By Margaret Allan
The appointment, on December 5, of an "independent committee" to "review" the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 by the federal minister for work place relations and small business, Peter Reith, heralds another attacks on women's rights.
The Howard government is carrying out an assessment of federal laws to examine their impact on business competitiveness. Where the laws are deemed to hinder the "free" market, they will be gutted, if not abolished. It looks likely that this will be the fate of the 1986 act.
While the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 emphasises the need to stop discrimination against women, the Affirmative Action Act took this one step further. It was enacted to redress the imbalance between employment opportunities for women and men.
The main purpose of the latter act is to create equal employment opportunities where the effects of past and present discrimination have disadvantaged women. It recognises the differences in the starting point between the sexes for work opportunities, and legislates particular mechanisms for achieving a "level playing field" for people regardless of their sex.
Onus on employers
The legislation did not arise from nowhere. It was a result of pressure from the women's liberation movement of the 1960s and '70s that finally forced the government to outlaw blatant discrimination.
The act, which came into effect on October 1, 1986, requires employers to develop and implement affirmative action programs for women in or entering the work force, and to provide equal employment opportunities.
The legislation is pro-active: it puts the onus on employers to create the conditions necessary for equal employment opportunity. This is one of the reasons the Howard government wants to dismantle or water it down.
In a comprehensive guide to the act, Affirmative Action and Sex Discrimination: A Handbook on Legal Rights for Women, Chris Ronalds explains employers' obligations to develop affirmative action programs.
The aim is two-fold: to eliminate discrimination against women and to promote equal opportunities for women.
There are eight parts to the affirmative action program, which covers all higher education institutions and private sector employers with 100 or more employees.
The eight steps for a program are: (a) issuing a policy statement, (b) appointing the appropriate staff, (c) consulting with trade unions, (d) consulting with employees, (e) analysing the employment profile, (f) analysing the employment policies and practices, (g) setting objectives and forward estimates, and (h) monitoring and evaluation.
The first six steps cover identifying unequal employment opportunities, gathering the appropriate information and preparing an affirmative action program.
The statistical analysis of the employment profile and the review of personnel policies and practices mean that an employer has a picture that can be used to highlight any deficiencies or shortcomings in the employment process as it concerns women.
Step (g) is where action is taken — setting objectives and forward estimates — which includes the concrete proposals to achieve equal employment opportunity. This also includes the education of all management and personnel officers. Step (h) is essential to assess the success of the programs and to assist in the development of future programs as needed.
While the legislation clearly puts the onus for the development of the programs onto the employer, it allows these steps to be implemented according to the employer's own circumstances.
Why a review?
The recently announced review of the act, the latest in a series of moves by the government to reduce its effectiveness, is being justified by the government as part of its cost-cutting strategy. Already, the government's Affirmative Action Agency no longer requires employers to submit annual reports, and the minister for administrative services has directed departments to cease checking affirmative action compliance before awarding government contracts.
The review committee has been told the legislation should be retained only if the benefits to the community "as a whole" outweigh the costs; and if the objectives of the legislation cannot be achieved more efficiently through other means, including non-legislative ones.
In assessing these matters, the committee has been told to take account of, among other things, "consumer interests and the competitiveness of business and efficient resource allocation".
In particular, the committee has been charged with "examining those parts of the legislation, and its administration which have the potential to restrict competition or which impose costs or confer benefits on business".
The hand-picked review committee is chaired by Deanne Bevan, director of employee relations for McDonald's Australia Ltd. She is also a member of the editorial panel of the Journal of the Australian Human Resources Institute and a member of the Industrial Relations Society of New South Wales.
Others on the committee are Heather Carmody, director, World Competitive Practices; Brendan McCarthy, director of operations, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia; Barbara Holmes, managing consultant, Managing Work and Family in Australia; and Norah Breekveldt, manager, employee relations, Toyota Motor Corporation.
While the legislation has been correctly criticised for its shortcomings, which include treating recalcitrant employers far too leniently, it remains relevant in a country which has the highest level of sex segregation in the work force and where women still consistently earn less than men for performing work of equal value.
Those who argue that affirmative action programs are a form of "reverse discrimination" against men fail to recognise the disadvantages women and minority groups still face in trying to find a job. The 1986 act recommends the development of programs to start to overcome these inequalities, and has been successful in many instances.
It would be foolish to suggest that an act of parliament is the only path to overcoming years of discriminatory practices in the work force, and in general against women. Many feminists recognise the limitations of relying on the benevolence of the government to achieve real reforms, and continue to organise for women's rights in a variety of ways.
But the past attacks on the implementation of this legislation and the current review being carried out by this government-appointed committee are a serious setback for women.
If the committee recommends the repeal or major changes to the 1986 act, the only beneficiaries are likely to be business and government. With the recent funding cuts and staff reductions in the Office for the Status of Women, and the abolition of the Women's Statistics Unit in the Australian Bureau of Statistics, we are less likely to be able to fully ascertain the effects of this review on women.
The committee has invited submissions from "interested parties", to be lodged by April 28. The committee is due to report by June 30.