Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. There is currently no universal legislated right to paid parental leave in Australia. These bills introduce that right for the first time. There should of course have been mandated, paid-for parental leave in Australia for a very long time. We, apart from the USA, are the last society to ensure that all working families have paid leave to assist parents in the workforce, particularly to help with the mothers’ recovery and to make sure we offer the very best possible start for our newborns. Given that it has taken Australia so long and there are decades of other developed nations’ policies and practices for us to learn from, it is astonishing that the Rudd Labor government are asking the working families of Australia to accept such a shambolic and limited paid parental scheme. That is what is before us today in the parliament.

Labor’s policy is so poor that even their own National Foundation for Australian Women, in their submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into these bills, stressed that Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme must only be seen as a first step and must be enhanced over time. This begs the question: why should the NFAW and the ACTU be so cowed and contrite? Who do they think they really represent? They should not be so grateful for just a few crumbs. Why should Australian working women be fobbed off with a small, cheap, one inadequate step at a time policy from this Labor government? Australian families deserve a scheme that is equal to the best there is—that is, which offers them at least six months to bond with their babies, to recover from the birth and to exclusively breastfeed if they can or wish to. But this government is only putting 4½ months, or 18 weeks, leave on the table.

Why should Australian working women be denied superannuation while they are on paid parental leave? The Rudd government know full well that Australian women’s working lives are too often interrupted, given they undertake the vast majority of parenting, and caring for the disabled, the aged and infirm. Stop-start careers or part-time work interrupts continuous superannuation contributions—we all know that—and this erodes women’s capacity to accumulate sufficient superannuation or savings to retire independently. Seventy-five per cent of Australia’s age pensioners are women, because they cannot support themselves adequately in their old age. Labor are happy, apparently, to have this sad situation perpetuated. Their policy denies continuing superannuation to parents taking parental leave.

The second income in an Australian household is now very often necessary to help families buy a home and to meet other costs associated with raising a family. Not all are in the privileged position of being able to rely on a single breadwinner earning sufficient income to establish and maintain the home and lifestyle that most Australians aspire to. As well, ironically, Australia’s women are among the best educated in the world. The majority of our women want to use that education to develop a career so they can fully participate in our society and the economy. So, not surprisingly, over the past 30 years the growth in female workforce participation in Australia has risen steeply, particularly for those of child-bearing age. For example, the participation rate of 25- to 34-year-old partnered women has risen from 45 per cent in 1978 to over 70 per cent in 2008. On average, some 62½ per cent of women giving birth in Australia were in the workforce before the birth and, of these, some 74 per cent want to return to work if they can.

So this mandated paid parental leave scheme is essential for our country, but it has to be a good scheme. Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is not a replacement salary scheme for women who have been in the workforce up to the time of the birth. They are offered only the minimum wage for all. This is what Labor is offering. There is no doubt that many women will do their sums and will not be able to afford to take the leave offered by Labor’s miserable scheme. The government acknowledges this, and so it is including a calculator on its website to help the parent or parent-to-be estimate whether or not they will be better off monetarily sticking with the baby bonus and struggling back to work as soon as they can. This is, of course, a tragic option for mothers of newborn babies and families who want to properly parent those newborns. The choice of baby bonus or Labor’s very cheap and miserable Paid Parental Leave scheme should not be a choice forced on our working families. Labor is perpetuating the situation where too many women regret for the rest of their lives the fact that they simply could not afford to be with their newborn for a suitable period of time because they could not afford to keep paying the bills on a single income or less than they had earned before.

If you read Minister Jenny Macklin’s second reading speech, you will see that she is fully aware that Labor has cheated Australian families of a proper and decent paid parental leave scheme. She has said that she expected, and indeed hoped, that parents would top up her scheme with the privately negotiated paid parental leave schemes that are already in existence across the economy in Australia. This is, of course, a mean and cruel expectation. It, in fact, perpetuates the haves and have-nots—the gross inequalities that have affected parents in Australia for many, many years. It is simply un-Australian.

Some more or less paid parental leave has long been provided by businesses wanting to keep their skilled women staff. This paid parental leave has been offered through workplace agreements or by legislation which, in particular, caters for the very fortunate women in the Public Service—for example, the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973. As well, there are state awards and state legislation which ensure that state government public servants and some others have some paid parental leave. Private arrangements for women to access paid maternity leave have, in fact, increased from only 36 per cent in 2003 to 41 per cent in 2005—that is according to the ABS. Over the five-year period to August 2007, the proportion of full-time employees who are entitled to paid maternity leave rose from 43 per cent to 60 per cent. However, for part-time employees it only rose from a very low 18 per cent to 27 per cent. Of course, that is less than half the percentage offered parental leave compared to full-time workers.

In August 2007, the ABS estimated that 45 per cent, or 1.8 million, of Australia’s four million female employees were entitled to paid parental leave in their main job, but access to paid parental leave varied not only according to the hours worked but also according to pay levels. For example, 84 per cent of women earning over $1,200 per week have access to paid parental leave. This has to be compared with only 24 per cent of those on wages under $500 per week being offered parental leave. Sixty per cent of women designated as professionals use paid maternity leave, while only about half that percentage—some 31 per cent—of those designated as intermediate clerical, sales or service workers can access such leave. In 2005, 76 per cent of the fortunate women employed in the public sector in their last main job while pregnant used paid maternity leave, but this compared to just 27 per cent of women employees in the private sector. Eighty per cent of women whose last main job while pregnant was in the public service, government administration or defence, and 68 per cent of those in education departments across the country, used paid maternity leave. There were also higher levels of paid maternity leave access in the finance and insurance industries. But let me stress that in the industries with the lowest proportion of female employees with paid maternity leave entitlements—these were the industries with the lower paid women or part-time women, in accommodation, cafes and restaurants—only 14 per cent had paid leave. In retail, only 21 per cent had paid parental leave.

So access to paid maternity leave in Australia depends at the moment on your pay rates, your skill levels, the hours you work, your industry or occupation and whether you were in the public service or the private sector. This leave varies from two days on offer to 18 weeks. What this government has done is perpetuate that inequality, and the advisers listening to this debate should be ashamed that they allowed the minister to persist with this policy. You should have advised differently.

This is an appalling continuation of the haves and have-nots, because what this government has said is: ‘Yes, we know our scheme is inadequate. It’s very mean and poor. It only offers 18 weeks at the minimum wage, with no superannuation. But you go away and have it topped up by your employer.’ The poor women of Australia, the lower paid, the part-time workers and the self-employed do not typically have those alternative private sector or public sector schemes to top them up and give them a decent period of leave from their workplace. I think that is disgraceful. I think this Labor government should stand condemned and ashamed, and I cannot understand why the ACTU stands by and says, ‘Oh, well, at least we’ve got something.’ ‘Something’ is simply not good enough for Australia’s working families.

I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that lower paid women and those more likely to be in part-time work are far less likely to have a top-up scheme of paid parental leave, and they have to have that top-up scheme, as I have said, to make Labor’s meagre offering affordable. Of course, our coalition will aim to amend this scheme to offer something far better, and our leader will introduce those amendments shortly.

Lower paid women working in hospitality, tourism and retail and the self-employed and contract worker women across the country will inevitably be forced to rely exclusively on Labor’s offer of only 18 weeks of leave while their better paid sisters can add their employer’s scheme on top to give them at least six months leave or an even better salary outcome. How can Labor sustain the argument that lower paid women need less time to recover from a birth, are less likely to breastfeed or are able to recover faster from a pregnancy than better paid women in, say, the Public Service or the banking sector?

The longstanding inequity of access to paid maternity leave for women in Australia has always had impacts on Australia’s productivity and on women’s career development and attachment to their workplaces. Their accumulation of superannuation and savings and ultimately their financial independence have long been affected by the current inequities of access to paid parental leave in Australia. Labor is perpetuating this problem. The coalition will not stand for it.

Labor is introducing only 18 weeks of paid parental leave, to be paid at the minimum wage, for those who have worked at least 330 hours in 10 of the last 13 months. Primary carers earning over $150,000 will not be eligible and the paid parental leave is to be taxed. I have no doubt that Labor’s offer of only 18 weeks of paid parental leave without superannuation and only at the minimum wage will see many women in families dependent on a second income forced back to work earlier than is optimal for the mother and the baby’s wellbeing. That is not what families in Australia expected from any government—although perhaps they thought it was more likely they would be let down by a Labor government. After such a long wait for a mandated universal scheme this is a bitter disappointment.

The coalition’s scheme is world’s best practice. It offers six months of leave at the mother’s salary up to $150,000 or the minimum wage, whichever is greatest, and superannuation is paid—currently this is at nine per cent. We have the same eligibility criteria for access to paid parental leave as has been identified by Labor. We also make sure that women who are self-employed, who are in partnerships or who are contractors are able to participate in this scheme. There will be appropriate eligibility criteria.

In most countries with paid parental leave the parents may decide which parent takes leave or takes part of the leave and claims the income support. However, in Sweden, Iceland and Norway the governments have chosen to structure their paid parental leave to reflect their societies’ gender equity objectives, the benefit to the baby of some early close association with the father and the sharing and diminishing of what would otherwise be the mother-only experience of an interrupted career and superannuation reduction.

Unlike Labor, the coalition also recognises that the father, or non-primary carer, also often wants to have a close bonding experience and parenting experience with their newborn. Often the father has to be encouraged and given an opportunity to assist the mother and to bond with the newborn with special workplace leave arrangements. Hence, the coalition’s scheme includes a two-week use-it or lose-it period of leave. We have to change the attitudes of our society about the needs of parenting couples and their babies. The coalition intends to assist with this cultural change in the interests of ushering in a new era of a more caring, family-friendly and nurturing society.

We know that, along with paid parental leave, we must have greater flexibility in the workplace. We must have businesses understand that, while it may be different to what they have done traditionally, they can and should consider part-time work, job sharing, working from home where it is possible and certainly different workplace arrangements, particularly when a parent is in the early years of having to support their young children. Flexible workplace arrangements of course do not only meet the needs of workers with young children; flexible workplace arrangements enable workers to manage their responsibilities for caring in the community, perhaps for older relatives or disabled children. Unfortunately, under Labor’s new industrial relations regime that flexibility is a lot less possible. We regret that. The coalition will ensure that in the future our workplace relations will foster and encourage more family-friendly workplaces in our country, because, quite simply, nothing else will do.

Labor’s paid parental policy does more than disadvantage the poorer part-time women, who are less likely to have another paid parental leave offer to fall back on or to supplement Labor’s impoverished, meagre and inadequate scheme. Labor has also failed to address the administrative burden that its scheme will add to small and medium sized businesses. We were hoping that the Paid Parental Leave scheme would not upset businesses who may have resisted the notion of giving, particularly women, paid parental leave, knowing that it is often inconvenient when a replacement worker needs to be found.

Unfortunately, Labor’s policy has exacerbated the additional red tape, the administrative burdens and complications. Labor has inadequately consulted with the business sector. Although they had two years from the campaign announcement of ushering in the Paid Parental Leave scheme, they seem to have left the scheme’s administration arrangements to the very last minute in consulting with the states and businesses.

Labor was determined to advance women’s workplace attachment by requiring their employers to still have the paid parental leave wage go through the companies’ books—in other words, to have the worker retained on the payroll. It seems that a company is to receive the government contribution into their enterprise and then must churn it through their payroll and out into the community, where the parent is on leave.

Clearly, this arrangement has implications for payroll tax—in some states more than others. And there are other add-on costs when a worker is retained on your payroll. But the minister has failed totally to understand those complexities and she has not consulted with the states in time to make any sense of what businesses are to do or what extra costs they will be up for or, indeed, what concessions might be made for this particular situation. It is no surprise that the business sector is very angry. They have made significant representations to the Senate inquiry expressing their concern and frustration and anger. Even businesses who have long supported their skilled women workers and who want to make sure that they have paid parental leave are disgusted with the lack of proper consultation and due regard to the complexities that this scheme will now add.

They are not placated by the fact that, recognising that there has been a huge stuff-up in this case, they are to be given six months moratorium in terms of these payments being directed through their payrolls and out to the worker who is on paid parental leave. Unfortunately, six months is not all that great a concession to the businesses. They have no idea how to manage after the six months commencing on 1 January 2011 when the full requirements of the scheme commence. We just have to hope that the coalition is returned to government well before 1 January 2011. We have committed to introducing our alternative scheme, which places no such burden on businesses, so that the small and medium sized business sector in particular will not have to personally manage and manipulate the salaries on their way through. We will have the Family Assistance Office manage all that red tape and administrative detail.

What Labor has done in its misunderstanding of what was required in relation to administering such a scheme is exactly the opposite to what this country needs right now when we have skills shortages and an ageing demographic and we also have the right of women to have a fair go in the workplace. Yes, I am concerned that some businesses, knowing what is ahead of them with Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme, with all the additional red tape and administration, will look the other way when a woman of child-bearing age presents at a job interview. That is exactly the reverse of the outcome that we need in the introduction of Australia’s first mandated paid parental leave scheme. Realising that, yes, they have mishandled the administration arrangements for the policy’s implementation, the minister has now, I admit, delayed the requirement that businesses pay the parental leave worker for the first six months. I just have to repeat, this is very cold comfort for the businesses out there.

We also are yet to really understand how this Labor program will manage the contractor woman, the woman doing seasonal work, the parent who is self-employed, the farming woman who is in a partnership, perhaps in a business which has not made any income for a number of years but where she has certainly put in the hours of work which make her eligible for paid parental leave. All of that is still a mystery when it comes to this scheme. It should not be a mystery. This government had nearly two years to work out the details and to put those details out into the community for careful consideration and feedback.

Australia has not had a universally accessible and equitable policy providing real choice for the working women and families in relation to paid parental leave. Universal paid parental leave offered to mothers and/or fathers must help to change the culture in the workplace, which currently can discriminate against women returning to work after pregnancy or, indeed, when they ask for paid parental leave. A national paid parental leave policy must assist and engender greater recognition of the public good of parenting and the fact that parenting is an absolute necessity when it comes to the regeneration of any society.

But good parenting is what this country needs and, more and more in our society, good parenting requires a juggling between workplace or workforce commitments and the responsibilities at home. Women take most of the responsibility for parenting and for caring onto their own plate. It is essential that both men and women in the workforce are given special support, that they are given a scheme that makes sense and is, in fact, world’s best practice.

What they have got in Labor’s scheme is something that is meagre. It perpetuates the inequalities which are currently in the workplace and experienced by women every day. I cannot understand why Labor refused to put on the table a far better scheme when they had so many other developed countries’ schemes to consider in detail. They had feedback from the women advocates across the country saying: ‘Please, give us at least superannuation. Make sure that we have at least six months of time away from the workplace when we can bond with and nurture our newborn and recover from the pregnancy.’ That is not to happen with Labor’s scheme. I repeat, it is a meagre, cheapskate scheme which sells Australia’s working families short. To say that it does not matter because women can go away and get a top-up from some other scheme offered privately or by the public sector is to perpetuate the inequalities where unskilled or lower paid women or women in part-time work are a lot less likely to have access to those alternative schemes. What a mean thing to do to Australia’s working women!

