Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was last speaking on this legislation, I was canvassing the dangers of the way it will allow unions and employees from different organisations to compare wage rates. Whilst the government is very aware of the difficulties that could arise out of this, it is very hard to come to any other conclusion but that they have deliberately set this up as a tool for unions to push for above award wages in organisations where this currently does not happen.

In more general terms, this legislation could have been very useful to us. It could have taken us into a situation where we have active work on the part of all stakeholders to ensure pay equity and to ensure that it is being actively worked on by employers and others. It is interesting that the government has taken itself out of the equation. The Business Council of Australia has pointed out that the cost of including the public sector was given in the regulatory impact statement as a reason for not requiring the public service to be subject to the new legislation. What a bizarre outcome we have, and yet more and more red tape and regulation is being forced onto businesses.

Many organisations have found that they do have a pay equity issue when they look at the data, but this needs to be done in a way that they will not feel that— (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is fairly confronting when you get to stand and speak to a piece of legislation that you have followed through from when the original legislation was introduced over 20 years ago. We are all cutting our contributions very short, recognising the importance of making sure that the debate continues.

I can well remember when the original legislation was brought into this place to ensure that there would be equality for women in the workplace—and I see people sitting in this chamber who share this experience. If we look at the Hansardtranscripts from that time, we remember the statements that were made that the legislation would end the modern world as we know it, that business would cease to operate effectively, that we would have social engineering interfering with the way that people would operate, and that all this was some kind of mad experiment by people who wanted to change the world starting with business in Australia. We know that that is not true. If you look at the way this legislation operated in its original guise, as the affirmative action legislation and then through a couple of reviews through 1990 and to today, you see that the intent was purely to ensure that people in Australia would have equal opportunity in workplaces so that they could have careers, equity and choice in the way they could work.

After an extensive review which was announced a couple of years ago and was then put in place—with a consultation process across the board which called for people to be involved—we have developed a new range of legislation which looks at equality in the workplace but, even more, looks at the changing face of our community. It picks up issues of caring in workplaces and puts in the agenda—as it always has been in some form but it is clearly in place in this legislation—the need, the importance and the economic value of equal remuneration in the workplace.

What we have before us now is a bill that says that we have looked at the changes that have happened over the last years and we have refined the objects. And they are not that new. This legislation says that we need to change the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act. For me, language is always very important, but I have to admit that when I actually lose the word 'woman' in a title it does cause me pain. But I have worked through this pain and I understand that we need to have a concept in Australia, in our business community, that looks at workplace and gender equity, so that both genders can feel that their needs are being addressed and that we understand the need for genuine equity. So we change the name. We modify the coverage of the act to include all employers and employees in the workplace, regardless of gender. We look at everybody's needs. We introduce a new reporting framework which has been called for for many years. When the original act was brought in, and subsequently over the years, I believe that the single biggest complaint from business was the onerous nature of reporting. Whilst I looked at those complaints over the years, and I looked at the report, I felt that it probably was not that onerous. Nonetheless, there has been a response to ensure that there is much more support from the agency to ensure that people who are working in business—employers and employees—have some support in developing what they have to say back to the government about what they have done. I would have thought that would be a natural expectation of businesses in our community. To be fair, in the consultations many of the business organisations and many of the employers felt that this was a reasonable request—that they needed to tell the government what they were doing to ensure that issues of equity were in place in their agencies. The reporting process has been streamlined and the benchmarks against which people will need to report will continue to evolve. Nothing can be seen to be set in concrete. Through this process there is an expectation that, in responding to the needs of the community and the needs of business while maintaining a genuine commitment to equity, there will be a process in place that is clear, that people understand, and through which they can put forward what they are doing in their own workplace to meet the requirements.

Not too tough, I would have thought, to provide for the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, which we all value and which will get its new name, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, to have new advisory and educational functions. For me, that seems to be one of the key aspects of the changes. There has always been an expectation that the agency would be available to provide support when people are required to put forward their reports. Indeed, that has happened. I know, from talking to people who worked in the agency over many years, that they have given a great deal of time and professional expertise to provide this support in a very personal way. Now that support has been redefined and made a core part of the agency's business so, no matter what form of business you are operating in this country, you will be able to get support from the agency along the lines of what you can do to ensure there is workplace equity and that you can understand the issues around pay. You have to put reports in only if you have more than 100 employees, but one of the key aspects of this bill is that no matter what business you are working in—it can be three people—you can still ask for assistance and advice to see what is going on in your workplace. That, to me, is the core importance of what we are doing.

This is not a bill just for the sake of having new reports or having new changes in workplaces. There is a key goal in this process, because what we have identified, and what the debate has clarified over many years, is that, despite the efforts of many places and organisations in our country, there are still major gaps to be overcome. We have data on the differences in pay rates and the differences in opportunities, but there are still segments of industry in this country that have great gender divergence. There has been great progress—and we celebrate that. One of the things I look forward to every year is the awards that are given by the agency to businesses that have done great things and to celebrate the achievements of businesses that can show they have achieved equity in their workplace. They have provided opportunities for employment. They have provided opportunities for flexible working arrangements which benefit employees but benefit the whole business as well. We as a community should continue to celebrate that, share that knowledge and ensure that people can be involved in the overall goal of the whole process, which is workplace equity.

It is exciting that we are able to move forward this legislation. We have a work program into the future for which details will be endorsed, so that by 2014 we should have in place a reporting process that has the benchmarks clarified, that lets people know what the expectations of their industry are, and that enables employers and employees to feel engaged in the process. I believe one of the things that has not happened as well as it should have over the last few years is the true engagement of businesses—employers and employees—in this process. There has been a tendency to put it to HR departments, to put it to people who are specialists, to fill in the forms. That is something that this bill addresses.

