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

I rise to support the member for Robertson's matter of public importance today on parental leave and other major reforms by the government and also to reassure women and families across this country that Labor is committed to ensuring that they have a paid parental leave scheme and other reforms that support families into the future. What they would get under a coalition government is nothing more than pain and heartache. They saw it for 11 years.

I cannot believe that I have sat here and listened to the member for Indi and the member for Menzies, who is the shadow minister for families, housing and human services, talking about how the opposition values women and that they give hope to women. 'The government supported families the whole time we were in office' were the words of the member for Menzies. Let us just look at how the Howard government supported families and women when they were in office. Let us forget about the 10 interest rate rises in a row that women and families had to put up with near the end of the Howard government years and the pressure that that was putting on the cost of living. Let us forget about many of the cuts the Howard government made to the health sector and the fact that they completely walked away from education and investing in skills in this country, in apprenticeships and traineeships.

But we have to mention the fact that this was the government that introduced Work Choices. The people who were affected the most by Work Choices were women in low-income positions, in casual employment. They were the ones who hurt the most from that policy. Those opposite come into this chamber and actually argue that they supported families the whole time they were in government. It is just unbelievable. And we are to believe that, if they were back in government, they would put through all these reforms to help women and to help families. We are supposed to believe that, in government, those opposite would put together a paid parental leave scheme that would be more beneficial than what this government has done.

Those opposite are saying that this government would be led by the current Leader of the Opposition—a man who openly said when he was part of the Howard government for 11 years that he would introduce paid parental leave over his dead body. That is how supportive he was of women. That is how much he valued women. The hope that he gives women in the future in this country is: 'Vote for me and I guarantee that I'll go back on my word and probably never deliver it.' But let us assume he actually delivers it. Let us assume that the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party are genuine about introducing paid parental leave should they be in government. How would they pay for this $3.2 billion reform? We have heard them arguing about the carbon price and its impact on households and that they are devastated by this. They opposed the flood levy to support the rebuilding of Queensland. They do not want to impose any new costs on families at all. They are completely opposed to the levy. But, when it comes to Tony Abbott's wonderful paid parental leave scheme, they will fund it by slugging business with a 1.5 per cent tax—but not just for one year; no. We heard the shadow Treasurer during the 2010 campaign say: 'I'm not putting a time to this so-called temporary levy. I'm not going to say whether it would be one year, three years, five years or even 10 years.' What business can expect if the community supports the opposition and wants them in a government led by Tony Abbot is to be slugged a 1.5 per cent tax. This is big business. These are our retailers—Coles and Woolworths. Does the opposition truly believe that those costs will not flow to consumers? So, the women they are helping to stay at home with their children are now going to the supermarket and paying more for baby food, for nappies and to support their family because of the paid parental leave scheme.

We have heard it from the member for Moreton before. I do not believe that those of us in this chamber with our salaries should necessarily have business paying for our paid parental leave scheme. I do not believe that is appropriate. I did not believe that people on wages of up to $150,000 should receive a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate—that is why I supported the recent changes that this government put through in that area. Many policies from the opposition seem to cater for a certain group in the community. It always seems to be those on high wages who do best out of this. Their paid parental scheme says the more you earn the more you benefit from it. If you are a low-income woman, a casual, then you will get the absolute minimum. But it is okay if you are on a higher wage—$120,000, $130,000 or $150,000 a year—because 'we will look after you'. You will get your full wage for the six months.

We have heard from the opposition about valuing women, giving them hope for the future. I acknowledge that the opposition does have one cost-saving measure in relation to paying for its paid parental leave scheme. If there are fewer women in the workforce, it pays less. The fact that the opposition intends to sack at least 12,000 public servants says there will be fewer women in the workforce, so it has just saved some money by getting rid of a bunch of public servants to fund its paid parental leave scheme. That is valuing women, giving them a lot of hope for the future under a coalition government.

We hear about tax cuts but the Leader of the Opposition says if the coalition were in government, 'It depends on whether we can afford them now.' If we try to take the Leader of the Opposition at his word, you have to ask the question: at what time do we trust that word? The Leader of the Opposition has said, 'If I don't put it in writing, don't necessarily trust the words that come out of my mouth.'

See this speech in context