Ms MACKLIN (12:16 PM) —The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to weaken the Affirmative Action Agency. It is part of the agenda of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to undermine every institution that exists to help women achieve equal opportunity in Australian workplaces. He has another piece of legislation before the parlia ment at the moment that targets the Industrial Relations Commission. The one we are debating today targets the Affirmative Action Agency. Make no mistake: the Howard government do not actually want this organisation to exist. They would really rather repeal this piece of legislation but they knew that they would never get away with that, and so today we are debating the weakening of the Affirmative Action Agency.

The amendments before us today will weaken the power of the Affirmative Action Agency to promote equal opportunity for the millions of working women who are already struggling under the weight of the Howard government's anti-women and anti-family policies. This is a government that does not like the Affirmative Action Agency, because it is one of the achievements of the previous Labor government.

When the agency was established in 1986, it was the first attempt by a government to encourage and monitor the progress made by larger private firms in promoting equality of opportunity in the workplace. It was not just aimed squarely at upholding and enhancing women's right to work—something that had never been contemplated, of course, by the conservatives—but also aimed at ensuring that women were treated fairly in the workplace, that women were not penalised in recruitment or in promotion, and that employers and firms were required to think about how women fared in their workplace and how to address any barriers that existed.

The current act requires large employers—that is, firms with more than 100 employees—to have an affirmative action program for women and to report every year to the government, through the director of the Affirmative Action Agency, their progress in providing equal opportunities for women in the workplace. Senior management within companies must oversee the development of the plan, and there must be wide consultation in its development.

Since 1994, employers have been rated on a scale of 1 to 5—5 being the best result. Failure to submit a report or failure to provide evidence of a program results in the employer being named when the annual report of the agency is tabled in the parliament. These firms can also be ineligible for Commonwealth government contracts and some forms of industry assistance. But firms which do the right thing by complying with the act for three years can get a waiver from supplying further reports.

The agency has been very successful in helping to build fairer workplaces. Since 1986, we have seen the number of women in the workplace increase significantly. This has coincided with a rise in the number of organisations that have an equal opportunity policy in place. Drawing from the report of the Independent Review Committee—the committee which was set up to review the Affirmative Action Agency and the act—57 per cent of private sector workplaces had an equal opportunity policy in place in 1995, up from 45 per cent in 1990. But, as we would all acknowledge, there is still a very long way to go—something the agency itself has said. The checks and safeguards provided by the agency are needed now as much as ever.

To give a few figures that illustrate the point, only 11 per cent of senior management positions in Australia are held by women. Women remain massively overrepresented in part-time and casual work, with 73 per cent of part-time jobs being held by women. Women still only earn 84 per cent of what men earn, on a comparable average weekly earnings basis. The proportion of women participating in the work force has remained stuck at just under 54 per cent since the Howard government came to power, and there are now signs that women are starting to leave the work force. The latest figures show a reduction in the number of married women with full-time jobs.

On top of this, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is, of course, continuing to rip away the supports that women have enjoyed in the industrial relations system. The undermining of awards—and the majority of women workers depend on awards for their wage rises—will mean that women will feel the brunt of the changes that are still before the parliament. The stripping of superannuation from awards will mean that many women will miss out on retirement savings. At a time when we need to strengthen the role of the Affirmative Action Agency, the government is doing exactly the opposite. It suits its purpose, of course: deregulation of the labour market requires the abolition of all the institutions that play some role in its regulation.

The government commissioned a review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 by an independent committee in order to examine the costs of the act to business, the community and the Australian economy as a whole. Interestingly enough, the terms of reference did not include whether the act needed strengthening to further improve women's opportunities in the workplace. This bill is the government's selective response to the recommendations of that committee. They have picked the bits they like and, not surprisingly, ignored what they do not.

As is the minister's wont, he has dressed up this legislation as something it is not. He says it is aimed at `achieving genuine equality of opportunity for women in Australian workplaces'—much like he has dressed up stripping awards as providing greater choice and greater opportunity. As I have said in the past, when this minister starts talking about fair employment practices the alarm bells ring for Australian women. For Peter Reith, fairness is a euphemism for poorer pay and longer hours.

That said, there are elements of this bill before us that the opposition will support. We believe that the name change for the agency is an appropriate one. Like the minister, I believe that the name will more accurately reflect the role that the agency has played. Further, we support the broadening of the definition of `employment matters' covered by the act to include the termination of employment, work organisation, and arrangements for dealing with harassment of women in the workplace, although we would like to see this definition of employment matters extended further—I will outline where shortly. We also believe that the establishment of an advisory board is an appropriate step.

I particularly want to welcome the comments of the minister in his second reading speech in which he admits that the affirmative action act has delivered substantial gains to women. The only point I would make is that it makes me wonder why he would then pursue this legislation that may well see those gains undermined. I also welcome the indication by the minister that the agency should have an increased educative role. However, I cannot see how that role can be properly achieved while staffing has been reduced to 19 under this government and they have cut the agency's funding by $900,000.

The rest of the legislation waters down the original act and, given we have a long way to travel before equal opportunity in the workplace is achieved for women, now is not the time to weaken this legislation. Labor will oppose those sections of this bill that reduce the capacity of the act to improve employment opportunities for women.