We can no longer have this disengagement between businesses and the expectations of workplace equality. The expectation is that people will know that this is what is happening in their workplace. There is an expectation for people to be involved in that. Something as simple as needing employers to tell employees that this report is being developed and put forward has been included in the expectations for employers. It is important that we have support for this process. I take on board the concerns that have been raised by people from the other side about different aspects of it, and I celebrate the debate. The fact that we are having the debate is positive in itself, that we can clarify exactly what we need to do to ensure that the community understands the importance, the effectiveness and the necessity of having workplace equality.

I am interested in the issue of the public sector, and the difference between the public sector and private enterprise employment. My workplace experience has been with the public sector, as I am proud to say very often. If you look at the State of the Service report that is put out by the Public Service Commission every year, the key aspects of gender engagement in the Public Service is clearly iterated in that document. You can see what is happening across the public sector with gender equity—numbers at different levels across the workplaces—and, indeed, the processes of enterprise and workplace bargaining with salary and conditions results. That data is available. It is on record and people can see what is happening in the public sector on an annual basis.

I do not believe there is a major gap. A complaint that has been raised on a number of occasions in this debate about the separation cannot, I believe, be validated in reality. You will see that the data is able to be compared effectively. Most importantly, the Senate estimates, where clear questions can be asked across every workplace in the public sector about what they are doing about workplace equity in their agencies, can be a process for gaining this information.

In years to come, particularly with an expectation that there will be biannual reports through this place about what is happening with the process of gender equity across the workplace, we will have the opportunity in parliament to see what progress has been made. With people responding, we will be able to see what is happening against the benchmarks. We will be able to see how pay equity is being addressed across the board in our nation. It will give us further opportunity in the parliament to debate the issues, to consider what is working and what is not, to share best practice and to ensure that we will not have the gaps that we have in our community at the moment. We will be able to see that business has not been destroyed by the social engineering of ensuring that there is attention to workplace equity. We will be able to acknowledge the extraordinary work and passion over many years of women and men in our community who have worked to ensure that we do have effective legislation, who have worked to ensure that there is acknowledgment in their own workplaces about the need for these things, and that we can see that legislation that we are debating today is not directional. It is in fact supportive for the work that we acknowledge must happen in our community.

I support this legislation. I acknowledge that we need to have continued work and I know that will happen through the Workplace Gender Equity Agency and also through ministers who will come in the future who will acknowledge the need for this work. Australia's economy and all of us will be stronger by the acknowledgement of this work.

Sean Edwards (SA, 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, which, if agreed to, will amend the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. The coalition has long been committed to the principle of equal opportunity for women in the workplace. I have long advocated for and supported women in the workplace. Throughout my time as a business owner I have employed a large number of women. I have always hired people on the basis of their skills and ability, and I have found that women bring a level of focus, attention to detail and diligence that is sometimes not seen as strongly in men.

I come from a state which has long recognised and has been an early adopter of equality for women. South Australia was the first state in Australia to grant women the vote, in 1894, and the right to stand for parliament, in the same year. Across a number of different workplaces, South Australia has had a number of female firsts: the first woman wharfies, Michelle van Rens and Monica Judd; the first woman forklift driver, Michele Dougherty; and the first woman ombudsman, Mary Beasley—some impressive firsts in what were very male centric workplaces. South Australia's reputation as a compassionate and liberal society started in 1848, with the establishment of the Destitute Board, and later, with the appointment of the first Inspector of Factories, Augusta Zadow.

It was the Howard government that enacted the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. Then from 2001, under the Howard government, employers reported to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency for the first time, under the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act. Tony Abbott, the current Leader of the Opposition, when he was a senior Howard government minister, implemented mechanisms to strengthen the standing of women in the workplace. He was and remains a strong advocate for improving women's health in the wider community. It was the Howard government which amended the Sex Discrimination Act to explicitly recognise breastfeeding as a potential ground for unlawful discrimination in the workplace. In government, the coalition has shown a commitment to strong reform with tangible outcomes for women in the workplace.

This bill came out of a review by KPMG in 2009 into the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act. However, the bill which Labor has cobbled together contains a number of miscellaneous problems and is another failure by another Labor government in relation to addressing good policy. It does not sufficiently cover the issues identified by KPMG in that report and does not provide for real equal opportunity reform. This bill is another one which could be put into the category of all spin and no substance.

Unfortunately, this bill does not contain provisions to address any of the institutional or cultural barriers to attaining greater gender equality in our workplaces. It is symbolic of this government, which has seen some of the key indicators of women's equality in the workplace slide. For example, our shadow parliamentary secretary for the status of women, Senator Cash, highlighted in her contribution to this bill that the gender pay gap in August 2012 was 17.5 per cent, or approximately $252.80 a week, which has widened since Labor came to power.

The coalition has a number of concerns with this bill. The first of these is the additional, costly, bureaucratic regulation, at the expense of business once again, that this bill will impose and the significant additional reporting burdens and costs on those employers caught by this legislation. Labor just does not get business. While Senator Moore is passionate about the issue of workplace equality for women, as we all are, she hit the nail on the head when she said that she had only worked in the public service.

I spent 30 years in private enterprise before coming to this place, and it would be so much better if many people from the opposite side of the chamber had more experience in private enterprise so as to understand what this type of legislation does and means for business in the real world. It is those people, who are generating profits to employ more and more people, who we are looking to protect in our community. Not surprisingly, Labor has put forward yet another bill which panders to the union movement. The reporting requirements of eligible employers are designed to provide additional information, at the employer's expense, which may be used by the unions to mount wage and other claims against the employers based on this information.