I feel quite ashamed, I have to say. As a working woman myself, I want the best for all the women of Australia, and here I stand in this parliament with a piece of legislation like this on the table. It should have been much better. You can be assured that the coalition understands what is right and proper for Australia’s working families. We will be attempting to amend this scheme. On the other hand, of course, we have put it on the record that we understand that half of something is better than nothing at all. So we have said that at the end of the day, if we cannot get our appropriate amendments through, we will wave this impoverished scheme through. But it will a sad day for Australia and Australia’s working families.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an honour to participate in this debate on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, particularly with the government’s Minister for the Status of Women at the table. Tanya has been gracious enough to visit my electorate on a number of occasions to talk to local parents on this issue, and she knows full well the importance placed on paid parental leave in the area in which I live. It is fundamental.

All of us in this place who have been blessed with children—and those of us who are a little more mature, such as you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, who are very boastful of grandchildren—know that there is nothing more important to us than ensuring that our kids are safe. We do everything we can to give them the best opportunities in life so they can grow into adulthood and fulfil their potential. That is something innate in parenting, something that comes from unqualified love.

We know very clearly that young children, babies in particular, need the full-time care of their parents, particularly in those vital early months of life. The social, cognitive and physical development of the child are very important. When each of our three kids arrived, Bernadette could not work. There was an absolute necessity for her to spend time with our kids. And in those days there was not access to maternity leave, certainly not paid maternity leave. They are the kinds of decisions that parents have to make at that stage. That is why this is very important legislation.

It is extremely important to recognise that the primary caring responsibility normally falls to the woman. I fully understand how difficult it is to take time off work for many parents, particularly women who want to remain connected to the workforce. There is an economic reality in modern life, particularly in the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney, where I come from: the mortgage needs to be paid; the bills need to be paid. There is an economic reality to staying in touch with paid employment.

Prior to the last election, the Labor Party indicated that we would ask the Productivity Commission, as an independent body, to investigate the options for a paid parental leave scheme. After accepting most of their recommendations, we have the legislation before us today. This legislation addresses the modern challenges which I have raised and is Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme. This is a major win for working families, who have been waiting for decades for such a scheme. Importantly, the scheme gives babies the best start in life, which, as I indicated earlier, is critical for their development. Once the scheme is delivered, we will have finally caught up with the rest of the world. It is a shame that Australia is one of only two OECD nations that have not so far had paid parental leave.

It should be said that our scheme will be funded by the government and therefore it is fair for families and, particularly, for businesses. It is not just the government claiming that this is a great achievement. Elizabeth Broderick, the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, at the launch of the draft legislation, said:

It’s a great thrill to be here today as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and to see a piece of legislation which has the words ‘paid parental leave’ on the top.

Sharan Burrow, the retiring ACTU President, said:

This is a magical moment. To see a piece of legislation with paid parental leave on the front of the cover is a 30-year, long-awaited moment of justice for working women.

She went on with some very stern words about the Leader of the Opposition and some reasonably contentious remarks about the opposition’s wish list. She is not alone in her views. Paid parental leave has long been an issue in the minds of people in my electorate. South-west Sydney, like any other outer metropolitan area, is the mortgage belt. These are hardworking families, families that have been waiting for the government to address their concerns, and they have been looking forward to us giving them real options to balance work and family life. We have listened and that is why we are introducing the scheme.

I do not want to be like a broken record—because I probably tend to say this a little too often in the House—but I have to say something after listening to the critical comments that the member for Murray, Dr Stone, made about this legislation, although the coalition are not going to oppose it; I understand that. The opposition spokesperson for the status of women was in government with John Howard over the whole period of 12 years. You have got to start asking yourself: if these criticisms are being levelled at this government about the introduction of this legislation now, what did the coalition do over the 12 years that they held the reins of office? Surely there cannot have been an extraordinarily long-range plan that in the 13th year they were going to do all these things. They had 12 years, and what did they do about paid parental leave? I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They did absolutely nothing.

Our commitment to working families through this scheme is in stark contrast to the absence of any effort to acknowledge paid parental leave throughout the whole 12 years of the Howard government. They refused to deliver paid parental leave. By the way, they have a track record. It was not just a refusal. They had a very committed position. The Leader of the Opposition has now articulated a position—on the very day of International Women’s Day—but do not forget he is also on the record as saying:

… compulsory paid maternity leave, over this Government’s dead body …

That was their position in government. He was very clear and very precise in his characteristic offhand way, but it certainly acknowledged that their position on the issue of paid parental leave was ‘over their dead body’.

I do not know. Perhaps he did have an epiphany. Maybe there is something in that ‘road to Damascus’. I am not quite sure. Far from simply being converted, he has now come to a position without the consent, support or urging of any other member that sits on the coalition side. On the very day of International Women’s Day, he decided to come out and say: ‘We are going to have six months paid paternity leave, paid at whatever rate people are earning. So, if you are earning $150,000 a year, you will get $75,000 paid to you. But we are going to tax big business’—what he now refers to as ‘big business’ is any business that has a profit line of $5 million—‘We are going to slug them so that not only are they going to pay for the parental leave of people in their own business, but they are going to pay for the parental leave of anyone else out there in the workforce, any other businesses.’

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know about you, but I have actually had a look to see how many businesses in my electorate fall under the $5 million profit line and I have to say that there are a heck of a lot of them. The last time we looked, I think about 98 per cent of all businesses in my electorate would, under Tony Abbott’s big new tax on business, have some other business paying for the parental leave of their people. No wonder the coalition were a bit taken aback by that. They wanted to make some criticisms on issues about tax before, although one thing is that they did not see this as a tax. They saw it as a levy, so therefore it was not a tax. In that case, it can be Tony Abbott’s big new levy on all businesses that earn over $5 million.

To participate in this debate you need some credibility and there is no credibility in that approach. There is no point in people over there scurrying around and wanting to put their head in the sand. The truth of the matter is that nobody other than the Leader of the Opposition was aware of what he was going to say on that day. No-one, including the opposition spokesperson on the status of women, knew that this was going to be said. Maybe it is just one of those things. You turn up for this international function and you really do not have anything to say, so you think: ‘Let’s fill in the gaps. Let’s just make this grand new announcement on the basis: we know we can’t deliver it, but we will say it anyway.’ That is not really participating in a constructive debate on something that is as serious for this country as paid parental leave.

The opposition claim to be the friends of business. I think that claim is a bit spurious, but if it is true that part of the motivation of those on the other side of the House is to be the friends of big business, it is very interesting to see what big business have to say about this. I will sum up their total reaction, but I will not attribute it to anyone. The reaction, according to business, is ‘Over our dead body’—that is, if you take the comments of the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry as being any indication of their view on the approach being adopted. So you can see that the opposition and, in particular, their leader cannot be trusted when it comes to this debate. Without authority, without planning and without looking at numbers—because we know he does not like economics and does not like looking at numbers—he just wants to throw something into the mix. This is not the way you have a dialogue on a piece of social policy as important as this issue.

We might also need to check their comments and find out if this promise to working families was scripted. I know a lot has been said about gospel truth on the other side, but, unless this is in writing, maybe it was not really a serious opposition position. However, I just noticed here that, in the amendment to the motion, it is now, ladies and gentlemen, in writing. So it must be the case that it is now their policy position to put a new tax on all businesses. It is their position to pay everybody for six months at the rate they are earning and it does not matter what amount of money they are earning up to $150,000. If you are a solicitor in Sydney or Melbourne earning that sort of money, the Leader of the Opposition is out there trying to take care of you.

But what he is proposing is designed never to be implemented. He knows it will never be implemented. He is simply trying to join in the debate without coming to the table and saying that the government got it right. They do not have the intestinal fortitude to say: ‘Look, we had 12 years to do something on this matter. We did not give it priority, but we actually agree with what you are doing and we will support it because it is the right thing to do for the Australian people.’ They will not do that because they simply want to play politics. They want to go to an election on the basis of claiming to have some affinity with working families. People in my electorate will see through that and there is no way they are going to take that sort of risk.

Today I have tried to keep my remarks to the benefits of the scheme for families, but the scheme contained in the bills will also benefit employers. What most employers say is that they want to be able to retain their good staff and they want to be able to keep those skills. These are things they want to be able to do. We saw that when this whole debate really started a number of years back, when the Catholic University here in Canberra wanted to ensure that they retained their tutorial and lecturing staff. They voluntarily introduced paid maternity leave for their employees. We want to assist business to retain their skilled and valued employees, and this is what our legislation will do once implemented.

This is good for the country, and it is good for the country as a whole. It is good for the economy. Therefore, it will not be an impost on business. This is being borne by government. This is budgeted for. This is not going out and putting a great big new tax on enterprise. What this is doing is budgeting for the result because the introduction of this legislation will deliver true and meaningful benefits to our economy. It is no surprise that the move has been welcomed by thousands of businesses. I know, from talking to businesses in my region, that they look forward to having the opportunity to retain their valued staff in their respective business enterprises. It is certainly being looked forward to by working families throughout the south-west of Sydney. The only logical way to minimise the scheme’s impact on employers was, as I say, to ensure that it was addressed as an economic package and provided for in the budget. We have not imposed on business as a consequence.

Our scheme will come in on 1 January 2011 and eligible parents will for 18 weeks receive government funded paid parental leave at the national minimum wage. It is important at this stage of the debate to outline who will be eligible, as working people will need to make various decisions. For this reason I would like to take members through the criteria for eligibility for paid parental leave. The scheme will be available to people if they: are the mother of a newborn child or initial primary carer of a recently adopted child; have met the paid parental leave work test before the birth or adoption occurs; have an individual annual income of $150,000 or less; and are living in Australia and are an Australian citizen or permanent resident. It is also important to note that, in planning this, people who have worked for just over one day a week over the 10 months prior to the child’s birth will have access to this paid parental leave.

The work test will, for the first time, ensure that women working in seasonal employment, casual employment or contract employment or who are self-employed will have access to the scheme. That is because the scheme will not be an impost on their employer; the scheme will be funded out of the budget. There is no doubt that those workers will be the big winners. But so again business will be. It is true that under the current voluntary system parental leave tends to be available to workers in the higher-paying categories in some areas of enterprise where they are regulated by industrial awards and indeed in the Public Service. This will ensure that all women will be able to benefit from the scheme, that all women will be able to do what we take for granted—that is, provide that initial primary care of their child when it is most important, in the child’s first 18 weeks of life.

It is estimated that there will be approximately 148,000 eligible new parents per year who will be able to spend more time at home recovering after giving birth and nurturing their infants. It is about time women in the country got what they deserved and children got what they needed—nurturing and care by their mother. I commend the bills to the House. I am very proud to be part of a government that is bringing these bills forward. I look forward to the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition, as most businesspeople will, on the big new tax the coalition will attempt to foist on them.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to rise in this chamber today. As I do, I am conscious of the example and the inspiration of none other than Sir Robert Menzies, who was the first Prime Minister to propose a serious benefit to families when his government proposed child endowment back in 1941. They were the dark days of war, but Sir Robert Menzies and his government were sufficiently committed to the families of this country and sufficiently committed to the welfare of the children of this country to introduce child endowment at that critical juncture in our nation’s history.

We are debating the government’s Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and other bills to introduce a very modest form of paid parental leave. The scheme the government is bringing forward is a small step in the right direction, but it only costs $263 million a year. That is not an inconsiderable figure, but when you divide that amongst the families to whom the benefit will go it will be something like $2,000 per child. No-one who has gone through the business of managing a family budget would think that $2,000 a child was going to make a big difference. This is a step forward, it is an improvement, but it is a very small step forward and it is not much of an improvement.

In particular, the government scheme does not provide to the mothers of this country their full wage for the full six months that it is recommended they spend with their newborn baby. Our position, by contrast, is that mothers in the workforce should be paid real money for real time to bond with their newborn babies. Our position is founded on a clear understanding that over the past few generations society has changed, expectations have grown and lifestyles are different. We understand that in a way that I think the government does not, given the very limited nature of the measure which they are proposing to this parliament now.

There should be no limits placed on what the women of Australia can aspire to and achieve. There should be no role which is denied to women. There should be no bar placed on women and certainly the women of this country should be able to aspire to any role and any job beyond the traditional role of wife and mother. They should not be forced to choose between career and family. They must be allowed to choose both if that is what they want. That is what this policy of ours is designed to achieve.

As is well known, my views on this issue have evolved. I have changed my mind. I am pleased that I have been open on this subject to the wisdom of others. I am pleased that on this issue I have been able to grow. I am pleased that, over the years, on this issue in particular I have listened to other people. I have listened to my wife. I have listened to my daughters. I have listened to my colleagues. I have listened to my friends. I have tried as best I can to enter into their experience and to understand their hopes and their dreams. That is why I am so proud to stand up in this parliament today and advocate the policy of the coalition for a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme, which is long overdue and which sadly was not delivered by the former government and is certainly not going to be delivered by the current government.

We have to face the facts of modern life and a fact of modern life is that most families need two incomes to survive. Most families cannot pay the mortgage without two incomes. Members opposite know this. The staff of members opposite get 18 weeks at full pay. That is the parental leave that they get, yet they wish to deny other women and other parents the kind of benefit that would be provided by the coalition’s policy. We have to face the facts of modern life and a fact of modern life is that most families need two incomes to survive. If we are going to facilitate those families, we must facilitate their ability to maintain their income. The paid parental leave scheme that the coalition has adopted is good for women because it finally gives them a real choice, good for families because it supports their income when they are at the most financially vulnerable time in their family lives, and good for the economy because it will keep some of the most productive and potentially productive people more engaged in the workforce.

There is no more important challenge before this country than trying to ensure the productivity of our economy because, in the end, you cannot have a community without an economy to sustain it. The stronger that economy, the more prosperous, the more cohesive and most likely the happier that society will be. We look to the intergenerational report, which talked about the various long-term challenges that our country faces. Over several editions, that report has consistently talked about the three Ps—population, participation and productivity. A paid parental leave scheme is good on all three counts. It will increase our population. It will certainly increase the participation of women in the workforce and it will increase our productivity by keeping experienced workers engaged in the workforce. This is not just a visionary piece of social policy; it is an important economic reform. As a member of the party of good management, as a member of the party which above all else wishes to improve and strengthen the Australian economy again, I am proud to put this proposal to the parliament.

