Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like many on this side, I rise to speak against the implementation of this government's extravagant Paid Parental Leave Scheme in this Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014, which is being introduced at a time when it is making severe cuts to some of our fundamental services. It was not all that long ago in lead-up to the last election, and you might recall this, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Vasta, that Tony Abbott said, 'There will be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to the pension, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' I want to put this into some perspective. Just two weeks ago we saw a very deceitful budget, one that brought down cuts to education, cuts to health, changes to the age pension, cuts to family benefits and introduced a GP tax—all initiatives that will disproportionately hurt the vulnerable.

This government argue that the cuts brought down in the budget are necessary to bring the budget into line, yet they are determined to introduce in this so-called constrained economic environment—or, as they see it, a confected budget emergency—an overly generous Paid Parental Leave Scheme that will pay high-income earners up to $50,000 to have a baby. For that, this government stands accused of having its priorities wrong.

I am a father of three and proudly a grandfather of six, with another one on the way. I genuinely appreciate the role that women play in bringing up a family. I certainly appreciate the importance of a mother's role in a young life. I must say, and my wife would have me say this if I didn't, that a mother's job is indispensable and most challenging. Balancing work and life pressures, particularly during pregnancy, are things that should not be taken for granted. We know a baby needs full-time carers and the role of parents in the early period of a child's life is absolutely critical. Apart from the emotional and physical stress that mothers experience during this time, financial pressures are probably one of the biggest concerns facing many families in my electorate when it comes to having a baby.

Having a baby is definitely a milestone in all our lives, but it does require a lot of planning and adjustment. I know how difficult it is for low-income families to maintain a household budget on a single income. When each of our three kids arrived, my wife Bernadette was not working and we relied solely on my income, which paid the mortgage, the electrical, gas and water bills and all the other household expenses. I suppose many of us did this because in those days there was no paid parental leave. So to that extent, we have moved forward and we have a better understanding of the role of parents and the need to support them. When it comes to having a family, I know the importance of having a paid parental leave scheme. My daughter accessed this when she had her four children.

A paid parental leave scheme is so important for people who come from low-income households. That is why the previous Labor government proudly introduced Australia's first Paid Parental Leave Scheme in January 2011. It provided working mums and dads with financial support during that very important time in their lives with the arrival of their newborn baby. Under Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme, we provided 18 weeks pay at a minimum rate. The scheme was designed on the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, who made it clear that a flat rate on the minimum wage payment was the fairest and most effective way of supporting mothers with a newborn. Under Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme, 340,000 families benefited, and since January last year 40,000 dads have also benefited from Labor's initiative.

The question, though, is not about the numbers of families benefiting from paid parental leave but, quite frankly, the types of families that require that level of support. Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme was designed to benefit all Australians but particularly those on low to middle incomes, many of whom were dependent on casual and part-time employment, whereas Tony Abbott's Paid Parental Leave Scheme provides up to $50,000 for high-income earners to have a baby. Women earning in excess of $100,000 a year—possibly in professional careers, able to command high-salaried employment, and often able to receive privately-negotiated paid parental leave—are not in the same financial situation as mothers in low-income households.

My electorate, although it is one of the most multicultural electorates in the whole of the country—and I enjoy thoroughly the colour, the vibrancy and the diversity that that brings—also has a high proportion of women supporting low-income households, or coming from low-socioeconomic or disadvantaged backgrounds. My electorate and the people there are not rich, and they are absolutely dependent on their jobs to support their families. By way of information, the average family income in my electorate is $55,000 a year. You can see that, as I say, they are not rich people. So, when it comes to having a baby, the cost can be particularly overwhelming for many women and families in my electorate.

Why should the baby of a Macquarie Street solicitor be valued more highly or attract a higher degree of support than the child of a cleaner or a part-time worker living in Liverpool or Cabramatta? That is just not fair and it is not reasonable.

Mr Pasin interjecting—

The member interjects from the other side, but I do know that he is a solicitor—though he may not be from Macquarie Street—so he is probably standing up for the legal profession.

