Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments 1 to 58 as circulated in my name:

(1)    Clause 4, page 3 (line 15), omit “either the person’s employer or”.

(2)    Clause 4, page 4 (lines 18 and 19), omit “, whether the person’s employer or the Secretary must pay them”.

(3)    Clause 4, page 4 (lines 20 to 31), omit the box text, substitute: “Part 3-3 sets out when the Secretary must pay instalments to the person.”

(4)    Clause 4, page 5 (lines 4 to 8), omit the box text.

(5)    Clause 4, page 5 (lines 14 to 19), omit the box text.

(6)    Clause 4, page 5 (lines 29 to 31), omit “, and an employer to seek internal review of certain types of decisions that affect employers”

(7)    Clause 6, page 11 (lines 3 to 5), omit the definitions.

(8)    Clause 6, page 14 (lines 25 to 28), omit the definition.

(9)    Clause 6, page 17, (line 11), omit the definition.

(10)  Clause 6, page 17, (lines 17 to 24), omit the definition.

(11)  Clause 7, page 19 (line 29), omit “person’s employer or the”.

(12)  Clause 62, page 61 (lines 9 and 10), omit “either a person’s employer (see Part 3-2) or”.

(13)  Clause 63, page 62 (lines 5 to 8), omit subclause 63(2), substitute:

        (2)    An instalment is payable to a person by the Secretary in accordance with section 84.

(14)  Clause 64, page 62 (line 22) to page 63 (line 18), omit subclauses 64(2) to 64(4), substitute:

        (2)    The person’s instalment period is the period of 14 days starting on a day the Secretary considers appropriate for the person (or a class of person in which the person is included) and each successive 14 day period.

        (3)    The payday for the instalment is a day that the Secretary considers appropriate that occurs after the instalment period to which the instalment relates.

(15)  Clause 67, page 64 (line 22), omit “An employer or the”, substitute “The”.

(16)  Clause 67, page 64 (lines 26 to 31), omit the note.

(17)  Clause 68, page 65 (line 13), omit “An employer or the Secretary”, substitute “The Secretary”.

(18)  Clause 69, page 65 (lines 18 to 21), omit subclause 69(1).

(19)  Clause 70, page 66 (lines 5 and 6), omit subclause 70(2).

(20)  Clause 71, page 67 (line 1), to clause 82, page 75 (line 10), omit Part 3-2.

(21)  Clause 83, page 76 (lines 6 to 16), omit the box text.

(22)  Clause 84, page 77, line 2, to page 78, line 26, omit the clause, substitute:

84 Secretary required to pay instalment

                 If a person is eligible to receive an instalment, the Secretary must pay the instalment to the person on the payday for the instalment.

Note:   See section 96 for when the Secretary is taken to have complied with this requirement.

(23)  Clause 85, page 78 (line 27), to clause 87, page 80 (line 18), omit the clauses.

(24)  Clause 90, page 82 (lines 6 and 7), omit “, whether by the person’s employer or the Secretary”

(25)  Clause 90, page 82 (lines 12 and 13), omit “Other rules deal with the effect on a person’s instalment periods of changing who is required to pay instalments to the person.”

(26)  Clause 91, page 83 (line 2), omit “or employer”.

(27)  Clause 91, page 83 (line 5), omit “or a person’s employer”.

(28)  Clause 91, page 83 (lines 8 and 9), omit “neither the Secretary nor the employer is otherwise required to pay an earlier instalment to the person”, substitute “the Secretary is not otherwise required to pay an earlier instalment to the person”.

(29)  Clause 92, page 83 (line 16) to clause 94, page 85 (line 1), omit the clauses.

(30)  Clause 95, page 85 (line 5), omit “or a person’s employer”.

(31)  Clause 96, page 85 (line 13), omit “or a person’s employer”.

(32)  Clause 100, page 87 (line 1) to clause 115, page 101, (line 9), omit Part 3-5.

(33)  Clause 117, page 103 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph 117(c).

(34)  Clause 117, page 103 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph 117(e).

(35)  Clause 117, page 103 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph 117(g).

(36)  Clause 140, page 115, (line 1) to clause 163, page 129 (line 26), omit Part 4-2.

(37)  Clause 164, page 130 (lines 14 and 15), omit “Division 3 allows an employee to recover, as a debt, parental leave pay from his or her employer.”

(38)  Clause 166, page 132 (line 16) to page 133 (line 20), omit the clause.

(39)  Clause 169, page 135 (line 18), omit “or an employer”.

(40)  Clause 169, page 135 (line 29), omit subparagraph 169(2)(b).

(41)  Clause 169, page 135 (line 31), omit “or the employer”.

(42)  Clause 172, page 137 (lines 1 to 20), omit Division 3.