Of course, all policies have to be paid for. Only members opposite think that there is some endless source of finance, some magic pudding from which to pay for all the things that they desire to create a better society. I make no bones about the fact that this policy will be paid for by a levy of up to 1.7 per cent on taxable company incomes over $5 million a year. I wish it were otherwise. Were circumstances different, it could have been different. If we had a $20 billion surplus, we could have done it differently. But given the situation that this government places us in, given the fact that this government in just 2½ years has turned a $20 billion surplus into a $57 billion deficit, given that this government has put us in the position where we are borrowing $700 million a week, this is the least bad way to bring about an effective paid parental leave scheme any time soon. And it must be done soon. The women of Australia and the families of Australia have waited too long and they ought not be denied this visionary piece of social policy, this important economic reform, any longer.

It is interesting that members opposite have talked about a great big new tax. Doesn’t it show how that refrain is getting under their skin? It is getting under their skin, isn’t it? It really is getting under their skin. I make three points. First, this is an extremely modest levy compared to the $9 billion a year hit that they want to put on the resources sector, let alone the $15 billion a year additional hit that they want to put on our economy through the emissions trading scheme that they are still committed to but too gutless to talk about. The second point I make is that this is a genuine reform. It is not just a tax grab to feed their insensate spending habit. Third, I want very much to ensure that this is only a temporary additional burden even on large business and, once we have debt and deficit under control, once we have been able to reduce personal income tax, I would like also to reduce corporate tax so that there is no long-term additional benefit even on those large companies earning corporate incomes over $5 million a year.

This is a very important social reform. It is a very important piece of economic reform. By doing it the way the coalition has proposed, it does not discriminate against younger women because it is a levy on business regardless of any particular business’s employment practices. It does not hurt small business because it is a levy on taxable income over $5 million a year of larger companies. It does not add to the administrative burden of business because the work will be done by the Family Assistance Office. It should not add to bureaucracy because all that it should require to implement is a tax return and a doctor’s certificate. So this is the simplest, the fairest and, ultimately, the cheapest way of bringing about an important economic and social reform.

As I said, the government’s measure is a small step in the right direction. I believe we should go much further and that is what the amendment in my name will do. I say to members of this House that, if you want to see a long overdue reform, it is important to support the coalition’s policy on this point. If we are to have a better society in the future than that which we have experienced in the recent past, it is important to change the government. If you want to stop the great big new tax on mining, you have to change the government. As was clear from the announcement that the coalition made this morning, if you want to stop the boats, you have to change the government. And, if you want to give families a fair go through a decent paid parental leave scheme, you have to change the government. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

1)     affirms its commitment to supporting all Australian families and supports policies which give choice and flexibility to parents to enable them to choose what is right for their individual circumstances, whether they are at home or in the paid workforce;

2)     recognises that parents have different patterns of family responsibilities and paid work over their life cycle;

3)     recognises that due to rising costs of living and a housing affordability crisis, the majority of families require two incomes to make ends meet;

4)     notes that Australia remains only one of two OECD countries that does not provide a paid parental leave scheme and that introducing a paid parental scheme is critical to the needs of working families and our national productivity more broadly;

5)     rejects the Government’s representation of a paid parental leave scheme as a social security measure and instead affirms that it is a valid workplace entitlement that must come with a superannuation component to arrest the gross inadequacy of female retirement incomes;

6)     notes the Government’s proposed paid parental leave scheme is inadequate in its current form and should be amended to better reflect the requirements of Australian working mothers, and families more generally;

7)     supports the ability of casual, part time and fulltime women to access paid parental leave provided that they have met the qualifying criteria;

8)     recognises that a paid parental leave scheme is only one part of government’s important role in supporting families as they raise the next generation of Australians;

9)     acknowledges that the bill does not:

(a)

provide paid parental leave for a period of 26 weeks to afford all mothers the opportunity to breastfeed their infant for the minimum six month period recommended by the World Health Organisation;

(b)

provide women with a replacement wage, to a cap or minimum wage (whichever is greater), and so does not adequately support working families when they are at their most financially vulnerable;

10)   acknowledges that the bill places a totally unnecessary impost on Australian businesses by requiring employers to act as paymasters for eligible employees; and

11)   calls on the Government to make such amendments to the bill as would rectify these flaws.”

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. I am absolutely delighted to speak after the Leader of the Opposition and, as one of the women in this parliament, I welcome his extraordinary road to Damascus conversion on this issue. I do find it, I must admit, unbelievable. This is coming from the man who is on the record as saying, ‘Paid parental leave scheme, over my dead body.’ This is also from the man who seems to think that it is only women who iron the shirts in households. I seem to think this road to Damascus conversion really is not quite the gospel truth. I certainly welcome his contribution, though, to the Paid Parental Leave scheme debate.

The introduction of this legislation on 12 May represents one of the most significant achievements of the Rudd government. I was delighted to be in the chamber when the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs introduced the scheme because it is truly a historic moment for Australian parents. I am delighted to speak in support of this legislation today. I see this reform as one of the most historic in our nation’s history. As a result of our reform, mum and dads across the country and my own electorate of Ballarat will now have access to up to 18 weeks paid parental leave. This is big news for Australian families. The bill reflects the hard work of many people over a long period of time. I note particularly the Leader of the Opposition saying this has been too long in coming. Yes, it has. I do find it interesting that obviously this was something that they were going to do in their 13th year. It was on the never-never, unfortunately, and their own paid parental leave scheme is also just that, on the never-never. This bill certainly reflects the Rudd government’s commitment to Australian families. It is a historic moment for those families who have contacted me since I was elected in 2001 asking why Australia does not have a paid parental leave scheme.

Babies require devoted support from their parents, and this is no more apparent than during those first few weeks of life. The bill provides parents with peace of mind, the knowledge that they can look after their child with significant financial support through a paid parental leave scheme. Not only does this allow parents financial support but also it allows parents to spend time with their new baby during those early months when it is most needed. It also allows those parents to get time to get to know their baby and to get used to the significant adjustment that is required when you have a new baby in your household. Having a baby and working out not only how best to care for them but also how your life is now to be organised differently does take some getting used to. Those precious first months with a new baby are critical and they are not months that are repeated. They are critical not only for a baby’s development but also for the long-term attachment that they will have with their parents.

With this legislation we have introduced a significant reform for families, for today and into the future. With this legislation we hope to provide parents with a better chance to balance paid work and supporting their children. This is not only good news for families; it is also good news for industry, particularly for staff retention. Industry has been faced with a brain drain, often losing skilled workers. I hope this legislation will go a long way to ensuring that parents are able to retain their strong connection with the workforce and that industry will be able to keep skilled workers engaged. This is good news for the estimated 148,000 people across the country who are estimated to be eligible.

This Paid Parental Leave scheme—unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s scheme, a bit of a thought bubble in a book—has been developed with a great deal of consultation over a considerable period of time. We made a commitment back at the last election in 2007 to assist parents balance their work with family life. Lots of work was done in opposition researching paid parental leave schemes. Upon coming to government we then acted quickly. We called on the Productivity Commission to look into what support was needed for parents and their children. The Productivity Commission looked at the benefits of a paid maternity, paternity and parental leave scheme, the funding models to provide support to parents and the impact of such a scheme.

The Productivity Commission produced a 584-page report, which concluded that Australia desperately needed a paid parental leave scheme. The determination was concluded following lengthy consultation. In total, 416 public submissions were received by the Productivity Commission. Many of these submissions supported the commission’s research and analysis that Australia needs a paid parental leave scheme.

Following the government’s receipt of the Productivity Commission’s report, we announced our intention in last year’s budget to commit over $250 million a year to a paid parental leave scheme. When I spoke in parliament in support of the 2009-10 budget, I outlined my strong commitment to this Paid Parental Leave scheme. My position has not changed in the last year—unlike members opposite.

The Rudd government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme will assist women to stay connected with the workforce and their careers while they have children. In ensuring that we maximise our productivity and work effectively to tackle an ageing population, we need measures such as this to maintain our skills and our workforce. By keeping women connected to the workforce, we are helping them to continue with their careers long after having children. This is good news for business as it will save in staff training and skills loss. It is good news for women who will see an increase in life-long earnings.

Since I last spoke on the 2009-10 budget, the government have continued to consult on the Paid Parental Leave scheme. We have had consultations on this issue since being elected. A further 32 consultations were undertaken following the 2009-10 budget, which made the announcement that Australia would have a paid parental leave scheme. We wanted to ensure we got the design of this scheme correct for parents and, very importantly, correct for industry. So for the first time, from 1 July 2011 many parents will have access to parental leave. We are implementing a work test, an income test and residency requirements to determine eligibility under this scheme.

Eligible parents will now have access to 18 weeks parental leave and at the current rate of the national minimum wage this results in $543.78 per week before tax for 18 weeks. We will continue to support parents whether they are in paid work or at home. Parents who are not eligible under our Paid Parental Leave scheme will still have access to the baby bonus and to the family tax benefit. To be eligible for the scheme, parents need to be in paid work and have worked continuously for at least 10 of the 13 weeks prior to the expected birth or adoption date, have undertaken a minimum of 330 hours of paid work in the 10-month period prior and earn less than $150,000 annually.

Following the implementation of our scheme, we have undertaken to conduct a review after its first two years. As part of this review, we will consider those Productivity Commission recommendations that were not taken up amongst other things. Our scheme is fully funded and does not create an unnecessary burden on business. I am in good company in supporting this legislation. Not only have we broad support through our consultation process but we have support from industry. The CEO of Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, has called the Rudd government’s scheme a ‘sensible approach’. She said:

A taxpayer funded scheme providing payments to working mothers of 18 weeks of leave at the minimum wage, is consistent with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and is largely consistent with Australian Industry Group’s proposals.

The introduction of an appropriately designed paid parental leave scheme will provide many benefits to the community, not least of which is increased participation by women in the workforce. Increased participation is vital to address Australia’s ageing population and growing skill shortages as the economy continues to recover.

Australian Industry Group has also said:

Superannuation obligations around paid maternity leave had been an issue of concern for employers and it’s good that the Government has indicated that employers will not be required to pay superannuation on the Paid Parental Leave entitlements.

This is a positive response from one of the major industry bodies in Australia. But who else supports our scheme? The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia former CEO Jaye Radisich has said:

What this scheme means is that life is going to be easier for a lot of people. We can do nothing but support that.

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick said:

That’s got to be good for Mums, it’s got to be good for babies and ultimately, it’s got to be good for our country.

ACTU President Sharon Burrow has said:

This is a magical moment. To see a piece of legislation with paid parental leave on the front of the cover is a 30-year, long-awaited moment of justice for working women. And we’ve got a message to Tony Abbott. Don’t you dare; don’t you dare oppose this legislation.

It is also important to note the hard work of Sharon, along with the trade union movement, in running a very strong campaign for paid parental leave over a long period. The New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People, Gillian Calvert, has said:

Research shows the continuous interaction between baby and parent in the baby’s first 12 months of life shapes the brain wiring—affecting how a child regulates emotions, communicates, solves problems, thinks logically and reacts to the world.

Senator Xenophon has said:

When you consider the social benefit in giving mums paid maternity leave, I think it’s a good thing to do right now, irrespective of the fact that things are relatively tough.

Even the member for Indi has also spoken about the need for a paid parental leave scheme, including how urgent it is, and she stated in parliament that:

The Labor Party cannot come up with any funding for a paid parental leave scheme about which it has built such high expectations.

Well, member for Indi, here we are, debating legislation for a fully-funded paid maternity leave scheme. She also said:

They have included paid parental leave in this year’s budget even though they are delaying it.

Again, here we are, putting this scheme in place. If the member for Indi is so concerned about the rollout of a paid parental scheme then she may wish to work with her parliamentary colleagues to ensure they do not block this bill. She may wish to remind the Leader of the Opposition that his alternative has not had adequate consultation with stakeholders and has not been well received by the community or by business—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Plibersek interjecting

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or any consultation. I was being generous there, member for Sydney. The Leader of the Opposition’s plan for the paid parental leave scheme that he is so committed to and that is so important got only one line in his budget-in-reply speech. I think most of the business community have come out and said fairly roundly that the tax that he proposes to impose on business is not something that they support at all. It is interesting that he cannot even bring himself to say the word ‘tax’. He has used the kinder word ‘levy’. However, it is a tax; it is a 1.7 per cent tax on industry to pay for the opposition’s paid parental leave scheme. The Leader of the Opposition should have been speaking with industry. It has strongly rejected his business tax. Mr Abbott’s 1.7 per cent levy will tax thousands of businesses right across the country.

What do others think of the Leader of the Opposition’s plan? The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry stated:

[the] proposal by the Leader of the Opposition to impose a new levy on larger businesses to fund a paid parental leave scheme is an unfair impost which will not be well received by Australian employers. Taxing businesses to fund social policy is double counting given that employers already contribute substantially to Commonwealth revenues.

Doing so for paid parental leave purposes is contrary to independent analysis released by the Productivity Commission which found that schemes such as these should be funded through general revenue given that the primary beneficiaries are the employees concerned rather than their employers.

The ACCI went on to say:

Business will seek further information from the Opposition but will not support a tax on business of this type, nor a bidding war between Government and Opposition at the expense of the business bottom line.

If I can say this to ACCI: I wish them well in seeking further information from the Leader of the Opposition. So far, we have clearly seen a lack of details on the part of members opposite. If ACCI do manage to get details of the coalition’s plan, absolutely make sure you have it in writing.

The Australian Industry Group, another leading business group, has stated that, under the Leader of the Opposition’s plan, the costs on business are just far too great. Ai Group CEO Heather Ridout has stated, in relation to the coalition’s paid parental leave policy:

… it puts a huge cost on big companies. It will be anti the employment of women. It will be—it’ll cause a bias towards the employment of men.

That is a substantial policy failing with the opposition’s scheme. In terms of tax policy, it will deter investment in the sense that, in Australia, we already have a high reliance on capital taxes such as company tax compared with other countries. Small to medium sized economies like ours are reducing their company tax rate, not putting it up. That—putting it up—will deter investment in Australia and particularly in sectors that are not going to be among the big darlings of the mining boom. If the Leader of the Opposition does not want to listen to industry then he should have a chat with his party room colleagues because, as we heard on Tuesday, some want to abolish his business tax and support our plan.

While on this side of the House we want to support industry by reducing company tax from 30 per cent to 28 per cent, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will not support a reduction in company tax but instead impose a great big new tax on business. He wants to increase business taxes to pay for his unfunded paid parental leave scheme.

