Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Hansard source

This debate is not about whether we should have paid parental leave or the merits of the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme versus the opposition’s paid parental leave scheme; it simply seeks to revoke the unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements of the Paid Parental Leave scheme due to come into effect on 1 January 2011. The Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010 is a proactive measure introduced by the coalition to reduce the burden on business. Under the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme, the Family Assistance Office will undertake responsibility for parental leave payments for the first six months of the scheme. Thereafter, Labor has proposed that responsibility falls to the individual employer, who will be forwarded payments by the Commonwealth only to on-pay them to workers. What a clumsy administrative arrangement that is. The coalition, instead, proposes that the Family Assistance Office retains responsibility for the administration and payment of paid parental leave indefinitely after the first six-month period. By having the government retain responsibility as paymaster, we can prevent an additional regulatory strain on businesses, which currently suffer enough red tape. In particular, this strain would be felt disproportionately by small business, which may not have the specific human resources or payroll personnel to administer the scheme. Labor risks threatening the livelihood of some businesses which just do not have the capacity for another layer of bureaucracy or the additional administrative costs that are likely to flow on from this. Employers who fail to meet the administrative requirements of the scheme are liable for hefty fines. In all likelihood small businesses that have difficulty in coming to terms with that additional administrative requirement are the ones that will suffer.

Business lobby groups have been vocal in their criticism of passing the role of paymaster from the Family Assistance Office to an individual business. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland Vice-President, Ken Murphy, has stated:

… what has not been taken into account is the impost of administration costs associated with the scheme. Any national paid parental leave scheme must be wholly administered by government.

Yet by having responsibility for the administration of Paid Parental Leave remain with the Family Assistance Office, we can avoid an administrative nightmare for businesses. Surely the logic of this is evident to all, barring those opposite.

Regrettably for Australian families and Australian businesses, this Paid Parental Leave scheme is neither as family friendly nor as business friendly as the scheme proposed by the coalition. Our scheme offered 26 weeks paid leave at the wage level previously received by the parent up to a salary maximum of $150,000 per annum or the national minimum wage, whichever was the greater. In addition, superannuation payments would be maintained. Labor’s scheme has neglected superannuation contributions, which will see many women worse off when it comes to their retirement. Shame on them. Ours was a scheme offering real time and real money.

We also proposed a more user-friendly, comprehensive model that saw the paymaster role stay with the Family Assistance Office. We heard the concerns of business and took these into account. Labor, on the other hand, has ignored the calls of businesses and lobby groups. By supporting the Family Assistance Office to retain responsibility for the administration of PPL, we can at least go some way towards improving the scheme but removing unnecessary hurdles for business. Everyone who has signed up to the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme has signed up on the basis of the current administrative arrangements—that is, with the Family Assistance Office. All we are saying is: just keep those arrangements going, just keep them on. It is disingenuous of those opposite to suggest that this debate is about us versus them in terms of the merits of the scheme or having a paid parental leave scheme at all. I ask members opposite to debate what is on the table. Not only do we need to ensure looking after the economic needs of working families but we also have to make sure businesses are not unduly pressured as result of any government policy. The Family Assistance Office is positioned best to administer the scheme. The government has failed to provide a coherent or valid reason for its decision to handball administration to individual businesses. The coalition will continue, as we always have, to go into bat for Australian businesses and Australian families.

See this speech in context