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

I rise today to speak on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012. I say at the outset that the coalition is committed to gender equality both in and outside the workplace. As a nation we must continue to strive to ensure that all Australians irrespective of gender are afforded the same opportunities. Our side of politics has led the way on a number of key initiatives that benefit women. For example, in 2003 we enacted the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act. We also introduced amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to specifically identify breastfeeding as a potential ground of unlawful discrimination in the workplace. The funding of the Gardasil vaccine was another coalition initiative, and there were measures to address perinatal depression, funding for cervical cancer screening and numerous other initiatives. Our dedication to policy that specifically looks after women where required has not waned since we were last in government.

Of course, the coalition has proposed a paid parental leave scheme that is absolutely focused on equal opportunity for women. Our scheme would ensure that women are not being paid at less than their normal rate of pay when they take time off after the birth of their child. Our paid parental scheme has at its core a commitment to maintaining the financial security of women. Our scheme includes superannuation and pays real replacement wages, reducing the strain for many who would struggle to meet their financial commitments on Labor's scheme. By including superannuation we are ensuring that women will not be disadvantaged when the time comes for them to retire. These are not tokenistic measures but practical ones that assist in true equality.

We are also committed to flexible, affordable and accessible child care, recognising that paid parental leave and affordable child care are both key to encouraging women to return to the workforce. Yet this is something that Labor really struggle with. They have decreased the childcare rebate from $8,179, where it should be today, to $7,500, and their onerous red tape requirements for child care coupled with the increased staff-to-child ratios are seeing the cost of child care skyrocket. In my travels around the country I am constantly hearing from centre owners who do not necessarily disagree with increased staff-to-child ratios but wish that the government had listened to them when they asked for the changes to be rolled out gradually.

The government has also sought to burden them with a mass of paperwork, ironically reducing the amount of time a carer can spend focused on the children in their care as they are frantically filling out form after form instead of sitting on the floor and playing with the children. This Labor government is yet to learn that the way to go about gender equality is not through the imposition of draconian measures on business. Once again this bill sees Labor's cure-all as a plethora of red tape with a mass of reporting requirements for business.

Lest you think that I am putting my own interpretation on the bill, I refer to the Minister for the Status of Women and her second reading speech on introduction of the bill on 1 March 2012. By way of an aside, I suspect that it was designed to come into this place on International Women's Day, 8 March, and to be talked about when topics of gender equality around the world were a subject of discussion. But I cannot remember how many times this bill has been shunted to the back of the legislative agenda. Ten times I have been ready to stand up and speak on it and 10 times it has been moved away, so just how important was it really for the government to talk about these issues? We think there is another agenda at play.

But to come back to the minister's second reading speech: she told the House what this is really about. The minister made the point in that second reading speech that it is about closing the gap between men's and women's workforce participation, that it will improve gender equality outcomes and simplify reporting for businesses and that it is an important component of the government's workforce participation and human rights agenda, which is certainly giving it a grand scope. I have just made the point that workforce participation comes down to child care and paid parental leave that work for you and your family. But the objects of the bill are described by the minister as 'promoting and improving gender equality, supporting employers to remove barriers, promoting among employers the elimination of discrimination, fostering workplace consultation between employers and employees and improving the productivity and competitiveness of Australian business through the advancement of gender equality in the workplace'. Listening to those objects, you would think: 'My goodness, this is really serious stuff. I wonder what the actual operative provisions of the bill are that could produce these outcomes?'

I should say also that there are name changes. With Labor we always have name changes. When things look as though they need airbrushing, touching up and rolling out yet again, we have changes of name. This bill changes the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act, it changes the name of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and it changes the director's title to Director of Workplace Gender Equality. I cannot think of a woman who would want that job. 'Director of Workplace Gender Equality'—what does it all really mean? Well, the operative provisions are that employers must prepare and lodge a public report containing information relating to gender equality indicators. This bill is all about gender equality indicators. The jargon is proliferating—and we have not really even got into the detail.

If you are a business with 100 employees or more you come under this bill. If you are a business with fewer than 100 employees you will not be required to report but you will be able to access the agency's advice, education and incentive activities. I am sure they will keep the data on small businesses with fewer than 100 employees and perhaps in another iteration of this type of legislation those small businesses really will be crippled by these onerous reporting requirements—as if small business does not have enough to do.

The minister says, 'We will know exactly what is happening, and where, in Australian workplaces regarding gender equality, practices and outcomes.' That is a monstrous Big Brother statement to make. The gender equality indicators are set out in the act and include reporting on equal remuneration for men and women—they talk about what you are paying, how you are paying it and who is getting it. 'Over time,' the minister says, 'the legislation will enable the agency to develop benchmarks which will allow employers to consider their performance compared to others in the industry.'

But the key and most alarming statement coming from the government about this bill is this: '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.' I think there has been about a three-year lead up to this bill. But what this is actually saying is that this House should pass it, the Senate should pass it and then, before 2014, the minister will work out the industry-specific minimum standards against which employers will have to report. I know that the government will come back after my remarks and say none of this actually requires a certain rate of pay, none of this requires businesses to do anything about what they report. But I make two points: one is that just having to report on this sort of nonsense is a serious burden for business; the second is that, maybe, somewhere down the track, businesses will have to demonstrate that they have done the things that the government has set as minimum standards in terms of gender pay equality ideas, indicators et cetera that we really know so little about.

I am sure I read in here a veiled threat that a person would have to meet these standards in terms of government contracts, tender processes and other things or perhaps they will be named and shamed. In fact, in the second reading speech we come to three things: the inevitable checks, naming and consequences. It is like the government is an old school ma'am with glasses and with her hair scraped back in a bun, waving a pen at small business saying, 'You'll be checked, you'll be named and you'll have consequences.' In the current operating environment for businesses, families and the Australian economy why are we even debating this sort of stuff? I am confused.

Getting back to checks, naming and consequences: the minister says, 'Checks on a relevant employer may be undertaken and may, by written notice, require a relevant employer to provide information that is relevant to the employer's compliance with the act.' On naming: 'The consequences of a non-compliance without reasonable excuse, include naming the employer in a report to the minister or naming the employer by other means.' As for consequences, there are also possible consequences in relation to Commonwealth procurement, grants and financial assistance. So, following consequences, there are also threats.

The government wraps all this up with their determination to improve women's economic security. I come back to paid parental leave. The system that is proposed by this side of the House sees women's economic security absolutely take front and centre stage. We do not like this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you may have gathered. We did not like the fact that businesses would be required to adhere to this new reporting framework, which they do not really have too many details against. They will have to report against the gender equality indicators in a publicly available report outlining the composition of their workplace and other aspects of their workplace profile.

The Labor Party has been a longstanding advocate of quotas. The coalition, on the other hand, believes in selection based on merit—not on gender, not to fill a mathematical quota, but strictly on ability. The setting of quotas will lead to tokenism and may impart the idea that some women's achievements are strictly based on gender, not ability. We would resist anything that would lead to the conclusion—anywhere, anyhow—that women's achievements are based on gender, not ability. I know that women have so much ability that they would never need to hide behind the gender card.

My first career was in air traffic control. I was often the only female air traffic controller in a room full of men. I cannot imagine if my employer, which I guess was a government department, to sign up to this completely would have been required to employ a certain number of female air traffic controllers. I had a career in the shearing sheds. I do not think a shearing contractor with many more than 100 employees would ever be able to meet requirements that might be determined on gender equality indicators, because I only met one female shearer in the entire time I worked in the sheds. By the way, she was very good. And so it goes.

There are protests from those opposite, but we do not know what the gender equality indicators are. We do not know how they might roll out in practice. I am not convinced that this legislation will achieve what the government intends it to. Indeed, I have concerns as to the chronic lack of information evident within this bill. Ultimately, this legislation relies on regulations that are yet to be drafted and ministerial directives that are yet to be made, in spite of the fact that there has been three years in which to do this work.. How important is equal opportunity in the workplace to the government?

The current act has been renamed and updated. It was amended in 1999, replacing the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. It has as its key focus the promotion of merit in the workplace, promoting equal employment opportunity, eliminating discrimination and encouraging consultation between employers and employees on these issues. Businesses are required to develop a workplace program—more time, more effort, more compliance, more pieces of paper to produce and show to someone who turns up at your business to look at your program and asks, 'What are you doing about the gender equality indicators that we have set?' All not-for-profit and non-government organisations with 100 or more employees are required to comply with the public reporting requirements of the act.

