Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2), (4) to (6), (8) and (9) on sheet 7263:

(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".

(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, ".

(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on employers, the Minister must cause an existing legislative instrument which imposes a requirement on employers to be repealed.

The opposition also opposes schedule 1 in the following terms:

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

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

The coalition moves these amendments because an analysis of the impact of the current legislation suggests that, despite its stated intent, the bill in its current form will trigger a number of unintended consequences, will result in the implementation of bad public policy and will not achieve the desired policy outcome.

One of the coalition amendments seeks to remove the inordinate level of discretion proposed to be provided to the minister. The bill is drafted to provide the minister with an inordinate amount of discretion. The explanatory memorandum confirms this broad discretion. It states that the bill:

… gives the Minister the flexibility to consider all issues relevant to gender equality and to add new matters.

The coalition believes that the parliament should be given the opportunity to consider the scope and extent of these new matters. The minister to date has been unable to provide any guidance as to what these new matters may be. Perhaps, Minister, you may be able to enlighten us as to whether or not there has been any consideration of what these new matters may well be. In particular, the regulatory impact statement at page 21 talks about 'prescriptive regulation' and says that this 'is not the preferred approach at this time'. Certainly I have asked the minister the question that needs to be answered. To date, it has not been, and I still have concerns about if and when this will be the preferred option of the government, given that in the government's own regulatory impact statement the only guidance that is given is:

This approach is not the preferred approach at this time.

In the absence of agreeing with the coalition's amendments, I would have appreciated the minister giving an undertaking that this is not the intended option and will never be the intended option of the government. Given that the bill provides a mere framework agreement and the government has failed to address so many of the issues that are conveniently left to ministerial discretion, it is the coalition's position that the government is premature in introducing this legislation.

The coalition amendments also seek to reintroduce provisions allowing the agency to waive public reporting requirements for relevant employers and insert a provision for the agency to give public acknowledgement to relevant employers who regularly meet compliance standards. The bill as drafted is all stick and no carrot, with the capacity for the agency to waive reporting requirements for a relevant employer to be repealed. As the Ai Group said in their submission to the initial KPMG review:

… it may be worthwhile, in Ai Group’s view, to introduce a form of positive recognition for organisations which submit regular reports, to provide an incentive to do so. This may be more appropriate and effective than the alternative, which is to penalise those which do not report. While EOWA recognises outstanding organisations through its "employer of choice awards", there are of course numerous organisations which regularly report but for a variety of reasons do not apply for or receive such awards. Recognising organisations which regularly submit compliant report, such as a certification process, could be considered.

The coalition amendments also require the government to remove one regulation for relevant employers for each new regulation imposed by the act. To date, whilst the government is very strong on its rhetoric in relation to repealing regulations, my understanding is that over 18,000 regulations have been introduced by the Labor government during its time in office whilst but a handful of regulations have actually been repealed. So, despite its rhetoric, the government is certainly failing miserably in this regard.

Unlike the government, the coalition supports the right and responsibility of employers to operate efficiently and employ people on merit. We also believe in smaller government and not interfering with businesses getting on with the job of employing people. The coalition believes that the imposition by government of unnecessary and burdensome regulation on business causes business, big and small, to divert time, money, efforts and resources to comply with government red tape. Under this government, that is a considerable amount of red tape, with over 18,000 regulations having been introduced whilst this government has been in power, as I said, rather than creating jobs and opportunities for all Australians. We support the right of employers to run their business efficiently and to employ people on merit. We do not support the placement of measures which are designed to increase the level of government interference in the workplace.

As I stated in my speech in the second reading debate, the coalition is concerned that this particular bill will not achieve its stated objectives and will, rather, as stated by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, only serve to divert the attention of employers away from efforts to implement measures to promote workplace equality, to ensure they are compliant with the procedural requirements of the legislation.

Whilst the department estimates that the cost to business will decrease on average, from approximately $1,200 to $450 per annum in resourcing costs, page 24 of the regulatory impact statement specifically states:

The reforms will result in increased compliance costs for businesses who have not previously been compelled to report.

Page 26 of the RIS states:

Agency will be provided with the authority to conduct organisational reviews.

It goes on to say:

The time burden—

on businesses that are selected for such a review—

would be increased—

as would the cost burden, being $1,300. It is interesting to note that this estimate was modelled on organisations that have kept appropriate records up to date and accessible. It was certainly not modelled on organisations that have not done this, and therefore the logical conclusion is that the compliance burden on those organisations is certainly going to be a lot heavier.

The compliance burden on Australian businesses is increasing and impacting on productivity and competitiveness. Studies of red tape in Australia have put the cost of red tape as high as four per cent of all business costs. The Productivity Commission has estimated the rewards for red tape reduction alone to be worth $12 billion in additional GDP. Regulation, whether for economic, social or administrative reasons, can increase the cost of doing business, inhibit innovation and erect barriers to entry. The volume of regulation, as I have already stated, continues to grow under the Labor government. I note we have the relevant minister here, the minister for, allegedly, deregulation. I would like to know what the minister's definition of 'deregulation' is, given that over 18,000 new regulations have been introduced under this government, whilst I understand that fewer than 100 have actually been repealed.

Many important laws and regulations have been introduced without proper assessment of the costs and benefits, including a lack of consultation with affected stakeholders. The coalition understands the impact that red tape and excessive regulation can have on business. We work on this principle, unlike the government: a business that has to close employs no-one. In our opinion, that does not assist gender equality in the workplace. The coalition's commitment to reducing red tape is a real commitment—hence the announcement of our deregulation task force. The aim is to reduce regulation and red tape by over $1 billion per annum. Regulations that raise business costs and reduce competition are a particular focus of the coalition's review.

Unfortunately, Labor does not understand this and this bill is just another example of its lack of understanding. In proposing our amendments, the coalition is seeking to strongly support the principle of gender equality. The amendments are drafted to make meaningful changes to the current bill in the interests of achieving gender equality, improving workplace participation and improving workplace flexibility. The reform of the act represented the chance for the government to do something meaningful to advance gender equality in Australian workplaces by introducing measures to improve flexibility, productivity and incentives to encourage women back to the workforce after having children. Regrettably, what we are faced with tonight, and what will pass the Senate tonight, is nothing more and nothing less than hastily concocted, half-finished measures that are unclear and provide for an inordinate amount of ministerial discretion. They certainly provide for an inordinate amount of ministerial discretion, in particular when the minister is able to make decisions that will directly impact on the regulatory burden on businesses. That is not something that is supported by the coalition. The bill in its present form represents a failure of Labor government policy and a lost opportunity to improve gender equality, which will continue to be a significant disincentive to the participation of women in the Australian workforce.