should be employing, retaining and promoting individuals based on merit, not on their gender. It is a core belief of the coalition that government interference into the life of individuals and businesses should be minimised as much as possible. I therefore do not support efforts that seek to increase the level of government interference in the workplace.

I would like to begin my contribution to this debate by highlighting several concerns I have with this bill. I have already mentioned my objection to unnecessary government interference in businesses' ability to employ individuals based on their merit. I therefore have concerns that this bill may impose additional red tape for business and therefore unacceptable increased levels of regulation. The two main concerns that I have relate to the cost to business and whether the new reporting framework actually simplifies and streamlines the reporting requirements for employers. I also have concerns about whether the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will have the necessary resources to carry out its expanded role, and why the new term 'employee organisation' is inserted into the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act.

In relation to the first issue I have, with regard to the costs to business, it seems unlikely that resourcing costs will decrease, as is claimed by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The changes proposed in this bill go further than the gender equality rules which apply now to ASX listed companies. Currently, ASX listed companies are required to comply with the ASX corporate governance principles and publish workplace gender diversity policies and have their objectives for achieving these policies disclosed each year. These companies are also required to release information that shows the proportion of women in the company and how many women are in senior management positions as well as on the organisation's board. The provisions of this bill should not be going further than the current obligations on companies, as it is likely that additional costs will be imposed on these businesses through the reporting requirements this bill proposes.

The second concern that I have relates to the bill's proposal to simplify and streamline reporting—however, it is not clear how the new reporting framework will achieve this goal. Under the proposed new reporting framework, employers must report against gender equality indicators. This must be a public report prepared by the employer and it is required to contain matters specified in the legislative instrument made by the minister. The bill, however, does not make it clear what 'matters' are to be specified and there is therefore uncertainty for employers about what they must report on under this proposed new framework. Because of this uncertainty it is difficult to see how reporting for employers will be simplified and streamlined.

This brings me to the two additional concerns I have, which, again, deal with some uncertainty with what the bill seeks to achieve and the provisions' ability to achieve these aims. Firstly, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency is given expanded roles to provide targeted advice and assistance to relevant employers, so that they can promote and improve gender equality in relation to minimum standards. As this is an expanded role, it appears that the agency would require additional resources to effectively undertake this role; however, it is unclear from the bills whether these additional resources will be provided. Secondly, the term 'employee organisation' is already given meaning under section 12 of the Fair Work Act 2009; however, this bill also inserts a new term into the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act. Clarification needs to be made in relation to this provision, as it seems unnecessary to include a new term when it already exists in the Fair Work Act. These are the technical issues with the bill; however, we must remember that there are larger issues relating to female participation in the workforce which deserve greater scrutiny.

I would now like to highlight some recent statistics which give us an idea of how the current workforce as a whole looks. The recent labour force statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics give us a snapshot of the female participation rate in our workforce. I have picked a period from earlier this year. The participation rate for females during the February period, seasonally adjusted, was 58.7 per cent. This is significantly lower than the male participation rate during the same period, which was 71.7 per cent. I would also like to point out that the number of females employed in total for February is significantly lower compared with males. According to the ABS, there are over 5.2 million females employed, while there are over 6.2 million males employed. More than double the number of females are employed part time compared with males, with figures showing part-time female workers at about 2.374 million compared with just over one million males employed on a part-time basis. If we look at the employment of women in different industries, it becomes clear that there are specific industries where the employment of women is significantly lower compared with males. A look at 18 different industry groups reveals that only six industries have a majority of women employed either part time or full time. These industries are retail trade, with 56.4 per cent; accommodation and food services, with 55 per cent; financial and insurance services, with 50.9 per cent; administrative and support services, with 52.3 per cent; education and training, with 69 per cent; and health care and social assistance, with 78.8 per cent. A further seven industries have female part-time or full-time-equivalent employees at levels that are below 40 per cent: agriculture, forestry and fishing; mining; manufacturing; electricity, gas, water and waste services; construction; wholesale trade; and transport, postal and warehousing. The construction industry was at the lowest level, with women comprising only 11.6 per cent of employees. These statistics clearly demonstrate that we need to get more women into the workforce and improve their representations in industries almost across the board.

I am an enthusiastic advocate for improvement in the labour force participation rates for women and know that we can enhance our contributions to the economic and social wellbeing of Australia. In fact, earlier this year I raised these issues in this place and emphasised the need for work to be organised so family responsibilities can also be balanced. The figures I mentioned earlier regarding women predominantly taking up part-time work further justify my claim.

In concluding today I repeat my call to break down the barriers impeding improved female participation rates in the workforce and getting women back into the workforce. If we are serious, we need to identify what those barriers are and we need to take positive action to encourage and support more women in maintaining their place in the workforce or re-entering the workforce. Two issues have been identified to me very clearly within the electorate and quite widely around Australia. The first issue is good-quality and affordable child care. The second is an issue that, as I have indicated previously, I have touched on already in this place—work organisation to make it more appropriate and more attractive for women with family responsibilities to re-enter the workforce.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to voice my strong support for the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is the next step in the Gillard government's assault on inequity and discrimination in Australian workplaces. On this side of the House we can hold our heads high in this regard. We have delivered Australia's first paid parental leave scheme, which provides real support to working mums and dads and their young families—truly momentous. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff; it is a practical, fair and sustainable scheme that provides financial assistance when they need it most.