The Minister for the Status of Women proclaims the amending of this bill as an 'example of the significant inroads' that the Labor Party is making through its 'progressive reforms'. I beg to disagree. These so-called reforms are anything but progressive. Rebranding the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency is nothing more than window-dressing, another opportunity to waste taxpayer dollars on advertising and glossy logos, changing names on doors, changing the stationery—it all costs money.

Other 'reforms' are enhancing the agency's advice and education functions, and simplifying and streamlining reporting. How can there be simplifying and streamlining of reporting when there is so much additional compliance with reporting indicators that have not been set? Then there is strengthening the compliance framework. The government always has to strengthen the compliance framework. We so strongly disagree with the overemphasis on compliance. I am alarmed that we are expected to pass judgment on legislation that so poorly clarifies its scope. The financial and administrative cost to business will be harshly felt. Employers may well wonder what the real intention of the government is with this legislation.

The regulation impact statement states that the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will be vested with the authority to undertake organisational reviews, with the time burden for selected businesses estimated to be $1,300 where the business has up-to-date records. These compliance costs just further exacerbate the strain on businesses, many of which will be burdened by the imposition of Labor's carbon tax. I am further concerned by the prospect of the bill applying the general principles of the act to all employers. The effect of this would be to provide the Workplace Gender Equality Agency with a mandate to consider these businesses in their development of strategies and resources. I seek clarification from the minister as to what this really means for the small businesses of Australia. I look forward to advice on what 'a mandate to consider these businesses in their development of strategies and resources' really means.

The coalition does not support legislation which provides for such broad-ranging ministerial discretion in allowing the minister to effectively do what they like, further strangling business in red tape. This bill permits the minister to change the goal posts whenever the whim dictates, with no real parameters defined. Whilst the government may refer to this as 'flexibility', the reality is it proves that the government really has no idea what it wants to assess, so is leaving its options open. Three years on from the review undertaken by KPMG into the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act and Agency, it is quite frankly alarming that the government has not been able to commit to matters for one single gender equality indicator. Where will the government get its advice from? Who is the government trying to please? What is the hidden agenda?

The then Minister for the Status of Women, the member for Adelaide, announced in 2011 spot checks on business. That was truly alarming. This is a government that clearly does not understand or respect business. Given the university, union or otherwise backgrounds of the members opposite, it is no real wonder. Whilst I am pleased that this crazy idea was little more than a chance to embellish a media opportunity, I remain concerned about the ramifications. Having announced the possibility of spot checks of businesses, that really silly idea sank like a stone. But it demonstrates the minister's thinking. I am also concerned about the requirement for the minister to consult only with those stakeholders that the minister considers appropriate. It sounds like a union love-in will tick all the boxes for this government, with no requirement for consideration of the views of the business community.

Regrettably, with this bill, the government is brashly waving around a big stick, and there is not a single carrot in sight. Whilst this could present an ideal opportunity for the government to promote and reward businesses that meet all the government benchmarks, it has failed to embrace this.

The coalition has established a deregulation task force to identify unnecessary red-tape measures that are diminishing the productivity of Australian workplaces. As I said, as I travel around the country as the coalition spokesperson for child care, I see firsthand how centre operators are being overwhelmed with the administrative burdens imposed by this government. Instead of demanding that businesses devote hours to filling out reports just so another government agency can justify its existence, this government could focus on proactive measures to provide for improved gender equality—measures such as the superannuation component that the coalition has included into its paid parental leave scheme. If this government is honestly seeking equal remuneration for women then this would be an ideal step in the right direction.

When I think of women a generation older than me who live quiet and difficult lives in small country towns in the electorate I represent in western New South Wales, I realise there was nothing when they took time off work to look after their homes and children. They did not have the opportunities I have been so lucky to have. As I said, I look at the lives of poverty they are experiencing and I am determined that we on this side of the House will make sure that superannuation will continue to be an important factor for women as they go through the different stages of working and having children. If you step away from the workforce and from your superannuation contributions to take maternity leave or to stay at home and look after children, it does not take very long for that gap to really tell on your future retirement. So I think the government has a bit of a nerve talking about the rights of women at work when they are not thinking about the superannuation contributions that they miss out on through the government's very poor, second-rate Paid Parental Leave scheme.

I will be moving an amendment to this bill calling on the government to achieve equal opportunity for women by supporting the coalition's paid parental leave scheme. In addition, we will propose removing the discretion proposed to be granted to the minister specifically in relation to the determination of industry-specific standards in conjunction with the stakeholders of the minister's own choosing. We are not going to let this government frolic away on their own with standards that they have not yet determined but are going to determine after they—hopefully, in their minds—pass the legislation. We are going to stand in the way of that. I have a terrible vision of the unions placing their stamp all over these standards and manipulating this legislation to their own ends to collect the data they want, and feel they are missing out on, about workplaces.

I shall also move to reintroduce provisions allowing the agency to waive public reporting requirements for relevant employers. Why should employers have to publicly report against these standards, whatever they may be? Further amendments will be moved to give public acknowledgement to relevant employers who regularly meet compliance standards. Also, in our amendments, we will require the government to remove one regulation for relevant employers for each new regulation imposed by the act, because we are absolutely serious about red tape and deregulation. So, for every new regulation that is imposed, we will require the government to remove one, so as to not add to the regulatory burden for employers.

I expect that government members, in responding on this bill, will talk about it being streamlined, transparent, flexible and easy—those sorts of words—for employers. In that case, even if they do not support any of our other amendments, I look forward to them supporting that one. If they do not, they will be acknowledging that this will add considerably to the red-tape burden on Australia's small businesses.

Passing the amendments I will move would prevent businesses facing draconian levels of government interference and ensure that the bill is a more reasonable, palatable framework for business in the quest for gender equality. This is a government that has no understanding of or compassion for business. I encourage members opposite to adopt the measures and restore some semblance of common sense to this bill.

We are not rejecting the bill outright, in spite of the problems that we see with it. That would leave us open to the charge that we do not care about gender equality in the workplace, that we are not a party that supports equality and fairness for women, and that would be untrue. Our significant amendments would still leave in place the reality, which is that we are proud of our record when it comes to women in the workplace. We will not allow this government to tell a different story. Labor governments tax, spend and interfere, and this legislation is an absolutely perfect example of interfering.

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"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."

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012. I listened to the member for Farrer and saw the list of who was speaking on this bill today and found that the coalition were so concerned about equal opportunity for women that they did not even have a bloke on the list to speak—not a man on the list—on this bill! We have men and women speaking in relation to this bill.

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

We don't have quotas.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Farrer was heard in silence.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it is interesting that they are so concerned about that. Perhaps that is indicative of the attitude of their LNP colleagues in Queensland, where only about 18 per cent of their caucus are women. The member for Farrer was quite critical of quotas and quite critical of the steps taken by the Australian Labor Party, but I note that the party in Queensland is led by a woman; that the Premier, when Labor were in government in Queensland, was a woman; and that the Prime Minister is a woman. We have actually taken steps in our conferences and our party units, as well as in this government, to advance the role of women, because we know that gender inequality is a huge disincentive to participation of women in the workforce.

The member for Farrer was critical of us, and particularly of the minister, in relation to this legislation. But what she did not say at all was that the development of this legislation was underpinned by extensive consultation. She was critical of the trade union movement. It is always in the DNA of those opposite to criticise the trade union movement. They can never get over this. Demonising someone is always what the Tories do in this country. But let's have a look at the consultation. There was a consultation process undertaken in relation to this. Members of the advisory group included, amongst others, the following: ACCI, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who are not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party; the ACTU; the Australian Industry Group; ASX Ltd; the University of Sydney; and the Fair Work Ombudsman. If they want to know the full membership of the advisory committee, I am sure we can provide it to them. But it was not just the ACTU that we consulted on this.

I think what we are hearing today is actually part of a strategy, because I noticed that the LNP Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, said similar things to what the member for Farrer said in a letter to Tim Watling, the Committee Secretary of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, who recommended that we pass this legislation. In a letter dated 23 April 2012, Campbell Newman said:

The Bill's proposed amendments to the current reporting framework give rise to concerns regarding the likely impact on employers. My Government is also committed to changing the culture in government, from one that promotes red tape to one that reduces red tape. I am concerned the Bill may impose an additional regulatory burden on Queensland businesses.