(43)  Clause 202, page 160 (lines 13 to 18), omit the box text.

(44)  Clause 203, page 161 (lines 6 to 11), omit subclause 203(2).

(45)  Clause 206, page 162 (lines 19 to 23), omit paragraphs 206(1)(a) to 206(1)(c).

(46)  Clause 207, page 163 (line 11) to clause 208, page 165 (line 25), omit the clauses.

(47)  Clause 209, page 165 (line 30) to page 166 (line 1), omit “, other than an application under section 207 (which deals with application for review of employer determination decisions),”.

(48)  Clause 212, page 167 (line 30) to page 168 (line 25), omit the clause.

(49)  Clause 213, page 169 (lines 11 to 13), omit the box text.

(50)  Clause 215, page 170 (lines 24 and 25), omit subparagraphs 215(2)(vi) and 215(2)(vii).

(51)  Clause 223, page 175 (line 1) to clause 230, page 178 (line 18), omit Division 3.

(52)  Clause 231, page 180 (lines 1 to 4), omit the box text.

(53)  Clause 252, page 196 (line 7), omit “or an employer”.

(54)  Clause 257, page 199 (lines 5 to 6), omit “or an SSAT reviewable employer decision”.

(55)  Clause 257, page 200 (lines 8 to 9), omit “or an SSAT reviewable employer decision”.

(56)  Clause 259, page 202 (line 1) to page 203 (line 24), omit Division 11.

(57)  Clause 299, page 232 (lines 10 to 13), omit subclause 299(1), substitute:

        (1)    The PPL rules or the regulations may make arrangements for the Secretary to make payments to persons who have a role similar to an employee.

(58)  Clause 307, page 236 (lines 18 and 19), omit “(other than payments of instalments by employers under Division 2 of Part 3-2)”.

In moving these amendments, I am taking up my remarks of the other evening. There may be very good and altruistic reasons why women undertake a career. Unfortunately, most women in Australia are stewing on having children because of the economic hardship that would fall upon not only them but also their children. I emphasise that point. These amendments are about who should undertake the administration of this money.

I state again that while the emphasis is on career women all the time in our society, as it is in this bill, there is no emphasis at all on the stay-at-home mums. One woman who is on $140,000 is going to get $140,000 when she has a baby. The stay-at-home mum will get nothing at all. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs is shaking her head. I would take an interjection from her and let her explain to us what she is saying. All the speakers in this place that are backing you, Minister, have got up and said how wonderful it is that people will be able to get the same amount of money when they take time off to have their babies. I am not against that; I am quite happy to go along with that. I am just asking: what about the other women? Numerous women in that category have rung me up and bitterly complained. I will be moving a resolution in the House on the substantive issue, because it is a money bill and I cannot do that this evening.

Getting back to the amendments, they are simply to take the employer out of administering this payment to these mothers and putting the government in their place. The GST and the BAS were colossal impositions upon small business. I remember that I was at a meeting where one of the ladies there, when the Leader of the National Party was saying what a good thing it would be for all of us, spontaneously burst out crying. A couple of blokes put their arms around her and took her out of the room. She was a good friend, so I went over and saw her the next morning. She is a hardware store owner. She said: ‘Bob, I just simply couldn’t take any more work. We get up at seven o’clock because of all the builders. Then I have to rush back over and get the kids breakfast. A lot of these blokes work late. Then I have to get the kids dinner. Then I have got to do all the bookwork for the business late into the evening. I couldn’t face up to another bit of work.’

We would ask the government to consider that they have made an error here in placing the responsibility upon the employers. This burden should not be borne by the owner operators. If you want to differentiate it out and say that Woolworths and Coles have to do it, that is fine by me—the corporates. But for owner-operator businesses to have another huge burden of responsibility placed upon them is wrong. If they lose a good and key employee because a mother has to go off and have a baby and she needs time off to raise that baby through that early period, the business has obviously lost a very valuable employee. On top of that, they have the burden of administering these payments as well. So I recommend these amendments to the House. I would have liked the opposition to have backed the amendments, but there seems to be an element of hypocrisy there because they have informed me that they are not backing these amendments—amendments that they actually moved in this place.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kennedy for his contribution to the debate. Just to clarify one of the issues that the member for Kennedy has just raised about a woman who may be earning $140,00 before she goes off on parental leave, under the government’s scheme she will only be entitled to exactly the same amount as a woman who is a casual worker or a seasonal worker, the federal minimum wage of just over $540 a week. I make that clarification for the member for Kennedy. By contrast—and maybe this is where the misunderstanding arose—the opposition has put forward a different scheme. As the member for Kennedy would be aware, the opposition is proposing a new tax on larger businesses, a new tax expected to raise around $3 billion a year. That tax will be imposed on most things that Australians buy. From the revenue derived from that tax, the opposition proposes that if a woman is earning—and to take the figure that the member for Kennedy has raised—$140,000 before she had her baby then, under the opposition’s scheme, she would be entitled to six months of maternity leave paid at her full wage; she would get $70,000.

