Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say I get a sense of deja vu debating this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, because we have seen all of this before. In 2014, despite the then Abbott government going to the election and clearly saying: 'We're not going to do anything drastic; we're not going to hurt families; we're not going to attack vulnerable people,' we then got the 2014 budget. It was aimed squarely at hurting middle Australia, hurting families, hurting young workers—indeed, at trying to destroy our Medicare system.

At that time, it took strong opposition from the Labor opposition to stop those cuts. We were successful in communicating to the Australian people and indeed to the parliament why these cuts were so unfair, why these cuts were ripping the fabric of our society apart and why these cuts would hurt ordinary Australians right around this country. We had a significant fight on our hands then, but we won that fight. Yet now, instead of the government accepting that these unpopular measures were not palatable and not fair and not right for this country, we are here again debating these unfair measures. And there are so many unfair measures. I am not sure if the government thought, 'If we package it all up in one bill it will not seem as bad,' but of course our job as the opposition will be to pick apart the many unfair measures in this bill and fight against them.

I have to say: what did not happen in 2014 but is happening now is even more disgraceful, and that is that the government is saying: 'We're not going to do any childcare reform unless you vote for cuts to family payments. We're not going to assist families with the cost of child care unless you cut paid parental leave.' This is a ransom demand—there is no other way to describe it. But it gets worse. The government not only said, 'We won't assist families with child care unless this parliament votes for unfair reforms,' they then threatened the NDIS.

I was flabbergasted when I saw the Minister for Social Services and the Treasurer get up and say: 'If the parliament will not vote for these changes, the NDIS will get necked.' That was outrageous. And it tore up the bipartisan agreement on the NDIS. I was here during the creation of the NDIS and I have to say that the LNP was not overly enthusiastic about it—there were often comments about why it would not work—but they were dragged to it, kicking and screaming, and they said it was bipartisan. Now the Treasurer has put fear into so many families with a disability—families that have been waiting patiently for the rollout of the NDIS to come to their communities—by saying: 'If the parliament does not pass these unfair measures then we can't guarantee the NDIS.' That was an outrageous, unfair and really, really disgraceful act by this Treasurer. It shows that perhaps he does not have the temperament to negotiate on and deliver good policy through on-the-ground consultation and by working with this parliament. But that is where we now find ourselves. And, as I said, some of the very unfair measures in this bill date back to 2014.

We all remember, though, on Mother's Day in 2015, when the then Treasurer got up and said, 'By the way, those that are taking two lots of paid parental leave—the employer paid parental leave and also the workplace parental leave—are ripping off the system. They are double dippers.' That was the most insulting thing that Treasurer Hockey could have said to these mothers. I happened to be sitting with my mothers group three days after that outrageous statement was made, and those mothers were concerned and disappointed at—indeed, insulted by—that comment. Those mothers had been cobbling together their employer paid parental leave with the government's paid parental leave so that they could have some quality time with their young children. And this government said they were double dippers—that they were somehow gypping the system. Well, that was absolutely outrageous. The government paid parental leave was always designed either to be a safety net for those who did not receive paid parental leave or to complement the employer-paid parental leave, to extend that time a mother or a father could have with their child.

In my role as shadow minister for defence personnel we now have this measure back in front of us. Of course, some of those so-called double-dippers that the coalition likes to label are those women and men serving in our Defence Force. Serving in the Defence Force is not an ordinary job. There are long periods away from home, and having time off to have a child is even more difficult. Only 15.4 per cent of our Defence Force is made up of women, and the government is now saying, 'Those paid parental leave conditions that you may set your heart on and worked around to ensure that there were fewer barriers for you to have a child have now been ripped away.' Our Defence Force women, our policewomen and women in non-traditional areas of work which have not necessarily been women's work will feel the brunt of this cut and it will make things more difficult for them.

Those on the other side of the House should listen to the evidence that was presented during the Senate inquiries on this topic. The distress being caused to so many by having this paid parental leave ripped away from them, meaning that they will spent less time with their children, is an absolute disgrace. Under these changes, around 70,000 mums with a median income of $62,000 will be $5,600 worse off. But it is not that dollar figure; it is about the time spent with a newborn baby, that time to bond, that time to not have to worry about the bills or to worry about going back to work—the ability to actually spend that quality time. But this government has said, 'No; you are not going to have that.' It really is quite bizarre, considering that this policy that the government have decided to go with is in stark contrast to the policy they took to the 2013 election with. The policy they took to the 2013 election was, 'We'll give six months full pay,' and now they turn around and say, 'Actually, we're going to rip away what you already have.' This shows that this government are not serious about supporting new mums.

But, of course, it is not just new mums that this government is not serious about supporting; it is families as well. As I said at the beginning, the government has said, 'We will not give you any relief with your childcare arrangements if you don't take a cut to family payments.' In this bill, we will see families losing their FTBA supplements. They will be $200 worse off per child. And families receiving FTBB will lose $350 a year. These are significant cuts. It may be difficult for the government to fathom that these family cuts make a difference. They add up for families that are struggling to make ends meet. A typical family with two children on a single income of $60,000 will lose about $750 a year. The cuts that this government has already made, including the schoolkids bonus, are hurting families, and these cuts will only make it worse.

But, of course, it is not just families that are in the sights of this government; young people are also being affected. I would particularly like to draw people's attention to the government making young people live on nothing for five weeks. This is a very, very harsh measure for those jobseekers who will not get assistance and will be made to wait for five weeks. But what do we hear from those opposite? Often we hear that young people should just go and get a good job. That is also the government's solution to getting into the housing market.

See this speech in context