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 and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures Bill) 2012, which replaces the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Consolidation) Bill 2011. This is a government bill which seeks to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to extend the Paid Parental Leave scheme to certain working fathers and partners so that they receive two weeks dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, and to clarify provisions relating to 'keeping in touch' days, debt recovery, notices and delegation of the secretary's powers.

This bill also seeks to make amendments to the Fair Work Act to clarify arrangements relating to unpaid parental leave in the event of a stillbirth or infant death, to enable early commencement of unpaid parental leave and to enable employees who are on unpaid parental leave to perform permissible paid work for short periods. The bill seeks to extend the Paid Parental Leave scheme by effectively delivering a two-week paternity leave payment. Despite being promised at the 2010 election by the Labor government, this payment will not be realised until 2013. The payment will be available for eligible working fathers and partners. Subject to the passage of this bill, the new payment will be incorporated into the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. Eligible fathers and partners will be able to receive two weeks dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, the same weekly rate as for the existing parental leave pay—currently $590 a week before tax.

Labor has burdened small business by making them the government's paid parental leave paymaster. We have a ridiculous situation. The government geared up the Family Assistance Office to pay paid parental leave, and for six months the Family Assistance Office did that, largely without incident or issue. So what do Labor do when something is working well, as the Family Assistance Office payments were as set up under this system? They force small business to take over the burdensome paymaster requirements and shut down the system they paid to set up in the first place. The coalition remains opposed to small business carrying this burden, and we will again seek to amend this bill to ensure this ridiculous burden is removed from the thousands of small businesses across our country. I foreshadow an amendment to that effect.

Here and now, we see just how hypocritical the government is. They have got businesses paying the paid parental leave, but they are now happy to pay the paid parental leave for dad and partner payments through the Family Assistance Office. The coalition thinks that is a good move. As I foreshadowed earlier, we think that as the Family Assistance Office is going to pay dads and partners it should pay the mainstream paid parental leave payments as well. The member for Dunkley will have more to say on that later in the debate.

Other amendments originally introduced on 3 November 2011 in the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Consolidation) Bill are being reintroduced as part of this bill to streamline the consideration of current amendments to the legislation underpinning the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The bill also amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to clarify unpaid parental leave arrangements where there is a stillborn or infant death, to enable early commencement of unpaid parental leave and to enable employees who are on unpaid parental leave to perform permissible paid work for short periods for the purposes of 'keeping in touch'.

The reality is that the scheme Labor is legislating for is second rate. Labor's scheme provides 18 weeks to the coalition's proposed 26 weeks of leave. Labor's scheme pays paid parental leave at the minimum wage; our policy would see paid parental leave paid to mothers at their real wage. Their scheme does not cover the payment of superannuation; the coalition's proposal does. Unlike Labor's scheme, our scheme would pay for up to two weeks leave out of the 26 weeks at the father's real wage, capped at $150,000 a year. This leave can be taken concurrently with or separately from the mother's leave.

Unlike Labor, the coalition has a proud record of supporting parents and supporting families. Labor governments have embarked on an antifamily agenda that has seen funding to family and relationship services slashed and that has seen them attack youth allowance. Our approach on paid parental leave is about providing real support to parents and families. We believe in helping hardworking families and small businesses to get ahead and build a better life for themselves and their families. It is time Labor adopted similar mainstream thinking. We on this side are dismayed that Labor seems to have spent more time devising ways and spin to protect the member for Dobell and the Speaker rather than spending that precious time planning a first-rate paid parental leave scheme. Our scheme is first-class; the reality is that Labor's is second rate. Our scheme is well thought out and will help families and promote productivity; Labor's proposal burdens business. Our scheme delivers real reform; Labor's is, in the end, tokenistic. I therefore 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) notes that the Government’s paid parental leave scheme is too short, does not provide superannuation and does not maintain the income of the majority of Australian mothers; and

(2) calls on the Government to immediately adopt the Coalition’s better, fairer paid parental leave scheme.”

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

Is the amendment seconded?

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill, but I must add it is a great shame that the time allotted for this debate could not instead have been allotted for the government to introduce into this House a bill which would have provided much needed assistance for families by helping with schoolkid expenses. Whatever led those opposite to object to our bringing that legislation into the House is probably best known to them, but it does speak very loudly about their priorities.

The bill before the House is a good one. Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme began on 1 January 2011. It was a historic reform and a major win for working families, who had been waiting decades for a national paid parental leave scheme. Before then, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme. Quite simply, we have caught up with the rest of the world.