Under the Liberals' scheme, there is a huge gap between the support for high-income-earning women and that for low-income-earning women. It is not uncommon for a cleaner living in my electorate to earn about $30,000 a year. If she has a baby, she will receive $15,000, as opposed to that Macquarie Street solicitor, earning in excess of $100,000, who, if she has a baby, will receive $50,000. In other words, the women at the top end of the scale—the doctors and lawyers and other professionals—get more of a benefit than those in low-paid occupations such as cleaners, textile workers and people who work for piece rates. Again I ask: how is that fair? How is it equitable?

Some might be so kind as to call that 'middle-income welfare', but the paid parental leave that we introduced was targeted primarily at those it would help most. Ours was not a vote-buying exercise as was the one proposed by the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the last election.

Everyone knows why we have this Paid Parental Leave Scheme, and how it was introduced—and we all know about the cries of hostility from those on the other side at the time who claimed that it was not necessary, was overrated and should not occur. It was introduced because of the poll that went out that showed that Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party had lost a lot of support from women, particularly those at the higher end of the professional scale. This was to appeal to the women's vote. So let us not mince words on this. Let us call it for what it is. This was genuine vote-buying by the Liberals.

Cutting pensions, cutting family payments, freezing younger people out of Newstart allowances, penalising the unemployed by withholding their unemployment benefits for six months, imposing a brand-new GP tax, and increasing tax indexation every time you fill up your car—in that environment, an overgenerous paid parental leave scheme for high-income earners just does not make sense. At a time when this government is cutting $50 billion out of health over the next 10 years, cutting $30 billion out of education and increasing the retirement age to 70, again, the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme just does not make sense.

Talking of education, I would have thought there was common ground. Everyone here knows that education is a vital investment, and one that we must commit to if we are to safeguard our children's futures and, indeed, if we are to safeguard the future of our nation in this competitive world. But cutting another $6.7 billion out of the Gonski reforms, again, makes no sense at all. That is particularly so when, prior to the election—and you would remember the words that were used, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly—the Liberals actually campaigned on the basis of a 'unity ticket' with Labor when it came to Gonski.

I cannot see how a government can consider making cuts to the most vulnerable, the most at-risk groups in our community, while introducing an excessively-generous paid parental leave scheme, particularly given the history of the Liberal Party when it comes to paid parental leave. Maybe not all those opposite were here at the time, but maybe they should actually do a bit of research, because everybody who was in the parliament at the time knows the record of Tony Abbott when it came to paid parental leave. When he was a senior minister in the Howard government, his words were: 'Paid parental leave—over my dead body.' This is not someone who had some philosophical commitment to paid parental leave; this is someone who wanted to buy votes before an election. No wonder it took them kicking and screaming in 2010 to support Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme. This is something that does not come naturally to them. It certainly was not in their DNA at that stage. To enact a scheme which favours wealthy women while slashing family benefits to less fortunate families goes to show how skewed the priorities of this government really are.

Another significant aspect of this amendment to the paid parental leave bill is the government's proposal to remove the employer's compulsory role in administering paid parental leave. I know many on the other side have spoken from a business perspective on this. This could mitigate against the employer's obligation to retain working mums after they go on maternity leave, particularly for a period of six months.

Under Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme, we placed a strong emphasis on employers maintaining a direct employer relationship over this period, but it also enabled mums to remain connected to the workplace during their time off. More importantly, it was also a way to ensure that women have a job to return to after their maternity term.

Australians need a paid parental leave scheme that is fair and reasonable. Remember: 95 percent of all working mums have had access to Labor's paid parental leave since it was implemented. This is fair, responsible and, more importantly, what is affordable for our economy.

The coalition scheme is going to cost $22 billion over the next four years. The economy, quite frankly, is not in a position to support such a scheme. We say it is thoroughly inappropriate. It is a proposal that is expensive and should not be introduced at the expense of basic fundamental services and benefits provided to low-income Australian families. It is not a question about being generous; this is a question about being fair. What is being proposed is not fair under the current circumstances.

See this speech in context