Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It was interesting listening to the previous speaker's very well-prepared speech on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 and to the contributions of members on the other side, who have mindlessly regurgitated the party line and the PM's slogans. It is interesting that the member speaking previously had to sit down and write out in detail the same words that just about every member on the other side of this parliament has used. He has been concentrating on the contribution that business makes to the current paid parental leave scheme. This actually was not where I was going to start in my contribution to this debate, but I really feel that I need to address that issue right up front.

Early evaluation in 2013 of employers' experiences in implementing the paid parental leave scheme really shows that the words we have just heard from the member opposite are completely fallacious. A survey of employers showed that 54 per cent disagreed with the statement 'organising the payment for paid parental leave scheme has been time consuming'. Twenty-nine per cent of employers agreed that additional costs were involved in implementing the scheme. Of those reporting additional costs, 94 per cent stated that this rose with an extra workload they took on themselves. They took it on themselves; it had nothing to do with implementing a new payroll system.

In terms of staff hours, I was listening earlier to the member for Mitchell, who was regurgitating the same words, and he was talking about 22 hours. Twenty-five per cent of employers reported two hours, 24 per cent said three to five hours and 22 per cent said 15 hours—hardly what we have heard from members on the other side of this parliament. Cost to the organisations implementing the paid parental leave scheme, the employers, has been minimal. That was found when employers were surveyed.

The member speaking previously also said that business was supportive of their scheme and was opposed to the scheme that is currently in place. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry slammed the coalition scheme and called for a greater means test that would considerably improve the scheme's affordability and fairness. The Australian chamber of commerce are saying that this scheme is unaffordable and unfair. Charlotte Hayes, finance and administration manager at the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, said paying six months parental leave to women on salaries of $150,000 was too generous. I note that it has now been reduced to $100,000. Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group said the current system works well. I repeat that: the current system works well. He said there is no reason for it to change. Peter Anderson, the CEO of ACCI, said it is an excessive paid parental leave scheme. Heather Ridout, the former chief of the Australian Industry Group, said:

On any measure this is bad parental leave policy and it's bad tax policy.

Even amongst the Prime Minister's colleagues there is dissent about this signature paid parental leave policy, which is not popular in the community. Nationals Senator John Williams recently refused to rule out crossing the floor to vote against this legislation. Senator Williams and Senator Cory Bernardi signalled that they may vote against this Rolls Royce scheme. The member for Tangney said:

I do have significant concerns.

He is a very sensible member. I note the concern he raised about the cuts to science in the budget being very worrying. He goes on to say:

I think there are better ways to attack the overall problem: having affordable and easy access to childcare.

I join with the member for Perth in saying that that is one of the issues that is constantly raised in my electorate in relation to women seeking to return to the work force. I listened to the contribution made by the member for Mitchell. On 6 May last year he said:

And the question is, is this good economic policy at this time, and my answer is no.

That very much demonstrates a member saying one thing before the election and another thing after the election.

The legislation that we have before us today is bad legislation. It is important to note that Labor introduced the first ever paid parental leave scheme, in January 2011. It was embraced by women throughout Australia. It has benefited 340,000 families. I think that is exceptional. And there have been an additional 40,000 dads and their partners who have also benefited from the dad and partner's pay. Labor's scheme was designed to benefit all Australian families, particularly those on low and middle-class incomes. Many of those people work in casual and part-time employment.

I know that when the Prime Minister first started touting his Paid Parental Leave scheme he said that he wanted the right kind of women to have babies. I find that offensive. I do not think that determining whether or not a woman is the right type of woman to have a baby has anything to do with the income that that woman earns. I think the right kind of woman to have a baby is a woman who wants a baby, who wants to love her baby, who is prepared to contribute to that child's life throughout and who is totally committed to that child. So I reject wholeheartedly the concept that only women earning $100,000 or more are the right type of women to have babies.

I would also like to add that around 55 per cent of working mothers had absolutely no access to a paid parental leave scheme at all before Labor introduced their scheme. I might also add that women who have higher incomes already tend to have access to quite lucrative paid parental leave schemes. But, before Labor's scheme, 55 per cent of women had absolutely no access to paid parental leave schemes. Today, access to the Paid Parental Leave scheme now stands at 95 per cent of all working women. Is the median income for these women $100,000? No, the median income is $45,000. When you are a woman on $45,000 a year, the decision as to whether or not you can afford to have a child is much harder to make than if you are on $100,000 a year.

By contrast, this scheme, the Prime Minister's rolled gold Paid Parental Leave scheme, will give $50,000 to wealthy women to have babies. I might add to that, just as a little aside, that this $50,000 is going to wealthy women whilst he is attacking pensioners and unemployed people throughout Australia. He is looking at making their lives harder—unbearable—and imposing a GP tax on all Australian families. It is just not good enough. It is not what I understand to be fair. It is not what I understand to be the Australian way. This Prime Minister is about looking after those people who have high incomes at the expense of people who look to governments for support.

This scheme comes at enormous cost: $5.5 billion a year and $21 billion over the forward estimates. To relate that back to the comments I just made, we have a Prime Minister who is about changing the indexation of pensions, which will lead to a cut in the pension for all Australians; making it harder for people with disabilities to get the support they need; and rewarding women who are on $100,000 a year. This legislation really shows how the Abbott government have their priorities all wrong. It is about supporting those people that they believe supported them.

Today the government has moved to change the scheme that was designed by Labor when they were in government. It was a scheme that was working really well. It was a scheme that had the support of people throughout the community. That scheme was designed so that employers maintained their contact with women when they were on paid parental leave. That was a very important component of the scheme. It was to retain that connectedness between that woman and the workplace. This government is seeking to break that connectedness.

Labor consulted widely with employers and employees and recognised the fact that, for companies or employers that employed under 20 employees, it may place a higher burden on them. It was because of that fact that Labor went to the 2013 election with the commitment to change the way that those employees received their paid parental leave. This was to assist and to recognise that small businesses found it a little difficult. Centrelink was going to make payments to those employees while they were on leave. That was a sensible balance, a sensible change to the legislation and a change that was developed in consultation with employers, rather than a thought bubble that the Prime Minister had one day, when he thought he would change from totally opposing the Paid Parental Leave scheme to supporting a rolled-gold model that would, in his words, encourage the right type of women to have children.

There have been a number of reports done in relation to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The reports indicate that it may be premature to suggest that the benefits of having the employer provide the Paid Parental Leave scheme are outweighed by the costs. This evidence is being supplied by employers. The Paid Parental Leave scheme should be seen as a workplace entitlement rather than welfare. This government is placing the Paid Parental Leave scheme in the basket of welfare. This is not good legislation. This is legislation that has been developed without consultation. I encourage those members on the other side not to just regurgitate the lines that they have been given in their party room and stand here and read speeches but to stand up for women and make the right decisions. (Time expired)

See this speech in context