I was interested to hear the member for Menzies say that the coalition has had a long and proud history of supporting measures such as this. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that from my own experience, representing women in employment who have suffered attacks from those on the other side of the House when the previous government was attempting to take away their entitlements to paid maternity leave in areas of government employment. They stand here and say that our scheme is not as good as theirs and that they have a long and proud history, but nothing could be further from the truth. One of the more memorable contributions of the Leader of the Opposition to this debate, when he was the minister for workplace relations, was that paid parental leave would occur over his dead body. Unkind people might say that that was a win-win outcome, but apparently the Leader of the Opposition has done an about-face on this issue for reasons best known to himself.

I think the best way to judge a party's commitment is to look at their track record. The track record of the Labor Party is nothing short of exceptional. We were the party which, during the Whitlam government, first introduced paid parental leave into law in this country. We believed then that it would create the incentive for paid parental leave to spread throughout the rest of the workforce. Sadly, 30 years of history has shown that that spread has been very slow. The current Labor government therefore introduced paid parental leave legislation into the House, making it law from 1 January 2011. We did that for a very simple reason, a reason that has informed so much of our approach to workplace relations and so much of our approach to the relationship between government, family and work—we on this side of the House understand that a worker is not just a pair of hands, or a brain, that turns up to work five, six or seven days a week disassociated from the rest of the body, but that a worker has another life. We understand that a worker is generally part of a family and that the workplace needs to make adjustments and needs to be designed in a way that accommodates that part of the worker's life which is outside the workplace. Paid parental leave is just such an adjustment, an appropriate adjustment, and the bill before the House is another such adjustment.

The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill recognises that a worker is not just a pair of hands, that they come with a whole other life attached to them. This legislation will give one parent 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 supports women in maintaining their connection with the workforce—in this regard, it boosts productivity and boosts workforce participation. The scheme also lets families make their own work and family choices. Parents can transfer the leave so that mums and dads have more options for balancing work and family.

Since its inception, around 2,500 families in my own electorate, covering the Illawarra, Shoalhaven and Southern Highlands, have taken advantage of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Already, since the scheme began, around 126,000 expectant and new parents have applied for the payment. Half of the mothers—and this goes to the heart of the values which underlie the Paid Parental Leave scheme—who have received the payments, earned less than $43,000 in the year before their baby was either born or adopted. This shows that paid parental leave is particularly important for women on low incomes, many of whom do not have access to paid parental leave through their employer. Paid parental leave is an initiative which has done much to help families and it is a measure which Labor members are rightly proud of.

In the last 2½ years, the government has delivered many reforms driven by the abiding Labor values of fairness, compassion and responsibility. These values are reflected in our approach to family tax benefits and to education expenses, about which the Treasurer will have more to say when he stands in this place later this evening. Labor believes in giving parents work and family choices, Labor believes in the dignity that comes with people taking responsibility for themselves and their family and Labor believes in making Australia a fairer place and a stronger place.

Employers, I am pleased to say, have also embraced the scheme. Far from the horror story told by the member for Menzies in his frantic contribution to this debate, employers are embracing the scheme because they can see it adds value to their workforce. They actually believe in paid parental leave and they can see that it is good for them and good for their workers. That is why over 22,000 employers have registered to provide government funded parental leave pay to their eligible employees through their usual pay cycle.

All of this is underscored by a very important principle—that paid parental leave should not be seen as a welfare benefit but as something that is an integral workplace right. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say exactly the same thing and yet his spokesman, the member for Menzies, has come in here today moving amendments which seem to deny that fundamental proposition—that paid parental leave should be and is a fundamental workplace right and not something to be seen as social welfare.

The government recognises the new dynamics of Australian families, particularly the approach that families take in the first year of a child's life. Gone are the days when a father's role in the arrival of any child was to be down the pub with his mates, wetting the baby's head. These days fathers are there in the birthing centre, in the hospital—there with their partners, with their wives, supporting them through that important milestone in a child's life. Now more than ever they want to be a part of those early days and weeks when their new child is brought into the world. We recognise that fathers want a more hands-on role in raising their children. We also recognise that the national economy will benefit from the boost to participation and productivity that these measures underpin. These are the values which are reflected in this legislation—an understanding that families have changed and an understanding that the father's role, or the partner's role, in the birth experience and those early weeks of a child's life has changed. We are responding to that.

