Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 and to be able to detail why I believe this legislative change is important and why, more generally, the coalition's Paid Parental Leave Scheme will be an invaluable addition to the nation's social infrastructure now and into the future. As the Minister for Small Business said back in March, when he was introducing this bill:

This bill will implement the government's commitment, foreshadowed during the 2013 election campaign, to reduce the red tape burden and compliance costs on business by ensuring that they are not required to be the paymaster for the government's paid parental leave scheme.

This measure has drawn a lot of attention and a lot of comments from those opposite on the Labor benches over the past couple of years, both when they were in government and now as they lick their wounds over there on the opposition benches. Labor members might want to talk down this initiative and make mischief about what it means to business, the economy and so on. But time will tell them that they have got it wrong and that the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme will have a lasting benefit for all Australians.

It seems unusual that there could be any sound reason to object to legislation that removes the requirement for employers to provide government-funded paid parental leave to eligible long-term employees. Under the amendments, employers will be paid directly by the Department of Human Services unless an employer opts in to pay parental leave to its employees and the employee agrees for their employer to pay them. The abolition of the pay cheque clerk burden from the Paid Parental Leave Scheme is estimated to save businesses around $44 million and the not-for-profit sector millions of dollars a year. Aside from making life simpler for businesses, this red-tape buster will help reduce some of the negative sentiment that has been generated by the previous government's decision to put the onus on the people who provide our jobs.

As has already been stated, this measure is strongly supported by the business community. The member for Greenway was just questioning that support. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry showed that an overwhelming 84.3 per cent of businesses were opposed to being paymasters for the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme. That is, 84.3 per cent of businesses said they were opposed to being the paymasters for Labor's scheme. The member from Greenway was saying there was overwhelming support for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme that the Labor Party had put through. The chamber of commerce suggested differently. This is understandable and a consequence of the failure by Labor to properly think through or implement its paid parental leave model. When we were in opposition we saw disaster after disaster in the way they implemented policy.

As Prime Minister Tony Abbott notes in his book Battlelines, the Rudd government scheme was only for women in the paid work force. But it is not funded by business as, by rights, it should be. At 18 weeks, it is not long enough to allow women to fully breastfeed their babies. As a new grandmother, I am able to see first-hand the importance of my daughter-in-law being able to be home and able to breastfeed our granddaughter. As I said, 18 weeks is not long enough to allow women to breastfeed their babies. And at the level of the minimum award wage it is actually inadequate for most families that depend on the mother's income.

We heard the member for Bowman talking about how in his electorate the mothers who have gone on maternity leave still have the same costs, particularly around the family budget, that they had when they were still working. He cited as an example that they do not just cut off a bedroom in the family home. People need to take this into consideration. I think those on the other side did not do that. In some cases, accessing the $9,700 taxed maternity leave payment will actually leave some women worse-off than they would have been with their existing untaxed baby bonus and family tax benefits.

There are other issues that have been brought up about Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme, which include that it is primarily located within the social security system rather than as part of a workplace based contributions scheme such as social insurance. It is also funded through general taxation revenue rather than a combination of individual employer and government contributions. Another fault that was identified is that it is paid at the minimum wage rather than at a certain percentage of wage replacement. Most OECD countries set a certain percentage of wage replacement, ranging from 50 to 100 per cent of wages—and that is from 'Parental leave and child health across OECD countries', in The Economic Journal. Also, one of the issues with Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme is that it is means tested. To be eligible, an applicant's adjusted taxable income must be $150,000 or less rather than the scheme being universally available to all regardless of income. Also, although the Australian scheme is paid for 18 weeks—I mentioned that briefly—which is around the OECD average of 19 weeks, that is shorter than in a number of countries. For example, in Sweden the leave is paid for 68 weeks. That is according to the OECD's 'Key characteristics of parental leave systems'.

The Abbott government will address these shortcomings. I am pleased to be able to rise in support of this bill because I believe that what we are doing is the right thing. I would like to quote again the Minister for Small Business. Back in March, he said:

The government is committed to continuing to reduce red tape burdens for business, including new and established businesses, as a critical step towards improving Australia's productivity—unnecessary red tape hinders innovation, investment and job creation.

How true that is.

I could continue to speak for quite a lengthy time, but I think that I will leave you with a couple of little thoughts. Labor's resistance to this measure proves that they just do not get business and they really have no understanding of how unnecessary costs adversely impact on jobs and business viability. I quoted the member for Bowman before. He was talking about how, in his electorate, he was looking for the millionaires in their 20s, because this has been a major criticism that those opposite have had of our scheme. I have to say that in my electorate the average age is 33. There are not too many millionaires in their 20s having babies in my electorate either. But I think that for any woman to have a baby and to be able to have a wage replacement is actually a good thing.

Those on the other side are saying that women are clearly only worth minimum wage, and they are not entitled to superannuation. I have heard from so many women who are now grandparents that they do not have as much superannuation as they would like or as they need because they did not have the entitlements that we have access to now. A lot of these women relish the opportunity that we are providing—the fact that we are offering a paid maternity leave that is a wage replacement option and we are going to provide superannuation. The member for Greenway said that Labor's PPL is working. She is clearly saying that she thinks it is acceptable that women are only worth the minimum wage and not super. I want to reiterate that I support women being paid superannuation while on maternity leave, and I support wage replacement, not minimum wage, for women in this country.

See this speech in context