This is not to say that we reject all of the report of the committee. The idea of workplace visits, which was recommendation 12 of the committee's report, was one that I thought would be an appropriate way forward to give the agency an enhanced educative role and to provide a supplement to reporting. This would have given greater information to the agency when it came to organisations seeking a waiver from the ongoing reporting requirements of the act. However, it is nowhere to be found in this bill. Recommendation 14 also advocated that self-identification by organisations that are subject to the conditions of the act be made a requirement. Again, this has not been incorporated into legislation.

As I said, there are a number of areas of the bill that weaken the current act. The bill will weaken the requirement of employers to promote equal opportunity. Employers will now only have to contribute to the achievement of equal opportunity. The objects clause of the bill states that it is `to promote' merit based employment for women and the elimination of discrimination against women in the workplace. And yet there is no requirement for employers to promote, in their workplace, these objects as part of their equality for women in the workplace programs.

The bill also removes the requirement that employers consult both with their employees and with the relevant trade union—not sur prising from this minister. For an equality of opportunity program to be genuinely effective, it must bring all members of the workplace together behind it; it cannot exclusively be the province of management to work out what is right and what is wrong. In larger workplaces where this act comes into play, unions represent many of the workers, and the unions are important players in the dissemination of information, providing advocacy, advice and representation to their workers, who in turn rely on them for support when they are vulnerable. The independent review of the agency recommended that the consultation arrangements continue—but the minister has chosen to selectively ignore this recommendation.

The legislation also seeks to remove the requirement that a senior manager within a firm coordinate the development of the affirmative action plan. This means that the program can now be held in the hands of a junior officer of the company, without authority and without the skills and knowledge of the workplace to actually see results happen. Again, this downgrades the importance of compliance with the act within an organisation.

The bill would also reduce the requirement to report from one year to every two years. This will reduce the scrutiny applied to the program in individual workplaces. The explanatory memorandum also makes reference to the abolition of the rating system, which measured the level of success in implementing affirmative action measures in a workplace, and replaces it with a simple pass or fail—complying or non-complying. This draws no distinction between those companies with very good and those with adequate programs. It is not an appropriate way in which to provide businesses with the incentive to improve. If a simple `complied' is all that is required, then why would a business strive to improve the situation in their workplace even more?

The extension of the granting of waivers to firms is also a matter of concern to the opposition. The act as it stands provides for waivers to be granted to firms that have complied for three years. I count that as a fair amount of time in which to assess a firm's commitment to implementing real and appropriate programs. The bill as it stands would have waivers granted on the basis of the discretion of the Affirmative Action Agency. It relies on an assessment of every waiver request and, given that the agency has experienced significant budget cuts under this government, that assessment procedure in itself is going to be difficult. What it amounts to is the government, on the one hand, lowering the benchmark for compliance and, on the other, giving firms a greater chance to evade reporting. The submission by the agency to the committee of review stated:

. . . there was anecdotal evidence that in a minority of waived organisations, resources have been directed away from the program following the Agency's decision to waive that organisation's reporting requirements.

This would be of considerable concern under an expanded system of waivers. At the moment, an employer must submit a confidential report on top of the public report after the first year to establish and implement the employer's affirmative action program and then every year thereafter to spell out the development of the program. Under the bill before us, there is a requirement for employers to lodge only a confidential report every year if they do not cover matters of self-assessment in the public report. Again, this is a neutering of the previous reporting regime under which employers were required to attend to the details of their program at the start of the program and report confidentially by way of self-assessment every year thereafter.

Labor will be moving a number of amendments to this legislation when it gets to the Senate, and I will outline them here. We will seek to extend the definition of employment matters further to include arrangements for dealing with pregnant, potentially pregnant and breastfeeding employees. A second amendment will seek to ensure that compliance with guidelines developed under the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Act is admissible as evidence in cases brought before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Another amendment will seek to clarify coverage of the Sex Discrimination Act for federal statutory authorities, judicial office holders and members of parliament. We will seek to remove the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state. We will also seek to remove the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy.

Labor will be seeking in the Senate also to move other significant amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, which I will now go through, to implement the recommendations and the intent of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Pregnant and productive. The government, as would come as no surprise to anyone on our side, is sitting on this report. We have already called for the government to introduce the recommended amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report outlined. We have informed the government that we will support those amendments. The evidence in the report of the treatment that some pregnant women have to endure in workplaces means that we must act quickly.

Labor has said that we will support these amendments, but the government has done nothing. As a result of that inaction, Labor will now introduce these amendments in the Senate to make the changes, as recommended. These amendments will include: empowering the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; insertion of a specific provision that prohibits the asking of questions, whether orally or in writing, which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about whether or when a woman intends to become pregnant and/or her intentions in relation to meeting her current or pending family responsibilities; clarification of the unlawfulness of discriminating in medical examinations of pregnant women during the recruitment process; allowing referrals by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to the Industrial Relations Commission of discriminatory awards or agreements without the need for receipt of a written complaint; including breastfeeding as a ground of unlawful discrimination; enabling the award of punitive damages as well as compensatory damages; removing the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; ensuring coverage of unpaid workers; and, finally, removing the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state.