These are similar to the words we heard from the member for Farrer in relation to this. It is interesting because last parliament I was a member of the House of Representatives Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, then chaired by the former member for Hasluck, and I seem to recall overwhelming amounts of evidence that it did not matter whether women were cleaners or shop assistants or nurses or even barristers. I remember that the Law Institute of Victoria gave us evidence that women who came from law school in their first year were earning on average $8,000 less than men in their first year, even though they had the same qualifications. That particular committee recommended reporting provisions similar to what is in this legislation. I recall sitting in that committee and I recall looking around and saying, 'Hello, there are members of the Liberal Party on the committee.' In a bipartisan way they recommended what we are doing here in this legislation. They were supporting us, but all of a sudden, somehow and not in a benevolent way, those opposite have changed their minds. They have had a false or bad epiphany in relation to this legislation. Perhaps they are taking instructions from their LNP colleagues in Queensland.

I hope as she goes around the countryside as the shadow minister for child care the member for Farrer makes the point—she waxed on about superannuation—that she and her caucus colleagues voted against superannuation increases for women from nine to 12 per cent over the next decade. I hope she tells them that. It means that a 30-year-old woman will get over $100,000 more because of this government and would have got $100,000 less if they had been in government. The coalition continues to vote against superannuation. Because she talked a lot about child care, I hope she also tells the people as she goes around that one of the first acts of the coalition government after 1996 was to rip a billion dollars out of the childcare sector.

I hope she also tells them that she left women in a position where they were getting by way of childcare rebate up to $4,354 per child and that we increased it by 73 per cent to $7,500 per child. I hope she also says that we have assisted over 900,000 Australian families with the increased costs of child care. I hope she also tells them that we have put a record amount of money into child care—$22.4 billion over four years, including $19.9 billion for the CCR and CCB. I hope she also says that a woman in a family earning $75,000 a year with one child in long-day care is only paying 7.5 per cent of their disposable income in childcare costs. It was 13 per cent in 2004, when her side of politics was in power.

Let us not hear platitudes from those opposite that they are supportive of equality in the workplace and that they are supportive of the sort of assistance that women need, because we are the ones who brought in the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Those opposite, in power for nearly 12 years, failed to do it. When they come up with a scheme, they come up with one that favours millionaires. That is what they do. The legislation here is important, because women are in a position where they are not participating in the workforce as much as men. In fact Australia ranks 45th in the World Economic Forum's 2011 Global Gender Gap Report when it comes to labour force participation. About 43 per cent of women participating in the workforce are working part time. We concede that casual and part-time work suits many women, but it also means that they earn far less, have lower superannuation and their employment arrangements are far less secure.

The gender pay gap starts early, as I have already pointed out. Men and women have different experiences of the workplace. I will show why this is important. One of my constituents, Dr Terrance Fitzsimmons, a post-doctoral research fellow from the University of Queensland, did his thesis on this point. He said that despite the fact that women represented 55 per cent of degree qualified work entrants in the past 20 years, only three per cent of Australia's ASX-listed companies have female CEOs. If we look at the market capitalisation, however, women control less than one per cent, if you take Gail Kelly out of the mix. This situation has remained static over the past decade. Dr Fitzsimmons makes the point that this is a major social issue. It is a massive economic problem. We simply have far too few women at senior levels in most organisations and there needs to be momentum to drive the cultural change and norms in society which act strongly against women being able to rise to the top of the corporate sector.

It does not matter whether they are part-time cleaners or they are in fact CEOs, women find themselves disadvantaged in the workplace for a variety of different reasons. Dr Fitzsimmons puts forward in his thesis a number of things that we can do. This legislation focuses on gender equality. It is about making sure that we establish the agency—and changing its title—and making sure that the agency's advice and assistance functions extend to all employers, but only relevant employers with a hundred or more employees are subject to the reporting requirements in the legislation, a new reporting framework, and they report against gender equality indicators. That is going to commence from 1 April 2013. We are going to make sure that reporting is simple; we are going to make sure it is useful; we are going to make sure there are industry based benchmarks; and we are going to consult industry. We are going to check compliance by requiring a relevant employer to give the agency the necessary information about the employer's compliance with the act. This is important also because we think that industry needs to understand that this is a serious issue as far as society is concerned. Contemporaneously, we believe that women can do anything and we think they should be able to do everything they want to do—that their skills, talents and abilities should be fostered and there should be no obstacles in the workplace, in politics and in the community to stop them. There should be no barriers; there should be no glass ceiling.

I mentioned before the extensive consultation which the coalition has railed against. In 2011 the government convened an implementation advisory group to assist. I know that the Minister for the Status of Women, Julie Collins, has addressed that group recently. She addressed a number of conferences around the country in relation to that, directly engaging with those people who are stakeholders in business and organisations around Australia. This is part of a commitment that we made when we went to the 2010 election. We made a commitment that we would retain and improve the quality of opportunity for women in the workplace.

It is important to note that there has been a long legislative history in relation to these issues going back to the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, another great initiative of a Labor government under Bob Hawke. That has been part of our legislative framework to remove obstacles for women since that time. The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 has served us well but now it is simply not good enough. We need to make significant reforms to bring into a contemporary setting our approach to gender equality.

I have two daughters and they are both at university. I want to make sure that they grow up in an environment and a world where they have no barriers to whatever they want to do. Sadly, we know that across all professions, even today—and not just the legal profession I mentioned before—the median full-time salary for a male graduate from university is $52,000 compared to $50,000 for female graduates. It gets worse as you go higher in different professions. Sadly, the average superannuation balance for Australian women is 40 per cent below that of men and the average payout is about half of that of men. We that know women make up about 70 per cent of single age pensioners. That is why our reforms in relation to superannuation and our reforms in relation to the pension—the historic rises in 2009-10—have made such a difference.

But there is more to be done. We are addressing inequalities that stop women achieving all they want. We are increasing workforce participation. That is crystal clear in our legislative framework and what we are doing. We are not just helping individual women; we are helping whole communities. We are helping them to achieve their potential to rejoin the workforce with extra funding, whether they are suffering from a physical disability or the disability from not having the education that they wished in the earlier parts of their lives.

Closing the gap between workforce participation for men and women would boost our gross domestic product by about 13 per cent. Those opposite talk about being friends of business, friends of small business, friends of economics. Even if you adopted a really economically rational approach, if you said you were going to end the inequality between men's and women's participation in the workforce, to increase our gross domestic product by 13 per cent is an extraordinary way to boost our $1.5 trillion economy. That is why it is important. It is important not just for decency, compassion and humanity, and giving 50 per cent of our population a fairer go; it is also about making sure the economy is stronger.

This legislation should be seen as part of a whole package. I commend the minister for the great work she has done. It seems to me to be pitiful that those opposite would pose as the friend of women when you look at their record. The fact that they have opposed this legislation says volumes about what would happen if they got on this side of the Treasury benches.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always interesting to follow the member for Blair. Nevertheless, I want to speak to this government bill, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012, which amends the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. It gives effect to a 2010 election campaign commitment.

The coalition supports gender equality in the workplace. From listening to the member for Blair you would think that those of us on this side of the House oppose all of the gender equality measures, many of which we instigated in the past when we have been in government. The coalition opposes this bill as it is currently drafted on the basis that it imposes some really draconian measures. All they are designed to do is increase the level of government interference in the workplace and they would have the absolute opposite effect, possibly, to what is stated in the bill's aim.

The coalition is committed to supporting gender equality and we are committed to workplace participation and improving workplace flexibility through retraining and improving the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. The coalition values women and men as co-contributors to the economic and social wellbeing of Australia, and we recognise and value the many varied roles that women play across all sectors of Australian society. We are committed to achieving real and decisive progress to make sure that we remedy the gender inequality that exists in Australia today.

The fact is that in 2010 Australian females made up 50.2 per cent of the population and 45.3 per cent of the workforce. Increasingly, women are more educated than their male counterparts. More females are completing year 12 and many more are going on to university than males. In fact, in 2008 females made up some 55 per cent of students who were currently enrolled in Australian universities.

Australia is very fortunate to have so many high-achieving women who have made significant contributions in numerous fields and enterprises. We are also very fortunate to have so many quiet achievers. They are the Australian women who are the backbone of this country's economy. They are the ones that hold the key to greater productivity in Australia. Sadly, estimates suggest that closing the gap between men's and women's workforce participation could result, and has resulted, in gender pay gaps of 16.9 per cent. If we closed the gap between men's and women's workforce participation we would see an increase of 13 per cent in gross domestic product. We had a great improvement in closing that persistent gender wage gap during the Howard years. But sadly, as I said, it has gone up again and, at 16.9 per cent, it is the widest it has been for over a quarter of a century.

The coalition is very proud of having a record of creating economic opportunity for Australian women. Our plans for the future will continue the very important work we have done and will benefit every member of our community. Improving gender equality in Australian workplaces is essential and critical and, in particular, is a very important ingredient in lifting female employment and creating greater opportunities for Australian women.

