COALITION SENATORS' DISSENTING REPORT

Introduction

1.1 The Coalition supports gender equality in the workplace.

1.2 The Coalition encourages measures which reasonably and practically address obstacles to increased workforce participation by women.

1.3 Coalition Senators value women and men as co-contributors to the economic and social wellbeing of Australia. We recognise the many varied roles women play across all sections of Australian society

1.4 Whilst the Coalition is a strong advocate of gender equality in the workplace, and has a history of delivering policy outcomes for women when in government, we are also firmly of the view that it is the role of government to create an environment which supports and encourages business because it is business which is the primary generator of jobs and prosperity in Australia.

1.5 The current Gillard Labor Government and the former Rudd Labor Government have been obsessed with increasing the red tape burden on business. Coalition Senators’ firmly believe that the imposition by Government of unnecessary and burdensome regulation on business causes business to divert its time, money, efforts and resources to complying with Government red tape rather than creating jobs and opportunities for all Australians.

1.6 The Coalition does not support legislation which is designed to increase the level of government interference in the workplace.

1.7 Coalition Senators are concerned that the Bill will not achieve its stated objectives, but which will rather, as stated by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, only serve to:

...divert the attention of employers away from efforts to implement measures to promote workplace equality, to ensuring they are compliant with the procedural requirements of the legislation.[1]

1.8 In the absence of overall stakeholder support that the legislation will achieve its stated goals and further, given the conflicting evidence provided to the Committee, Coalition Senators have formed the view that this Bill which is being promoted as a Bill to increase gender equality in the workplace is, in reality, an artificial contrivance by the Government to increase union power and leverage in the workplace.

1.9 Coalition Senators are also concerned that the Government, when questioned about the impact of the Bill, was unable to say how many additional women will be employed, how many more jobs would be created, or what the increase in gender equality in the workplace would be, as a result of the measures provided for in the Bill.

Evidence

1.10 The majority report seeks to selectively highlight certain submissions received in support of the proposed legislation. The majority report fails to acknowledge the divergent evidence received by the Committee from business and industry representatives, unions, academics and lobbyists, with many of these submissions highlighting concerns with the proposed legislation and calling for it to be amended. The majority report seeks to conveniently ignore much of material critical of the proposed legislation.

1.11 Coalition Senators recognise that it is employers who will have to implement these proposed workplace changes—not the public sector, unions, or lobby groups—and it is employers that will have to bear the additional costs of these changes notwithstanding that the government is unable to quantify these potential costs.

1.12 It is the view of Coalition Senators that the committee majority report was dismissive and indeed contemptuous of the views of industry representatives who represented and spoke for thousands of Australian employers.

Achievements for women

1.13 Coalition Senators consider it is relevant to the Committee Inquiry to recognise the many achievements[2] of Australian women and the international comparisons of women in the Australian workforce.

(a) A record number of 125 businesses received the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace "Employer of Choice for Women" citation in 2012. This record number is the largest in the past five years and compares favourably with 55 organisations receiving the citation in October 2001;

(b) The United Nations Human Development Report for 2011 ranks Australia in 2^nd place out of 187 countries;

(d) Australia ranks 23rd out of 135 countries, based on the 2011 Global Gender Gap Report;

(e) 71% of Australian mothers are employed after their children begin school which is higher than the OECD average of 66%;

(f) The female employment rate in Australia currently at 66.2% has been rising steadily since the 1960s and is now above the OECD average of 59.6%;

(g) The number of women on ASX 200, ASX 100 and ASX 50 boards and Not For Profit boards has progressively increased over recent years;

(h) Recently developed and implemented ASX guidelines on diversity and gender reporting show positive signs of enhancing gender outcomes;

(i) In 2011, the first successful test case in the social and community services sector, under new Pay Equity provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, resulted in significant above award safety-net increases in excess of 40%, which benefited in the main women;

(j) Recent provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009, empowers the Fair Work Ombudsman to prosecute employers or potential employers for breaching anti-discrimination laws or taking 'adverse action'.

(k) Recent provisions under s.65 of the Fair Work Act allow employees to request flexible working arrangements with the employer only able to refuse on limited grounds;

(l) A number of women have achieved First Minister status in Australian Parliament.