The Rudd government have had a consistent position on paid parental leave for a very long time. We have been advocates of such a scheme for a very long time. The member for Sydney, who is at the table, has been a very strong and loud advocate for such a scheme not just during her political career but prior to entering parliament. We have not shied away from this issue. We have been open and transparent on it from the start. Yet, members opposite have failed to let the Australian people know their policy on paid parental leave. Actually, I stand corrected; they have spoken about numerous positions on it. Their positions include not supporting our scheme, introducing their own scheme that taxes small business and—my favourite, which is this week’s position—some member’s support us and others do not know what they are going to support at the end of the day. I will be very interested to see when the vote comes on this bill what members opposite decide to do.

I am proud to be part of the Rudd government because it is the only government that has shown the commitment to introduce a paid parental leave scheme across Australia. It is all very well for the coalition to talk about a paid parenting scheme while in opposition—and they have been in opposition for only a couple of years—after they have had 12 years in government to do something about it.

While our country has achieved so much in its short history, it has been a long time coming in finally catching up with other major economies in terms of support for paid parental leave. It is not good enough that we are one of only two OECD countries that do not have a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. I urge every one of the members opposite to support this bill. I urge them to subsequently lobby their party room colleagues in the Senate.

I want to finish by recognising the hard work of Minister Macklin and that of many groups across the country who have worked tirelessly to see this country get a national paid parental scheme. The scheme is practical; it is measured. We have broadly consulted with all stakeholders. Also, we have broad support for this scheme among the Australian community and business, but those opposite do not. This is a great moment for Australian families. I am very proud to support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the somewhat modestly titled Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010. Given this government’s penchant for hyperbole, surely it could have squeezed ‘super parenting’ or ‘baby revolution’ somewhere in the headline. I would like to stress from the outset that I am not opposed to the principle of paid parental leave but I do have some reservations about the bill before the House and the current public debate on some of the alternative approaches. I note that the bill does help to recognise the important role that women play in our workforce. Certainly the criteria in the legislation recognises casual workers and farmers, and that will be well received in regional areas. I believe this is a positive, if modest, first step, but it presents more questions for the mature national debate that we will need to have in the years and months ahead.

This debate on paid parental leave legislation is of more interest to Australian families than many of the more abstract pieces of legislation which come before the House. Other speakers have already touched on the fact that it goes to the heart of the most important job, the most rewarding job and perhaps the toughest job that most of us will ever do—that is, raising our children. The interests of children must be paramount in the decisions we make about supporting families in our community, and it is from this perspective that I make my contribution to the debate today.

As I indicated, I have several reservations about the bill. My concerns relate to a few key areas: equity and fairness, an apparent preference for one form of motherhood over another and the long-term impacts on the social and economic life of our communities. I, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, am a regionally based MP, and I suspect that I therefore approach this legislation from a different perspective to those of many of my suburban counterparts. That is an important distinction to make in this debate. In regional areas, we depend more heavily on volunteers, have higher transport costs to attend our community and sporting events and have less access to full-time or high-paying jobs, all of which are important factors when considering any system of paid parental leave, one of which is the subject of public debate at the moment. On the positive side, though, in regional areas we have more affordable housing, which often means it is more achievable for a family to meet its financial obligations with one partner working and the other remaining at home as the primary carer for the children, probably with some casual or part-time work to increase the household income during the early years of a child’s life.

It is from this perspective that I raise my key concerns with equity and fairness and the not-so-subtle message that this legislation sends to the community, either intentionally or inadvertently. It does not really matter whether the message is intentional but this legislation sends a message that the government values one form of motherhood more highly than another. In her second reading speech on this bill, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs basically concedes my point:

Eligible families will be able to choose whether to take paid parental leave or the baby bonus, according to their individual circumstances.

The government estimates that more than 85 per cent of families will be better off taking paid parental leave. These families will, on average, receive around $2,000 more than if they chose the baby bonus. This is after tax has been paid and all interactions with other family assistance have been taken into account.

The key points here are the phrase ‘eligible families’ and the sum of $2,000. Under this scheme, if you have met the workforce eligibility criteria—that is, you have worked continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months before the birth or adoption of the child involved and at least 330 hours in that period—you will receive more money from the government than a stay-at-home mum. I use the term ‘mum’ rather than ‘parent’ because, in the overwhelmingly majority of families we are talking about, the mother will undertake the primary care in the first months of a baby’s life.

It is my contention that this is unfair and inequitable to stay-at-home mums and sends a message to the community that the government places more value on the offspring of working mothers than on the offspring of stay-at-home mothers. I am not saying that this is the government’s intention, but the message is clear. By providing an additional government funded payment to the mothers of babies in the paid workforce, we are sending that message. I do not understand the logic of that position. Both mums forgo income to have their child and both face increased costs associated with setting up their home for the new arrival. The eligibility criteria and the situation facing parents becomes almost farcical if they have subsequent children. We risk creating a yo-yo effect, where mums will return to work briefly to achieve the workforce criteria in order to pick up the extra $2,000 on offer from the government, and that is not in the best interests of either the child or the mother. My view is that we should be supporting and encouraging a parent—more than likely, as I said, the mother—to remain at home longer after having a child. Again I refer to the minister’s second reading speech:

Paid parental leave will give babies the best start in life. It means one parent has the financial security to take time off work to care for their baby at home during the vital early months of their baby’s life. It will give mothers time to recover from birth and bond with their baby.

The references to ‘babies’, ‘months’ and ‘bonding’ simply do not gel with me. It is not just the vital early months we should be talking about but also the vital early years—the bonding process is certainly not completed in 18 weeks. I do not contend that the minister is suggesting that at all, but I think we should be careful not to get too carried away with the legislation before the House as if it were some panacea for the issues facing working mothers and stay-at-home mothers. I believe it is critical that we recognise that Australian families come in all shapes and sizes. It is difficult to legislate in any way that provides the fairness and equity that I am talking about, but this legislation clearly discriminates against stay-at-home mothers. That being the case, it is reasonable to ask, ‘Does that really matter?’ In my opinion, it certainly does. It is my view that the ideal environment for children to spend their formative years in is a loving family home with one of the parents in the role of primary carer for an extended period. That view is the subject of constant debate and research, but it is relevant to the comments I make here today.

I argue that the interests of children are best served when one of the parents has the role of primary carer, at least until the child starts school. I do not believe that outsourcing to childcare centres the majority of the care of children in their early years is the ideal situation, particularly if children are attending formalised care for upwards of 30 to 40 hours per week from a very early stage in their lives. Some may argue—and I am sure plenty will—that this is an old-fashioned view of the world. I am happy to have that debate at another time, and it is an important debate to have in the context of this and other legislation which promotes a government sanctioned model of motherhood. Under this legislation and under our system of rebates for child care, the mother who decides to stay at home and look after her own children is financially disadvantaged in terms of the comparative level of support offered by the government. This has been a gradual and bipartisan process over many years. We now have a government sanctioned model of motherhood which promotes a view that mums should go back into the workplace as soon as possible, probably within months and not years of giving birth.

I would have less of a problem if this were a fair and equitable system where all mums, subject to income and assets tests where relevant, were treated equally. But it simply is not. I hesitate to use an emotional term such as ‘social engineering’, but there is a strong element of that in both this legislation and previous legislation dealing with income support for families. I do not seek to force my preferred model of parenting and motherhood onto my community, but the government does through these decisions that provide more financial support for working mums than for stay-at-home mums. Our government sanctioned system of raising children rewards people who send their children to outsourced care over those people who adopt a system of parental care.

We seem to be promoting a culture that places more value on becoming a productive member of the economy by returning to paid work than on parents who make the decision to raise their own children rather than outsource a significant part of that responsibility to some type of formal child care. We are sending a message that our government values your economic contribution more than your contribution to raising well-adjusted, responsible and resilient children. I stress that I strongly support measures to assist women to have productive and meaningful careers. That is not an issue. I think the increased participation in the workforce by women over the past 30 years has been an overwhelmingly positive development and assisted in creating greater financial independence for women in our community. It is important that women stay engaged in the workforce, update their skills and be involved in training wherever possible during their child-rearing years. It is important because it helps to provide mothers with the confidence to return to the workforce at a later stage and keeps them connected with their work colleagues. There are also some real benefits in terms of increased lifelong earnings, a subject that has been discussed by members on both sides already today.

When it comes to government funding for policies assisting with the raising of children I fear that we are heading in the wrong direction—and I am not the only one who has reservations. I refer to a joint submission made by the Australian Family Association and the Kids First Parent Association of Australia to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The two organisations presented similar arguments to the ones I have raised today. They said:

The scheme would unfairly discriminate by giving an average 37% more birth funding to subsidise wages and support families with paid work mothers, than to families whose mothers make a career and childcare choice for parental care.

The submission calls in its recommendations for an equal parent benefit:

The federal government should redistribute birth support and ongoing day-to-day childcare subsidies direct to parents through a single Parent Benefit to recognise that every family gives up income to pay for childcare. This would give the same funding to every child in the relevant age group, to free families to choose parent care, grandparent care, daycare or other care from birth.

They also argued that the government has not accurately modelled the true net cost to the community if more mothers move from community and charity work to paid work as a result of this scheme. This is a key issue in regional communities. I confess that I have no real knowledge of the suburban experience, but let me tell you what happens in regional areas like Gippsland. One partner—normally the male partner—will have full-time work after a child has been born, and the mother will be home with a couple of children. For the sake of the debate, let us say one is at primary school and other is two years old. The stay at home mum does not spend her time cooking scones or having coffee with other mums in the same situation; she is called on constantly to assist with a whole range of community activities. You will quite often find young mothers taking remedial reading classes in our primary schools—classes not even involving their own children. They are often called on to do that kind of work in the education sector. I would dread to think what would happen if our government had to pay for the number of hours mothers in particular and some fathers are putting into our education sector, supporting disadvantaged students just with reading classes and providing extra support to teachers in the classroom. It is a very practical example of what stay at home mums tend to be doing in whatever spare time they have.

These mums are often called on to ferry children to community and sporting activities after school—and in regional areas a lot of the time it tends to be a car-pooling situation where the mother driving will be ferrying working mums’ kids around. There is no angst about that in my community; it is a simple fact of life that some of the mothers are working full time and they have to make a whole range of arrangements to get their children to, for example, sporting activities. Again, it is the stay at home mums who tend to pick up that load. It is an important contribution that they make in their own right to the community. Stay at home mums have more time to be involved in parent clubs or the school canteen or the school council, and they also cop the job of washing the Auskick footy jumpers at the end of the weekend. These are all practical contributions these mothers are making to our community, and I do not believe we are recognising that in the context of this legislation.

I should not even be using the term stay at home mums, as it suggests they are sitting around playing Lego with the kids when in fact they are out there working just as hard as anyone else and they are making an enormous direct contribution to the wellbeing of regional communities like those in Gippsland. These are direct and tangible benefits to the community that can only be achieved when these mothers have some spare time to assist with school, charity and sporting groups. The flexibility to choose the form of child care which suits individual families is a critical issue for our nation, but the decision to reward one form of parenting more highly than another runs the risk of pushing more families in the direction the government wants to take. I believe regional community life will suffer as a result in the longer term.

If the paid parental leave legislation acts as an incentive for more mums to return to work sooner, then communities will inevitably lose a reliable source of volunteers for a wide range of important initiatives. If mothers feel compelled to return to work more quickly after their first child in order to qualify for the paid parental leave for any subsequent child, we will have the yo-yo effect I referred to earlier where family life will be disrupted, and in my view children will be adversely affected, as the routine of families is compromised.

As I said at the outset, I am not opposed to paid parental leave, but I am opposed to any system that discriminates against one form of motherhood over another. I count myself extremely fortunate that I was brought up, and I have been able to bring up my own children, in a country town where it has been possible for a relatively modest single income family to meet its financial obligations. I accept that is not always possible in today’s society, and for various social and economic reasons many families require two incomes just to survive. I accept all those points; they have been well made by speakers on both sides of the House. I would contend, however, that some families could lower their financial obligations by reducing some of their material wealth aspirations, but that is an entirely separate issue. We could debate that for hours on end.

It is a regrettable fact of life in many areas that two incomes are essential, and I accept the need for a system of paid parental leave. But returning to work and putting children into child care often creates a giant money-go-round where no-one is happy. The mum tends to feel guilty because she wants to spend more time with her kids at a young age; the young children can be disadvantaged from extended stays in child care; and the financial benefits of two incomes are eroded by the costs of child care, which incidentally are about to increase under this government’s reduced subsidy. The whole work-life balance discussion is a national debate of importance that is directly related to this legislation before us. We are all torn by the desire to spend more time with our families but still meet our financial commitments. The explosion in housing prices and cost of living increases make it difficult, if not impossible, for some families to survive economically without two incomes. Without question—and this is a positive outcome—this legislation will provide some additional assistance for some workers who have missed out in the past, particularly low-income workers.

Families which choose to have one parent stay at home face similar costs and are also forgoing income. It lacks logic to suggest that they are somehow less deserving of government support. I refer to the $2,000 sum that the minister in her second reading speech indicated would be the cost-benefit, if you like, of choosing between the baby bonus and the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Of course, the scheme is only available to those mothers who meet the workforce criteria. I do welcome the government’s commitment to undertake a review of the impact of this legislation in the months and years ahead, as I believe the big issue we are really not doing enough about is the cost of living pressures and concerns over affordable housing. I do not believe policies such as this, which are designed to push women back into the workforce, often before they are ready, will necessarily address the core of the problem we are presented with in our community.

We do need to be developing policies which make it affordable for more parents to take on the primary caring role, rather than pushing more kids into child care and more mums back into the workplace regardless of their personal preference. Flexibility and choice are key issues in this debate, and I fully support a family’s right to decide that both partners need to return to work. But let us not delude ourselves into thinking that there are no consequences as a result of that decision. Paid parental leave will guide some families to that decision, but this is a much bigger issue than providing 18 weeks pay at the federal minimum wage. This is about looking after the interests of children, keeping families together and building stronger communities. As I said earlier, parenting is by far the toughest and most rewarding job any of us will ever do. If the community and the government consider it is important to provide financial support to assist families, it should be equally distributed to all families.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a proud day for me to be able to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to introduce Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme. This is a long-awaited reform that will massively benefit the working women of Australia. I must say I have been outspoken on this issue of paid parental leave for my entire working life, but now the talk is coming to an end and the legislating is beginning.

I acknowledge first and foremost the tireless work and advocacy of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. In a policy sense, this is very much her baby, although many of us in this place have a sense of maternal pride in this bill. It is important to note that Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme has had a careful and very considered gestation period that has brought us to where we are today. The Rudd government has seen this scheme through a Productivity Commission inquiry, through last year’s budget announcement and through extensive consultations with the community, with business, with family groups, with industry groups and with unions, and I think the minister’s patience and dedication has been something of a marvel.