Under the bill small business will maintain its exemption from reporting for now. However, the general principles of the bill are expressed to apply to all employers. The effect of this is that the agency will have a mandate to consider small businesses in the development of strategies and resources, which raises the question: what does the government intend to do for small businesses? Will they too eventually be roped into reporting? It is essential that changes such as the substituted reporting responsibilities do not create more red tape and more operational imposts on an already overburdened small business sector or, for that matter, on all businesses in this country.

The coalition believes in smaller government and in not interfering with businesses getting on with the job of employing people. That is why we established the deregulation task force, chaired by Senator Arthur Sinodinos. The more regulation that the government puts on businesses, the more time and money and effort that businesspeople have to divert from real work, family and friends to fill in forms. As a small business operator until a few years before I entered politics, I understood that only too well when I was running a family business. One of my family member's sole responsibility was to fill in the forms and take care of all the red tape. There was a form a day, I can assure those sitting opposite. It was a full-time job in our particular business.

We in the coalition support the right of employers to run their businesses efficiently and to employ people on merit. We do not support the placement of draconian measures which are designed to increase the level of government interference in the workplace. The bill proposes to expand those organisations which can comment on the public report. And it includes an employee organisation, which is not present in the current legislation and which has the same definition as that found in the Fair Work Act. There is a proposed new section, 16B, which gives employee organisations the opportunity to comment on the public report, and employee organisations may well target certain industries. We do not support legislation which provides a broad-ranging ministerial discretion to allow the minister to effectively do what he or she likes and potentially tie up businesses in red tape.

In 2007 the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, visited every state and territory in Australia, and a report was published in 2008. Four years later, many of the equality issues remain unchanged today from what they were then. In her report Ms Broderick identified that many older women with limited retirement savings due to movement in and out of the workforce—and you have to bear in mind that many of these older women were in the workforce when there was no superannuation for women—had a considerable level of anxiety relating to poverty in their later years.

Pay inequality is a contributing factor to the gender gap in women's retirement savings. The movement of women in and out of the paid workforce due to caring responsibilities is another factor contributing to the gender gap in retirement savings. Of course, there are always structural and cultural barriers in the workplace which prevent women from balancing their paid work and their caring responsibilities, reducing their workforce participation and their economic independence. Pay inequality is also influencing decisions within families on the sharing of paid work and caring responsibilities. Those same barriers prevent men from taking on a greater share of caring responsibilities, with men sometimes finding it even harder to access flexible work due to cultural stereotypes about roles between parents.

The availability and cost of child care also remains a significant impediment and a negative factor for many women wishing to return to the workforce. The rising cost of child care is becoming a major barrier to people returning to work—in some instances it can cost more for a parent to go to work than to stay at home. There is also a limited amount of child care available for before- and after-school hours, and recent changes to legislation have resulted in even fewer places being available.

If the coalition gains government at the next election we will introduce a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. The coalition's scheme provides real time and real money to working women, offering eligible women 26 weeks at their replacement wage, up to $75,000 per annum for six months. Unlike Labor's paltry scheme, the coalition's PPL scheme includes superannuation—which, as I mentioned earlier, is a real concern, particularly for older women. So this is a really important step in addressing the chronic disparity between male and female retirement incomes. It also has the ability to directly address three key challenges identified in the second Intergenerational report: productivity, participation and population

The amendment bill is drafted to provide the minister with an inordinate amount of discretion. For example, the bill gives the minister the power by legislative instrument to specify matters in relation to each gender equality indicator, as set out in proposed subsection 3(1). The public report must contain details of the matters specified in the instrument made by the minister. The explanatory memorandum also confirms the minister's broad discretion. As stated, this gives the minister the flexibility to consider all issues relevant to gender equality and to add new matters. Is it necessary to consider the scope and extent of these new matters? What are those new matters? Absolutely no indication whatsoever has been given about what these new matters might be.

The minister is also directed, prior to 1 April 2014, by legislative instrument to set minimum standards in relation to specified gender equality indicators, specified relevant employers and specified reporting periods. The newly named Workplace Gender Equality Agency is given the ability to check compliance by requiring a relevant employer to give the agency information that relates to that employer's compliance with the act or to the employer's performance against the minimum standards. Surely, this is a watering down of spot checks on businesses that were proposed by former Minister Kate Ellis in 2011. The only prescribed consultation is with the agency and other stakeholders 'as the Minister sees appropriate'. The minister should be required to consult with employers as they are the ones paying the bill for all these changes.

We are really concerned that the legislation also allows the minister to set 'industry specific standards'. There is no clear definition of an 'industry specific' standard. The minister in her second reading speech also gave no indication as to what these industries might be. As reported in the Australian Financial Review on 9 March 2012 under the banner headline 'Gender equity bill to spur pay claims':

… employers remained concerned that unions will use this information on wage levels at a particular company to ask for industry wide wage rises.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Peter Anderson recently said that employers were concerned that the information they supplied could be 'misused for extraneous purposes'. His spokesman, David Turnbull, said 'employers remained concerned that unions will use this information on wage levels at a particular company to ask for industry-wide wage rises'.

The initial review of this act was announced in June 2009. KPMG provided an extensive report on the review but, three years on, the government has still not been able to come up with the 'matters in relation to each gender equality indicator'. Given their failure to address these issues, it seems really premature to be introducing this legislation.

The coalition opposes this bill on the basis that it imposes draconian measures which are designed to increase the level of government interference in the workplace and which may well have the opposite effect to what is stated as the bill's aim. If the government were really serious about improving the productivity and particularly the rates of participation of women in the workforce, it would look at adopting the childcare policies of the coalition, which include re-instating the occasional-care funding which allows parents to work part time and not have to commit to full-time child care, and gives them the flexibility at different stages of their careers to move in and out of the workforce at different times and also to work part time to full time. That is what women really need. They need that great flexibility as their families increase and to then, as their families start work, be able to phase back into paid full-time work.

The coalition seeks to amend the bill to: remove the discretion proposed to be provided to the minister; re-introduce 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 to remove one regulation for relevant employers for each new regulation imposed by the act.

I want to conclude by saying that all this bill does is add to the burden of red tape for businesses while doing absolutely nothing to improve the opportunities for women in the workplace. All Australians must continue to work together to ensure that the contribution of women in this country's workforce is properly valued, appreciated and rewarded.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak on this important bill before the House, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012. The bill reflects the Gillard government's commitment to supporting gender equality and the improvement of workforce participation and flexibility. It substantially retains the act but improves on it.

Before I commence my formal comments, I reflect briefly on the contribution of the member for Brisbane. There is a somewhat revealing pattern in what we have heard from the member. In her description of a problem many of the points which she made were points of fact and I think that we would be in agreement on the disadvantage that it is out there in the workplace for women. But in contrast with this government's initiative, what we get from those opposite is a do-nothing response. That is the argument we constantly get. It is an articulation of a climate of fear—be afraid of the legislation; be afraid of everything; be afraid of any possible cost; be afraid of any change; we cannot afford it.

We heard exactly the same sort of mode of operation from those opposite in terms of the floods in Brisbane. When there was a need for us to respond to a real and pressing problem in and around Brisbane, what did we hear from the opposition? Absolute opposition and no response to the real and pressing need. In contrast, this government enacted the changes that made $5.8 billion possible as support to that particular state at a time of need. I think this sums up the great differences between what the people on our side—the government side—have to say on the legislation and what those opposite continue to do, which is to negate everything and to act in ways which would give people no hope for the future, but tell us simply to leave things as a status quo.

I can report to the House that earlier this year on International Women's Day I participated in a recognition of that day with a number of girls from local schools in the Central Coast, including Narara Valley High School, Gosford High School, St Joseph's high school, and a number of great female agencies and wonderful female and male leaders in our community as well. We talked about the need to recognise and celebrate women's achievements, but also to continue to articulate striving for equality in all aspects of life. Indeed, the theme for this year's International Women's Day was the 'economic empowerment of women'. That theme is relevant to women everywhere. That is why this piece of legislation, very carefully constructed by this government, is a vital piece of our legislative program, and I am delighted to be able to reflect on that in some detail now. I commence my formal remarks by noting the very important change to the name of the act, which reflects changing community attitudes to notions of equality and equity in the workplace. When this bill is passed, the name of the act will be the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. It follows then that the agency responsible for bringing this new legislation to life in the community and the director of that agency also receive new titles. When this legislation passes through this chamber and the other place, people will find a great deal of very helpful practical advice about gender equality at the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, which will be overseen by the newly named Director of Workplace Gender Equality. This name change is a marker in our legislative history, a marker of the success of those women and men who were such passionate advocates for women's rights in general and those who saw those saw those rights brought to life in workplaces across this nation to a degree.