1.14 Coalition Senators also note the Coalition's proud history of delivering positive policy outcomes for women in Australia including, for example, when in Government:

(a) Enacting in 2003 the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 2000;

(b) Amending in 2003 the Sex Discrimination Act to explicitly recognise breastfeeding as a potential ground of unlawful discrimination in the workplace;

(c) In 2001, employers reported to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency for the first time under the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 2000;

(d) Introducing a number of programs to assist the growing number of women engaged in small business, including:

- $60 million over four years, beginning in 2002 to establish the Small Business Assistance Program, to provide skills development and advisory services to small business owners;

- Tax concessions for small business; and

- Simplifying record keeping and reporting requirements for small business.

(e) funding for successful screening programmes for cervical cancer, resulting in a steady decline in Australia’s cervical cancer rate;

(f) Introducing new GP Mental Health Care Medicare items in 2006 and a BeyondBlue initiative to address perinatal depression;

Listing in 2005 Anastrozole on the PBS for treatment of early stage breast cancer allowing around 5,700 new patients to become eligible for treatment in the first 12 months of the extended listing;

(g) Listing in 2006 Herceptin on the PBS for treatment of early stage breast cancer;

(h) In 2007 the Coalition committed $82 million over two years to ensure that Herceptin continued to be available for patients with advanced (metastatic) breast cancer;

(i) Funding in 2006, Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine;

(j) Commencing in May 2007, the National Pregnancy Support Telephone Helpline which provided non-directive counselling advice 24 hours a day, seven days a week to women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy or who are uncertain about continuing with their pregnancy; and

(k) Committing in the 2007-2008 Budget, $8.7 million over four years, to breastfeeding education and support to raise awareness of the benefits of breastfeeding among parents and health professionals and support mothers who wish to breastfeed.

The alarming absence of information

1.15 Much of the evidence provided to the committee, notably from respected industry groups, such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) and the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), indicated a fundamental lack of certainty and clarity relating to critical aspects of the Bill.

1.16 The Bill is an example of 'coat hanger legislation' reliant on regulations that are yet to be drafted, or future Ministerial directives, with many important aspects proposed to be defined only after the legislation has been passed.

1.17 Coalition Senators consider that it is irresponsible to support and pass legislation which imposes significant burdens and financial ramifications on employers, without being fully informed of the intentions of the Minister in respect to the proposed regulations and potential Ministerial directions.

1.18 For example, new subsection 13(3) of the Bill gives the Minister the power, by legislative instrument, to specify matters relating to each gender equality indicator (GEI). In addition to the GEIs provided for in the Bill, the Minister will be empowered to specify a number of, as yet, undefined matters.

1.19 The almost unlimited discretion, which is proposed to be conferred on the Minister, creates considerable uncertainty in determining and understanding these undefined matters. The Bill does not clearly articulate the extent or composition of the GEIs, and the Bill does not set minimum standards, yet it locks employers into reporting on their performance in relation to these yet to be defined matters.

1.20 In considering the provision in the Bill that provides the Minister with these significant powers, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concluded:

The Committee prefers that the use of delegated legislation is fully explained. In this case the explanatory memorandum does not address this point, but indicates at page 2 that the development of these standards will be evidence-based and that the Minister must consult the Agency prior to making the standards. It is also envisaged (see subsection 31(3)) that the Minister will consult with other relevant persons, such as industry and employee organisations. In these circumstances the Committee leaves the question of whether the proposed approach is appropriate to the consideration of the Senate as a whole.[3]

1.21 Notwithstanding the comments of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, the Bill is drafted to provide the Minister with an inordinate amount of discretion, 'without legislative constraint on the exercise of these powers'.[4] The Committee majority report dismisses the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills recommended course of action, by suggesting that clause 71 inserts a new section 33A, which requires the Minister to consult the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (the Agency) and key stakeholders when setting minimum standards.

1.22 The Bill as presently drafted, only requires the Minister to consult such stakeholders 'as the Minister considers appropriate' and notwithstanding this consultation does not require the Minister to heed or have regard for any stakeholder advice.[5]

1.23 Coalition Senators consider it is imperative that given the relationship that the current Labor Government has with the Union movement, this consultation process should not be restricted to union organisations. It is critical that the Minister consult with a cross section of employers to ensure that their views are heard and properly considered by the Minister before minimum standards are set. The majority report fails to recognise that it is employers who will be responsible for complying with the minimum standards and paying for these legislative changes.