Finally, under the bill the minister is given an excessive amount of discretion, which, for example, would allow the minister to change the principles in the supporting documentation to the bill, which would not be subject to the same level of scrutiny that would have occurred had these changes been incorporated in the same bill. In their submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations inquiry into this bill, the Business Council of Australia state:

We believe the most effective way of encouraging the adoption of work arrangements that increase gender equality is through the provision of information that demonstrates the benefits of such arrangements, not by imposing additional reporting requirements on businesses. Further, we are disappointed that the regulatory compliance requirements would be imposed on all businesses employing 100 people or more regardless of their past performance and efforts to improve gender equality.

Once again, there is no understanding of what happens out there in the real workplaces in Australia.

Coalition senators in their dissenting report stated:

Coalition Senators remain unconvinced that the set up and ongoing costs required to be met by employers and the additional regulatory burden imposed by the Bill could be justified.

…   …   …

… Having reviewed the evidence before the committee, Coalition Senators are not convinced that the proposed legislation will in fact achieve the government's stated aims. Whilst the Government claims that the Bill seeks to promote gender equality in the workplace, in reality, this legislation is little more than an industrial mechanism designed to increase the role of unions in the workplace and provide them with greater industrial leverage.

Senator Cash, on behalf of the coalition, will move amendments which will seek to remove the inordinate level of discretion proposed to be provided to the minister; reintroduce provisions allowing the agency to waive public reporting requirements for relevant employers; insert a provision for the agency to give public acknowledgement to relevant employers who regularly meet compliance standards; and require the government, despite what it says it wants to do, to remove one regulation for relevant employers for each new regulation that it introduces as a result of this act.

The coalition, of course, has a number of real measures to help improve the opportunity and standing of women in the workplace. The difference between the two parties' policies is clearly seen in our approaches to paid parental leave. We on this side know that a substantial paid parental leave scheme and affordable child care are key to providing women and men the choice, flexibility and ability to make decisions about when and how they re-enter the workforce.

The coalition parental leave scheme will provide real time and real money to working women, offering eligible women 26 weeks at their replacement wage of up to $75,000 per annum. Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme, however, aside from being a welfare based scheme, does not include any superannuation. The coalition's paid parental leave scheme includes superannuation. Providing women on parental leave with their normal superannuation payments will mean that they will not be disadvantaged when they reach retirement age.

The coalition will not be supporting this bill in its current form. It adds regulation, red tape and additional burden on businesses without achieving real changes that further empower and equalise women in the workplace. I urge all on the other side of the chamber to embrace Senator Cash's amendments when they come.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012. As Senator Edwards has just shared with the chamber, the coalition senators who were part of the inquiry into this piece of legislation submitted a fantastic—might I add—dissenting report authored by the shadow parliamentary secretary for the status of women, Senator Cash. I take this opportunity to thank her for her leadership in this regard and for her strong advocacy across a range of sectors for women right across our country.

This piece of legislation, unfortunately, is just another example of Labor's mythical invisibility cloak of progressive politics. Apparently, according to Labor, it is the only party that supports and advocates for the downtrodden, for women, for Indigenous people, for minorities, for the disabled, for society's most vulnerable. I argue against this bill not because I support the subjugation of, the objectification of or continued discrimination against women. Rather, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of women to our society and their rightful role in all areas of our workforce.

If you look at the bill, you will see that the bill proposes that its passing today will promote gender equality in the workplace, improve workforce participation of women and promote the importance of recognising gender pay equality and flexible workplaces to balance family and caring responsibilities—lofty goals, and I am confident that not one senator in this place would object to those policy principles. Today I shall outline why I believe that this bill will not deliver on these lofty objectives. It will set out a flawed plan and reflect the Labor strategy of smoke and mirrors: 'Nothing to see here, Senator Cash. Nothing to see here. Just keep on walking by.' And this is at more than $11 million cost to the Australian people.

First let us deal with the claims about the bill amending the name of the act. One of the big shifts is that we will change the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, supposedly to shift the focus of the act onto gender equality and improve workforce participation and workplace flexibility. So, by changing the name of act, we are going to affect the reality on the ground around workforce participation and flexibility for women. The bill is going to change the name of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and also change the title of the director of the agency to the Director of Workplace Gender Equality. Change the names? Why? Change the names? At what cost? Changing the names is just smoke and mirrors.

Amendments to section 2A of the act modify the principal objectives to include both genders. If we are now including men and women in ensuring equality around workplace issues, my question is: why do we need it? I look forward to this act contributing to increasing the number of men in the teaching and nursing professions and increasing the number of young men in our society engaged in the aged-care facilities and caring for our elderly.

Proposed section 13 establishes a new reporting framework for businesses. As a former teacher, I know that just because you report on something does not mean to say that the behaviour changes. I have written many a report for young Johnny in year 7 that has not actually resulted in any change in his classroom behaviour. No matter how many times I told a student's parents that their child was disruptive and disorganised, the child did not change. Australian businesses will have additional reporting requirements, but—wait for it—there are no indicators. It is classic 'debate away, dear senators, on what you know not', because we do not have the detail. How can we perform the necessary role in the legislative process if we are not given the details?

The approach to this piece of legislation is typical. We are here trying to debate a framework on behalf of our communities where we do not know how this is going to play out—it has not been developed yet by the minister.

Labor has had years to work it out and to develop constructive criteria, meaningful indicators which would demonstrate that employment was equitable, and they have not. What we know is that this will be an increased burden on business. The coalition does not support legislation which is designed to increase the level of government interference in the workplace. The coalition has very real concern, as do commerce and industry groups, that this bill imposes increased regulation and red tape.