This new dedicated payment delivers on a 2010 election commitment to give dads and other partners the chance to have two weeks off to support new mums at home and to be involved in the care of the baby right from the very start. This is good for the new dads, it is good for mums and it gives newborns the best possible start in life. Dad and partner pay will give eligible fathers and partners two weeks pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, the same weekly rate as parental leave pay, which is currently $590 a week before tax. This will be available to all eligible fathers and partners, including adoptive parents, who care for a child born on or after 1 January 2013. This means that, from next year, eligible families welcoming a new child into the world will be able to receive up to 20 weeks parental leave pay and dad and partner pay from this Labor government.

Dad and partner pay will be available to eligible full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal, contract and self-employed workers. The income test, work test and residentiary requirements for dad and partner pay will be consistent with those for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Eligible fathers and partners must be caring for the child either as a primary carer or jointly with the other parent. They must not be working or on paid leave during the period in which dad and partner pay is paid because that would defeat the purpose, of course. Like parental leave pay, this new payment will be available during the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child. Claims for dad and partner pay will be able to be lodged from 1 October 2012, allowing families to get in early, as it were, to make those claims ahead of time, so there is no gap in payment.

Dad and partner pay also recognises the challenges faced by families who find it difficult to balance the family budget when a baby is born, including casual employees without annual leave entitlements and self-employed people such as tradespeople, small business owners and those working in a family business or farm. So the design of dad and partner pay is based on an understanding of these factors, and builds upon the independent expert recommendations of the Productivity Commission. Consistent with those recommendations, the payment will be available in addition to any employer funded paid leave but will not be able to be taken at the same time as paid leave—that is to say, if the employee has an entitlement through their workplace, enterprise agreement, contract or award to paid dad or partner leave, then what we are proposing to introduce through this bill will be in addition to that, provided that it is not taken at the same time as that. It extends their entitlement.

On Father's Day last year, the government invited employer and employee groups, small business groups, family and community groups and individuals to provide some feedback on the dad and partner pay proposal. These consultations and the feedback from the Paid Parental Leave Implementation Group have informed the development of the payment arrangements. Employers will have an important role in supporting their employees in accessing their unpaid leave entitlements so that they can receive dad and partner pay. However, employers will not have a role in providing dad and partner pay to their employees. That is essentially because it is a short-term payment. The government funded dad and partner pay will be provided in addition to employer funded entitlements, as I have said, and the government expects that employers will retain their existing parental and paternity leave provisions, continuing to set themselves apart as employers of choice—that is, family friendly employers—for prospective employees.

The bill also makes minor refinements to the legislation for the Paid Parental Leave scheme by making amendments to improve clarity and consistency, and making consequential amendments to the Fair Work Act.

The contrast between the policies of this government and the empty rhetoric of those opposite could not be more stark. What we see from those opposite, and what we heard repeated by the member for Menzies earlier, is that they have a scheme, at a grand cost of $4.5 billion a year, that needs a new tax from the Leader of the Opposition to pay for it. We heard recently, from members contributing to the debate on the matter of public importance, attacks on the government for introducing the minerals resource rent tax to fund superannuation and tax cuts for small businesses and important infrastructure initiatives—a proposal which is supported by all right-thinking Australians, but not by those opposite it would seem; they would rather give a tax break to the largest and wealthiest mining companies in this country and slug ordinary workers and struggling businesses with tax increases to pay for their scheme. That is not the right way to go.

The proposals that we have put before the House have the right balance between providing a fair and decent payment to mums, dads and their partners, ensuring that we do it in a responsible way, providing a benefit out of government revenues and, at the same time, transforming the way that workplaces, the government and the whole country think about these issues. So it is good legislation. I commend it to the House, and I commend those opposite who get behind it.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. Essentially, it adds the dad and partner pay provisions that the members opposite have talked about to an earlier amending bill which was introduced into this chamber late last calendar year.

It was interesting listening to the member for Throsby, who was urging us to best look at what a party has done when judging its claims, and he was trying to relate that to the paid parental leave. I thought it was rather ominous, on budget night, when we consider what the government's budget forecast might be, to be told we have to suspend all appreciation of what has happened up till now. But it was a very interesting contribution from the member for Throsby at that level.

What this bill seeks to do is to implement that dad and partner pay arrangement and put in place the eligibility criteria and the responsibilities of employers and Centrelink's Family Assistance Office in administering the new payment, having regard also to the way in which an employer may already have some eligibility for paid parental leave or unpaid parental leave through their workplace arrangements. That is the new measure that the minister focused her thoughts on in introducing this bill, given that the other amendments that are part of this bill were canvassed in the original explanatory memorandum and the minister's speech when it was introduced late last year.