Labor will keep its commitment and not allow this important report to languish on some shelf in Senator Newman's office, or maybe in some bottom drawer like the secret welfare report. We firmly believe that these are sensible amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act and that, coupled with a well-planned education campaign, they can make a concrete difference to the everyday lives of Australian women.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who were involved in the previous Labor government and those who have come since on what was a very proud legislative achievement of the previous government: the Sex Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination against women. We celebrate the 15th anniversary of this act this week, and I can hear many a retired or mostly retired Tory gnashing their teeth as I stand here because it was a foundation piece of legislation for so much of what we achieved for women in government.

As Michelle Gunn pointed out in the Australian earlier this week, many women in Australia now have the confidence to stand up against discrimination themselves, which is, in part, due to the act and the work of the commissioners, who have to be commended, and I am sure would be commended by many in this parliament, for their ongoing efforts. But, as Susan Halliday, the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner, has said, there is no room for complacency. We do need to be steadfast and, if ever there were a tonic to help women everywhere steel themselves in a fight for further equality, we need look no further than the men of the Peacock opposition in the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill in 1984. I will quote a couple of them, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, and I am sorry to say they come from your home state of Tasmania. I can see one of my counterparts opposite, and I am sure she supports what I say. Bruce Goodluck was perhaps the most ham-fisted. He said:

I have looked at the four women on the Government side—

that is, the Labor side—

They are nice ladies.

. . . . . . . . .

But the majority of Liberal women are quiet and do not say very much. They support their husbands . . . They do not complain about having to look after their families or talk about those sorts of things.

Michael Hodgman, I am sorry to say another Tasmanian, said:

I have to say that this legislation as a whole is tainted with the pseudo intellectualism of selfish and unrepresentative feminism and doctrinaire marxist-socialist precepts of contrived equality-defying laws of nature.

Can you believe it?

Unfortunately, we cannot ignore the contribution of the Nationals in this debate. Peter McGauran may yet hold the answer to why we have seen no action on the Pregnant and productive report. He said during the debate that another area that caused him real concern is that of discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. He said he considered provisions against discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy unworkable.

But the last comment has to go to the spiritual leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I think he really encapsulated the Nationals' commitment to Australia's working women when he said, `In Queensland we already give people equal opportunity in areas where they qualify to be equally qualified.' Hopefully, the days of these outrageous comments are over and we will see the Sex Discrimination Act strengthened as a result of the amendments we will move in the Senate when this bill gets there.

Returning to the affirmative action bill, the minister told us that the changes we are debating today are all about cutting red tape and streamlining procedures, but we on the Labor side see them as removing accountability. I think the second reading amendment has already been circulated in my name, and I now 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 expresses its concern about the nature of the bill and its contribution to the stripping back of Government support for Australian women and the community organisations that represent them, in particular:

(1) the weakening of industrial relations legislation and organisations that aim to improve women's employment prospects and workplace treatment, particularly through the Workplace Relations Act and reductions in the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission;

(2) the weakening of organisations that exist to provide women with suitable avenues of redress for discrimination, including the Affirmative Action Agency and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;

(3) failure to respond to major reports, particularly the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report, Pregnant and Productive ;

(4) failure to send appropriate representation to international forums discussing women's policy, particularly to the recent International Labour Organisation's conference on maternity leave provisions;

(5) the weakening of the role of government organisations that aim to improve the sensitivity of government policies to women, particularly the Office of the Status of Women;

(6) the de-funding of community groups which represent women, including the Girl Guides, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Older Women's Network and the Catholic Women's League;

(7) failure to consult with a wide range of women's organisations, particularly through the reduction in the numbers now attending the national round table consultations;

(8) cuts to child care, education and health-services which women depend upon to be able to work, to raise a family and to improve their living standards;

(9) the development of taxation policies which do not deliver an equal benefit to women and which redistribute more of the burden of taxation onto women through the Goods and Services Tax; and

(10) the de-funding of the social safety net by stealth which impacts significantly on women as women are more dependent upon social security and the Government's refusal to release a secret welfare discussion paper containing plans to cut payments to sole parents and people with disabilities."

As I have set out in the second reading amendment, the government has already dramatically reduced opportunities for Australian women by attacking their rights in the workplace by introducing what have to be called draconian industrial relations changes, by weakening the ability of women to seek adequate redress for discrimination, by defunding women's organisations, by failing to involve and consult with women and by its economic policies that see women most disadvantaged. This bill does nothing to reverse any of those trends.

At a time when Australian women have stopped making progress and must now face the full brunt of these very harsh economic and, particularly, industrial relations measures, it is important that we strengthen those institutions that advocate for a better deal for women so we can continue to move ahead, as the minister himself has said, to make significant gains for Australian women in the workplace. If this bill is weakened those significant gains will not be made.

Labor will seek to strengthen this bill when it gets to the Senate. We will move the amendments that I have outlined to the Sex Discrimination Act in the Senate to implement the recommendations from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Pregnant and productive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick) —Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Stephen Smith —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.