Mrs ELSON (4:43 PM) —I move:

That the House:

(1) notes the recent report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, "Pregnant and Productive: It's a Right not a Privilege to Work while Pregnant";

(2) recognises that a significant level of discrimination against pregnant women still exists in many workplaces;

(3) acknowledges the vital importance of families in Australian society; and

(4) calls on all employers in Australia to be aware of, and sensitive to, their responsibility to their female employees to ensure they do not suffer discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy.

We live in a progressive society where significant gains have been made regarding equal opportunity in the workplace, community and home for both men and women. It is a measure of how far we have come in my lifetime alone that women now have a legitimate place in company boardrooms and men now have a legitimate place by their partner's side in hospital labour rooms. Neither of these situations was commonplace in my younger days. They signal our maturity as a society and a very genuine belief by most people in equality of the sexes. It is perhaps not surprising, though, that we still have quite a few hurdles to overcome when it comes to the issue of pregnancy.

Pregnancy is possibly the most stark and significant reminder of the physical differences between the sexes. It is also an inescapable and visible manifestation of the central role women have traditionally had, and continue to have, in nurturing and raising a family. It is a fact that, even in today's modern society, there is a large divide between workplace and family life. While some employers are attempting to create family friendly environments—and our new industrial relations system certainly allows greater flexibility to accommodate the demands of family life—we still have a long way to go.

Children are still viewed as an unprofessional burden. We had the sad case recently where our kayak team member Shelly Oates-Wilding was criticised for spontaneously cuddling her two-year-old son on the victory dais when she was presented with a medal. There is still a train of thought, particularly in professional occupations, that employees should put their jobs and careers before anything else. This goes equally for men as for women. There is still the view that the best possible employee is someone who puts their career first and rates their family second in importance. In my view, that is a sad indictment of what we value as a society. It is something we ought to question.

In moving this motion today, I am not seeking to apportion blame to all employers. Pregnant and productive: it's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant is a very comprehensive report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is a very detailed document of 269 pages which acknowledges the complexities of this issue, and I commend it as very interesting and informative reading for all members of this House. I do not intend to discuss in detail—nor is there enough time for me to do so—all 41 recommended pregnancy guidelines outlined in the report. I am sure that the government will respond in a sensitive and thorough manner in due course. I am proud of the fact that it was a coalition government that commissioned this report—the first ever national inquiry on this issue—and I commend the Attorney-General for having done so in August last year. Pregnancy is not simply a women's issue. It is a family issue, and families are at the heart of everything the Howard government does.

In moving this motion, I want to recognise the difficulties that many women still experience in the workplace when they become pregnant. I want to acknowledge the central role of families in our society and I want to talk about why it is important that businesses and industry take a more positive and productive approach to pregnancy in the workplace. As I said at the outset, I do not want to apportion blame, nor am I advocating more red tape, bureaucracy, or unreasonable cost burdens for small businesses.

While this report contains some very shocking case studies, I also acknowledge that there are very many thoughtful employers who take a more constructive approach and are sensitive to, and accommodating of, the special needs of pregnant employees. It must be remembered that we are not dealing with an exact science: pregnancy can mean vastly different things for each woman, and every pregnancy differs. Some women experience sickness of varying degrees and at different times throughout their pregnancy. Some women do not experience any sickness at all. For many women, it is a time when they feel healthier and stronger than ever before, while for others the opposite is true.

As a pregnant woman's physical shape changes, so does her physical capacity to do certain tasks, such as heavy lifting. Regardless of how problem free the pregnancy may be, there are still regular doctors appointments which must be kept, and time off work for maternity leave when the baby is born. All of this, I readily acknowledge, can in some cases be an inconvenience—for want of a better word—for an employer. That is the blunt reality. We can talk all we want about the human rights of pregnant women but, if we do not acknowledge the reality that pregnancy can and does have an impact in the workplace, we are living in a fantasy world.

I know there will be some militant feminists who believe that beating employers into submission with more stringent rules and regulations is the way to help overcome the unfair treatment of pregnant workers. I believe we can make better progress if we can educate employers to realign their thinking and view pregnant women workers differently. Indeed, employers will need increasingly to develop a flexible approach to pregnancy, given that the participation of women in the workplace continues to grow. In 1986, women made up 39 per cent of the work force and, in 1996, that had grown to 43 per cent.

There is in chapter 12 of the report an interesting section headed `The needs of small business'. Some submissions to the inquiry indicated that accommodating pregnancy in the workplace poses more difficulties for small businesses than for larger businesses. It was contended that, simply by virtue of the smaller size of their work force, small businesses often experienced practical prob lems with pregnancy related issues at the workplace: for example, finding a suitable employee to take on a position for just one year, and the cost of training that may be required. However—and I found this very interesting—it was also contended that many small businesses can benefit from the experience: they are able to build a stronger team of trained employees by virtue of the extra training that can occur whilst employees are on maternity leave, and via the return of experienced staff after maternity leave. By promoting flexible arrangements for the re-entry of staff, they have been rewarded by being able to retain committed, experienced employees.

The report also found very strong evidence that:

Employees in workplaces that have access to well articulated, comprehensive frameworks for pregnancy and maternity leave felt a sense of security, reduced anxiety and were better placed to plan for their future.

One large company reported that after it implemented a comprehensive parental leave policy, including paid maternity leave and flexible work practices, its retention rate for staff taking maternity leave increased from 52 per cent in 1995 to 94.5 per cent in 1998. It is a sad fact, reflected in this report, that today's women are actually choosing between work and family, or limiting the number of children they have to just one child. In 1997, the total fertility rate per woman was around 1.8 and, in 1998, the average number of babies per woman was just 1.74, the lowest fertility rate ever in this nation.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics predicts that, if this trend continues, within 30 years our natural population increase will be reduced to zero. The report itself states the clear truth:

The need, over time, to reproduce as a society is also of fundamental importance to Australia, both socially and economically.

In the end, I believe business must take a long-term view and a broader picture. If women are discouraged from having children because of the way they are treated at work, and Australia's population shrinks, then simple supply and demand economics dictates that businesses will not be able to continue to grow and make profits. If families are so devalued that pregnant women are treated as a burden and an oddity, then what sort of social message are we sending to our young people?

We should ask ourselves whether the erosion of the value of parenting and families is contributing to the level of crime, violence and vandalism in our society. And exactly what does that cost amount to for all businesses? I believe that some businesses need to take a close look at how family friendly they actually are. And it starts fundamentally with how they treat their pregnant employees. Businesses should be encouraged, as a widening of the Prime Minister's excellent vision of a `social coalition', to view the fair treatment of pregnant women not merely as a legal obligation, as it rightly is, but as a moral and social obligation. I am not suggesting for a moment that pregnant women should be treated as a charity. But the crucial role and value of motherhood to our entire society should be recognised and reflected in work practices. To not do so limits the fundamental rights of individual women, as well as devalues the importance of our families. In the end, the future of our society is not just a matter for the government but for all of us. Businesses have a special role to play shaping our society—and they can contribute enormously by instituting family friendly policies for both men and women, especially women who are in the first crucial and vital stage of motherhood, pregnancy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —Is the motion seconded?