Before I proceed with more a detailed consideration of the actual legislation, let us acknowledge what the original legislation achieved because it points to the power of legislation in supporting community articulation for needs to change and improve current practices. The original legislation was a vital historic step in raising awareness of unquestioned inequities that existed in workplaces, bringing changing community understanding alongside a developing understanding that, to make real our express belief that we are an egalitarian society, we need education but we also need structural change. The legislation was a critical tool in ensuring that businesses across the nation in all workplaces—from the backroom at a local distribution centre to the boardroom at the top of the MLC—had to take some time to understand and begin to alter longstanding and often unquestioned practices that put women at a disadvantage in the workplace.

Some businesses and organisations operating out of ethical values based models noted the opportunities to embrace the change in the context of that conversation. Without some compulsion and without raising the standards, some workplaces just knew that the right thing to do straight off was to actively change things to make their workplace a fairer place for women, striving towards making equality in the workplace common. But other businesses, whether by design or by a lack of interest, did not even see inequality. Others sought to maintain inequality for a range of reasons one hates to imagine.

In this mixed set of circumstances, the role of parliament in bringing forward and passing legislation is very important. This legislation before the House today reveals a commitment to putting in place the conditions that support equality in the workplace as part of our law. The type of legislation before the House in this matter very clearly expresses our beliefs about the equality of citizens, about the equality of male and female citizens in the workplace as well as outside of that workplace in the common place.

We believe that gender equality should be assured and that proof of this basic democratic belief should be evident in equitable outcomes. We commenced that with this legislation. There will be great businesses and organisations, both small and large, who understand that equity in the workplace creates an environment where people work better, where people are happier and where people are more productive. Successful, adaptive and ethical organisations know that their success depends on the quality of the people they engage and on the quality of the relationships within their working community. But, sadly, there will be businesses or individuals who fear change, cling to models of the past and no matter how unjust or inequitable they might be, can find an argument to stay just as they are, to do nothing.

There are people who think inequity is acceptable, but we in the Labor Party are not of that view. Interestingly, last week, on 23 May, a report in the Advertiser, that South Australian luminary publication, quoted the South Australian Liberal opposition leader as saying:

I think it is easier a lot of the time to just try to ignore the discrimination and get on with being the best councillor you can be, or the best whatever it is, and ask intelligent questions and … I think you'll find the discrimination will just disappear.

That is the policy of the opposition on this issue in a nutshell: 'If we do nothing, the problem will go away'. If only that was true. But it is not the truth, and it is not an appropriate response to inherit gender prejudice and exclusion from opportunity that sadly is still commonplace in our workplaces.

Let us just get some facts on the record here. In February 2010 the gender pay gap was 18 per cent. That is not acceptable to those girls who were at that International Women's Day with me. It is not acceptable to their brothers or their fathers or their future employers either. In 2009 a new male graduate had a median starting salary of $50,000; the girls who had started at the same time ended up with only $47,000. That is inexcusable. The average superannuation balances for Australians aged 15 years and over with superannuation coverage were $87,589 for men and $52,272 for women. In the ASX 200 only 10.7 per cent of executive managers are women. Women chair two per cent of ASX 200 companies and hold only 8.3 per cent of board director positions. This just simply does not match up with the reality of the success we are having with female graduates coming out of universities, and it certainly does not reflect the similarities between the genders in success that I saw amongst my own students.

Sadly, it is still the fact today that young women are up to fives times more likely than men to have average weekly incomes of less than $150 a week and twice as likely to have average weekly incomes of less than $600. In the prime working age, between the brackets of 35 and 64, the number of women earning above $1,300 a week is less than half of their male colleagues and women who earn about $2,000 a week make up less than 25 per cent of that group.

We have put the facts on the record, but what does this mean? Why does it matter? I want to make a few comments about productivity. We have increasing evidence that the benefits of gender diversity are absolutely seen in increased productive capacity for organisations and, through them, our economy. A recent report from Catalyst found that for four out of five industries in the United States, the companies with the highest female representation on their top management teams experienced a higher total return to shareholders than companies with the lowest representation of women. There is something about equity that creates fantastic productive outcomes. Growth in productivity is the main source of improvement in living standards and gross domestic product, and faster labour productivity growth enables higher growth for real GDP. The World Economic Forum clearly identifies the link between productivity and the better use of women in the workplace. There is a very strong correlation between the gender gap and national competitiveness, and a nation's competitiveness depends significantly on whether and how it educates and utilises its female talent. The reality is that we are currently in a place where we are not utilising that talent in the way we should.

It is very clear that this legislation significantly builds on advances that have already been made. Those on this side of the chamber are ready to take the necessary action that refocuses national attention on gender equity. This legislation moves us deliberately and responsibly towards the worthy goal of gender equity and the productivity and improved life outcomes that such a change offers.

One of the important points of the act's name change is to reflect community attitudes, which have changed very much to a desire to balance our work and our lives—for men and women to have the joy, the challenge and the growth opportunity of parenting or caring for older relatives or extended family or even members of their own communities who need our support, and to balance that important work in the community and their families with their work. This is another very important issue that is addressed by this legislation.

I would like to look quickly at some of the key elements of this bill. I know there has been a lot of noise in opposing them, but it is important that we have reporting on things that matter. People want to know the football scores at the end of the weekend; we do measure success in certain areas by numbers. The reality is that often it is what is measured that is seen to matter. That is why we need to have some reporting requirements to assist in this process. The requirement for organisations to develop workplace programs has been removed from this legislation. Employers will now have a much more streamlined set of gender equality indicators to help them focus on delivering outcomes rather than simply compliance. This is about changing the way that we work to improve our productivity, equity and equality to create the possibility of people getting the best out of their work-life balance. In terms of business assistance, it is also important to put on the record that smaller organisations and businesses with fewer than 100 employees are not required to report, but they can access this information—and they should access this information considering we know how much it will improve the productivity of all workplaces and that it is, in a way, simply an ethical practice. We know that that improves business productivity and the general tenor of a workplace.

Regarding compliance, the agency's improved resourcing will certainly make it easier for them to be able to check on how businesses are going with implementing these changes. It is important to highlight the employee engagement that has been a part of the minister's work leading to this day, where the legislation is now up for consideration to pass through the House of Representatives. Engagement with our employees and other business organisations has been a hallmark of the way in which this legislation has been advanced. It has also very much stood the test of whether we are an ethical international citizen that complies with its proclaimed support for international conventions on human rights.

In conclusion, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 adds to the real and practical improvements to people's lives that this government is prepared to make through legislation. Once again, those opposite stand ready to say no to women, girls, men, boys, families, business and all who stand to benefit from this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill amends the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 and amends the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. It will provide for both men and women. Anthropologists have quite a simple test for gender equity in a population. They simply ask the women whether, in the next life, they would like to return as a male or a female. In Australia, almost overwhelmingly women tend to respond that they are very happy with their gender and would like to return as female, which is unusual when you consider the realities of the inequity of women's experience in the workplace. Violence is much more likely to occur on women in a domestic situation and women in Australia have more financial difficulties, during what is usually a longer life than men, living in poverty.

This bill's equality focus is specifically on remuneration, but it takes on board the fact that accommodating family and caring responsibilities is central to the achievement of gender equality in the workplace. One of our key difficulties in Australia is that we continue to have inflexible workplace arrangements. Under Labor, sadly, workplace arrangements have become even more likely to be ruled by regulation and a lack of flexibility that does not reflect the seasonal work situation, for example, or women or younger people's need for part-time work and work on days other than the traditional working week of Monday to Friday. Our country is getting more straitjacketed rather than less when it comes to opportunities for women to participate.

Our culture continues to expect women to be the main carers for children, the elderly and the disabled. At the same time, of course, most women have an economic imperative to support their families by earning outside the home and bringing home a salary. So we have a serious problem in Australia. We expect women to do it all—to have the babies and to care for the elderly parent or the disabled. We expect women to do volunteer work relating to their family's education experience, but we also expect those same women to earn an income outside the home in an inflexible workplace.