1.24 As stated by the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries (AFEI):

We are also concerned about the breadth of the regulation and the imprecision as to its limits. There appears no end to what can be considered under 'quality indicator', 'employment matters' or 'an appropriate standard to be met'. That, in our view, will create significant uncertainty in the business community, lead to them being very reticent about putting people on, making changes, trying to respond to markets...[6]

1.25 Coalition Senators consider the government had ample time to decide and define matters in relation to each GEI prior to drafting and introducing the Bill. However, despite a review of the EOWW Act being conducted in 2009, resulting in a comprehensive report by KPMG, more than three years later the government is still not able to satisfactorily define many matters pertaining to the issue of GEIs. Given the government's failure to provide stakeholders with all relevant information, despite having had more than three years time to do so, it is understandable why many employers believe it is premature to introduce this legislation.

1.26 Based on the submissions and evidence provided to the committee, Coalition Senators' consider that neither the committee, nor many of those who made submissions to the Inquiry, were provided with adequate information to enable them to properly consider the scope and extent of a number of undefined issues. As noted by ACCI:

The Committee is unable to assess the possible impact of the measures in terms of actual new cost impost imposed on reporting firms, or unintended consequences, until the indicators are defined.[7]

1.27 Coalition Senators cannot support legislation which provides broad-ranging Ministerial discretion which will allow the Minister to promulgate regulations and issue Ministerial Directives with minimal consultation and in the process impose upon business greater red tape burden.

The regulatory burden on business

1.28 The Coalition supports the right and responsibility of employers to operate efficiently and employ people on merit. Coalition Senators believe a number of provisions in the Bill will impinge on these important principles.

1.29 Given the evidence before the committee, Coalition Senators are at a loss to understand how Senators supporting the majority report, could reach the view that this legislation would not impose an undue burden on business. Coalition Senators disagree with the conclusion of the majority report in this regard, noting the position of prominent industry groups, such as Ai Group, ACCI, Master Builders Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) and the Business Council of Australia (BCA),[8] which:

...remain concerned that certain parts of the Bill would unnecessarily increase business reporting costs and fail to achieve the Bills' objective to improve workplace gender equality.[9]

1.30 Between them, these industry groups represent employers who provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of Australians. It is of significant concern that employer calls for the legislation to be amended have been given so little weight in the majority report, and it is inaccurate and indeed specious for the majority report to suggest that their views have been taken into account.

1.31 Ai Group, for example, stated:

[T]he Government is no doubt of the view that the version of the Bill introduced into Parliament achieves the right balance between the competing views and interests. Despite the efforts of the Government, we remain concerned about some aspects of the Bill and we urge the Committee to recommend the amendments proposed in this submission. Such amendments would ensure that the legislation has positive rather than negative effects in the workplace.[10]

1.32 AFEI warned that the legislation could be simply unworkable:

What is apparent is that an additional layer of labour market regulation is to be imposed on the Australian economy via the gender equality standards and there is wide ministerial discretion to continually expand that scope. Moreover, given the provisions of the Bill, the regulation appears to be highly aspirational and, in practice, unworkable.[11]

1.33 Coalition Senators also note that changes proposed in the Bill go further than current gender equality rules which apply to ASX-listed companies. Under ASX corporate governance principles, listed companies must publish workplace gender diversity policies and disclose each year their objectives for achieving them. They are also required to disclose the proportion of women in the organisation, in senior management positions and on the company's board.

1.34 Under the proposed legislation, the newly named Workplace Gender Equality Agency (The Agency) would be given the ability to check compliance by requiring relevant employers to provide information relating to compliance with the Act. Whilst small business will not currently be required to report, the general principles of the Act will be expressed to apply to all employers. The effect of this is that the Agency will have a mandate to consider small business in the development of strategies and resources, which clearly raises the question of what the government actually intends for small business and how long will it be before all business entities, irrespective of size, will be required to report in accordance with the Bill?