The bill will introduce a new reporting framework in which employers are required to report against gender equality indicators. It is not apparent just how the new reporting framework simplifies and streamlines reporting requirements for employers. Furthermore, an employer must prepare and lodge a public report containing information relating both to the employer and to gender equality indicators. The result will be an additional cost for a greater number of businesses, as evident from the provisions of the regulatory impact statement. This is a government that promised a one-in one-out policy on regulation, but—and I quote from our dissenting report:

… the government has broken this election promise by introducing an additional 16,163 regulations whilst repealing just 79.

Bear in mind that the urgency from this government to address gender equality in the workplace has been so great that this bill has been put off more times than I can count. We did this report for this piece of legislation back in May, so the figures could be a little out.

How much will this cost business? What will it look like? What about those businesses that fall under the 100-employee mark? This brings me to outlining the history of conservative initiatives that have furthered the cause of women having choices about how to live their lives, raise their families and interact in the workplace. We enacted the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999and renamed and updated the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. The 1999 act required private sector companies, not-for-profit community organisations, non-government schools, unions, group training companies and higher education institutions with 100 or more people to establish a workplace program to remove the barriers to women entering and advancing in the organisation. That was done under the Howard government. We amended the Sex Discrimination Act to recognise breast feeding. The Nationals, quite a conservative entity within the coalition, were the first political party to recognise the issue of domestic violence. It was not the Greens or the Labor Party—it was the Nationals. It was first debated at one of our federal conferences in 1992. The first female federal president and federal director of any political party in Australia was in the National Party.

Sir Earle Page, Prime Minister for a whisker of time, founder of the Country Party and forefather of the Nationals, in the early 1920s had the vision and the demonstrated foresight to implement policies that would support women, women's issues and their families. As Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister, together with then Prime Minister Bruce, Earle Page announced a royal commission into a national insurance scheme that would cover maternity, sickness and invalidity. Page was genuine and enthusiastic about this scheme, and he later became known as the father of health insurance.

The consultation report conducted in 2009 identified a number of barriers for women in the workforce, none of which are addressed by the name changes in this particular bill. I know other senators have made contributions around the sociocultural issues within our society that affect women's participation in the workforce—access to meaningful, high-quality child care is one of those, as are maternity leave provisions et cetera. The impact of caring, whether for children or for older women and aged parents, and its equity is down to the fact that families make the decision on how they will best run their lives, who will be working, who will be caring and how they will cut that cake. That should be applauded and supported, not seen as an issue that needs to be rectified. Somehow it has become a problem for people—men or women—to choose not to work outside the home. I was privileged to be able to stay at home and care for my children for a decade. That was a choice and it had consequences, and as a family we decided to hold those consequences.

Ms Kelly O'Dwyer, the federal member for Higgins and my colleague from Victoria, made some points on this issue in an article in the Financial Reviewmany months ago. She suggested that addressing the distortions in the tax system would be quite a good way to start addressing why women are not experiencing equitable participation in the workforce. We need to look at what things we have, structurally, in this country that incentivise certain behaviours and certain choices rather than assist women gain meaningful participation.

This bill does not deal with the issues of sexual harassment in the workplace, despite that being identified by research as one of the reasons women do not have equitable participation. As for bias in recruiting and selection in male dominated industry, I would like to hear the rhetoric from those opposite on the education, childcare, nursing and aged care sectors employment statistics, which are heavily weighted towards women, before they start complaining about women in mining being an issue.

Similarly, there seems to be poor data. Those opposite have had three years to get the data, and throughout this debate I am yet to hear any of it. The name and shame provisions in repealing item 46 mean that rather than reporting on programs within the workplace businesses now have to report against gender equality indicators that are developed by the minister without businesses having input into their construction.

We are going to have an esoteric conversation out in the ether, presumably with people who know a lot about gender equality but not a lot about running a business and what that means on the ground. Again, it goes to the amount of time the minister has had to solve these problems without bringing anything meaningful to the table.

What I loved—I should not say 'loved'; I misspoke—what I found bemusing during our inquiry, which Senator Cash might remember, was a line of questioning that we were pursuing. In that line of questioning it became clear that this will only apply to private businesses. The public sector does not have to worry about it, and when we asked why the public sector did not need to report against these indicators et cetera we were told it did not need to. We were told that the public sector was A-okay, ripsnorting, although there was no evidence to back that up. I found it quite unnerving that one employment sector within our society can dictate to other employment sectors about how their businesses are to be run and what the expectations of society are as well as the indicators they have to report against. Yet only one sector has to comply, because someone has made an arbitrary decision that these guys are okay, but it is not a public decision. Around this area of gender equality the public sector is essentially self-regulating.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry member in my home state of Victoria, VECCI, is taking the lead and is a good example of a successful women's program in the private sector. It has a popular networking event called Women in Business which involves a presentation from a successful female business owner or industry leader. Maybe the reason more women choose to be in the public sector and so potentially accept lower wages is that public sector jobs have had quite generous maternity leave provisions compared with the private sector. Things have changed, and I believe that both employment sectors need to be treated the same. It seems hypocritical, but again that is nothing new from this government.

An extract from the KPMG report for the Office for Women review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act consultation report of January 2012 noted:

The roundtables, individual interviews and public submissions all raised the suggestion that the coverage of the EOWW Act should be extended to government agencies, departments and statutory authorities.

One in, all in, I say. If we are going to have both genders covered under this act, let us make sure that we have all employers under the act as well. Is it going to cost more to add public servants? I am not sure. Won't it work? Are we worried it will not actually deliver on the outcomes? Will it add more work for the public sector? I am not sure. Public submissions considered the government should practice what it preaches. I am a big fan of walking the walk, so I look forward to support from the government for our amendments to ensure that the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill, now that it covers both genders, will also cover all employment sectors.