For those who have been following this closely, as I have, those amendments went to some administrative insights that have been gained in relation to the operation of the scheme since its commencement, also taking into account a slightly wider window within which the mother of a newborn could not be expected to come in to the workplace under the keeping-in-touch provisions. If I recall correctly, I think that was a 12-day window from the birth of a child and, from my own observations of my own children's births, not everybody is particularly enthusiastic about going back into the workplace 12 days after a birth. It is, I think, a sensible and quite unobjectionable measure to extend that to at least six weeks. That is a very thoughtful measure that is in this bill. There is also some discussion around what happens if the employee wishes to commence the period of parental leave early and also around what systems and procedures would be put in place to accommodate a family tragedy such as a stillbirth or an infant death. It also seeks to provide the departmental secretary with some additional powers where, as I recall the bill, an employer becomes insolvent and there is a need to recover or to take over the making of those payments to an eligible employee.

The coalition finds these measures quite unobjectionable but, as the shadow minister outlined and as is reflected in our second reading amendment, they still do not overcome the glaring deficiencies that are a part of the government's scheme. There is the fact that the period of leave is too short, based on most of the considered evidence, particularly from those involved in maternal and child health, and the fact that the government's scheme does not include superannuation. Another glaring shortcoming in the government's scheme is in retirement income security, particularly for women who have had time away from work because of breaks in superannuation contributions. That can create additional financial pressures down the track, a reality which is not addressed at all in the government's scheme.

There is also the rate of payment which sees the financial support available default to the minimum wage. I have not met any new family or new parent that has their financial responsibilities default back to the minimum wage upon the birth of a child. The mortgage all of a sudden does not look 'minimum wagey', and the expenses of running a household and the additional expenses involved in preparing for the arrival of the microhuman all add to the expenses that the household faces. Yet the government's scheme is insensitive to that very real life reality. We saw reports just today where considerations about the cost of raising children are having an enormous bearing on people considering adding to their family, and some research was quoted in relation to the cost of child care as just one example of those expenses.

The second reading amendment notes those ongoing deficiencies in the government's scheme and calls on the government to get real about paid parental leave. To get real, we believe that a better, fairer paid parental leave scheme has been devised and articulated by the coalition. It is real money in real time that responds to real household financial pressures, and it supports people making that difficult decision about whether to add to the family or not. The coalition offers genuine support for those family members.

In going to the specifics of the provisions of the bill, they are unobjectionable notwithstanding the ongoing glaring deficiencies of the government's scheme. When we get to consideration in detail, the third reading phase, I foreshadow that I will be moving some amendments on behalf of the coalition. These should come as no surprise to the parliament. This will be, I think, my third go at it. The first was when the bill was originally introduced, and our amendments earned strong support in the Senate. As I recall, we missed by one vote in the House having those amendments embraced. Support for a private member's bill followed a similar trajectory. I am hopeful that all of the talk and concern about red tape, compliance costs and burdens, particularly on smaller employers, will actually see people vote in a way that is consistent with the rhetoric around these important issues and impositions on particularly the small business community.

The amendments will seek to preserve the current arrangements for administering the Paid Parental Leave scheme so far as they relate to employers and employees that are both happy with those arrangements. When previously advocating the reforms I was putting forward I think the government—I do not know whether they thought they were being clever or not—rolled out Sony as their mouthpiece, as their case study. That is no corner store, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sony is a multinational corporation with a range of workplace entitlements that are very generous, including paid parental leave support. Sony were saying, 'No, we're happy to handle this money on behalf of the Commonwealth; we'll just bolt it onto our current arrangements.' I say good luck to them if they have the organisational infrastructure and capacity to carry out that role of paid parental leave pay clerk on behalf of the Commonwealth for a scheme that the Commonwealth has determined, that the Commonwealth funds and that the Commonwealth verifies eligibility for, and where the Commonwealth steps in to make the payments where the employer is no longer able to carry out that responsibility or, ironically under this bill, where the Commonwealth is paying the dad's and partner's pay. All of those arrangements, all of that machinery that is in place, is denied to employers, particularly small business employers, who frankly do not need an unnecessary and unjustified additional imposition on their scarce time and on their stretched organisational resources.