16:51:58

That is the opposition’s proposal: a high-income woman earning $140,000 a year would get $70,000 over a six-month period, paid for by this new tax. That is the opposition’s scheme; it is not the government’s scheme. The government is very clear that we think we should have a government funded scheme, which is what this bill is about, and that we will pay it to women for 18 weeks at the federal minimum wage no matter what her income is. There is a work test and there is an income test, but—to go to your point—that is the relevant proposition of the bill.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can we get yourself and the government to look at stay-at-home mums?

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

Member for Kennedy, the minister has the call. You can have another call, but not at the moment.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Deputy Speaker will allow me, I will take the interjection, because it is a very important one. I do want to indicate to the member for Kennedy and to all the mothers who are at home—and increasingly we are having dads at home as well—that we certainly respect the hard work that they undertake at home caring for their newborn babies and their children. We want to make sure that we do give people a choice, and that is why we are continuing to support the payment of the baby bonus and family tax benefit parts A and B. If a mother or a father is entitled to paid parental leave, they will not be entitled to the baby bonus or family tax benefit part B, and it will be taxable, whereas a mother at home will be entitled to both the baby bonus and family tax benefit parts A and B. So we certainly do want to support mums at home, and I absolutely respect the hard work that they do.

Mr Katter interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will have another chance if he wishes.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will go to the member for Kennedy’s amendments which he has just moved. The primary purpose of his amendments, as he has just outlined, is to remove the role of employers in providing parental leave pay to their long-term employees. The first thing I would like the member for Kennedy to be aware of is that we are requiring that this role be undertaken for long-term employees only—that means employees of more than 12 months. That is the first thing. It will not apply to shorter term employees. To give the member for Kennedy an idea of how many people we expect this to apply to, we understand that only nine per cent of all businesses will be a paymaster in any given year. (Extension of time granted) I understand the member for Kennedy’s concerns about small businesses, and I think his points are well made, but I inform him that we expect only three per cent of small businesses to be the paymaster in any one year. So we expect a very small number of small businesses to have to undertake this task.

The other remark I would make is that the member for Kennedy’s amendments are really contrary to the whole objective that the government has. We do want to see employers having a role in the whole Paid Parental Leave scheme. We want to see that paid parental leave is delivered as an entitlement for women participating in the workforce. That is one of the reasons we are having employers be the paymaster to their eligible long-term employees, in exactly the same way that they currently pay them.

There are a couple of other things that I think might help the member for Kennedy. We certainly understand, as many employers do, that paid parental leave really does return benefits to employers. Many employers understand that, and that is of course why they offer their own paid parental leave schemes. One of the things we have done in this legislation is delay the requirement on employers to be the paymaster, so they will not have to start being the paymaster for their long-term employees until after 1 July next year. This recognises that they need a little bit of time to get used to the new scheme and also ties it in with the beginning of the financial year. If employers do not want to start that on 1 January, when the scheme begins next year, the Family Assistance Office will make the payments for the first six months.

We also will be providing employers with the necessary funds to pay parental leave pay in advance. We certainly do not want to have any adverse impact on their cash flow. Employers will not be making superannuation contributions during the paid parental leave period. They will not accrue any additional leave entitlements during a period of parental leave pay. Also, employers will not have to change the normal pay cycle. They will not have to set up any special accounts or report back to the Family Assistance Office. They will just have to do what they normally do, which is pay the parental leave pay to their employees with the usual tax deducted. The estimated transitional costs are in fact very small and, based on Productivity Commission analysis, will be far outweighed by the benefits that employers will receive through retention of any skilled staff.

Finally, I say to the member for Kennedy that any reasonable costs incurred by employers will of course be tax deductible. As a result, we will not be supporting these amendments.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief. I think the points that Tempe Harvey has continually made should be listened to by the government. I accept that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is not giving us any joy on the wider issue of looking after the stay-at-home mums. But she is clearly not hostile to them either, and we appreciate that. We would also appreciate the government’s seriously considering the very reasonable and sensible points being brought forward by Tempe Harvey and her group. Originally, I very strongly supported the minister and the government as well as the opposition on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010. I apologise to the House for my slight confusion of the policies of the opposition and the government on this, but then again there is so much confusion on that issue that I can be excused for making such a mistake.

I would also like the minister to consider the stories she is getting about only three per cent and nine per cent and so on. Minister, you should have been in your position long enough to know that you do not always get the straight line from people in the Public Service and you really have to do a lot of the homework yourself on these issues.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.