Let's face it, this is an election commitment that the Labor Party has to keep—one out of some would be nice. But it has not been in a hurry on this one. Promised in the 2010 election campaign, consultation derived a report which the government sat on for three years. When the government stands up and preaches that it is the champion of the downtrodden, the only progressive voice in this place, the only one pursuing equitable outcomes around employment participation, we just cannot take that at face value. The government's actions have not delivered. These actions have spoken louder than the government's deeds. I am reminded of my school motto: factis non verbis. That is the only Latin I know, and the translation is: it is by deeds not by words. I think that is a good motto not only for my former school but also for life. I would like the government to walk the walk more on the legislation, rather than going out as it did a couple of weeks ago on the Murray-Darling Basin. The government seems to go out for a quick headline, a quick press release. We get the 30-second news grab flashed into the very busy lives of real working Australian families for their consumption. Meanwhile, for all its crocodile tears about equity in employment participation, the government sat on this for three years. It is simply not good enough.

We reported on this in May, and here we are close to December. Whichever way you cut it, it is a smoky deal. If you believe the rhetoric of progressives that it is so good, sign up for it. I know we will not be.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This to me is not about left or right, or right or wrong; it is about fairness. That is why I support the government's intentions in relation to this bill. No-one of either gender should be discriminated against in the workplace. Any behaviour of this sort is unethical and abhorrent. I think there is consensus in this chamber and everybody shares that view. The question is: what is the best? I think I got an affirmation from Senator McKenzie as she was leaving the chamber. It was not quite an interjection, but clearly there is no question that we all agree that any form of discrimination in the workplace is abhorrent and unethical. What is the best mechanism to achieve equity?

No bill is perfect; this bill is not perfect. But I believe that this bill does advance those issues of fairness and equity, and that is why I will be supporting it.

So I acknowledge that the government's intentions in amending this act to ensure fairness and equity emphasise this point, but we cannot and must not ignore the fact that women are still far more likely to need the protection of this act than men. That is pretty axiomatic if you look at the statistics and the research. I do not speak on behalf of women; thankfully, they do not need others to speak for them any longer. But I speak because I believe that men and women deserve equal rights, equal opportunities, equal protections and equal freedoms. Even in Australia that is not always the case. It has been 110 years since women won the right to vote federally in Australia and 91 years since the first woman was elected to a parliament in Australia—Edith Cowan, to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. In my home state of South Australia we really led the way in many respects in terms of the right of women to vote and stand for parliament.

There is a lot of discussion about how far women's rights have come. In fact, if you speak to many young women and girls they believe women and men have equal rights in our society and the fight is over. But the whole issue of equity and fairness must continue to be debated and must be at the forefront of our minds in determining good public policy. We are no longer in the days when women had to starve, chain themselves to railings or throw themselves under horses to get people to listen to their pleas, and we know of the valour of the women in the suffragette movement over 100 years ago. But that does not mean there is no longer a plea to be heard.

In February 2010 the Review of Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 consultation report was released. This report was quite revealing. It found that women are overrepresented in areas of study linked to lower-earning industries, while men are overrepresented in the areas linked to higher-earning industries. It found that female dominated industries have historically been undervalued and that women are less likely than men to be in leadership positions. It found that women are likely to earn less over their lifetimes than men for the same type of work. And it found that Australia is lagging behind other developed countries on a number of key indicators, including economic participation opportunity, education attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival. Compared with other OECD countries with similar tertiary education levels, Australia has the fifth-largest pay gap between men and women. Research by Goldman Sachs and JBWere found that closing this gap would improve Australia's gross domestic product by 11 per cent. Australia's ranking in the World Economic Forum's global gender index dropped from 15th in 2006 to 20th in 2009, behind New Zealand, the United Kingdom, South Africa and the Philippines. Only 58.7 per cent of Australian women over 15 are in the labour force, making up 45.3 per cent of the total labour force. In comparison, 72.1 per cent of Australian men are in the workforce.

The ACTU's submission to the committee inquiry into this bill stated:

Despite making up half the workforce, women in full-time paid work still earn 17.8 per cent less than men in full-time paid work, amounting to over $1 million less over a lifetime. Women are now more likely to have a tertiary qualification than men but women graduates will earn $2,000 less than male graduates and $7,400 less by the fifth year after graduation. Fewer than three per cent of ASX 200 companies have a female chief executive officer, 8.4 per cent of board directors are women and only eight per cent of executive managers of Australian companies are women. Women retire with less than half the amount of savings in their superannuation accounts than men and women are four times more likely to experience sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace compared to men.

Whatever disagreements I may have from time to time with the ACTU, I think that those figures speak for themselves. They are based on research and facts and they ought to be noted very carefully.

Many of these disadvantages can be tied to motherhood. We do not make enough allowances for women who are mothers getting back into the workforce. We have seen the legislative amendments in terms of paid parental leave that this government passed, and they are welcome. But I also think that the coalition's plans for a more generous scheme have a lot of merit. That is something that we must continue to debate and discuss. We need to have more flexibility and more support in our workplaces so that women are more likely to take time off to have children and then return to the workplace. So that level of flexibility is crucial and I do not think we have done enough in relation to that.

I acknowledge the difference a paid parental leave scheme will make in Australia but we were among the last to join in the chorus and we must make up for lost time, and we need to look at a more generous scheme. We need to take into account the costs of such a scheme but also the impact that such a scheme will have on our national productivity and our participation in the workplace. Because of this, many women simply do not have, or have not had, the same opportunities as men to plan for their retirement and I think that is a real issue, a sleeper of an issue that needs to be debated and discussed even more. One of the main aims of the feminist movement is to ensure that women have greater financial independence, to reduce women's financial dependence on men. I do not think that is a bad thing. But still, so many years later, women face financial disadvantage if for whatever reason they end up, in post-retirement in their senior years, without a partner. So these are big issues. And this issue of lack of retirement income for women is a pressing issue that I believe we need to address with a great degree of urgency in our public policy area, because equity demands it.