From my work in the early childhood portfolio, I know how important the early years are in setting up children for life. Learning, as we all know, begins at birth. If mothers are stressed and anxious about a premature return to work, that is a less than ideal start for them and for their young babies. There is certainly a social and an economic dividend in allowing mothers to be given more time to connect with their children. As the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, pointed out yesterday, independent modelling undertaken by Econtech shows that the government’s fully funded 18-week maternity leave scheme could result in an additional 126,000 jobs each year on average to 2040. Let me also acknowledge the work of the member for Hasluck, who I know is also due to speak on this debate. The member for Hasluck is a champion for women in this House. Her work on gender pay equity, through the Making it fair report, is a very important benchmark—and haven’t we been talking about the issue of pay equity for years as well. For decades, actually!

Back in 1975, I remember, in my previous life as a journalist, producing numerous news stories around the United Nations International Women’s Year. The hot issues then, in 1975, were affordable child care, pay equity and paid maternity leave. As we progressed through those decades, certainly the equal pay cases of the 1970s were important. Then there were the big reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments centring on sex discrimination legislation and the creation of the Affirmative Action Agency. But, even after these significant reforms, we still have a situation today where women earn around 82c to the male dollar. This situation explains the very hard work that the Rudd government is doing on what I would call the big troika: affordable child care, paid parental leave and pushing on gender pay equity. And when you consider the combined work across many ministries—be it the work of the families minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for the Status of Women—there is only one conclusion you can draw: the Rudd government is not only a government of great women; it is also a great government for women.

When I think back over my own working life, I recall that in 1975 my female colleagues at the ABC, along with those in other government agencies, were able to access Public Service maternity leave provisions. But for our sisters in other industries it was a much longer wait. By 2007 around 54 per cent of female employees and 50 per cent of male employees had access to some form of paid parental leave, but only one-third of employed women who actually had children received paid parental leave from their employer. Of course, the women left out were low-income workers—women who worked in child care, in retail and in cleaning industries. These women will be the real beneficiaries of this legislation.

The beauty of what is proposed is the government’s 18 weeks parental leave at the minimum wage will come on top of existing industrial arrangements that working women have already won. Primary carers will be able to take the government’s paid parental leave concurrently or sequentially. In other words, they can take their employer’s leave, where it exists, and the government’s leave at the same time. Alternately, they can ‘stack’ it, taking their employer’s leave first and then the government’s 18 weeks on the minimum wage afterwards. All but the highest paid women in the workforce—those earning $150,000 or more a year—will have the opportunity to access this basic entitlement.

Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair for families and, importantly, it is very fair for business. Everyone knows what to expect. Labor has delivered a balanced, considered scheme of up to 18 weeks at the minimum wage for women who give birth or those who adopt a child. This leave will be available to all primary carers who meet the eligibility criteria of work, income and residency tests. The payment will also be transferable to the other parent or carer in exceptional circumstances. It is a fully costed, fully funded, responsible scheme.

I note that there have been a number of third parties who have appreciated the government’s steady hand through these consultations. Jaye Radisich, the CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, COSBOA, had this to say:

What this scheme means is that life is going to be easier for a lot of people. We can do nothing but support that.

He said the paid maternity leave scheme will not mean an added burden for business. The Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, told the Sydney Morning Herald last year that this is exactly the sort of scheme that business wants to support:

Over time it will prove to be another step in getting participation up in the economy.

That is a very important point because, as we know from the material in the Intergenerational report, the future needs of the Australian economy are in many ways reliant on a significant boost in the female participation rate and paid parental leave has a very important part to play in this. These are just a few endorsements. There are many, many more. Locally, in my own electorate of Bennelong, the head of the Ryde Business Forum, Andrew Bland, told me last year this is just the kind of business-friendly approach that his small law firm needs. Andrew and his wife gave up careers in one of the big top-tier law firms in the city. What they did was set up a small practice in North Ryde. Andrew and his wife employ five women, all working mums, in an overall staff of seven. Andrew told me that they see a family-friendly workplace of the type that he and his wife have crafted as absolutely central to their business success and being able to have a life and engage in professional experience as well and that the government scheme is just what his firm needs.

I think it is worth pointing out as well that the government’s new Fair Work system complements the Paid Parental Leave arrangements with 12 months unpaid parental leave for new parents—one of the 10 legislated National Employment Standards which came into effect on 1 January this year. Also there is a parent’s right to request flexible work arrangements like returning to work part time or an additional 12 months of unpaid leave to help care for children under school age. These provisions sit very well together. They are complementary. I stress that employers like Labor’s scheme because it allows them to retain valued skilled staff—and that is of course a cost saver. If you are not constantly going out in the market to recruit extra people after the loss of staff that is certainly a cost saver for business.

If the government can successfully pass this bill through the parliament, and I certainly hope it does, eligible primary carers will be able to lodge their claims through the Family Assistance Office from 1 October this year. For families who are not eligible, the baby bonus as it exists now and the family tax benefit will still be there—a very important point. The introduction of legislation on Australia’s first universal paid parental scheme is a historic and overwhelmingly positive occasion. However, I have to note there are no guarantees here. This bill is not yet through the parliament. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition admit earlier in the debate that he had been wrong for all these years in his personal opposition to paid parental leave. I do wish he had told me that when we were having lunch at the invitation of the Bulletin magazine just a few years ago because, boy, would I have had a great scoop! It would have been on the front page—‘Tony Abbott supports paid parental leave’—because certainly at the time that is not what he was telling others. As many have noted, this is the same man who said that paid maternity leave would happen over his dead body.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said he’d changed his mind.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, yes, he did say that.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’d changed his mind. He’d listened to his wife and children. Some of us have them.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard that, but I have also heard what he has said in the past, and what we have to ask now is: is this the gospel truth? It is one thing for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say this now, and I hope he is right on this, but we do know that he is already burdened by the fact that Australian women do not really trust him on a lot of these issues. I know that Australian women actually nurse a suspicion, well founded, that the Leader of the Opposition is likely to be just a bit too intrusive when it comes to how women manage their day-to-day lives. Modern women do not want a bar of this.

So I think the Leader of the Opposition has belatedly dreamt up a paid parental leave scheme of his own, one which is not entirely supported by his party but one which he says is bigger and better and will be funded by big business. It is a reckless and irresponsible scheme that slugs big business, who will no doubt have to pass the costs on. Fundamentally, the opposition leader has failed to make the case for the design of his scheme, which will include women on high incomes of $150,000 or more, who do not need government support, and be funded by a tax on business. As for the women who will get this maternity leave payment, those on $150,000 income will get a considerable payment far in excess, by the way, of the payment made to stay at home mothers, who will be getting the baby bonus of $5,000. That is an interesting point for the Leader of the Opposition to ponder as so many members on his own side have raised the question of financial adequacy for stay at home mothers, which Labor is determined to preserve by retaining the baby bonus.

It is not beyond belief that what we are seeing from the Leader of the Opposition is perhaps a cynical delaying tactic to try to hobble the scheme that the minister for families and others have patiently progressed over the last few years. But now we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that the bill needs to be enacted soon and he will not oppose the government scheme. Well, if he is fair dinkum he will commit to passing this bill through the parliament before it rises for the winter recess. Let us hope we see that. I think the young families across Australia who have waited for so long deserve that certainty. With pride, with hope and with great enthusiasm, I therefore commend the bill to the House.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and cognate bill. These bills seek to legislate Labor’s second-rate Paid Parental Leave scheme, a scheme that is far from optimal and has been rushed. Implementation of this will have a detrimental impact and will throw even more red tape on Australia’s hardworking small-business operators. Let me be clear: I believe that providing meaningful and equitable support to families is of critical importance. Such support promotes healthy families and healthy relationships.

As the Early years report to the Ontario government found, parenting itself is a critical element of early childhood development and must be supported from the earliest possible stage of the development of the child. A paid parental leave scheme would no doubt contribute to that end. Indeed, I had genuinely hoped that the government would have delivered a better, more thought-out and more family-friendly scheme than that which Labor has served up on this occasion. Much has been said about parents and work in this debate, but isn’t it primarily about our concern that our children be raised in supportive and caring environments? The government’s bills fall well short of ensuring that all Australian families are provided flexibility so that parents are able to choose what is right for their individual circumstances, whether they are at home or in the paid workforce.

In her important study, Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century, Catherine Hakim, a senior research fellow at the London School of Economics, suggests that women are not a homogenous group but three distinct groups with different patterns of behaviours and different responses to policies. According to Hakim:

A minority of women have no interest in employment, careers, or economic independence, and do not plan to work long term unless things go seriously wrong for them. Their aim is to marry as well as they can and give up paid employment to become full-time homemakers and mothers. The group includes highly educated women as well as those who do not get any qualifications.

In contrast, other women actively reject the sexual division of labor in the home, expect to work fulltime and continuously throughout life, and prefer symmetrical roles for husband and wife rather than separate roles.

The third group—

which she describes as ‘adaptive women’—

is numerically dominant: women who are determined to combine employment and family work, so become secondary earners. They may work full-time early in life, but later switch to part-time jobs on a semipermanent basis, and/or to intermittent employment.

In her more recent study, Models of the family in modern societies, Hakim confirms her theory by examining work preferences in Europe, particularly Spain and the UK. Her conclusions are reflected in numerous surveys and by family and work choices in Australia.

Based on Parliamentary Library data, we know that about 25 per cent of families with children are headed by a couple with one partner working full time and one partner at home full time; another 25 per cent of families are headed by a couple with one partner working full time and one working part time; about 27 per cent of families have both partners working full time; in six per cent of families neither partner has a job; and 23 per cent of families are headed by a sole parent, of whom about 38 per cent are jobless. The adaptive approach of families to work is also illustrated in the work choices of families with children. Of partnered women aged 35 to 39, 78 per cent of those with no children work full time, compared to 12 per cent who work part time or are not in the workforce. However, only 27 per cent of women with children under 15 work full time, compared to 37 per cent who work part time or are not in the labor force. For those with children over 15, 41 per cent work full time, while 34 per cent either work part time or are not in the labour force.

If this analysis of the choices that parents make about family and work is correct, policies that impact upon the 60 per cent or more of women who are adaptive in their work-family lifestyles are the most likely to provide the choice that families desire. Hakim rightly argues that the role of government is not to favour any of these families. The goal is government neutrality towards all families. These observations suggest that parents should have flexibility and choice in their family and work arrangements. Such choice is not just about the hours worked at any one time but about the arrangements they make over the course of their lives.

While a library of books has been written about the so-called ‘time bind’, to adopt Arlie Russell Hochschild’s well-known title, little has been written about the work-family balance over the life course. The emphasis is on short-term, paid maternity leave, or parental leave, for those in the workforce, but that ignores the reality that parents balance their work and family responsibilities between them over decades, not just a few weeks or a few months after the birth of a child. The life course approach is all the more important with the delay in partnering, the increase in longevity and the ageing of our population.

Labor’s scheme does not sufficiently recognise that parents have different patterns of family responsibilities and paid work over their life cycle. Moreover, the economic circumstances in which Australian families currently find themselves, namely the increasing costs of living and a housing affordability crisis, as well as interest rate rises, have led to more families requiring two incomes just to make ends meet. The length of paid parental leave now available to parents through private enterprise and the Public Service varies greatly from a few days to 18 weeks. Few schemes meet the widely acknowledged ideal leave period of a full six months. The government has chosen not to adopt the internationally recognised standard of six months but has chosen to legislate for 18 weeks, which the Productivity Commission recommended with the strong expectation that employers would top up the leave entitlement to make up the 26 weeks. But that is problematic. This extra time would be made up with annual leave or long service leave paid for by the woman’s employer and would therefore not be available to all working women—for example, those working in casual jobs, who would not have any accrued leave. The bills impose an additional administrative burden on small business, requiring employers to act as paymasters, having to pay the government’s parental leave to employees who are participating. These same small businesses will be liable for state payroll tax for the employee on leave as well as for their replacement.

But Labor’s second-rate scheme is no great surprise. Let us not forget that this is the same government which is pursuing, in part, an antifamily agenda: stripping funding, slashing appropriations and reducing services that assist families to stay together and save marriages. A total of $50 million of family related funding has been slashed in this budget. This same minister has designed a scheme which is so complex that even yesterday evening, when the member for Murray and I received a briefing about this legislative package, the minister’s own departmental officials could not answer simple questions about the operation of the bill. They could not advise, for example, how self-employed mothers would be treated under the proposed new legislation. And while the minister has rushed to get this bill into the House—to get it on the agenda in an election year so she can make up for her failure to look after Australian families—her officials have confirmed the accompanying rules will not be ready until at least 1 October this year. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the government is allowing a six-month moratorium on businesses having to make payments to employees so that these details can be ironed out. But there is no guarantee that this government—notorious for its widespread, costly and detrimental public policy failures—can effectively deliver such a scheme.

The coalition recognises that a paid parental leave scheme is only one part of the role of government in supporting families as they raise the next generation of Australians. Public policy discussions on this issue have been had around the world. Indeed, beginning in the 1930s, Sweden introduced policies that enabled women to maintain their position in the paid workforce whilst having children. The coalition has now put forward its proposed system, which is in stark contrast to Labor’s second-rate scheme. Moreover, we have said that paid parental leave is only one part of family policy and that policy must recognise all parents, whether in the paid work force at a particular time or not.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and cognate bill. Can I say how proud I am to be part of a government that is delivering a paid parental leave scheme for the first time ever in this country. This bill will benefit many workers and many families across this country. This bill introduces Australia’s first national, government funded, paid parental leave scheme from 1 January 2011. Parental leave pay will be provided for up to 18 weeks at the national minimum wage and be paid to eligible primary carers who have or adopt a child on or after 1 January 2011 and who can satisfy work, income and residency tests. In most cases the mother will be the primary carer, but allowance is also made for transfers of all or part of the payment to the other parent or to another carer in exceptional circumstances.

From 1 July 2011 parental leave pay may be claimed through the Family Assistance Office up to three months before the birth or adoption. The government will fund employers to pay their eligible long-term employees as part of the scheme. Eligible claimants who are not paid by their employers will be paid by the Family Assistance Office. This bill also contains integrity provisions, such as compliance rules for employers and right of review for employees to ensure that parental leave pay is paid to eligible parents in a timely manner. Any delays, disputes or debts that may arise in the payment process will be managed appropriately by the Family Assistance Office and the Fair Work Ombudsman, depending on who is making payments. Other family payments, such as the baby bonus and the family tax benefit, will remain available for families not eligible for the scheme and for those who choose not to participate in the scheme. An eligible parent could also receive family tax benefit part A while participating in the scheme.

This bill is part of a package of bills which will include the consequential amendments to related legislation, including family assistance, income tax and child support. This package of bills will provide necessary consequential amendments and transitional arrangements associated with the introduction of what will become the new Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, including phasing in the participation of employers in the scheme. Employers may opt to provide any eligible employee with parental leave pay from 1 January 2011. The requirement for employers to pay parental leave pay to their eligible long-term employees will take effect from 1 July 2011.

