Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise, in contrast to those opposite, to voice my opposition to the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010. It is raining in Queensland, but it is another beautiful day here in Canberra with yet another horrible political stunt from the opposition. It is straight out of the opposition playbook—the ‘deny, delay, destroy’ playbook. It does not matter what the policy is; it seems that those opposite, since August, have been making exactly the same play—or actually we might go back to December last year, perhaps. If we look at the stimulus package, at significant healthcare reform, at a national curriculum or at the National Broadband Network, it is the same thing: deny, delay, destroy.

Now those opposite are so ashamed of their own shocking policy on paid parental leave that they are taking the wrecking ball to the federal government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. For the first time in history Australia has a fully government funded Paid Parental Leave scheme, and I am proud to be a part of the government that has commenced this process: six months pay at the minimum wage following the birth or adoption of a child. This is an historic social reform. It is not something that was achieved under the 12 years of the Howard government.

When we look around the world we see where we were behind. Let us look at some of those countries like Bolivia, where they get 12 weeks; Equatorial Guinea—now there is a real OECD leader; Eritrea; Cambodia; and Mongolia. They are just a few of the countries that Australia was behind when it came to a paid parental leave scheme. It is truly a shameful state of affairs that we took until 2010, under the Gillard government, to bring in this historic social reform.

Australian families, as I am sure you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, need this reform, because just like annual leave and sick leave this is a workplace entitlement that is good for the economy. It gives one parent the opportunity to spend more time with their infant in the early months and also to keep on top of the mortgage and the bills. As anyone with kids would know, these bills do not let up just because they have a baby. In fact, it is probably just the opposite.

More than 2,000 applications for paid parental leave have already been received from expecting parents, and businesses are also getting on board, with up to 550 employers already signed up. So our Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair to business and good for business. Despite the protestations of those opposite, we are seeing businesses getting on with the fact, catching up with Bolivia, Eritrea and Equatorial Guinea, and saying, ‘This is a good way to treat our employees.’

Let us look at why we should have Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. It is not just because it is the right thing—something that you feel in your gut. We also need to look at the economic reasons. The Productivity Commission, a very well respected body, recommended this model because it would help employers retain skilled staff and boost workplace participation. As I am sure anyone from COSBOA would know, one of the big costs associated with small businesses is retaining good staff or, more importantly, finding good staff. It can cost $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 to find a good employee. So this initiative from the Gillard Labor government is about making sure that small businesses and big businesses can retain skilled staff.

The shocking irony from those opposite is that, having spent months crowing about their plan to slug business with a new tax, they are now, all of a sudden, concerned about the impact our scheme will have on business. I put it to the member for Dunkley that given that during the election his side were putting forward a proposal for a 1.7 per cent levy to be put on everyone shopping at Woolies or Coles or putting petrol in their car—that great big tax on everything that was going to be passed straight on to consumers; that 1.7 per cent levy or tax—it is a bit hard to swallow to see the member for Dunkley now putting this proposal forward. The Labor government consulted appropriately with stakeholders, and we now have a system that imposes very little on businesses—certainly not the billions of dollars in extra tax that would have been passed on to all Australians and would have come straight out of their wallets.

It is worth explaining to the member for Dunkley how the system works and perhaps putting to rest any fears he may have cultivated amongst Australian businesses. I think it was on Thursday last week that his colleagues forgot his name in question time, but I want to assure the honourable member that I will not forget him. Employers will receive funds from the government before they are required to pass them on to their employees, and will make payments in line with the employee’s usual pay cycle. Employers can choose to receive payments from the government in as few as three instalments. Employers will provide government funded parental leave pay to their long-term employees only—so only those who have been with them for at least 12 months. Payments will be made on a ‘business as usual basis’, so there will be no special rules or special bank accounts or special red tape; it will just be business as usual. Employers simply have to provide parental leave pay in accordance with their usual pay cycle and provide a notice, such as a pay slip, to their employee—just as with other leave like annual and sick leave. Obviously, small businesses have a close connection with their employees and, with modern email distribution networks, it is not uncommon for people to receive an email notice with their pay details while they are at home.

Employers are not required to pay the superannuation on parental leave pay, and the government has made sure that employers do not have any increased payroll tax liability or workers or accident compensation premium liabilities. To help ensure that employers can prepare and adjust, the government has phased in the new payment arrangements over six months, kicking off from 1 July 2011. This is the best time for most businesses, at the start of the new financial year. And, of course, any reasonable costs incurred by employers in administering the scheme will be tax deductible. So the parliament should judge this opposition bill for what it is: it is sour grapes dressed up as legislation.

We all know that paid parental leave is long overdue. Almost all modern countries have a paid parental leave system in place. From my research, the United States and Swaziland, in southern Africa, are the only countries in the world without some sort of paid parental leave scheme. Even Sudan and Rwanda are progressive enough to have funded schemes in place. But this does not stop the opposition in their aim to wreck this historic reform. As I said, I think it is a case of sour grapes that they are not able to associate themselves with this great reform. Australian families have already waited far too long for this paid parental leave scheme. For 12 years, the opposition were dead against paid parental leave. I think the suggestion was that it was going to be introduced over the member for Warringah’s dead body. Unfortunately, that is another election promise that has gone by the wayside! But, despite their pie in the sky election commitment to the 1.7 per cent levy, it seems that little has changed—it is just one more delay, more denial and more destruction from the opposition.

See this speech in context