We have come a long way but it is disingenuous in the extreme to believe we do not have a long way to go. In some parts of the world women face violence, starvation and treatment as second-class citizens. In other parts of the world, including the United States, there are still challenges to hard-won rights and freedoms. It is important to put that in context. Just because in relative terms women in a developed country do not face the same challenges as in a developing country in terms of discrimination and a lack of rights, that does not mean that there are not still challenges that must be addressed and dealt with. It is not the case that we should excuse smaller indiscretions here because they pale into insignificance when compared with the callous disregard for female life elsewhere. I think we should be smart enough, generous enough and brave enough to fight for fairness.

Throughout 1945 and beyond, women flocked to the Liberal Party. In 1994, Ian Hancock, former Harold White Fellow, pointed out in a lecture to the National Library of Australia in Canberra that 'the Australian Women’s National League, a major contributor to non-Labor politics, especially in Victoria, turned over its funds and material assets to the Liberal Party'. Hancock also made the point that many people would not have been aware that, from the party's inception, measures that would today be described as affirmative action were built into the Liberal Party. For example, women in Victoria were given equal representation on all committees and councils—notably, May Couchman and Edith Haynes. Each of the other divisions also established separate women’s sections, and the party formed a federal women’s committee, whose 'chairman', as she was known, was an ex officio member of the Liberal Party. There are no faceless men or women in our party; indeed, there are no quotas in our party.

Many of the firsts for women in politics were achieved by women in the Liberal Party. Dame Enid Lyons was the first woman to be elected to the Australian House of Representatives—in 1943, for the United Australia Party, and then as a member of the Liberal Party. She was also the first woman appointed to the federal cabinet, in 1949, under the first Menzies Liberal government, when she became vice-president of the Executive Council. In 1947, Senator Annabelle Rankin became the first woman to hold the position of Opposition Whip in the Senate and then became Government Whip in 1951. In 1966, Senator Rankin then became the Minister for Housing, under the Holt Liberal government, thus becoming the first woman to administer a federal government department.

In 1949, Eileen Furley was elected vice-president of the party. She went on to become the first woman representing the Liberal Party in the New South Wales Legislative Council. In 1968, Senator Ivy Wedgewood became the first woman to chair a Senate committee.    In 1975, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle became the first woman senator to be a member of the cabinet, under the Fraser Liberal government. From 1974 to 2001, Kathy Sullivan of the Liberal Party served longer in parliament than any other woman—over 27 years. She was also the first woman to serve in both houses of parliament.

In 1996, the Howard Liberal government became the first to appoint two women cabinet ministers and then expanded that to three in 2006. This compared with Labor’s previous record of one woman cabinet minister. In 1996, Senator Margaret Reid became the first woman President of the Senate, under the Howard government. In 2000, Jackie Kelly of the Liberal Party became the first serving Australian minister to give birth while in office. In 2001, under the Howard Liberal government, Senator Helen Coonan was the first woman to hold an Australian Treasury portfolio since Federation. In 2006, she also became the first women to be Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Amanda Vanstone of the Liberal Party, who served from 1984 to 2007, remains the longest-serving female senator and the longest-serving female cabinet minister in Australia’s history. And the list goes on and on and on. As well-known Australian feminist Professor Deborah Brennan has pointed out, 'Liberal women have had many more guaranteed opportunities within their party organisation than their Labor sisters'—all done without quotas, I again note.

The Liberal Party, as part of the coalition, has also made enormous achievements for women and gender equality since first coming to government in 1949. In her article on Liberal women Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julie Bishop pointed out that 'under the Menzies government, between 1949 and 1966, policies were introduced relating to child endowment and a national health scheme, and women’s workforce participation was substantially lifted during this period, with the Liberal Party’s postwar policies actively encouraging female workforce participation'.

Between 1966 and 1972 the Holt, Gorton and McMahon governments introduced policies to protect deserted wives. Equal pay legislation was also introduced, a great achievement for women’s equality. Between 1975 and 1983, under the Fraser government, a family income supplement scheme to help low-income families was introduced. Australia also signed the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, showing Australia’s commitment to the rights it enshrines. This led to the establishment of the Office of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. After signing the convention, the then Attorney-General the Hon. Robert Ellicott and the then foreign minister the Hon. Andrew Peacock said that the signing evidenced 'Australia’s policy of equality for women and the elimination of discrimination'. This was done under a coalition government, I again hasten to add.

From 1996 to 2007 the Howard government saw women’s participation in the higher levels of education exceed that of men, with more women than men completing year 12. The number of women on Australian government boards and bodies also increased to over 33 per cent. Policies were introduced including a ‘Women’s Safety Agenda’, which included the national ‘Violence Against Women, Australia Says No’ campaign and the associated national 24-hour phone helpline. Since the campaign was launched, in 2004, it has now received more than 73,000 calls.

As also mentioned in the article on Liberal women by Julie Bishop, the Howard government introduced measures to allow women to better prepare for their retirement through improvements to superannuation. The coalition also introduced the baby bonus in 2004 and, as Ms Bishop said, the Howard government was responsible for 'substantial increases in the rates of family benefits, the provision of extra childcare places, the introduction of the childcare tax rebate and the encouragement of flexible family-friendly work practices'.