This bill introduces new functions for the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, including to develop, in consultation with relevant employer and employee organisations, new benchmarks in relation to gender equality indicators. I hope we look at best practice internationally, because Australia has a great deal to learn, particularly from the experiences of some of our counterparts in developed northern European countries. The bill introduces a new reporting framework in which relevant employers are required to report against new gender equality indicators. The problem with this bill is that we do not have those equality indicators yet determined. It is not clear when and how the indicators will be presented to us, but we do hope that it will be in a very consultative mode. Employers who do not meet the minimum standards of these yet-to-be-identified benchmarks will be provided with assistance and advice from the agency. All employers will have access to education advice from the agency.

There is no doubt that Australia continues to fail women in the workplace and, even with these name, act and age changes and new benchmarks, we have a very great deal of territory to cover before we can stand tall in comparison to other developed nations and say that our women in the workplace have a fair go. For example, in the quarter ended February 2012 the gender pay gap between men and women doing the same or similar work stood at 17.4 per cent. This is one of the highest wage gaps in the developed world. The average weekly ordinary time income of females—this is full-time work—was $1,186 per week. Compared to men, it was $250.50 less per week.

The figures show that the gap has not changed from 12 months ago. Over the last 18 years the pay gap has, in fact, increased by 1.5 per cent. So, we are going backwards in the equality of pay for men and women doing similar or the same work. That is quite extraordinary especially when you realise that Australian women have access to, and are accessing and excelling in, formal education qualifications. Australia's women are the most likely to have finished secondary school and have tertiary education qualifications compared to most other developed nations. We are out there getting the education but we are not then achieving the extra productivity that can come from that education in the workplace. This is a serious loss for the women and it is an even greater loss for the nation as a whole.

Figures from the September 2011 ABS Survey of Income and Housing showed the average account balance in 2009-10 was $71,600 for men but only $40,400-odd for women—almost half. Sixty per cent of women retire with no superannuation at all to support themselves financially. They are destined to be dependent on welfare. If they do not own their own home—and given most women in older age are alone and not partnered—this is a recipe for a long life in poverty. For those at retirement age who do have superannuation—and, as I said, 60 per cent of women do not—the retirement payouts in 2009-10 were about $198,000 for men but only $112,000 for women.

This is why I am so angry about Labor's new Paid Parental Leave policy. It is such a cheapskate, mean and tricky offer when for years they had promised that a paid parental leave scheme would be something that women could use to help guarantee their futures in lifelong earnings and lifelong opportunities. The fact is, Labor's Paid Parental Leave policy does not pay superannuation. Women will continue to experience the gap in superannuation payments while they are bearing their babies and taking leave. Of course, the coalition's paid parental leave scheme does include superannuation and it also pays women up to a threshold the equivalent of their earnings prior to taking their paid parental leave.

Because the superannuation system is linked, obviously, to paid work, it overwhelmingly disadvantages women who have to move in and out of the paid workforce to have their babies and have their families. Some women also have to take part-time work during some of their most concentrated child-bearing and child-caring stages. The enormous superannuation gap between men and women reflects that broken work-lifetime experience of women in Australia, and that simply should not be the case. Women are more likely to be in casual and part-time work, and they are often more likely to be in work that is paid in cash—again, without superannuation. All of this means that we continue to have a horrific gender pay gap and a gap in retirement savings between men and women.

Besides the gender pay gap women are also significantly under-represented in Australia in senior management and on boards. We have tried to address that by naming and shaming the top boards of companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. It was interesting that, when that was first introduced, we immediately had a scurry and flurry of women being placed on boards. The realities are that in very recent times the numbers of women on boards has shrunk even though it can be shown again and again in very comprehensive research that, when a company does employ women in senior management, they are more likely to be more profitable. Having said that, in fact, women are most likely to be on boards of not-for-profit organisations. It is, again, a very different experience for men and women in the workplace.

I would be remiss if I did not refer to the fact that workplace violence is more likely to be experienced by women with very serious consequences. Women also experience sexual harassment and workplace bullying. There is a report from 2011 by the Victorian work cover authority which estimated that workplace violence costs some $57 million per annum in lost productivity and associated support costs. The research indicated that we have a very serious problem in our workplaces which affects the safety of many women. It costs millions of dollars, but we do not know how many millions exactly. All we understand is that many women are driven from the workplace by abuse. They suffer consequences if they report violence, bullying or harassment, and they often carry scars of those experiences for a very long time. While there are serious consequences from workplace violence for both men and women, of course, we know much less about the experience of workplace violence on women and its effects. The seriousness of workplace violence is further exacerbated, as the problem does not stay in the workplace after the worker has left for the day but spills into the life of the individual in their homes and in their communities. It can undermine family and community life. Then, of course, many women are subjected to domestic violence, even those women who are not employed outside the home. So it can be a very tough world for women, particularly for young mothers who do not have a partner, young women who have left school early who seek to gain some employment at a time when their children are old enough and who then find great difficulties with childcare costs and with access to childcare places. I think the behaviour of this government in relation to access to child care and the introduction of regulation and national frameworks which have made child care beyond the financial reach of many working families is just unconscionable.

We know that there are alternatives to family day care and long-day care—that is, children being minded in someone else's home or in a specially established workplace. We know that many would prefer to have in-home care, especially for their young children or where they have to do shift work or work on weekends. Those women, though, are branded by Labor as elitist, rich complainers when we come to discuss in-home care for children of working parents. I think we have to very seriously consider that if a woman or a family needs in-home care for their children then they should be allowed to pursue that with appropriate regulation but also with appropriate supports and protection of that worker in that home based workplace. But to simply brand that as elitist is absolutely ridiculous and also hypocritical, when you look at the number of women in this place in the government who themselves used or use home based carers for their children but deny it to women who know that it is actually a cheaper option than having their child placed in a childcare agency or a childcare centre for more than $100 a day.

I have to say that this bill is clearly about a very significant problem in Australian society, the problem of equal opportunity for men and women. But it also highlights a problem we have in Australian society, where we educate our women, our girls to a standard that is in many instances higher than their male counterparts. For example, we now have more women completing tertiary education than men, and in some faculties like law and, indeed, medicine, women have drawn up to the numbers of men and surpassed them in course entry and course completion. Having said that, women's participation is a lost opportunity for Australian society, when the economy does not have the advantage of their full-time work for long enough or does not allow these women to dip in and out of the workplace as they choose to have their children or when they have to take up the responsibility of caring for the elderly or disabled in their family network. I think it is very important that men in Australia understand that caring should not only be the prerogative or the expectation for women. Men also have to step up to the plate and understand that job-sharing caring and sharing responsibilities in the family is not only important for the woman's own self-fulfilment but can also enhance the life experience of fathers and men in the broader Australian community.

This is an important bill. We have some amendments being proposed, but I strongly support the underpinning values that this bill represents. However, in Australia I do not think we can yet stand tall or proud when it comes to the situation of women in the workplace. The statistics are bald and stark, when we compare our experience with those of women, in particular in northern European countries. I am also concerned that this bill leaves a lot unsaid and it will have to be improved when we gain government. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to participate in this debate on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012, and I am pleased to be doing it at a time when the Minister for the Status of Women is at the table, because I know that this is an area that she is personally very committed to and that she has played an active role in consultations with important stakeholders. This bill makes a number of amendments to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. The amendments deliver on a commitment made at the 2010 election to retain and improve the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act. In doing so, they draw on the results of a review of the act and the administering agency, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, which was initiated in June 2009 by Tanya Plibersek, the former Minister for the Status of Women.

Among other things, these amendments go to things like changing the name of the act and its objects. They improve the coverage of the act and they will result in streamlining and simplifying the reporting regime for those employers who are subject to the act and in improving the compliance framework that currently applies. These are all positive and worthwhile changes. In this debate, however, just as important as what we are doing with this bill is why we are doing it. One reason is that the existing legislation and the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency date back to 1999. Since that time there have been many changes in Australia—economic, legal and social changes—so, of course, we need to make sure that our legislative framework stays up to date so that we continue to make progress towards our goal of advancing and achieving equal opportunity for women in Australian workplaces.

The fact that we have not yet achieved that goal of equal opportunity and, on some measures, have actually gone backwards is the other reason that the government believes that this issue deserves renewed focus and attention, including the new measures contained in this bill. I think that there is a perception out in the community that Australia does a lot better on measures like equal opportunity for women than we actually do. Part of that is probably attributable to our treasured view of ourselves as the country of the fair go for everyone. Discrimination and the idea that someone would not achieve their due according to their merit do not really fit with our popular image of ourselves. There is also a strong sense that the battle for equal opportunity for women is one that has been fought and won. When the Prime Minister and the Governor-General are women, together with a record number of cabinet ministers and a number of former and serving female state premiers, it is easy to assume that such a view is correct. Those women seem to symbolise a country where the last barriers to the women's equal opportunity in the workplace have not just been removed but smashed. But I am sure a lot of women who might be listening in to this debate could point to their own experiences that demonstrate it is not that simple and we cannot assume that equal opportunity exists in all or even most of our workplaces. If women feel that way, they are not alone and they are not imagining it.