I said before that this will provide a significant benefit for families across this country. This is long overdue. Australia has been one of only two OECD countries, along with the United States of America, which do not have a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. The Rudd government’s decision is historic. We have committed $731 million over five years to Australia’s first comprehensive paid parental leave scheme from 1 January 2011. The scheme will cost approximately $260 million per annum and provide paid parental leave to approximately 148,000 new parents per year.

We have heard from a number of members on the other side about their views on paid parental leave. Before I comment on some of the views that have been expressed here today in speaking on this bill, I think it is important that we go back and look at the past comments and views of those who we have already heard from today. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, is now out there espousing the importance of paid parental leave. But the reality is that he has always opposed paid parental leave, even saying that he would see it introduced over the Howard government’s dead body.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But he listened to his wife and children.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has been married for more than 12 month and is suddenly listening to his wife and children now rather than over the last decade—that is my point to those on the other side who seek to interject. I think it is wonderful that any member would listen to their partner in relation to the importance of issues such as this. But I suggest that that discussion should have been had and those listening skills exercised well before now.

As a working mother I am very proud of the experience I bring to this parliament, but we do have a new position. The coalition has put out a wonderful paid parental leave consultation document—The coalition’s direct action plan on paid parental leave. It says that paid parental leave ought to be part and parcel of any decent system of employment entitlements, such as sick pay, holiday pay and retirement benefits. I totally agree that paid parental leave should form part and parcel of any decent system of employment entitlements.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, again, let us look at what—

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Under section 65, the member is entitled to be heard without noise, disturbance or interruption.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer this House to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and to his understanding of what a ‘decent system of employment entitlements’ is. Tony Abbott has said that Work Choices was good for wages, jobs and workers. He claims that Work Choices was good because it was improved and that he would not rule out bringing back Work Choices but just rule out the phrase ‘Work Choices’. The Leader of the Opposition claims that getting rid of Work Choices actually hurt jobs and that Work Choices would have been good during the global financial crisis. Tony Abbott was opposed to any changes to Work Choices, because he thought it could not be improved and that it improved our standard of living. The Leader of the Opposition also claimed that Work Choices was economically advantageous.

When we hear those on the other side arguing about what fair and decent conditions are and their concern about women in the workforce and paid parental leave, we must consider that in light of their past statements and what they say in their current document on paid parental leave about what they consider to be decent employment entitlements. On this issue of what decent working entitlements are in the eyes of those on the other side, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, I refer the House to Tony Abbott’s address in reply to the 2010 budget on 13 May. In that address the Leader of the Opposition said that the first principle of government should be to do no harm and that the coalition wants an Australia that is ‘prosperous, united and respected, where families’ choices are taken seriously by government’. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that the ‘former government’s workplace reforms went too far’ but ‘helped to create more than two million new jobs’ and ‘lift real wages by 20 per cent’. He then stated that the coalition would ‘seek to take the unfair dismissal monkey off the back of small businesses, which are more like families than institutions’. He said:

We will make Labor’s transitional employment agreements that are being phased out under the Fair Work Act and Labor’s individual flexibility agreements more flexible. We have faith in Australia’s workers who are not as easily pushed around and exploited as the ACTU’s dishonest ad campaign is already making out.

The Leader of the Opposition showed in his address in reply that when they talk in their paid parental leave consultation paper about a parcel of a decent system of employment entitlements this is what they are actually talking about. Under AWAs, workers lost basic conditions without any compensation: a 64 per cent cut in annual leave loading, a 63 per cent cut in penalty rates, a 52 per cent cut in shiftwork loadings, a 51 per cent cut in overtime loadings, a 48 per cent cut in monetary allowances, a 46 per cent cut in public holiday pay, a 40 per cent cut in rest breaks and a 36 per cent cut in declared public holidays—and 22 per cent provided workers with no pay rise, some for up to five years.

This is what is meant by decent working conditions, according to the opposition and its leader. We know that those most likely to be affected by changes such as these flexibility agreements are women, who are predominantly employed in casual and part-time positions. So I ask those on the other side, when they stand there arguing that their paid parental leave scheme would deliver more, to be honest with the Australian people about what they consider to be decent employment entitlements for workers in this country.

There are many reasons this legislation should be introduced and passed by the House and the Senate. Women should have the choice to stay at home or to return to the workforce. Contrary to the belief of the member for Gippsland that this Paid Parental Leave scheme would force women back into the workforce, what it does is provide them with financial support that they do not have right now in this country. Some have been fortunate enough, through negotiations with their employers, to have a paid parental leave scheme, but that is not the case for every worker across the country, and that is something that this government seeks to rectify.

The member for Gippsland went a little bit further in his comments about women returning to the workforce, and I totally agree with him when he says that women should have choice—absolutely; women should have choice whether they want to return to the workforce or not. But when you take that argument one step further and start saying that it is not in the interests of the child for that parent, particularly that mother, to return to the workforce then I believe that you unfairly start to place an unwarranted burden on those mothers who choose to, or who must, return to the workforce for financial reasons.

I know that there are many members in this parliament right now who are working mothers. There are those who have become parents and become mothers while they have been serving as an elected representative in this House. The member for Gellibrand, the member for Sydney, the member for Ballarat and the member for Indi have all had babies while they have been members of this House. We should not judge them or in any way claim that it is not in their children’s interests that they not only be great parents but also serve in this parliament—and serve their community—while they are fulfilling that important role of being a parent. We have moved beyond the argument that it is only those who stay at home that provide a good quality of life or the best upbringing for their children. It is a choice and we should not judge that choice.

There is another issue that needs to be discussed when alternative positions are put forward in this debate about the Paid Parental Leave Scheme—that is, the Rudd Labor government’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme is fully costed and funded. The alternative scheme proposed by the opposition is a tax. It is a tax on business. It is a 1.7 per cent tax, at a time when the Rudd Labor government is putting forward a reduction in tax to business, a two per cent reduction in company tax. To scrap the Rudd Labor government’s reduction in company tax and then introduce a new tax on business would make businesses almost four per cent worse off under a coalition government. And then of course we have the denial. We have had Tony Abbott saying that his paid parental leave scheme, with a tax on business, would not create any flow-on effect of increased costs: ‘Of course not! We put a tax on big business. They will not increase their costs to smaller business, who will then not flow it on to the consumer.’ Let us be real! Business has already come out and said that if Tony Abbott, in government, introduced a 1.7 per cent tax, of course that cost would flow onto their customers, and then small business would flow that cost onto their customers, the households. What we have is Tony Abbott holding out in one hand a paid parental leave scheme, saying ‘Isn’t this wonderful! And, by the way, when you go to the grocery store and you buy baby formula, or nappies or anything else for your new baby, you will be paying with the other hand—because we’ve hit business for this paid parental leave and those costs will flow.’ It is not just a denial; it is misleading the Australian public to say that a 1.7 per cent tax on big business will not flow to the consumer at the end of the day. They will pay under a Tony Abbott scheme, I can guarantee that.

This alternative scheme—that does not even appear to have the full backing of those on the other side—is a tactic. It is an excuse not to support this bill in this parliament right now. The fact is that the opposition have not come out and said what they are going to do with the bill, whether they are supporting it or whether they are not. If you listened to the speakers, you would certainly be led to believe they would be voting against this scheme. What I say to those opposition members who may be considering voting against this scheme is: you cannot do this to those people in the workforce who are expecting this Paid Parental Leave Scheme to be in place. They are relying on it and they are planning around this scheme. You have a responsibility to support this scheme, a scheme that will be introduced for the first time ever in this country. Be honest. As a government you had 11 years to do this. You chose not to. So just step aside and let this scheme be introduced. That is what you would do if you were a responsible opposition, but the reality is you are not a responsible opposition. You are erratic. You are a risk to workers in this country. This bill should be supported. It has my absolute support and if those opposite choose to oppose this bill they should come to the electorate of Petrie and explain to all of those women in the workforce why they oppose it.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010  and cognate bill. I support the contribution made earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition—for the information of the member of Petrie, that is the official title of the member for Warringah—which was well thought through and about a direct action policy that this side of the House will address upon coming to government. I notice the member for Petrie, while acknowledging that several members of this place have proudly had children while they have been here, referred only to the mothers in this place. There are of course some fathers in this place, who have got young children too. This is about families and not necessarily just about one parent or the other. It is worth while acknowledging that the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, the member for Maribyrnong, who is at the table, recently became a dad. Pressure and quite large expectations are put on fathers with young kids, particularly on those who have very strong-willed wives.

This is a very important issue for the parliament to be debating and one which has been debated in the community for some time. It has been addressed largely through the market, particularly in the last 10 years, through enterprise agreements and workplace agreements starting mainly with government. Government organisations were the first to introduce into their employment agreements paid maternity leave provisions. Shortly thereafter they were followed by major big employers like banks and particularly employers who had a large female workforce, which made a lot of sense. The challenge has always been small business. Most large businesses, and I suspect a fair proportion of medium-sized businesses, today have some sort of paid maternity leave as part of their employment conditions, because if they do not they lose very high quality female workers who go to government employment or large corporations which do have paid maternity leave schemes. Ensuring that small business gets assistance to do what large businesses do themselves is one of the areas that the Leader of the Opposition addressed quite well in the opposition parental leave policy that he released a couple of months ago.

Small business is never going to be able to provide for large paid maternity leave schemes. It is simply not possible, particularly in the industries where a lot of the employees are female such as retail or hairdressing and so forth. For instance, my mother-in-law and sister-in-law run a small hairdressing salon. They would never be able to have a paid maternity leave scheme without some sort of government assistance. The country has moved in the last few years from not having a government legislated paid maternity leave scheme to the point now where it is necessary that we do so. I agree very much with the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks in that respect. We have moved from the time of the Howard government’s approach to this issue to the new reality of the times and, therefore, I think our policy makes a lot of sense.

It was a very proud record that the former government had on assistance to families. In fact, it was one of the core promises of the first-term Howard government to implement assistance to families through direct payments. Those payments increased during the time of the Howard government, directly assisting families, whether for stay-at-home mothers or for those in the workforce. There was a criticism, particularly by those on the other side and some in the bureaucracy, that the Howard government focused too much assistance on stay-at-home mothers as some of sort of old conservative ideal. I appreciate that the member for Petrie has acknowledged the contribution that stay-at-home mothers make in our society and the importance of those women having the choice.

The other area where the Howard government did create better circumstances for families was in its building of an economy where a lot of jobs were created. Government never creates jobs; it creates the circumstances in which jobs can be created. In the last few years of the Howard government the jobs that were created were full-time jobs. They were not part-time and casual jobs or the sorts of jobs that we used to hear those on the other side rail against constantly. I remember a comment from the now Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—the minister responsible for this bill—in about 2003 when she said on Meet the Press that a casual job was not a real job. The record of the Howard government, while never saying a job was not a real job, is such that most of the jobs created in the Australian economy were full time, which is much better for families because they have the certainty of ongoing employment and they have the opportunity to improve their economic circumstances. Full-time employment is particularly important in dealing with banks and so forth. One of the proudest records of the former government was job creation and job creation for female employees. It is a very proud record.

One of the impacts of the Gillard ‘fair union act’ is that it reduces flexibility for employers and reduces the opportunity, particularly for females, to get full-time work. The major culprit of that for small businesses, as the shadow minister at the table, the member for Dunkley, knows all too well, was the reintroduction of the job-destroying unfair dismissal laws, which affect working women more than any other segment of the employed workforce. Women end up being forced into casual jobs as small business tries very hard to avoid being caught by the unfair dismissal burden that the ‘fair union act’—implemented by the Deputy Prime Minister—has placed back around their neck. An Abbott led government will reduce that burden for small business and create the circumstances where more jobs can be created, particularly more full-time jobs.

I think the bill before us is very much an encapsulation of the problem with the Rudd Labor government: they just do not think through the policies they are pursuing and they do not get the detail right. We have seen it with the insulation program, with the Green Loans Program, with the computers in schools program, with the school memorial halls program and again with this bill, which is poorly drafted, leaves a lot of questions unanswered and seemingly creates a red-tape burden for small business which will make it more difficult for small business employers. That is typical of this government, which fails to understand how small business works. While this bill is a step on the right path, it is not well drafted and it is certainly well short of the paid parental leave plan announced by the Leader of the Opposition, with the reasons for that plan very well articulated earlier today.

The Liberal Party’s plan will provide payment to all full-time, part-time and casual workers provided they meet the work test, the 330 hours in a 10-month period over 13 months. It will provide primary carers—in the vast majority of families, mothers, but in some circumstances fathers—with 26 weeks paid parental leave at full replacement pay, up to a maximum salary of $150,000 per annum or the federal minimum wage, whichever is greater. It will be available to all employees, including contractors and the self-employed, who meet the work eligibility test. It includes superannuation contributions at the mandatory rate of nine per cent, an area where the government has failed. The government talks a lot about superannuation and how it is allegedly a friend of superannuation yet fails to deliver. The coalition’s plan includes two weeks of ‘use it or lose it’ parental leave for the non-primary carer, usually the father, to encourage the father to support the primary carer and be with the baby in those very early weeks, which we all acknowledge to be a very important time and a fantastic time to be around.

The coalition’s scheme will signal to the community that taking time out of the workforce to care for children should be considered a normal part of the work-life cycle of parents. I think that is a very important element of this issue. We must encourage circumstances that ensure Australians will continue to have babies. It is important that Australia continues to have a solid birth rate, and we have a sustainable plan to do that.

If you compare the Liberal Party’s plan as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition with the bill before the House, you can see they are two starkly different systems—although they are similarly opt-in, subject to eligibility. Under the coalition’s plan, the period of leave is 26 weeks, compared to Labor’s 18 weeks, which is a big difference. The coalition rate of pay is at replacement wage or the federal minimum wage, whichever is greater, to a cap, which we have highlighted; Labor’s rate is the minimum wage. So there is very large difference between our plan and the government’s plan that is before the parliament.

There have been some critics of our plan. Understandably, there are people in the community who have very strong views about this type of government assistance. There were some critical comments made by the member for Petrie—ill-informed comments, unsurprisingly. She was off script, which is always dangerous with the member for Petrie. The Liberal Party policy will apply a levy to a small number of businesses who have a taxable income above $5 million. The member for Petrie made some interesting comments about the flow-on effects of taxes on business which I note that, in another environment, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer denied exist. The member for Petrie made it very clear she thinks that, when you put a great big new tax on business, there are flow-on effects to other services in the economy, which is quite different from what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are saying about their great big new tax on mining.