For the first six months of this scheme, a period within which the government boasted about the success of the scheme, the Family Assistance Office of Centrelink made those payments. So an employer had to acknowledge and verify the work tests and the like for eligible employees and then the Commonwealth went around paying that money directly. For the first six months that is the way that the scheme operated, and the Labor government boasted about the success of the scheme.

After that six months, a new impost was forced on all employers to carry out that responsibility on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth still had to go through the process of verifying eligibility by liaising with employers and putting in place the funds and the payment systems to make those payments, but they were simply then passed on to an employer, who had to go and reconfigure all of their workplace, industrial relations, pay office and accounting systems to receive that money on behalf of the Commonwealth. They had to pay it through their pay systems but not have it actually in the pay system because it is not supposed to influence workers compensation liabilities, payroll tax obligations and other expenses. It was supposed to be paid through that system but not to actually be part of it. It was supposed to be received from the Commonwealth, often in instalments, and then those payments were to be on-made. That was an administrative burden that was imposed upon employers, particularly small business, with the threat of very substantial fines if they did not do what the Commonwealth said.

You can imagine my surprise when I heard the member for Throsby boast about how employers have embraced the scheme. He said that 22,000 have registered to make payments through their pay cycle. Member for Throsby, they had no choice. That is why they registered, because they would be fined if they did not. It was a legal obligation to participate, and shame on you for trying to misrepresent that level of employer engagement, because they had no choice—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but to carry out that responsibility.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dunkley will resume his seat.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So I hope the member for Throsby—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Apart from the honourable member ignoring your ruling that he should sit down for this point of order, he also reflected on you by saying, 'Shame on you'—either that, or he was not putting his comments through the chair. Either way, he was in breach of standing orders.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The member for Dunkley should be cautious of the wording that he uses. All comments are through the Speaker.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I invite you to check the Hansard. I apologise to the member opposite for actually having syntax in my sentences. I will make sure they are one long sentence—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dunkley will debate the bill.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

following the member for Throsby. I will make sure that is the case. But thank you for pointing that out. It was a valuable contribution, my colleague!

Those are the arrangements in place. They are legally obliged to participate; that is why employers are there. To say that that represents an 'embracing' that extends to the administrative systems, the red-tape obligations, the compliance costs and the risk of fines is an absolute nonsense and a blatant misrepresentation of employer attitudes towards these issues. Let me go to some of the views that the employers have expressed. I hope that the crossbenchers take some of these views into account, particularly the member for Lyne, whom, I must say, I was extremely disappointed in for not supporting this measure last time it was debated when he then fronted up at the National Press Club on 4 March to say:

… I am currently urging both the Government and Opposition to start thinking about a small business compliance strategy.

He went on to talk about the additional compliance challenges imposed by the Paid Parental Leave scheme. That was just days after he voted against reducing the compliance burden on small business. I hope he is serious about that particular initiative. Even the government itself as recently as early March was talking about the meeting it had with business leaders regarding cutting red tape being a key priority for the Gillard government. This was in the communique, which says:

… as excessive regulation lowers business costs—

no, it actually increases business costs—

and hinders productivity.

That statement from the Prime Minister goes on to say:

Small business will also be directly represented on the Forum, given smaller firms often disproportionately feel the impact of regulatory burdens.

These are all honourable objectives, but do something about it, I urge the government. Actually follow through on those fine words by embracing the amendments when we get the opportunity to detail them, when consideration in detail arises.

For those who are under any doubt about why these changes need to take place, about why the red-tape burden should be reduced by the measures that we will be advocating in more detail later, have a look at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's contribution. It says:

The industrial relations system is already complex enough … without the government adding an unnecessary level of red tape on parental leave.

It goes on to talk about how the system operates well through the Family Assistance Office. That is how it operates in New Zealand. Why doesn't the government do it here? The Western Australian chamber of commerce and industry called for reimbursement from the Commonwealth for this paymaster role, criticising it as an unnecessary imposition on employers. The NSW Business Chamber similarly made the point that Paid Parental Leave should not incorporate costs that need to be carried by small business. There were also contributions from the Retailers Association, pointing out the way the government has designed the administration of the scheme is a 'costly, time consuming administrative nightmare.' VECCI echoed those remarks. COSBOA are supportive of these measures. Even the former Queensland government was urging the federal government to change its mind. It conveyed, through the then parliamentary secretary Jan Jarratt, that Queensland Small Business Advisory Council members were urging the government to change its way and not mandate these pay clerk requirements on the Commonwealth.

