Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The manager of government business quite rightly notes that there is no crossbencher here. We have sought to inform them about these things and will wait to see if it has been persuasive. The government has failed to provide any persuasive justification or considered account of the likely benefits, yet there are clear and uncontested costs and risks in its approach. There is not a single credible reason to impose this pay clerk burden. When the Senate originally amended the Paid Parental Leave Bill to embrace the measures contained in this private member’s bill, the shrill and over-the-top government response gave us something to think about. The government said that, if the Senate insisted on protecting cash-strapped and time-poor businesses and guarding against further risk of discrimination against women of reproductive age in the workforce, it would delay the entire introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. By correcting this bureaucratic nonsense from the government, the government threatened to delay the entire Paid Parental Leave scheme.

I cautioned at the time that there must be more to this than the government was prepared to reveal, given the shrillness and insistence. At the time, I argued there was another motive. The government had failed to rule out that the PPL pay clerk burden was the enabling machinery to change what is currently an encouragement for employers to top up Labor’s deficient scheme, fitting them up with the tools needed to oblige them to top up the taxpayer funded minimum wage payment, and it has emerged that I was right. This government’s imposed PPL pay clerk burden is just the start—the thin edge of the wedge—of the costs and obligations employers will face under Labor’s deficient and flawed Paid Parental Leave scheme.

A secret internal union circular reveals the true reason behind the coordinated Labor and union attack on this common-sense private member’s bill that the coalition has proposed that would see the Family Assistance Office continue to implement the government’s scheme. The circular said: ‘We must oppose Billson’s bill.’ It went on to say it would ‘restrict unions’ capacity to improve and enforce PPL in the workplaces’. It is now clear that the government’s motive for imposing the Paid Parental Leave pay clerk responsibilities on employers is to assist a union campaign to force employer co-payments, to top up the deficient government scheme to full replacement wage levels plus superannuation. This is confirmed by a subsequent ACTU release. The release said: ‘It’s time to unite against plans to undermine the Paid Parental Leave scheme.’ That is what my bill is supposed to be doing, apparently. It attacked my bill, but the union movement conceded that its agenda is indeed to campaign ‘to achieve full income replacement’, adding:

Many enlightened employers are already topping up the scheme to full income replacement, but where they do not, unions will actively campaign through collective bargaining to achieve that goal.

Co-payments are the purpose behind fitting up employers. For the cross-members who are not here today, so persuaded by the most ambivalent, inconclusive, on-balance, cautious, hesitant conclusion of the Productivity Commission, I invite them to consider this. The Productivity Commission has warned:

… the biggest dangers of employer co-funding of paid parental leave is discrimination against women of reproductive ages and, in the shorter term, the financial pressures on cash-strapped employers …

Nothing could be clearer. The Productivity Commission is absolutely clear on that as a concern. That alone should be enough for all members in this House who are concerned about small business viability and concerned about women’s work opportunities to vote in support of the coalition’s bill, but what we see is the Gillard Labor government and union pact—a self-serving pact—about helping along an industrial campaign to force employer co-payments on and up, despite the clear warnings from the Productivity Commission that this will harm cash-strapped small businesses and workplace opportunities for women.

Labor seemed to be alert to this when they were in opposition. They sought to provide some comfort to people who were legitimately concerned about this. On 13 July 2007 there was a joint media release titled ‘Maternity leave’, with Jenny Macklin, Tanya Plibersek and Julia Gillard stating:

Labor will not support a system that imposes additional financial burdens or administrative complexity on small businesses or in any way acts as a discouragement to the employment of women.

Labor are doing exactly what they promised they would not do. The Queensland state Labor government has written to the Gillard government stating:

… mandating employers to take over the paymaster function after the … six month period is a costly and time consuming administrative issue for employers, particularly those who are operators of small businesses.

The Queensland government urged the Gillard government to change its ways. Every member in this House should be voting for the coalition private member’s bill. If they have listened to the small business community, if they respect the wishes of the Queensland government and if they want to help the Prime Minister, Minister Macklin and Minister Plibersek keep their promises, they need to look after the interests of the small business community. All members should be supporting this private member’s bill in the House. I commend the bill to the House and I am confident right-minded people will vote for it. (Time expired)

Question put:

That this bill be now read a second time.

See this speech in context