1.35 The Bill also provides that the Agency will have the power to assess how employers perform against the minimum standards. This power is merely a watering down of the spot checks on business that the Hon Kate Ellis MP, then Minister for the Status of Women, proposed in 2011.[12] Effectively, employers will have to report, or face serious sanctions for any omission in reporting how their organisations perform against as-yet undefined standards.

1.36 Coalition Senators consider this lack of clarity in relation to the undefined standards to be unacceptable, in particular, as serious sanctions will apply to a reporting breach relating to these undefined standards.

The cost to business

1.37 This Bill will result in additional compliance costs being borne by a greater number of businesses than previously, as evident from the provisions of the proposed Regulatory Impact Statement.[13] Furthermore, given that the government was unable or unwilling to quantify the cost to business of complying with the legislation, there is a real risk that the potential cost to business of implementing these changes has been underestimated and the burden for this financial miscalculation will be borne by business. As AFEI explained:

The very large, well resourced employers and the relatively small are going to respond differently but the costs are said to be relatively low—at least perhaps in the view of those who wrote the RIS—at $1,200 to $450 per annum in resourcing costs. Firstly, I think it needs to be understood that the cost of reporting is only a small part of the overall cost of this kind of regulation, as we know from various reports, including submissions to the review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act by Origin Energy. They spent $12,000 per annum and Woolworths spent $65,000 per annum seeking to respond to all of this. That is not to say that everybody is in this boat, but we do not want to be lulled into the notion that this is a low cost simply because, at the average level, there seems to be what some people would think is a sustainable investment in this kind of stuff.[14]

1.38 The Regulatory Impact Statement also discusses amendments within the Bill which would give the Agency the authority to conduct organisational reviews to 'verify' information supplied in employers' reports, which would in turn increase both the administrative time burden and consequential cost burden on businesses:

The time burden would be increased if an organisation becomes subject to an organisational review. It has been estimated that the cost to business would be approximately $1,300.[15]

1.39 This cost estimate was modelled on organisations that have kept all necessary records up-to-date and accessible.[16] Other organisations would presumably face even higher costs due to initial administrative and other set up costs and ongoing administrative costs.

Public sector coverage

1.40 The proposed legislation only seeks to cover the private sector and does not extend to the public sector. This anomaly was raised in a number of submissions to the inquiry.

1.41 Over the course of the Inquiry the committee heard that employers consider there is 'a disparity between what is being told is good for business' and the standards the government has set for itself and its agencies[17]. Coalition Senators regard this inequity as being grossly discriminatory against employers who are required to generate the funds required to finance these additional costs and who, unlike government agencies and other publicly funded bodies, cannot rely on the public purse to cover unbudgeted expenditure.

1.42 The inequity of the legislation not applying to the public sector was highlighted by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland (CCIQ):

CCIQ strongly believes that the scope of the legislation must be broadened to include the public sector in order to provide a more even playing field across the economy. It is important that all government agencies are competitively neutral and at the same time are held accountable for delivering improved gender equality outcomes, especially considering the public sector (local, state and federal governments) employ such a large proportion (around 16%) of the workforce.[18]

1.43 The committee majority report conveniently fails to address the significance of this legislation not applying to the public sector by citing arguably better equality outcomes in the public sector, and referring to existing legislation covering the public service.

1.44 Coalition Senators are of the view that gender equality should be an aspirational goal applied with equal fervour across the employment spectrum and support the statement made by that CCIQ that the scope of the legislation must be broadened to include the public sector in order to redress the obvious inequity and provide a more even playing field across the employment spectrum.

1.45 Coalition Senators consider support for this onerous legislation would significantly diminish if the public sector were obliged to comply with its provisions and were subject to the same sanctions that are proposed to apply to employers in the private sector.

1.46 Coalition Senators note the ‘making it fair’ report where the Coalition dissenting section indicated that any expanded measures to improve gender equity at the workplace should be trialled in the public sector first – before loading up the private sector and in particular small businesses.

Workplace relations

1.47 Coalition Senators note the considerable amount of legislation and protections in place for women in the workforce including the Fair Work Act 2009, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, as well as additional legalisation in each state and territory.