So there have been some critics of the levy. Our position is quite clear: when we get the budget back into reasonable shape, when we pay off Labor’s debt and get it back into surplus, we will be in a position to remove that levy. That is the economically responsible way to go about it. If we were not in the position of being nearly $100 billion in net debt, we would not have to apply this levy; however, we are in a position where the Labor government has spent the proceeds of the former government but also borrowed $100 billion, most of which has been wasted through ill-conceived, badly thought through and badly implemented programs. That is unfortunately a necessary element of what is an important policy announcement by the Leader of the Opposition and one that I do support—otherwise, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out, we will be in the situation where we are missing out on very productive and high-quality workers at a time when we will need more workers in our workforce.

We have a challenge with our ageing population; we all know that. It is coming on us very quickly. We have a large number of baby boomers in the system who are now getting to retirement age, so it is very important that we have these high-quality, mostly well-educated young Australian women back contributing to the economy, and they cannot possibly do that in many cases, particularly in the major cities, without some sort of assistance. Without that, they will either not have a family or be in very difficult financial circumstances. That is the reality of the age we live in, with the challenge of housing affordability, particularly for young people. This is a necessary policy, in my view, to help alleviate those costs.

There are people from previous generations who do not think it is needed because they did it without any government assistance, and I understand that they have that point of view. I say to them, however, that times have changed and that it is more difficult now to cope with a single wage when having a family and we do need to take steps to ensure it is in fact affordable to have children. Then, when they have had those children, it is important to be able to get that productive capacity that is sitting there back into the economy reasonably quickly so we can continue to grow and raise our living standards, as we all like to do.

So I think the Leader of the Opposition should be congratulated for pushing the envelope on this issue. He should be congratulated for understanding the needs of families in our society. He thinks deeply about these issues and he has understood not only the importance to women and young dads out there in the economy but also the impact on small business, which is a very important element of what we on this side of the chamber are proposing.

It is unfortunate that the Rudd government, as usual, are so set in their ways and blinkered in their approach to this important issue that they do not see the reality of this. They do not see how this is a much better and more well-thought-through plan that can be implemented as policy. They should amend this bill and change it to reflect those policy announcements by the Leader of the Opposition. Then we could have bipartisan support in this place for a very important policy area. With those few remarks, I will conclude.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this historic occasion in our nation’s history in terms of workforce participation, the rights of women and the role of families in our society. This is truly a wonderful initiative of the Rudd Labor government, long overdue, and those opposite should be ashamed—simply ashamed—of their inaction and inactivity during their many long years of tenure on the treasury bench. They have a disgraceful, woeful record when it comes to caring for the rights of women and supporting families in our community.

The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 introduce Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme, to commence from 1 January 2011. Eligible working families of babies born or adopted from that date next year will receive 18 weeks parental leave, paid at the federal minimum wage. This scheme, as the member for Petrie correctly pointed out, is fully costed and fully funded. We have put aside more than $250 million to assist in establishing Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme, and we have followed the Productivity Commission’s recommendations. During late 2009, we had 32 consultation sessions held with over 200 key stakeholders, including employer groups, unions and other organisations, to discuss how this could happen. The recommendations of the Productivity Commission report suggest that we should undertake this type of scheme, and so we are doing it. Unlike those opposite, we are engaging in real action. Those opposite had 12 years of inaction on this topic.

This Paid Parental Leave scheme will be available to all working parents, including full-time, part-time, seasonal and casual workers; contractors; the self-employed; and people who have many employers—because that is often the case; to make ends meet, people need multiple jobs on occasion. The Paid Parental Leave Bill is particularly important to me as the father of two daughters at university, one 19 and the other nearly 21—both aspire to working lives and to careers in the future—and as someone who was in small business for more than 20 years. We have many on this side of the House who have experience in small business: the member for Forde, the member for Makin, the member for Dawson and me. With extensive business experience, we know how important it is to keep good employees. We know how vital it is. It has been estimated on many occasions that it would cost a professional practice such as that of an accountant or a lawyer more than $100,000 to lose a valuable female employee. The Paid Parental Leave scheme will make a big difference in terms of workforce participation, productivity and profit for our businesses large and small. This is a very important bill funded by the Australian government, and it is set to start early next year.

It is often dangerous in your own electorate when you are there by yourself and you think no-one is listening to you, even if you are someone as senior in this parliament as the Leader of the Opposition, because you can look like you are at home—on home ground and home territory—but what you say is judged by those who listen—often via the media locally, sometimes at a state level and sometimes at a national level. Certainly, when you are the Leader of the Opposition and you are making speeches on International Women’s Day in Manly, New South Wales, you have to be careful. I heard what he had to say. I saw him on the TV, pink tie and all, looking very feminine in terms of his views, as if he had got into the scheme and the groove of things. I thought I would listen to what he had to say, and I had a look at the transcript of what he had to say that day. This is about what the coalition is proposing. He was talking about his scheme. It really was a thought bubble—something that must have come to mind because he had to say something when it came to International Women’s Day on 8 March 2010.

He talked about his new scheme, which is going to put what he calls a 1.7 per cent ‘levy’—not a tax; he does not want to use the word ‘tax’, because he thinks he is ideologically opposed to the use of the word ‘tax’—on the taxable income of businesses earning more than $5 million a year, and that will be about 3,200 companies. Some of those 3,200 companies are big companies—fair enough—but some of them are medium-sized companies, with $5 million turnover. Then he went on to talk about when he wants to bring it in. He talked about the fact that he wants to bring this in and about when he is going to do it—because you are not sure about it when you read the speech; you have a bit of a look and you think, ‘I’m not actually certain.’ He said: ‘It would be better if these things could be done. We’d like to bring down company tax rate.’ He is not supporting our reduction in company tax rate. He said the next government’s priority would be to repay what he calls Labor’s debt and then reducing personal income tax. ‘Then, after that, when we’ve done all this sort of thing, we might make some headroom to get rid of this paid parental leave levy’—or he thinks it is a levy. ‘We might get rid of it.’ He does not tell us at all when he is going to bring it in.

I had a look at what some of the media have said about this. I looked at what Matthew Franklin said in the Australian. I saw what the Business Council of Australia said about this scheme. They represent more than 100 of Australia’s biggest companies. They commented that those companies are already doing the heavy lifting on paid parental leave. So he got the Business Council of Australia against him with his comments. Then he got the Australian Industry Group, uniting with Sharan Burrow, the President of the ACTU, against him as well. It is not often you can get the President of the ACTU, the Executive Director of the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia united against you in one fell swoop. That was quite miraculous. It was quite a feat he managed to do.

This of course is from the bloke who famously said in 2002 that there would be a compulsory paid maternity leave scheme over the government’s dead body. I know the Leader of the Opposition has had some religious training. That is a road to Damascus conversion if I have ever seen one. It is probably the best miracle in 2,000 years.

I had a further look at it to see if I could get some more clarification. I was wondering when the scheme was going to come in. We have not heard much from those opposite about when the scheme is going to come in. Obviously, this caused them a bit of difficulty. On 18 March, only a matter of days after his statement that was made without consultation with his caucus, he made a couple of comments. People were asking when the scheme was going to come in. The Leader of the Opposition said in a doorstop interview on 10 March 2010:

We will do it as quickly as we reasonably can, should we win the next election. Now, I would be amazed if we cannot do this within two years. I would certainly anticipate that it would …

How obtuse, vague and esoteric is that? There is no guarantee this is coming in. Is this the gospel truth, is it Holy Writ engraved in stone or what is it? We are not quite sure. It is sort of qualified. It is general; there is no specificity.

I generally agree with the shadow minister for the status of women, the member for Murray, on a lot of women’s issues. She purports to be a small ‘l’ liberal. It must be an extraordinarily lonely existence for people like her among those opposite. She is losing friends, and the member for Kooyong is sort of going as well. When asked on 15 March 2010 in a doorstop interview about when this was going to happen, she said:

As soon as we could get it into place and we would hope that would be within, you know, a few months of getting into office …

Here I have the coalition’s paid parental leave policy. It is entitled The Coalition’s Direct Action Plan on Paid Parental Leave, but I would actually call it a non-action plan. It is a consultation document. They said they were going to consult people. The Leader of the Opposition did not consult his caucus. When I saw the morose, sullen and depressed looking faces of those opposite when he was speaking before, it was pretty clear there is not a lot of support over there for this thought bubble.

We do not know whether this is going to be brought in within a few months or a few years. There are conditions, qualifications, subterfuges and generalisations. It is a great story but, like The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland and The Lord of the Rings, it is a work of fiction. It simply is not true. It is an interesting read because it talks about things they have done in the past. It does not talk about the inaction of the Howard government on paid parental leave.

There is no date for when it is going to be brought in, so you have to trust him; you have to trust his word. Is this the Leader of the Opposition in a Kerry O’Brien 7.30 Report stance and position or is it the person we heard today with a hand on his heart talking about how much he supports women’s rights and issues that affect Australia’s working families? We are not quite sure. When I think of The Lord of the Rings, I do not think he is action man and I do not think he is all-wise and all-powerful like Gandalf. In fact, I think he is more like Saruman. He has been a religious wizard who in the pursuit of power has decided to abandon all his previously held beliefs because he so desperately wants the prize of power.

Paid maternity leave is just a subterfuge to ensure that the women of Australia who have young children vote for him. We know they abandoned the coalition in 2007 and he has to get them back. They were worried about Work Choices. They were worried about their 16-year-old daughters negotiating with Woolworths on AWAs. They were worried about their husbands at factories in Ipswich in my electorate and the rural areas outside not being able to negotiate with their bosses and having AWAs thrust into their hands. The coalition have to get them back, so the Leader of the Opposition came up with a spontaneous extemporaneous statement. Now they are scurrying behind their backs to try to do it.

They claim they support business. As the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy said, this is going to cost them more than $10 billion. Anyone who thinks that these 3,200 companies are going to suck it in and suck it up and not pass on the costs to them is kidding himself. They will; the big companies will pass it on. Those opposite masquerade as supporters of business, and they are not. The next time the voters go to the polls they will have a choice between Labor, who wants to reduce company tax from 30 per cent to 28 per cent, and those opposite, who want to increase company tax from 30 per cent to 31.7 per cent. It is pretty clear which side of politics is in the business of reducing taxation.

The Leader of the Opposition realised that he was in a bit of trouble after the 7.30 Report fiasco. He went up to Queensland and realised that he had to say a few things. So he had an interview with ABC Capricornia. They put it on him a bit in the interview. I have got a transcript of the interview. He said that he does not like the idea of taxes and he kept on about how much he did not like the idea of taxes. In the interview with Aaron Stevens on ABC Capricornia he said:

Well, we’ll just have to wait and see—

and this is about how it is going to affect him in the polls—

I try to be fair dinkum with people. I do not like tax and I always try to avoid it.

That is his own statement. Fair dinkum, the coalition is all over the place on this and when you listened to their speakers this morning you would never know whether they were Arthur or Martha, whether they were going to support our scheme or oppose it.

Certainly you do not hear much with respect to their conviction in supporting their own policy. The member for Gippsland was all over the place on the issue. It did not look as though he really supports it. There was no love for his own policy in what he said. And I have heard the member for Mayo speak many times. Of course he is a passionate supporter of Work Choices—we have all known that; he is one of the architects of Work Choices—but in fact he cannot even get the Fair Work Australia legislation in terms of the nomenclature; he cannot even work it out. But when you listened to the member for Mayo there was no conviction in his voice to support this particular scheme because he knows it is a tax on business.

We are supporting working families. We are supporting the women of Australia. We are also supporting those men who take seriously their parental responsibilities and want to share in those first few months of a child’s life. Twenty per cent of children under the age of two are primarily bonded to their fathers and fathers play an important role as role models and caregivers. Many of them are substantive caregivers with respect to their children in the early years. Labor recognises modern families and the challenges they face. Those who seem to be living in a 1950s world—

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hardly!

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the truth. That is what they have been like. There was no parental leave scheme put by those opposite at any stage. Where were the small ‘l’ liberals then? Was a submission put to the cabinet then? Where was the private member’s bill then from those opposite? It did not happen, and never would under archconservative former Prime Minister John Howard. Nor would it happen under the truth-teller at that stage, the now Leader of the Opposition, because when he said that it would happen over his dead body that was the truth.

Those people who go to the polls next time can have a choice. Do they believe the Leader of the Opposition who in a moment of sincerity back in 2002 said he would not do this at any stage, or do they believe the Leader of the Opposition when, in his own electorate on International Women’s Day, he had come up with something? I wonder what his conversation would have been like with the shadow Treasurer and the shadow minister for finance. We had the fiasco last week with the National Press Club and with the budget-in-reply speech, but it must have been an incredibly interesting conversation after he said: ‘Fellers, we have come up with this scheme. It’s going to be great. I have backflipped and I have changed my whole view. St Paul had nothing on my conversion experience, fellers. I have changed. I am a New Age feller.’ People are not going to believe that, and those sitting on this side do not believe those opposite would ever bring in a paid parental leave scheme if they had the chance. It is simply nonsense.

This is a historic day for the women and men and children in the Australian family. This is important legislation. I want to pay tribute to the many women in this caucus; to the great champions of the ACTU who have fought hard in relation to this; to the businesses that had the foresight to permit paid parental leave schemes to operate in their businesses for working women and working men; but also to those progressive forces in this community who have sought to ensure that all of us will go forward together with greater prosperity, with greater productivity and with greater profit for our businesses, which are the lifeblood of the Australian community.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really pleased to speak on the bill which introduces the government’s paid parental leave scheme and, in so doing, I draw a clear distinction between the government scheme and the one that the coalition is proposing by way of amendments to this Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the cognate bill. We would all agree that paid parental leave is needed desperately, and needed sooner rather than later. The length of paid parental leave now available to parents through private enterprise and the Public Service varies greatly from, in some cases, a few days, to 18 weeks. Few schemes meet the widely acknowledged ideal leave period of a full six months, and that is something that we would agree on both sides of the parliament. Mothers choosing to stay at home bond with their babies over those vital few months of life and they really do need a full six months.

Labor has not adopted the internationally recognised standard of six months, but their scheme—the subject of this bill—has chosen 18 weeks, hoping that employers would top-up the leave entitlement to make up to 26 weeks. Most employers that do not already have a more generous scheme in place are just not in a position to be able to afford to top-up any new scheme. Meanwhile, the inequity which sees only some 23 per cent of the lower paid and part-time working women being offered parental leave continues to persist. These bills will do nothing about that inequity. So if you are a young woman entering the workforce now, you are most likely to choose an employer that has their own paid parental leave scheme in place rather than one that does not. After the government scheme commences, you are still more likely to seek out an employer with a company scheme—for example, the Public Service or any one of Australia’s large corporations—rather than a small business which has been funded to provide the government’s 18-week minimum wage scheme.

