Senator MACKAY (10:22 AM) —I move opposition amendment No. 5:

(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (lines 1 to 5), omit subsections 13A(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) A relevant employer must prepare a public report in respect of the period of 12 months commencing on 1 April 2000 and after that, in respect of each consecutive period of 12 months.

This amendment reflects a major concern that the opposition has in terms of the diminution of the compliance requirements of employers under the act. We note with interest Senator Campbell's comments that the government would not be here today if it did not care about these issues. The government is here today with a series of changes which effectively water down this act which was initiated by Labor in government. Far from an enhanced commitment to affirmative action, the government is here actually diminishing its commitment by watering down the act fairly substantially. We think this area is probably one of the more salutary examples of that.

The reporting arrangements of the act are an important component in achieving the objectives of the act. I think Senator Campbell himself indicated that this is how the judgment of performance is determined—that is, in relation to the reporting requirements. Thus, it provides some empirical evidence as to how organisations are proceeding with regard to the provisions of the act, and we believe it should not be watered down.

The opposition amendment deletes subsections (2) and (3), which allow for employers to report biennially—which is a change—and replaces them with another subsection which has the original reporting time from the original bill, which is annually. I think everybody in the debate has recognised that women continue to be discriminated against in the workplace and, while clearly some improvements have been made—fewer than we would all like, particularly in the last 3½ years—now is not the time from our perspective to water down and diminish the act and reduce the reporting arrangements for companies. Just to reiterate, it is those reporting arrangements that allow the people of Australia, through the parliament, to determine how a particular organisation is going with regard to meeting the provisions of the act.

In 1998 Katherine Harris, the Director of the Affirmative Action Agency, commented that the following persistent problems remain, and these will come as no surprise to people in this chamber: Australia still has one of the most gender segregated work forces of the OECD. The number of women in management remains low—appallingly low in fact, substantially lower than even the proportion of women in parliaments. Achieving pay equity still remains a significant challenge. That is something that we believe was dealt a not insignificant blow by the Workplace Relations Act. Also, 70 per cent of those who live in poverty in Australia are women and their dependent children.

She also said that in countries where women are not given a choice to balance their work and family commitments, they are choosing not to have families and to remain in the paid work force; this is happening in this country now. There is a lot of debate at the moment in relation to why women in Australia are not having children at the rate they previously were. Clearly, if that is to be a priority of our society, one of the things that has to happen is that we have to ensure women are supported in that role by provisions in relation to child care and by some of the amendments that we have already carried or are yet to carry with regard to pregnancy.

The important thing is that women need to feel that they are valued and that they are not discriminated against. We do not believe from our side of politics that a laissez faire, leave-it-to-the-market attitude is germane in relation to these amendments.

So I agree with Senator Campbell: we do need reporting, we do need an adequate report and we do need an empirical measure by which to determine the progress of organisations. But we do not believe that that objective is served by moving to biennial reporting. We believe it is important that the original act's provision of annual reporting be retained.