Many gaps between men's and women's employment and pay are well documented and are actually quite large relative to international comparisons. I said there is a perception that Australia performs better on equal opportunity than we actually do, and I admit to being surprised at some of the figures and where we sit on international rankings for these measures. The issues paper prepared by the Office for Women for the review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act provides an excellent summary of the current situation for Australian women.

The labour force participation rate of women in Australia has increased significantly over the last 30 years, from just 43.4 per cent in 1978 to 58.7 per cent in 2009. Obviously that represents a big step forward in women's financial security and independence as well as an increase in women's ability to participate in our society in areas beyond the workplace. That participation rate is, however, lower than the rate of participation for men, which sits at 72.1 per cent. Women's participation in the workforce has some key characteristics. For one thing, only 54.9 per cent of women work full time compared to 84.1 per cent of men. There is a dip in female workforce participation during the child-bearing years from 25 to 44 which is not evident in male working patterns. On the one hand that is not surprising, but on the other hand it cannot be dismissed that easily when OECD comparisons show that Australia has a lower participation rate for mothers with young children than countries like Canada, Sweden, the UK and the United States. That suggests we have to look closer at why rather than just assume it is all down to the personal choice of those women and their families.

Despite gains in participation rates over time, women's earnings remain persistently lower than men's. Occupational segregation between men and women continues to exist and male dominated occupations tend to earn more than female dominated occupations. The gender pay gap based on the average weekly ordinary time earnings of full-time employees barely narrowed in 25 years. From 1984 to 2009, it shifted from an 18.5 per cent deficit to a 17.4 per cent deficit. That is just 1.1 per cent in 25 years, although most people would have the perception that we have done much better than that. No wonder employees in the social and community services sector fought so hard to have their case heard before Fair Work Australia. The recent equal pay decision is a landmark shift and welcome recognition that women's work has to be properly and fairly valued if that gap between men's and women's pay is to be closed.

Women are less likely to be in leadership positions within organisations. Looking at the ASX 200 as a guide, there are more than 10 male directors to every female director and the gap for CEOs is even bigger. These individual statistics can be encapsulated by looking at where Australia sits on international rankings. When compared to other OECD countries with similar tertiary education levels, Australia has the fifth largest pay gap. The global gender gap index compiled by the World Economic Forum incorporates measures of workforce participation, remuneration and opportunity. That index placed Australia in 20th place in 2009, down from 15th in 2006, so there is a lot of work to be done. For 2009 that compares to New Zealand in fifth place, Ireland in eighth place and the UK in 13th place.

Any government concerned about both equity and productivity cannot afford to be complacent about our current performance in achieving equal opportunity for women in the Australian workplace. Those figures and international comparisons have a useful purpose to the extent that they remind us that challenges remain and that our responses to those challenges must be as relevant and effective as we can make them. But measures to improve gender equity and equality of opportunity in the workplace are not things we should do just for their own sake. There are real and tangible benefits to individual employees, businesses and our national economy that come from greater equality in our workplace. For example, research in the US has looked at the benefits of gender diversity to productivity. A 2004 report found that in four out of five industries in the United States, the companies with the highest women's representation on their top management teams experienced a higher total return to shareholders than the companies with the lowest representation of women.

When I read those results I do not assume that means women are better employees per se. My interpretation is that the presence of women in top management is a sign of a business that values all of its employees on their merits and has practices in place to support and mentor everyone. Obviously, the results of that good management show. It is a sign of a well managed business with strategies in place to get the best out of all employees, so it is no wonder that higher productivity and things like lower absenteeism and lower turnover et cetera flow from that. Encouraging or, in the case of this legislation, requiring companies to think along those lines and meet certain expectations in gender equality does have benefits for employees, benefits for business and, by logical extension, benefits to our economy as a whole.

Other research referred to by the minister in her second reading speech estimates that closing the gap between men's and women's workforce participation could boost gross domestic product by 13 per cent. In the context of some of the debates we have been having in this place in recent days about the pressure to find people to fill jobs in Australia, that is a figure that is very important to consider. So clearly there are good reasons for us to support improved gender equality outcomes in Australian workplaces. This bill seeks to do that by putting the focus of our efforts more on outcomes and indicators of business progress towards equality rather than simply requiring them to report for the sake of reporting. It also strives for balance between the need to meaningfully assess performance and compliance by businesses and simplifying their reporting process. I turn to some of the specific points about the bill. I said at the start that one of the things it does is to change the name of the act and also to change the objects of the act. The name of the act and the agency will be changed to focus more on gender equality rather than exclusively the equality of women. That is in recognition that gender equality has to be at the heart of what we are trying to achieve, whether that is gender equality of remuneration or, importantly, recognising the caring roles of both men and women when they seek to balance their family responsibilities with their working life. That is now expressly included in the new legislation.

One of the things that has obviously caught the attention of opposition members, and I believe forms the basis of some of their amendments, goes to the reporting requirements. One of the important points to make is that this legislation has been the subject of extensive consultation. It is the product of consultation with industry, with employee groups and with organisations with interests in women's situations in this country. This is not something that is being rushed through or dropped on anyone out of the blue; this is a result of consultation with those people with the biggest stake in it. The new reporting requirements on companies are to be phased in over time. In fact, one of the things that companies would have cause to complain about in the previous system was that the reporting guidelines were a bit vague and woolly; companies had an obligation to report but it was not entirely clear what they were reporting about or what the purpose of the reporting was other than simply meeting that legislative requirement.

The reporting requirements now go much more to indicators, so they are outcomes-focused rather than simply describing program or policies that might be in place within the business. Businesses will now be required, over time, to report against indicators such as the gender breakdown of their employees and the kind of consultation that goes on within the workplace around gender equality. Importantly, it is only applicable to companies with over 100 employees, so we are not requiring this obligation of smaller businesses. We are talking about medium to large companies who are caught in the legislation.

Very importantly, that new reporting is much more straightforward. There is a set of indicators that we require companies to report against, and that will now be able to be done online. This specifically addresses a point raised by representatives of industry, and makes it much simpler to do. The other point to make is that by reporting against those indicators it is actually giving the government and industry meaningful data—useful data. We are not just asking, 'Tell us what you do so everyone can feel good about it,' we are asking, 'Tell us what the actual results are; what does your company look like in terms of having a genuine commitment to gender equality?'

With that data the government is then in a position to look at what is happening industry by industry and to see where support needs to be targeted the most to assist companies to meet their obligations under this legislation; again, all working towards those objectives of greater equality in the workplace. That will flow through to greater participation in the workplace for women and, of course, all those productivity and GDP results that I talked about earlier. Ultimately, the data that is collected will lead to the establishment of minimum standards. That will be done by the minister in preparation for the 2014 reporting deadline. That, again, is a logical extension of making this data useful in actually addressing some of the problems.

In closing, I might just mention that the compliance measures are no different to those in the legislation under the Howard government. (Time expired)

Louise Markus (Macquarie, 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. This bill would require medium and large businesses that employ more than 100 staff to report on their progress in gender equality.

Let me begin by emphasising that Tony Abbott and the coalition have a long history of supporting gender equality in the workplace, and I will draw on some of the examples that I have been proud to support during my time as an elected member of parliament. These examples more than demonstrate that the coalition's opposition to this amendment is not because we do not support gender equality in the workplace but rather that we do not support the Gillard government attempting to amend a bill to provide the minister with increased power of judgment and to impose greater red tape on everyday Australian businesses. Furthermore, we do not support legislation that provides broad-ranging statements allowing broad ministerial discretion.

Firstly, allow me to highlight some of the coalition policy positions and achievements that confirm our position with regard to gender equality and our interest in preserving the rights of women across the nation. While I cannot report on all, I would like to mention a couple here today.

If the coalition gains government at the next election it will introduce a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. This scheme provides real time and real money to working women. We would offer eligible women 26 weeks at their replacement wage up to $75,000. Unlike Labor's scheme the coalition's paid parental leave scheme includes superannuation, which is an important step in addressing the chronic disparity between male and female retirement incomes. It will also address the three key challenges identified in the second Intergenerational report: productivity, participation and population.

