Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Or any consultation. I was being generous there, member for Sydney. The Leader of the Opposition’s plan for the paid parental leave scheme that he is so committed to and that is so important got only one line in his budget-in-reply speech. I think most of the business community have come out and said fairly roundly that the tax that he proposes to impose on business is not something that they support at all. It is interesting that he cannot even bring himself to say the word ‘tax’. He has used the kinder word ‘levy’. However, it is a tax; it is a 1.7 per cent tax on industry to pay for the opposition’s paid parental leave scheme. The Leader of the Opposition should have been speaking with industry. It has strongly rejected his business tax. Mr Abbott’s 1.7 per cent levy will tax thousands of businesses right across the country.

What do others think of the Leader of the Opposition’s plan? The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry stated:

[the] proposal by the Leader of the Opposition to impose a new levy on larger businesses to fund a paid parental leave scheme is an unfair impost which will not be well received by Australian employers. Taxing businesses to fund social policy is double counting given that employers already contribute substantially to Commonwealth revenues.

Doing so for paid parental leave purposes is contrary to independent analysis released by the Productivity Commission which found that schemes such as these should be funded through general revenue given that the primary beneficiaries are the employees concerned rather than their employers.

The ACCI went on to say:

Business will seek further information from the Opposition but will not support a tax on business of this type, nor a bidding war between Government and Opposition at the expense of the business bottom line.

If I can say this to ACCI: I wish them well in seeking further information from the Leader of the Opposition. So far, we have clearly seen a lack of details on the part of members opposite. If ACCI do manage to get details of the coalition’s plan, absolutely make sure you have it in writing.

The Australian Industry Group, another leading business group, has stated that, under the Leader of the Opposition’s plan, the costs on business are just far too great. Ai Group CEO Heather Ridout has stated, in relation to the coalition’s paid parental leave policy:

… it puts a huge cost on big companies. It will be anti the employment of women. It will be—it’ll cause a bias towards the employment of men.

That is a substantial policy failing with the opposition’s scheme. In terms of tax policy, it will deter investment in the sense that, in Australia, we already have a high reliance on capital taxes such as company tax compared with other countries. Small to medium sized economies like ours are reducing their company tax rate, not putting it up. That—putting it up—will deter investment in Australia and particularly in sectors that are not going to be among the big darlings of the mining boom. If the Leader of the Opposition does not want to listen to industry then he should have a chat with his party room colleagues because, as we heard on Tuesday, some want to abolish his business tax and support our plan.

While on this side of the House we want to support industry by reducing company tax from 30 per cent to 28 per cent, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will not support a reduction in company tax but instead impose a great big new tax on business. He wants to increase business taxes to pay for his unfunded paid parental leave scheme.

The Rudd government have had a consistent position on paid parental leave for a very long time. We have been advocates of such a scheme for a very long time. The member for Sydney, who is at the table, has been a very strong and loud advocate for such a scheme not just during her political career but prior to entering parliament. We have not shied away from this issue. We have been open and transparent on it from the start. Yet, members opposite have failed to let the Australian people know their policy on paid parental leave. Actually, I stand corrected; they have spoken about numerous positions on it. Their positions include not supporting our scheme, introducing their own scheme that taxes small business and—my favourite, which is this week’s position—some member’s support us and others do not know what they are going to support at the end of the day. I will be very interested to see when the vote comes on this bill what members opposite decide to do.

I am proud to be part of the Rudd government because it is the only government that has shown the commitment to introduce a paid parental leave scheme across Australia. It is all very well for the coalition to talk about a paid parenting scheme while in opposition—and they have been in opposition for only a couple of years—after they have had 12 years in government to do something about it.

While our country has achieved so much in its short history, it has been a long time coming in finally catching up with other major economies in terms of support for paid parental leave. It is not good enough that we are one of only two OECD countries that do not have a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. I urge every one of the members opposite to support this bill. I urge them to subsequently lobby their party room colleagues in the Senate.

I want to finish by recognising the hard work of Minister Macklin and that of many groups across the country who have worked tirelessly to see this country get a national paid parental scheme. The scheme is practical; it is measured. We have broadly consulted with all stakeholders. Also, we have broad support for this scheme among the Australian community and business, but those opposite do not. This is a great moment for Australian families. I am very proud to support this bill and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context