1.48 The Fair Work Act contains National Employment Standards (NES) which commenced from 1 January 2010. The NES contains some particular areas which specifically attempt to address equal opportunity matters including the Maximum Weekly Hours, Requests for Flexible Work, Parental Leave and Other Leave.

1.49 Many of the submissions before the Committee and from the Government indicate that one of the aims of the Bill is to create greater equality by bringing about more flexibility in the workplace.

1.50 The Fair Work Act allows for Individual Flexibility Arrangements where employees and employers have a limited capacity to enter into arrangements to vary the application of terms under the Modern Awards and Enterprise Agreements.

1.51 While the former Minister for Workplace Relations, Senator the Hon Chris Evans, noted that Individual Flexibility Agreements weren't being taken up[19], it is worth noting that union bosses have significantly undermined the system in bargaining to the disadvantage of not just employers but employees and the wider community.

1.52 The Fair Work Act also included a new regime of anti-discrimination measures[20] called 'adverse action' which is intended to operate in conjunction with other Commonwealth and State law. The adverse action provisions of the Fair Work Act include a reverse onus of proof and do not require the employee to prove direct or indirect discrimination. There is also no cap on compensation or damages that could be ordered by the Court for a breach of adverse action.

1.53 Coalition Senators note that the Bill was introduced by the Minister for Community Affairs. However evidence provided to the Committee indicates that the Bill’s practical application and impact mean that in reality, it is a workplace relations measure. The Bill will allow unscrupulous union bosses to gain yet another tool to be directed against employers during enterprise negotiations. These unscrupulous union bosses will be able to use the provisions of the Bill to apply pressure on employers to potentially force the employer to concede ground on unreasonable ambit claims.

1.54 While many sections of the Fair Work Act remain untested, the additional regulatory burdens proposed by this Bill on employers, in addition to the Fair Work Act, when coupled with other anti-discrimination laws, is a potential threat and disincentive to employers to create employment opportunities. This is a significant concern to Coalition Senators.

Further concessions to unions

1.55 Clause 16A of the Bill provides that employers must inform unions of the lodgement of public reports:

A relevant employer must, within 7 days after lodging a public report under section 13A, take all reasonable steps to inform each employee organisation that has members who are employees of the employer, that the employer has lodged the report.[21]

1.56 This is a cause of concern for employers, who in some cases in the past have reason to believe that some unions could exploit this provision as an additional industrial weapon in seeking industry-wide wage increases by targeting a particular company. As recently reported in the Australian Financial Review:

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Peter Anderson said last week employers were concerned 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.[22]

1.57 This concern was repeatedly echoed in submissions from employer groups, and was repeated at the committee's public hearing.

1.58 In evidence the Master Builders Australia stated,

Unfortunately, history has shown that some elements of the building unions have sought to use well-meaning legislative provisions as a weapon for industrial action. We are concerned that this reporting compliance requirement could then act as an industrial weapon, as opposed to what seems to be intended as a stated objective of the bill, which is to foster positive workplace consultation. We are concerned that appropriate measures are in place that would stop or prohibit unions from using these provisions or the information as an industrial weapon.[23]

An issue that has been in this industry for a long time is occupational health and safety and right of entry in regard to that. This industry is strongly committed to OH&S but, unfortunately, the unions have used that as an industrial weapon to pursue their industrial claims rather than genuinely seeking to pursue improved safety outcomes. That is a clear example of something which has manifested and troubled this industry for decades and which continues to be the case.

1.59 Coalition Senators are concerned that some union officials will use this legislation as an additional industrial weapon and another avenue to pressure enterprises to concede unrealistic ambit claims that are not in the employers or employees long term employment interests.

1.60 The appropriate measures that would stop, or prohibit, unions from using these provisions or the information as an industrial weapon, are absent from this Bill.[24]

Red tape

1.61 Coalition Senators support the need to reduce ever increasing “Red Tape” which can impose an unnecessary burden on business and in practical terms reduce productivity and efficiency.

1.62 Coalition Senators note that in 2007, the government promised to institute a 'tough' one-in, one-out policy approach to unnecessary regulation.[25] However, the government has failed to put its policy into effect and, as set out in one submission to the Committee: the government has broken this election promise by introducing an additional 16,163 regulations whilst repealing just 79[26].

