Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I refer this House to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and to his understanding of what a ‘decent system of employment entitlements’ is. Tony Abbott has said that Work Choices was good for wages, jobs and workers. He claims that Work Choices was good because it was improved and that he would not rule out bringing back Work Choices but just rule out the phrase ‘Work Choices’. The Leader of the Opposition claims that getting rid of Work Choices actually hurt jobs and that Work Choices would have been good during the global financial crisis. Tony Abbott was opposed to any changes to Work Choices, because he thought it could not be improved and that it improved our standard of living. The Leader of the Opposition also claimed that Work Choices was economically advantageous.

When we hear those on the other side arguing about what fair and decent conditions are and their concern about women in the workforce and paid parental leave, we must consider that in light of their past statements and what they say in their current document on paid parental leave about what they consider to be decent employment entitlements. On this issue of what decent working entitlements are in the eyes of those on the other side, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, I refer the House to Tony Abbott’s address in reply to the 2010 budget on 13 May. In that address the Leader of the Opposition said that the first principle of government should be to do no harm and that the coalition wants an Australia that is ‘prosperous, united and respected, where families’ choices are taken seriously by government’. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that the ‘former government’s workplace reforms went too far’ but ‘helped to create more than two million new jobs’ and ‘lift real wages by 20 per cent’. He then stated that the coalition would ‘seek to take the unfair dismissal monkey off the back of small businesses, which are more like families than institutions’. He said:

We will make Labor’s transitional employment agreements that are being phased out under the Fair Work Act and Labor’s individual flexibility agreements more flexible. We have faith in Australia’s workers who are not as easily pushed around and exploited as the ACTU’s dishonest ad campaign is already making out.

The Leader of the Opposition showed in his address in reply that when they talk in their paid parental leave consultation paper about a parcel of a decent system of employment entitlements this is what they are actually talking about. Under AWAs, workers lost basic conditions without any compensation: a 64 per cent cut in annual leave loading, a 63 per cent cut in penalty rates, a 52 per cent cut in shiftwork loadings, a 51 per cent cut in overtime loadings, a 48 per cent cut in monetary allowances, a 46 per cent cut in public holiday pay, a 40 per cent cut in rest breaks and a 36 per cent cut in declared public holidays—and 22 per cent provided workers with no pay rise, some for up to five years.

This is what is meant by decent working conditions, according to the opposition and its leader. We know that those most likely to be affected by changes such as these flexibility agreements are women, who are predominantly employed in casual and part-time positions. So I ask those on the other side, when they stand there arguing that their paid parental leave scheme would deliver more, to be honest with the Australian people about what they consider to be decent employment entitlements for workers in this country.

There are many reasons this legislation should be introduced and passed by the House and the Senate. Women should have the choice to stay at home or to return to the workforce. Contrary to the belief of the member for Gippsland that this Paid Parental Leave scheme would force women back into the workforce, what it does is provide them with financial support that they do not have right now in this country. Some have been fortunate enough, through negotiations with their employers, to have a paid parental leave scheme, but that is not the case for every worker across the country, and that is something that this government seeks to rectify.

The member for Gippsland went a little bit further in his comments about women returning to the workforce, and I totally agree with him when he says that women should have choice—absolutely; women should have choice whether they want to return to the workforce or not. But when you take that argument one step further and start saying that it is not in the interests of the child for that parent, particularly that mother, to return to the workforce then I believe that you unfairly start to place an unwarranted burden on those mothers who choose to, or who must, return to the workforce for financial reasons.

I know that there are many members in this parliament right now who are working mothers. There are those who have become parents and become mothers while they have been serving as an elected representative in this House. The member for Gellibrand, the member for Sydney, the member for Ballarat and the member for Indi have all had babies while they have been members of this House. We should not judge them or in any way claim that it is not in their children’s interests that they not only be great parents but also serve in this parliament—and serve their community—while they are fulfilling that important role of being a parent. We have moved beyond the argument that it is only those who stay at home that provide a good quality of life or the best upbringing for their children. It is a choice and we should not judge that choice.

There is another issue that needs to be discussed when alternative positions are put forward in this debate about the Paid Parental Leave Scheme—that is, the Rudd Labor government’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme is fully costed and funded. The alternative scheme proposed by the opposition is a tax. It is a tax on business. It is a 1.7 per cent tax, at a time when the Rudd Labor government is putting forward a reduction in tax to business, a two per cent reduction in company tax. To scrap the Rudd Labor government’s reduction in company tax and then introduce a new tax on business would make businesses almost four per cent worse off under a coalition government. And then of course we have the denial. We have had Tony Abbott saying that his paid parental leave scheme, with a tax on business, would not create any flow-on effect of increased costs: ‘Of course not! We put a tax on big business. They will not increase their costs to smaller business, who will then not flow it on to the consumer.’ Let us be real! Business has already come out and said that if Tony Abbott, in government, introduced a 1.7 per cent tax, of course that cost would flow onto their customers, and then small business would flow that cost onto their customers, the households. What we have is Tony Abbott holding out in one hand a paid parental leave scheme, saying ‘Isn’t this wonderful! And, by the way, when you go to the grocery store and you buy baby formula, or nappies or anything else for your new baby, you will be paying with the other hand—because we’ve hit business for this paid parental leave and those costs will flow.’ It is not just a denial; it is misleading the Australian public to say that a 1.7 per cent tax on big business will not flow to the consumer at the end of the day. They will pay under a Tony Abbott scheme, I can guarantee that.

This alternative scheme—that does not even appear to have the full backing of those on the other side—is a tactic. It is an excuse not to support this bill in this parliament right now. The fact is that the opposition have not come out and said what they are going to do with the bill, whether they are supporting it or whether they are not. If you listened to the speakers, you would certainly be led to believe they would be voting against this scheme. What I say to those opposition members who may be considering voting against this scheme is: you cannot do this to those people in the workforce who are expecting this Paid Parental Leave Scheme to be in place. They are relying on it and they are planning around this scheme. You have a responsibility to support this scheme, a scheme that will be introduced for the first time ever in this country. Be honest. As a government you had 11 years to do this. You chose not to. So just step aside and let this scheme be introduced. That is what you would do if you were a responsible opposition, but the reality is you are not a responsible opposition. You are erratic. You are a risk to workers in this country. This bill should be supported. It has my absolute support and if those opposite choose to oppose this bill they should come to the electorate of Petrie and explain to all of those women in the workforce why they oppose it.

See this speech in context