However, the Liberal Party’s achievements are not just historical. The coalition and the Liberal Party are today more active than ever in supporting women’s equality. Let us look at what the coalition has actually done and what it proposes to do. I particularly want to focus on what the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has done and proposes to do given the politically motivated attacks of recent times—politically motivated attacks which have been viewed by the Australian community as well beyond the pale and way beyond what is acceptable practice.

When the Leader of the Opposition was health minister, he increased screening programs for cervical cancer, resulting in a steady decline in Australia's cancer rate. He increased mental health services, including a beyondblue initiative to address perinatal depression. Of course, the coalition was responsible in helping to set up the beyondblue national depression initiative to begin with, contributing $17.5 million of Commonwealth funds over five years, with substantial contributions also coming in from the states and territories. He announced funding for the cancer vaccine, Gardasil, committing $1 million to the establishment and initial operation of the Centre for Gynaecological Cancer, and introduced the National Pregnancy Support Telephone Helpline, providing non-directive counselling advice 24 hours a day. As minister for employment, the Leader of the Opposition amended the Sex Discrimination Act to explicitly recognise discrimination in the workplace on the ground of breastfeeding as unlawful. He announced the $1.7 billion Australians Working Together package, including $251 million to support parents returning to work, the vast majority being women. In 2000, he enacted the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. Indeed, this is the act that the amendment bill today proposes to amend. I repeat: the bill that we are seeking to amend today was actually introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, as minister for employment, when he enacted the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999.

The coalition has a proud record and the Leader of the Opposition intends to implement further support for women if given the great honour to lead this country. If the coalition gains government at the next election, the Leader of the Opposition has proposed a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. This is at a replacement wage of up to $75,000 per annum, including superannuation, instead of the minimum wage proposed by Labor. This scheme will enable women to stay in and re-enter the workforce and to breastfeed their newborn for the recommended minimum of six months, if indeed they can. It will also assist to increase the birth rate and, thus, in the long term will assist in increasing overall productivity, which I have talked about in other speeches in this chamber.

The coalition will be putting forward amendments during the committee stage of today's amendments. The coalition's amendments are designed to lessen the discretion that this amendment bill bestows upon the minister and to reintroduce provisions allowing the agency to waive public reporting requirements for relevant employers. Furthermore, the coalition has just announced a Productivity Commission review into child care. This will ensure that child care is more accessible, affordable and flexible for Australian parents. This compares to Labor's policies, which have resulted in the cost of child care rising by more than 20 per cent since Julia Gillard became Prime Minister. As I have outlined today, the evidence clearly supports the fact that the coalition, the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott have initiated policies and programs that have had a real effect on advancing gender equality. It has also led by example by promoting women in the party through merit. The coalition and Tony Abbott continue to promote such policies.

It is time Labor stopped its spin and its politically motivated and direct personal attacks and started taking substantial action to improve the lot of Australian women. Labor talks the talk but does not walk the walk when it comes to the economic empowerment of women. Grubby and cheap political attacks are no substitute for real action on behalf of all Australian women.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak today on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012, I would like to associate myself with the comments that Senator Ronaldson just made. I make one point very clear from the outset: the coalition has, does and always will value the essential contribution of women to the workforce. The coalition has a strong record of promoting policies that benefit women. In government, we will introduce the most important policy for women and their participation in the workforce that this country has ever seen: an unrivalled paid parental leave scheme that will do wonders for the financial security of women.

The coalition is dedicated to closing the gap between the participation of men and women, which is what this bill allegedly sets out to achieve. It is a bill that apparently makes a commitment to support gender equality and to improve workforce participation and workforce flexibility through the amendment of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. But the practical reality of this bill and its likely impact on women is a far cry from those lofty claims. The practical reality is that the measures introduced by this bill will do little more than increase red tape for business without providing one iota of real change to the daily lives of women who are balancing work and family responsibilities.

The Gillard Labor government does nothing more than pay lip service to the issues facing Australian women. On the opposite side of this chamber, they are lining up to espouse the virtues of the changes embodied in this legislation, yet it has been more than three years since the government announced a review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999, in June 2009. Labor claims to be making the participation of women a priority, but the truth is revealed in the number of times this legislation was pushed to the bottom of the legislative agenda in the other place and the gaping holes in what we have before us today.

KPMG provided a comprehensive report in relation to the review. It is now three years on from this review and report, and the minister has still not defined critical parts of the bill seeking to amend the act. The discretion available to the minister under this bill is excessive.

Under this bill, employers are required to lodge a public report containing information relating to gender equality indicators. 'What are these indicators?' it would be reasonable enough to ask. It appears that that is a question the government itself has not yet been able to answer, despite having years to formulate an answer and work one out. This legislation will enable the minister to develop these indicators over time. To quote the government: 'The legislation will enable the minister to set industry-specific minimum standards in consultation with industry and experts. These minimum standards will have to be determined before April 2014.' How long does it take this government to work things out? The government has had three years to develop the minimum standards, but we do not have any. Instead, we are being asked to pass this legislation and let the minister decide exactly what it means later on—just extraordinary stuff! The government is putting yet more burdens on business—more red tape—but it has not even had the decency to forewarn exactly what will be expected of business under this new legislation. What exactly will business have to report on in terms of these so-called gender inequality indicators?

Furthermore, the minister is directed to develop these standards in consultation with the agency and stakeholders. There is no mention—hardly surprising, given this Labor government's track record—of consulting with the very people who were forced to report on their adherence to these standards: the employers. There is no mention of them whatsoever. There is also no indication of what is meant by 'industry-specific standards'. Will the government seek to target particular industries? We do not know. It is ludicrous and once again shows Labor's failure to grasp how businesses operate and the impost that every extra regulation puts on businesses.

