Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great pride that I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. Paid parental leave has featured as a signature policy of the Abbott government at both the 2010 and 2013 elections.

Lindsay is the fourth youngest electorate in Australia, with a median age of just 34. As a young woman I am proud to support this bill that also supports young families right across my region. This makes me think about all the conversations that I have had, during these two elections, with so many young and talented women right across the electorate. I think about a young woman by the name of Tracey who was newly engaged when she found out that she was pregnant. The pregnancy was unplanned but she was very excited about it. Not having the financial or economic position to take on the responsibilities of a young family, Tracey was forced back to work in three months. Like so many people in my electorate—two-thirds of my electorate have to commute every single day—Tracey, three months after giving birth, had to commute to Parramatta to resume her duties as a PA, which is not a highly paid position, so that she could help support her family.

Tracey and Phil were really lucky because their mothers could both step in and help babysit their young son. But I recall seeing Tracey at train stations. She would be in tears because she had to leave her baby behind to go back to work. She was also forced to make a vast array of family choices that she really did not want to make. She wanted to breastfeed for six months. She could not do that; she had to go back to work. All of a sudden she was looking at options like expressing and using baby formula. She had to put in place all of these different things when she really just wanted to be at home with her son.

Tracey's and Phil's experience is not unique. We see this right across our country. And this paid parental leave scheme is about providing fairness and equity. Providing for a young family is a challenge that keeps families up late at night. This bill is designed to give these families a leg-up and support them at a really critical time. This bill will give mothers six months of paid leave based on their actual wage—not a minimum wage. They will not be penalised for having a child, as they will receive their actual wage.

This afternoon I also want to tell the story of Nicole, a very talented accounts clerk that I met when I was door-knocking in Jamisontown. For five years Nicole had enjoyed her job working with a local small business. When she wanted to have a family her employer did not have the capacity to pay her paid parental leave at her salary. So Nicole made a decision: she would change employer. Rather than working for the local small business she got a job in North Sydney as an accounts clerk.

Nicole was a huge loss to her employer, who now does not have the ability to compete on an even playing field within the Labor market. This paid parental leave scheme gives small businesses right across the Lindsay electorate—and right across our country—the ability to compete and have talented employees stay within their businesses. So this is about fairness.

I would like to give credit where credit is due. Early today we heard from the member for Gellibrand, who pointed out that the opposition did, in fact, introduce Australia's first paid parental leave scheme. But it was not fair and, quite frankly, it did not go far enough. It is a bit rich for the party which made outrageous claims against our Prime Minister to devalue women across our nation to the minimum wage. The member for Gellibrand used phrases to describe the opposition scheme as a 'balanced approach' and setting 'realistic objectives'. Let me ask this: how balanced is it when we are replacing the salary of a young working woman with the minimum wage? How realistic is it for a family that has to manage their budget—something the opposition clearly knows nothing about—to be paid at the minimum wage? Quite frankly it is not fair. It is just not fair.

This bill also supports small businesses. It will reduce the burden of red tape—another key priority of the Abbott government. By taking control of the administrative process, small businesses will be free to get on with the job of doing what they do best. I would like to applaud the vision in the design of this measure to ensure that it does not—I repeat this: it does not—increase the administrative burden on small businesses. Under this legislation, employees would be paid directly by the Department of Human Services. Doing this ensures that there will be no additional paperwork for employers or cash-flow problems for small businesses.

I would like to reflect on the paid parental leave scheme introduced by the former, Labor government. In contrast with our plan, Labor's paid parental leave scheme imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on employers, particularly small businesses. Under Labor's scheme, with few exceptions, employers are required to act as paymasters after receiving an employee's entitlement from Centrelink. This system is unnecessarily complicated and forces small businesses to bear the cost of restructuring their payroll and accounting systems. But, unsurprisingly, the now opposition just do not care about the impact their measures and policies have on small businesses right across our country.

These businesses are the engine room of our economy. This measure will save businesses in Australia $44 million a year, and will further save the not-for-profit sector $4 million a year. As a result, the coalition's policy has broad-ranging support from the industry. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry conducted a survey of its members on the paid parental leave scheme in May 2013. In the survey, 84.3 per cent of the businesses either agreed or strongly agreed that the government should not require employers to be the paymasters for the paid parental leave scheme. I also take the opportunity to echo the sentiments of John Osborn, the chief operating officer of the chamber, who has welcomed the Abbott government's scheme. He said:

Small business people should not be forced to be the unpaid 'pay-clerks' for government schemes. This responsibility should be funded and administered by government.

The Abbott government is trying to do the right thing by small businesses in cutting red tape, and the opposition should support this. I echo these sentiments. There is no reason why businesses should have to act as the pay clerk when the family assistance office, a part of the Department of Human Services, can do this job like it did when the scheme first started.

Labor' resistance to this measure proves that they just do not get business, and they have no understanding of how unnecessary costs adversely affect jobs and business viability. It is imperative to kick-start the economy. We need to release the handbrake that hinders our national prosperity and cut the red tape that previous governments have placed on our small businesses.

We need to support working mums, and this is a crucial reason why I am proud to rise here today in support of this amendment bill, because it will actually deliver a genuine paid parental leave scheme to give mothers six months leave based on their actual salary.

My community is made up predominantly of young families and young professionals. Unlike our more densely populated neighbours closer to the city, the people in Lindsay, Penrith, St Marys, Glenmore Park, Colyton and even in Cranebrook enjoy the benefits of living in a regional hub that is close to one of the best cities in the world. Young families choose to live in Lindsay. They choose to make Lindsay their home. They choose to take advantage of its accessibility and, if I do say so myself, the availability of a region where it is great to live, work and play—but, even more importantly, to raise a family. This amendment bill will finally give families the chance to get ahead and it will give women a more realistic choice so that, if they so choose, they can combine work and family and continue in their careers and in their jobs and make real choices about supporting their family income. I hear these concerns every single day. For the last four years I have heard these concerns from so many families right across my region.

Under the coalition's scheme mothers will be provided with 26 weeks of paid parental leave at their actual wage or at the national minimum wage, whichever is greater, plus superannuation. In contrast, Labor's paid parental leave scheme is at the minimum of 18 weeks. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, around 80 per cent of Australian women earn less than $62,400 and the average salary for women who work full-time is around $65,000. This means that those women who earn the average full-time salary will be more than $21,000 better off under the coalition's scheme because they will receive their actual wage over 26 weeks—around $32,000—instead of the minimum wage for 18 weeks, which is around $11,200. For families with a mortgage and bills to pay, and who understand the importance of managing a budget, receiving their actual wage will make a significant difference. It will reduce the financial pressure that can come with raising children.

It is also important for Australia to remain competitive internationally. Of the 34 countries in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, 33 offer paid parental leave schemes. Of these 33 countries, Australia is one of two that fails to pay leave based on a replacement wage. By offering only minimum wage, Australia is left economically behind major OECD competitors. Due to this, we risk losing the productivity gains that come from greater participation by women in the paid workforce. There is no doubt that a ready way to increase Australia's productivity is to increase the participation of women, both part-time and full-time, in the paid workforce, which is why paid parental leave is an economic driver. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context