The government says that its funding the scheme removes the burden from small business and, yes, it is true that it is paying the amount of money that women will receive under the scheme, but the businesses themselves are still left with considerable red tape, and that is something that we should not overlook. They may be liable for state payroll tax. They may be liable for workers compensation for those employees on parental leave as well as for their replacements. They will have to manage the payments and keep yet more records and meet yet more standards of accountability. So make no mistake—this is a burden on small business.

The fact that the government is having to introduce a six-month moratorium for businesses so they will not have to make payments to employees until all of these details can be negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states does not bode well for an efficiently managed program.

It is also important to note that the government’s scheme does not include superannuation. Given that the broken work history of women is contributing so much to their poorer retirement incomes, superannuation should be included.

The real problem with the government’s scheme is that the payment of paid parental leave at the minimum wage is simply not adequate. Parents will not be able to afford to take leave at the minimum wage and may decide not to have a baby or to delay having a baby, choices which regrettably will result in fewer babies being born in Australia. This is the key to the reason why modern working mothers and fathers need the coalition’s scheme and not Mr Rudd’s scheme. We need to see more babies being born in Australia.

There is of course a human aspect to the policy in this area, and that is just as important as the economic aspect. But the economic aspect should not be overlooked. The coalition’s policy can be seen in terms of its productivity. Without improvements to productivity, a country’s standard of living will decline. It is not a remote economic concept; it is absolutely central to the real world. Our ageing workforce, as the cohort of baby boomers moves through, is not being followed by a similar number of young people. That is a challenge that successive reports, including the Intergenerational report, have highlighted. A sinking birthrate threatens productivity like nothing else.

In 1988 there were 246,193 births in Australia. In 2008, 20 years later, there were 296,621 births. That is a modest increase of perhaps 50,000. It is a very small increase over a 20-year period, particularly when you consider the ageing of the population. The more important indicator is fertility rate, babies born per woman. That rate was 1.831 in 1988 and it dropped to 1.762 in 1998. It appears now to be on its way back up. It was 1.969 in 2008 and there is some evidence that the baby bonus of the previous coalition government was partly responsible for this.

In any case the fertility rate in Australia is too low. It is below two. That should sound alarm bells when we consider the future responsibilities of Australia’s workforce in terms of what they will have to provide in national income for the ageing generation. When women cannot afford to have children, they put off having children. Then it is too late and it is certainly too late to have the number of children they might like in their ideal family. We all know that family sizes are reducing over time. This is also about perhaps stopping after two or three children because of financial commitments, when in an ideal world a family might have one more child.

The coalition’s paid parental leave scheme is actually a wage replacement scheme, not paid at the minimum wage as the government scheme is. It will provide payment to all full-time, part-time and casual workers provided they meet the work test, which is 330 hours in a 10-month period over 13 months. It will provide primary carers—mothers, in the vast majority of families—with 26 weeks paid parental leave at full replacement pay up to a maximum salary of $150,000 per annum or the federal minimum wage, whichever is greater. It will be available to all employees, including contractors and the self-employed, who meet the work eligibility test. It includes superannuation contributions at the mandatory rate of nine per cent.

The coalition’s paid parental leave scheme policy includes two weeks of ‘use it or lose it’ parental leave for the non-primary carer—typically the father—and this is to encourage the father to support the primary carer and be with the baby in those vital two weeks of early life. The coalition’s scheme will signal to the community that taking time out of the workforce to care for children should be considered a normal part of the work-life cycle of parents.

Australia is the second last of the OECD countries to mandate a paid parental leave scheme. It is very concerning that the scheme that is being introduced by the government is so woefully inadequate. There is no point in introducing a scheme which has as one of its principal aims to increase the birth rate if all the evidence points to the fact that it will not work.

One of the harshest things that society can do is make judgments about women in terms of the choices that they make, including their child-bearing choices. There is no place in this debate for judgments about stay-at-home mothers versus working mothers. In fact, I believe those labels are outdated and they often describe the same mother at different periods in her working life and family life.

The scheme that the coalition proposes will be welcomed in my electorate, where a lot of working women are farmers. We should not forget the human aspect of women who reach child-bearing age and find that it is just too difficult to have children—they have left it too long. That is a very powerful argument for our policy. I reflect back on my statement about making judgments. It is just too easy to say, ‘You should have got on with the business of having children earlier in your life.’

I met a young woman from western New South Wales a couple of weeks ago. I do not want to describe her as a farmer’s wife because she is of course so much more, but she talked about the difficulties following her marriage, which was in her early 30s. The drought came along and she was down in the paddock every day with her husband and home at night doing the books. Following that, there were issues around the intergenerational transfer of farmland. That is very common in farming areas. There is often great tension between the younger and the older generation. During that time, in the back of her mind she thought, ‘I’ll just wait until this is all sorted out and then we’ll get on with the business of having a family.’

Finally it was all sorted out, but by then she was 41 and found that pregnancy did not happen easily, so she booked into the IVF program and she is there still. She described to me her trips from western New South Wales to the big regional city of Albury, where she had her IVF treatment, and the difficulties that she experienced every time she underwent that treatment—the weird emotional feelings, sometimes anger and sometimes manic activity levels. We are talking about quite a dose of medication. But what made me sad was when she said: ‘I had nothing to do overnight between treatments. I had seen all the shops, so I used to walk up and down the streets and think about the situation that I was in and desperately wish for children.’ I would not like to see women in that position when it is not necessary. I would really like to see in this place a policy that helps those women and that would have allowed that woman to take the time out of her busy life, while knowing that income was continuing to come in to pay the bills, pay the mortgage and give some sense of financial security, to have children.

We have dry economic argument that supports our policy. We also have a very human argument. I really do believe that both sides of the House should look carefully at what is happening to the demographic of women who are ageing, having children and encountering difficulties as older mothers. As women, we will all say, I am sure—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would probably agree with me on this—that having children is the greatest gift and the greatest joy and it sure beats anything we ever do in our professional life. I am enormously thankful for my three children here today. But just because it was easy for us does not mean it is easy for the modern woman or that it will be easy for the women of tomorrow.

Lives are changing, the workforce is changing and people’s circumstances are different. Some people have said: ‘This is a lot of money to be paying women over a six-month period. Should we be thinking twice about this?’ It does sound like a lot of money, but in the context of the average mortgage on the average house these days it is not a lot of money. When you consider that most people going into mortgages as first-home buyers in Western Sydney are trying to find between $400,000 and $500,000, you can understand that pausing to have a child, and becoming unable to meet those mortgage payments, is just not going to happen. We are not talking about people who are making grand choices to have it all and who expect to have it all. We are just considering ordinary people—ordinary women in their ordinary working lives. Certainly, in some of the rural areas I represent, the cost of a mortgage is much more modest, but we should not forget that in a lot of our capital cities, where a lot of the women who will be affected by this policy work, it is just not possible to manage a mortgage without two incomes. That is what this policy is focusing on.

The other criticism that we have copped is that big business will fund the policy. As the Leader of the Opposition made very clear in his remarks earlier today, we would prefer that there was another way. We would prefer that it could be done out of consolidated revenue, that surging tax receipts coming in over the next few years and a budgetary situation that did not see us at a deficit of $57.1 billion on 30 June this year would allow us to meet the cost of the scheme from somewhere else, but the scheme cannot wait. Paid parental leave cannot wait. The government scheme is insufficient and it is not going to achieve the policy outcomes that it needs to and it is letting women down.

We look forward to a time when there will be another source of funding for our scheme. Nobody likes imposts on business. We have taken a decision with our policy that it is reasonable to levy the biggest businesses in Australia to pay for the scheme. I might add that it is a very modest contribution compared to the slug that the government is placing on the resources industry, but we know that whatever we can do to keep tax rates down for businesses we will do. We just know that bringing the budget back into surplus, restoring the budget bottom line, is important and has to happen first, but we do not believe that this Paid Parental Leave scheme can wait until then.

I really urge those opposite to consider the benefits of the coalition scheme and to look at the inadequacies of the scheme they have proposed. I am sorry, but the scheme that government members have explained to us here today is not going to encourage women to take time out of the workforce to have babies in their child-bearing years when we as a nation need those babies to be born today in order to provide for the economic future of Australia tomorrow.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand here today very proud to be a part of a government that is introducing the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010. This is legislation that is long overdue and a scheme that the former government and many of those opposite had more than 10 years to implement. We are delivering on a scheme and it is a very good scheme. The government funded scheme will provide parental leave pay to mothers and adoptive parents who have been working and who have a baby or adopt a child on or after 1 January 2011, the start of next year. To be eligible for the scheme, parents will need to meet the paid parental leave work test, income test and residency requirements. The claimant must be the primary carer of the child from birth or adoption and have verified the child’s birth or adoption. Paid parental leave is for a maximum of 18 weeks and must be taken in one continuous block.

The scheme is fully costed and funded by the government. There is no new tax on this side of the House to pay for our scheme, while the opposition is proposing a great big new tax on everything to pay for theirs. It is fair to business and it is fair to families. This bill is a major win for working families, who have been waiting for decades for a national paid parental leave scheme. Until now Australia has been one of only two advanced economies without a national paid parental leave scheme and it is a sad indictment of our nation and of our economy that we have not had one until the Rudd government’s introduction of this one. This legislation changes that and delivers for working families. It means one parent has the financial security to take time off from work to care for their baby at home during the vital early months of their baby’s life. It is important that mothers have time to recover from birth and bond with their baby, and this legislation will allow that to happen.

I have a young child, who is just about to turn three, and she is fantastic. Luckily enough, my wife has been able to take time off to care for our child. But many families out there are in financial stress and they need assistance to take time off from work. This legislation is about providing that assistance. This legislation, though, is designed to ensure that mothers maintain their connection with the workforce and it will boost workforce participation.

Once the scheme is fully implemented, parental leave pay will be provided by employers to their long-term employees. A long-term employee is a person who has been an employee of the employer for 12 months or more prior to the expected or actual date of birth or placement of their child. We want to make it as simple as possible for the business to implement the scheme. The Family Assistance Office will send a notice to the employer so they will not need to determine whether or not they have to pay it. The Family Assistance Office will notify them and they will also notify the parents. In other cases, the Family Assistance Office will also make the parental payments. The Family Assistance Office will ensure that funds are made available to an employer in advance of the employer’s obligation to provide parental leave pay to an employee. To reduce red tape, funds may be received in as few as three equal instalments. If employers adhere to their normal and proper pay practices when providing parental leave pay to their employees, they will not breach any of the obligations under the Paid Parental Leave scheme.

A parent will not be able to work while receiving parental leave pay but may keep in touch with the workplace for up to 10 days during the period, if this is mutually agreed between the person and their employer. Parents can nominate when they wish to receive their pay. The start date can be on or after—but not before—the child’s date of birth or placement and all the pay must be received within the first 12 months after the date of birth or placement of the child. Parental leave pay can be received before, after or at the same time as employer provided paid leave such as recreation or annual leave and employer provided parental leave. Our scheme also lets families make their own work and family choices. Parents can transfer the leave so mums and dads have more options for balancing work and family. If a person returns to work before they have received all of their 18 weeks of paid parental leave, the person’s partner may be able to receive the unused amount of paid parental leave, subject to meeting eligibility requirements.

Under our scheme, women in seasonal, casual and contract work and the self-employed will have access to paid parental leave. For most of them this will be for the first time. This is very important. It is a well thought out, well constructed scheme. It is not only for full-time employees but for those who are doing part-time and casual work. A mother may be eligible if she has worked continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months before the birth or adoption of her child and has worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. That is around one day a week. To meet the needs of contractors and seasonal and casual workers who have irregular work patterns, a person can have a break of up to eight weeks between working days and still be considered to have worked continuously. Parental leave pay will also be available to parents who work in their own business or family business, such as a farm. So it is a scheme that will also support those in small businesses in primary production.

The scheme will be means tested, ensuring it is targeted at those in need. A person will be eligible if they have an individual income of $150,000 or less in the financial year before the claim or birth of the baby, whichever is the earlier. This scheme has been the result of two years of extensive policy development and consultation based particularly on the work of the Productivity Commission. I want to congratulate them on the work they did. Around one-third of mothers return to work within six months of the birth of their child. Two-thirds of these mothers return to work because they need the money. So many families are under financial stress. Both parents need to go out to work to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. This legislation will put in place fair payment for them to have a baby and will help them with cost-of-living pressures—that is, the same way our third tax cut, delivered this year, will and the same way our increase in the child care tax rebate is helping families with cost-of-living pressures.

This legislation will improve productivity by ensuring that more women can continue to participate in the workforce and helping to ensure Australia is well placed to face the challenges of the future. Business will benefit from the retention of skilled and experienced female staff but will not have to fund the parental leave payments. Families not eligible for paid parental leave, or who choose not to participate in the scheme, will be able to continue to access the baby bonus and family tax benefit if they are eligible. An online paid parental leave estimator will be available from September 2010 to help parents choose the option that is best for them. The government estimates that 85 per cent of working families will be better off by on average $2,000 by taking paid parental leave as compared to the baby bonus. The government expects close to 150,000 people each year to benefit from our new Paid Parental Leave scheme. This is historic legislation that is going to benefit many families in my electorate of Leichhardt and families all across the country.

As the minister said, we need to pay tribute to people like Sharan Burrow and others in the union movement, who have been campaigning for this for many years. We should pay tribute to Marie Coleman and others from the National Foundation for Australian Women, as well as to the current and previous sex discrimination commissioners—Elizabeth Broderick and Pru Goward. We also need to recognise that small business representatives like James Thomson value paid parental leave, and business representatives like Heather Ridout have recognised the value of this leave scheme.

Our scheme stands in stark contrast to that put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, who had 10 years in the Howard government to actually advocate for and deliver a paid parental leave scheme but did nothing. Earlier this year, he pulled a rabbit out of a hat—even his own backbench and shadow ministry did not know about it—and announced his own scheme. It is a very unfair scheme that will put a tax on everything. That is because, if you are a business turning over $5 million or more, you will have to pay the great big new tax that the Leader of the Opposition is introducing. That will be Woolworths, Coles and clothing retailers. All of those businesses will have to pay the Leader of the Opposition’s great big new tax. It is unfair and it is irresponsible. There are working families in my electorate earning $40,000 or $50,000 and under Mr Abbott’s scheme they will be paying for parental leave for millionaires. If you are a millionaire under Mr Abbott’s scheme, you will get paid parental leave of $75,000 for six months. That is outrageous. It is unfair.

I would suggest that Mr Hockey, the shadow Treasurer, and Mr Robb, the shadow finance minister, should look at savings. I suggest they add a line in their budget reply to say that they will discontinue Mr Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme. As Phil Coorey rightly pointed out on 17 March: Peter Costello, a well-respected Liberal over that side of the House, said that—because of the things I have pointed out, that it would be a great big new tax on everything—it was a ‘silly’ tax.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.