1.63 Coalition Senators note that notwithstanding the government’s failure to implement its 2007 policy to reduce “Red Tape” by introducing an additional 16,163 regulations whilst repealing just 79, to add insult to injury, the Prime Minister recently announced a 'deregulation dialogue'[27] with the stated mission to reduce regulation. Indeed the Prime Minister said "Cutting red tape is a key priority for the Gillard Government, as excessive regulation increases business costs and hinders productivity."

1.64 Coalition Senators agree that excessive regulation increases business costs and hinders productivity and efficiency. Regrettably, despite the government’s rhetoric on reducing “red Tape”, this Bill adds considerable regulatory burden to employers across Australia.

1.65 The submission[28] from the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Campbell Newman MP, confirms these concerns:

I am concerned that the Bill may impose an additional regulatory burden on Queensland businesses.

...

Frankly – this legislation is at odds with the rhetoric of the Prime Minister at the Business Advisory Forum prior to COAG recently!

1.66 Coalition Senators recognise that the government’s rhetoric on reducing “Red Tape” is part of a litany of broken election promises which continue to reduce the credibility of the government. As a consequence of its broken promises, Coalition Senators understand why employers do not believe the Government’s claim that this Bill will not increase the regulatory burden on business.

Paid parental leave

1.67 The Coalition recognises that an effective way to increase female workforce participation and gender equality is to have a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme and affordable childcare.

1.68 Financial security for women is something Australians see the Labor Party pay lip service too, but fail to deliver on. This is highlighted by the fact that the Government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme does not include superannuation. The Coalition’s Paid Parental Leave scheme includes superannuation payments at a mandatory level. This is because the Coalition believes women should not be disadvantaged when the time comes to draw on retirement savings.

1.1 If the Government is serious about achieving gender equality it should support the Coalition’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. Unlike the government’s scheme which is a welfare based scheme, the Coalition supports the economic empowerment of women and under the Coalition’s scheme will provide real time and real money to working women, offering eligible women 26 weeks at their replacement wage which could be up to $75,000 p.a.

Conclusion

1.69 The Coalition supports gender equality in the workplace.

1.70 The Coalition encourages measures which reasonably and practically address obstacles to increased workforce participation by women.

1.71 Coalition Senators value women and men as co-contributors to the economic and social wellbeing of Australia. We recognise the many varied roles women play across all sections of Australian society

1.72 However, unlike the Government, Coalition Senators understands the position of a number of industry representative bodies that in their submissions to the Inquiry whilst expressing strong support for gender equality, questioned the form and substance of this Bill and its potential impact on business:

While we support the aims of the Bill, we question the methodology, as it will add to red tape. We are concerned that the efforts of companies supporting and enhancing equity and diversity in their workplaces could now be directed to compliance. The focus should instead be on continuous improvement.[29]

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

1.74 Given that a number of submissions proposed more cost effective approaches to achieving greater gender equality,[30] Coalition Senators are of the view that pursuing incentive-based alternatives would be a far better approach for the government to achieve the Bill’s stated objectives rather than the 'all stick and no carrot' approach provided for. As stated by the Ai Group:

Overall, it may be worthwhile, in Ai Group’s view, to introduce a form of positive recognition for organisations which submit regular reports, to provide an incentive to do so. This may be more appropriate and effective than the alternative, which is to penalise those which do not report. While EOWA recognises outstanding organisations through its “employer of choice awards”, there are of course numerous organisations which regularly report but for a variety of reasons do not apply for or receive such awards. Recognising organisations which regularly submit compliant report, such as a certification process, could be considered.[31]

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

1.76 Coalition Senators support gender equality in the workplace. Coalition Senators also support any reasonable measures to pursue better equal opportunity outcomes and encourage measures which reasonably and practically address obstacles to increased workforce participation by women.

1.77 Coalition Senators cannot support the passage of this Bill. It is disguised as a Bill to promote gender equality in the workplace but which is in fact a contrived attempt to increase union power in the workplace and increasing the level of government interference in the workplace.

Recommendation

1.78 Coalition Senators recommend that the Bill not be passed.

Senator Chris Back Deputy Chair	Senator Bridget McKenzie

Senator Michaelia Cash	Senator Mary-Jo Fisher

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page