For women the road to equality has been a long and difficult one. Along this road we often take baby steps—and I use that term deliberately—but we are getting there. Australia was one of the first countries in the world to give women the right to vote and to sit in parliament. We were just pipped by New Zealand. After that, it was not until 1949 that our first female federal cabinet minister was appointed. That took 49 years. Up until 1966—which is not that long ago, as 1966 was when I was born—women working in the federal Public Service were required to resign when they married. In the last 50 years much has been achieved for women in equality in education, in the workplace and in things such as safe contraception and access to childcare facilities. In 1984 the federal government banned discrimination on the basis of sex. Today, more women than men are educated at secondary schools and universities and more women graduate from university with bachelor degrees. In 2006, women made up nearly 55 per cent of tertiary students and 47.5 per cent of students enrolled in vocational education and training courses. Forty per cent of Australia's small business operators are women and 57 per cent of the Australian Public Service are women, with around 36 per cent of senior executive positions. It is a different story in the private sector, where, sadly, only 12 per cent of management jobs are held by women. Progress is continuing but more needs to be done.

Let's have a look at parliament: there are currently more women parliamentarians in the Senate than at any other time since Federation, with 28 women out of 76; but, sadly, the number of women in this chamber dropped at the last election and is now less than 25 per cent. So 111 years after Federation we are down to less than one in four members of this chamber being women. Of course, in the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, we have Australia's first female Prime Minister, and likewise in Quentin Bryce we have Australia's first female Governor-General—a proud Queenslander, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott.

It is interesting to see how the Liberal National Premier of Queensland dealt with women in the workplace when he was the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. I have spoken about this with one of the councillors in the Moreton electorate and that is Councillor Nicole Johnston—now an Independent but previously a member of the Liberal Party. She was the councillor assisting Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, as he then was, before she decided that her job as a Liberal councillor for Tennyson required her to speak out on behalf of Sherwood residents about the bus depot that was rather hastily foisted on the local community. After Nicole dared to speak up and voice local community concerns, she says that she was frozen out by Mr Newman. He refused to speak to her. Thankfully, she was re-elected, not for Labor but as an Independent, at the recent council elections. Unfortunately, I have heard the now Premier Newman bagging the hardworking Nicole Johnston to all and sundry. He was quite indiscreet, in fact, in the past. Perhaps things might change now that he is the Premier. This might suggest poor judgment, a personality flaw or a huge lack of respect for women; we will see. Obviously, Mr Newman has a long way to go if he wants all Queenslanders to believe that such treatment is behind him.

In Queensland, of the 78 seats held by the LNP, less than 17 per cent are female. The LNP's representation of women is in line with countries like Kazakhstan and Venezuela. Obviously it is not good for a modern political party to have such disregard for equality. There is no minister for women under the state LNP government, and who knows what they will axe next? We will wait and see. There are still some sections of the community—both broadly known and smaller pockets—that are coming to terms with the proper way to treat and provide equal opportunity for women.

This bill before the chamber delivers on the Gillard Labor government's commitment to improve the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. The bill changes the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, because this is about improving outcomes for women and men in the workplace. The bill also changes the emphasis of the act to promote and improve gender equality in the workplace and achieve equal remuneration and a stronger focus on family and caring responsibilities. The bill also introduces a new reporting framework which requires employers with 100 or more employees—so not small businesses—to report against a set of gender equality indicators. A new online reporting facility will be easier and more useful, and will enable businesses to compare how they are travelling against other workplaces in their industry. Over time the data will enable the minister to set minimum standards for employers.

The renamed Workplace Gender Equality Agency will also be required to develop industry based benchmarks regarding gender equality. They will then use these indicators to assist industry to meet these benchmarks. Employees and shareholders will be provided with access to a business compliance report, ensuring greater transparency and accountability for meeting gender benchmarks. I am pleased to see that extensive consultation has been carried out through the review of the act and broad consultation has continued throughout the reform process. I particularly commend the Minister for the Status of Women, Julie Collins, for her work directly engaging with key stakeholders in the development of the bill. This is an important piece of legislation in efforts to improve gender equality in the workplace—something that I am sure all members of parliament and all Australians would support.

Back in 2009, I was part of an inquiry into pay equity as part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations, chaired by the then member for Hasluck, Sharryn Jackson. The report Making it fair: pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce made 63 recommendations. Unfortunately, I cannot stand here today and hold up that report and say that we have achieved all 63 of those recommendations, but nevertheless it is a bit of a guide—a path that this parliament might go down to achieve true equality. This bill implements some of those recommendations, particularly around better reporting, because it is through the information of reporting that businesses, governments and other institutions will be able to say: 'We've done this so far and we'll now be able to take the next step in achieving equality in the workforce.'

I take you back to some facts that are quite disconcerting: not that long ago, only 46 years, when a woman was married, the social expectation was that if she was in the federal Public Service she would resign, with the presumption she would be supported by her husband. A lot has been achieved, and I would like to particularly commend the efforts of the Prime Minister as she has quietly in her steely, strong, determined way gone about proving that women can do anything in Australia. I have often had people in my electorate come up when I am with the Prime Minister to say that they respect what she has done for their daughters and their grandchildren and to say thank you for leading the nation in such a way. Whilst there are suggestions from both sides of parliament, it is complicated when you look at the data and say that merit will out. The reality is that when half of the population is female but less than 25 per cent of the MPs in this chamber are female there is something going wrong—otherwise you must make the flawed presumption that half of the women in Australia do not have the same merit when it comes to being a proper representative. This bill is a great way to go. It is a step in the right direction and I commend the bill to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.