The coalition will move an amendment calling on the government to commit to achieving equal opportunity for women by supporting this scheme. The coalition recognises that one of the most effective ways to increase female workforce participation is a solid parental leave scheme and affordable child care. As the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, along with the coalition, secured increased funding for successful screening programs for cervical cancer, resulting in a steady decline in Australia's cervical cancer rate. The then Howard government and Tony Abbott, as the then Minister for Employment Services, enacted the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. These are just a few of a long list of examples that demonstrate the coalition's interest in preserving the rights of women and securing gender equality in the workforce.

I and the coalition do not think that it is in the best interest of Australian businesses to interfere with business getting on with the job of employing people, a concept that the Gillard government cannot seem to comprehend as it continues to introduce legislation that adds further barriers and additional red tape to Australian businesses. It should go without saying—but this government seems to need reminding—that the more regulation government places on businesses the more time, money and effort businesspeople have to divert from real work, family and friends to fill in forms. This is exactly what this amendment seeks to do. It seeks to add additional paperwork to Australian business owners who are already being choked by this government's red tape.

The current Gillard government and the former Rudd Labor government have been obsessed with increasing the red-tape burden on business. Labor has introduced 18,000 new regulations in just over 4½ years, which equates to 11 new regulations every day. In today's Sydney Morning Herald the Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott, in an open letter to the government regarding the enterprise migration agreements, has urged Labor MPs to 'avoid the knee-jerk temptation to tie it up in even more red tape and processes'. Jennifer is clearly concerned by the Labor government's red tape and quick-fix solutions, which are having a considerable impact on Australian businesses.

The amendment bill is drafted to provide the minister with an excessive amount of judgment and discretion. The initial review of this act was announced in June 2009 by KPMG. One aspect of this report recommended that the government detail the 'matters in relation to each gender equality indicator'. Essentially, the government has not detailed gender equality indicators as the report recommended, and as a result the minister will be able to create these indicators at their own discretion. Given the minister's failure to address these issues, it seems premature to be introducing this legislation. This is just one example of where the minister would be able to use discretion to apply the legislation.

Another example is detailed in the explanatory memorandum, which states that the minister will have 'the flexibility to consider all issues relevant to gender equality and to add new matters'. It is necessary to consider the scope and extent of these new matters. However, these new matters are not identified within the amendment. Will these also be left up to the minister's discretion? Understandably, the coalition is sceptical and does not support legislation which provides broad-ranging ministerial discretion to allow the minister to effectively do what he or she wants and potentially tie Australian businesses up in more and more red tape. This red tape will do nothing for the equality of women in the workforce but rather will detract from productivity and potentially cost Australian businesses time and jobs.

Furthermore, as reinforced by Peter Anderson, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in March this year, businesses are concerned that the information that they provide to employers and shareholders could be 'misused for extraneous purposes'. The key concern is that unions will use information regarding wage levels at any particular company to ask for industry-wide wage rises. This will put further pressure on Australian businesses and Australian jobs.

While the department 'estimates' that the resourcing cost to business will decrease on average from approximately $1,200 per annum to $450 per annum, the regulatory impact statement specifically states that the reforms will result in increased compliance costs for businesses that have not previously been compelled to report. Prior to recommending a change to the way a business conducts itself, the government and the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency need to ensure that the change will not result in additional compliance costs being borne by businesses. The agency has admitted that it does not do this, which is of concern to the coalition, particularly given that the Productivity Commission has estimated that the rewards for Australia to cut red tape could be worth up to $12 billion a year. This amendment creates more questions than answers and more challenges than solutions. It is just another attempt by the Gillard government to micromanage and adds additional red tape to the businesses of Australia without making any real impact on equal opportunity for women.

My coalition colleague the member for Farrer will move amendments to ensure that Australian women achieve equality in the workforce. The coalition's amendments will seek to remove discretion proposed to be provided to the minister and reintroduce provisions allowing the agency to waive public reporting requirements for relevant employers. We will also seek to insert a provision for the agency to give public acknowledgement to relevant employers who regularly meet compliance standards, and we will also seek to require the government to remove one regulation for relevant employers for each new regulation imposed by the act. This is a promise that the government made prior to the last election.

The coalition has a real plan to ensure that Australian women achieve gender equality in the workplace—one that does not infringe on the everyday operations of Australian businesses. The burden that the Gillard government is placing on Australian businesses through increased regulation and red tape is causing businesses to divert their time, money, efforts and resources to complying with government red tape rather than creating jobs and opportunities for all Australians. In February this year I had the pleasure of hosting Senator Cash, the shadow parliamentary secretary for the status of women, in the Blue Mountains. We had a roundtable with a number of businesswomen from Biznet. One of the women raised with us the challenges that she was facing as a small business owner under the Labor government, particularly with the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. She had spent several hours—indeed, some weeks—arranging paperwork, making phone calls and negotiating with government departments in an attempt to facilitate and actually manage the scheme for one of her employees. This is a burden which small business cannot and should not bear. Again this government says it is for creating jobs, but its draconian business regulation and spending cuts say otherwise, as more and more Australian businesses are forced into voluntary administration. The coalition does not support the introduction of drastic measures which are designed to increase the level of government interference in the workplace. A coalition government would support the right of employers to run their businesses efficiently and to employ people the way they should be employed, based on merit.

This bill does little to improve the status of, and equal opportunity for, women. It does place unnecessary burdens on everyday Australians who are endeavouring to provide opportunities for themselves, for their families and for their communities, including the women in their communities, and to improve the status of the workforce overall. I call on the government to look closely at the coalition's amendments and to seriously consider supporting them.

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

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 today, on an issue that touches so many women throughout their working lives. Gender equality is simple; it is fundamental—particularly when it comes to the workplace. There are undeniable benefits to promoting gender equality at work. Not only is it an important social step forward that improves workforce participation; it is also good for our economy. In fact, closing the gap between women's and men's workforce participation could boost Australia's GDP by up to 13 per cent. Closing the gap also enables women to join, rejoin or stay in the workforce, helping to solve the skills shortage problem that many Australian businesses are facing. I know that this is very much the case here in Canberra.

Unfortunately, in 2012 women are still struggling to realise their right to workplace equality. Women continue to obtain fewer senior leadership positions, to earn less pay, to have less superannuation and to do more than their fair share of unpaid work. That is why the Gillard government is committed to advancing gender equality by supporting women's economic empowerment. That is why we are debating this very important bill today.

By amending the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999, we are making a change to reflect current community expectations, and we are making a change that will reduce the regulatory burden on business. Overall, this amendment will ensure a much greater focus on outcomes to affect genuine and sustainable change over time. The introduction of this bill delivers on a 2010 election commitment by the Gillard government to retain and improve the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act. This commitment was to support gender equality and to improve workforce participation and workplace flexibility through retaining and improving the act. The bill amends the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. This emphasises 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 will also change to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. The title of the director of the agency will change to the Director of Workplace Gender Equality—again to reflect the new focus of the act. The principal objects of the act are amended to reflect this new focus and to promote and improve gender equality in the workplace, with specific recognition of equal pay and family and caring responsibilities as central issues to achieving gender equality. The objects also focus on the fact that improving gender equality in the workplace will improve competitiveness and productivity and remove barriers to women's full and equal workforce participation.

It is well over a decade since this act was last reviewed. In that time, our economic, social and legislative landscape has changed significantly. We now have Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme, thanks to Labor. More than 150,000 new parents have applied for paid parental leave since the scheme began. This is a huge win for working Australian women and their families. It is a huge win for Canberra women, giving them support to take time off with their new babies in those critical early months. We have also increased the rebate for out-of-pocket childcare expenses from 30 to 50 per cent, which is now benefiting 800,000 families.

This reform is having a significant impact on the take-home wages of women returning to work. In 2004, the out-of-pocket costs for a family with one child in long day care and earning $55,000 a year were 13.2 per cent of their disposable income. By last year, this proportion had fallen to 7.5 per cent. We have also made a commitment to achieve pay equity. The historic decision of Fair Work Australia to award equal pay to social and community sector workers is a significant advance for women. Other achievements include amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to make it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of family responsibilities, and also the introduction of a new superannuation roundtable to improve retirement incomes and superannuation. This bill is another step towards equality for women, and we are working to achieve this by updating that act, by modernising it so that it is more effective in supporting and driving change in Australian workplaces. The Gillard government recognises that the act and the agency are important components that support and improve the workforce participation of women. But we also recognise the need to broaden the focus of the act to highlight equal pay between men and women, and caring responsibilities as central to improving gender equality.

Debate interrupted.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 2 pm, the time for government business is interrupted.