On this side of the chamber, we understand the daily pressures that businesses already face and are not seeking to increase them. In fact, with our deregulation task force chaired by my colleague, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, we are working hard to find ways to reduce the regulation the government puts on business, instead allowing businesses to get on with the job of employing people and providing quality goods and services to the community. In the current economic climate, when businesses are already stretched and doing it tough, the coalition cannot support this government interference which, at best, will just create another layer of work, another layer of red tape and more cost for businesses but which also poses a significant threat. And for what? For little gain, I would suggest. But I will return to that in a moment.

Employers are legitimately concerned about how the information they will be required to provide on gender equality indicators could be misused. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, Peter Anderson, raised these concerns on behalf of business earlier in the year, with the chamber explaining that: 'Employers remain concerned that unions will use this information on wage levels at a particular company to ask for industry-wide wage rises.' That is a very real concern for business, as is the thinly-veiled threat by the government that those businesses that do not meet the standards will miss out on government contracts and even, I hate to say, be named and shamed. Let me quote the minister on this:

Consequences for non-compliance, without reasonable excuse, include naming the employer in a report to the minister or naming the employer by other means.

Talk about Big Brother! It reminds me of a parent scolding a naughty child.

The ability for the agency to waive reporting requirements will also be repealed by this bill. Rather than adopting the approach advocated by the Ai Group in its submission to the KPMG review and introducing positive recognition for businesses submitting regular reports and meeting standards, the government has chosen the path of being heavy-handed. The newly named Workplace Gender Equality Agency will be given the ability to check compliance by requiring an employer to give the agency information relating to the employer's compliance with the act or the employer's performance against minimum standards. It is a watered-down version of the former minister Kate Ellis's spot checks, which she announced and then quickly back-pedalled from in 2011.

The regulatory impact statement makes it quite clear that businesses that are selected for these compliance checks will pay for it. It is expected that there will be a time burden as well as a cost burden of approximately $1,300, and it is worth noting that this figure of $1,300 is for businesses which have kept the appropriate and accessible records. So who knows what the cost implications will be for those businesses that are not up to speed on the government's gender equality indicators?

At this stage, the regulatory burden will be based on businesses with 100 or more employees. But, given this government's track record, I wonder how long it will be before small businesses are also imposed upon. The general principles of the act are expressed to apply to all employers, meaning that the agency will have scope to consider small business when developing strategies and resources. And, as I said, I wonder how long it will be before the government seeks to extend its interference and develop another layer of red tape for small business.

Mr Deputy President Parry, you may have noted the shortage of references to women in my discussion of this bill so far, and that is for a very good reason. It is because I do not believe that this bill will make one iota of difference for working women—not one jot of difference.

I have noted the increase in red tape and the prohibitive costs for businesses and the antipathy that we expect that it is likely to create.

I note that Labor have done what they always do—they have made some name changes. This seems to be a favourite tool—or, dare I say, even trick—that those on the other side of the chamber and those in the other place use. They love shuffling words around in an effort to hoodwink the public into thinking that some significant change has been made when in actual fact that is far from the truth. The government are changing the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act, they are changing the name of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and they are changing the director's title to Director of Workplace Gender Equality. What a farce. What a lot of words and a lot of rhetoric—but who knows what those name changes mean and how they will, in reality, improve the lives of women in the workforce?

I share the view of my respected colleague in the other place, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, who has been a strident supporter of gender equality for many, many years, who has extensive experience in promoting the contribution of women in the workforce and who has described this legislation as 'the sort of thing you would expect from a totalitarian regime' and something which would encourage 'tokenism and the promotion of women simply because they are women'.

While Labor have long been fans of quotas and politically correct gestures in the name of benefitting women, we on this side of the chamber realise just how ineffective and empty that approach is. In fact, tokenism, I would suggest, can have the opposite effect and in fact undermine the contributions that women make. No woman I know wants to be hired or promoted because of her gender. We want our achievements to be recognised and rewarded for what they are. Through my whole working life I have been accustomed to working in predominantly male environments—with more male colleagues than female colleagues—and I cannot stress enough how much I have appreciated, and continue to appreciate, being judged on my contributions. To be judged otherwise is personally abhorrent to me, as I know it is to my female colleagues who work tirelessly and effectively for their constituents.

Of course, countless women like me have had children and juggle family and work responsibilities. While increasing numbers of women are choosing to return to work after having children, there is still a lot more to be done to boost women's participation in the workforce. But to do this we need to introduce legislation that will have a real impact—not just words, not just changing the titles of directors—and actually change the way that women can run their lives. This is not rhetoric, and this is where the coalition's paid parental leave scheme comes in. At the core of this scheme is the coalition's commitment to maintaining the financial security of women. This scheme will ensure that women are not being paid at less than their normal rate of pay when they take time off following their child's birth. Women would be allowed to have 26 weeks of parental leave at their replacement wage of up to $75,000. The scheme also includes superannuation, to ensure that women are not, as is often the case now, disadvantaged when they retire. That is what I call equal opportunity.

To make substantive changes to women's workforce participation we need to introduce policies that encourage and enable women to have children and then return to work—not policies that punish businesses for failing to adhere to arbitrary standards imposed by a minister. That is the way forward for women. Women do not want political correctness, unless—although I hesitate to say this—you are on the opposite side of the chamber. Political correctness does not make one iota of difference to our ability to balance work and family. Women want a paid parental leave scheme that values their contributions and they need affordable childcare.

I urge the government to reconsider this legislation and to seriously consider the coalition's paid parental leave scheme—a scheme that would achieve so much that this legislation apparently sets out to do but will fail to do. The coalition remains committed to equal opportunity and increasing women's participation in the workforce, but we want to make a real difference to the lives of women—not just make a few tokenistic changes.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.