When announcing this policy before the 2007 election, the Prime Minister herself said there would be no new imposts on small business. When these detailed amendments come forward to give smaller employers and all employers not in a position to or disinclined to carry out this unnecessary administrative burden, it is time to back up the talk with action. I urge the House to do the right thing: cut the red tape and support those amendments— (Time expired)

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say it is fortuitous that the member for Dunkley concluded his remarks by referring to statements by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, because they have had a few other things to say, most notably about the opposition's Paid Parental Leave scheme, which has been much lauded in the contributions of both the member for Menzies and the member for Dunkley this afternoon. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chief Executive, Peter Anderson, said earlier this year that he believed their policy was a 'mistake', when it was announced by Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, two years ago, and he said, 'We still continue to hold that view.' If the member for Dunkley cares to reflect on the views of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regularly, he might choose to consider those wise words in the context of a paid parental leave scheme, which I suspect even he is not inclined to support. But he has made a valiant effort this afternoon and I commend him for that.

The other matter that I was astonished to hear raised by the shadow minister, the member for Menzies, earlier this afternoon was that of the coalition as, seemingly, the party supporting families and business. The hypocrisy that enables those kinds of contributions to be made is extraordinary in the context of a coalition which is poised to oppose the most recent announcement for families in relation to the federal budget—namely, the Schoolkids Bonus. What an extraordinary thing to do, when you are lauding yourselves as the party that is seemingly here to support families! Mr Deputy Speaker, we certainly know that the opposition has form when it comes to calling itself the party of families and the party of business, because we know that they are vehemently opposed to payments being made to families and to tax relief being given to families and to individuals under the clean energy future package. Indeed, at every turn in relation to every reform that we wish to make, we find the coalition critiquing our policies from the point of view of fiscal rectitude and from their point of view that they represent families. In actual fact, we find that they oppose benefits going to families and that they oppose practical measures to respond to the pressing needs of families and their cost-of-living concerns. It is similar whenever they talk about their role as the party of small business, because we know that they have opposed tax breaks for small business. It was extraordinary to hear the shadow minister speaking in this afternoon's debate about the things that they are doing for families.

We know that, through the Paid Parental Leave scheme that this government introduced in 2011, we have made one of the most significant commitments to families that this nation has seen. The commitment has been made as a result of the continued and sustained campaign by activists around this country for a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. They have certainly got it, under this government. This bill is the next step in that scheme.

We know that paid parental leave, which was introduced in 2011, has given eligible working parents up to 18 weeks paid parental leave at the national minimum wage, which is currently around $590 a week before tax. It gives those parents flexibility and opportunity to stay at home with their new child at a critical stage in its development. For many who are working part-time or who are casual employees—and there are many women in those circumstances—this has been an extraordinary benefit. Indeed, more than 150,000 families across the country have benefited or are benefiting from this change to policy, historically delivered by Labor in this term.

I mentioned that this bill is the next step in that arrangement. It extends the Paid Parental Leave scheme by introducing the dad and partner pay for eligible working fathers and for other eligible partners. This includes parents who adopt and parents in same-sex couples. The dad and partner pay arrangements will start on 1 January next year. I am pleased to say that the payment delivers on a commitment that Labor took to the last election to give dads and other partners the opportunity to have two weeks off to support new mums at home and to be involved in the care of their child right from the beginning of their lives.

Dad and partner pay will give eligible fathers and partners two weeks pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, so it is consistent with the existing Paid Parental Leave scheme. It is going to be available to all eligible fathers and partners, including adopting parents and parents in same-sex couples who care for a child born or adopted from 1 January 2013. It is an extraordinary commitment being made by this government and is building on an existing commitment to families right around the country. It means that, effectively, eligible families welcoming a new child will be able to receive up to 20 weeks' paid parental leave and dad and partner pay from this government.

Dad and partner pay will be available to eligible full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal, contract and self-employed workers. Eligible fathers and partners must be caring for the child either as the primary carer or jointly caring with the other parent. To be eligible they must not be working or on paid leave during the period they receive dad and partner pay. Like parental leave pay, this new payment will be available during the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child. Claims for the payment will be able to be lodged from 1 October 2012.

This is a great opportunity for people who are planning to have children. I know there are people in my electorate, the growth corridor of Melbourne, who are planning to have children. I have many young families moving into my electorate pretty regularly. There are people who are planning to have a child or future children and the commitment made by this government will be a really practical and meaningful commitment to assist them with the cost of living at a time when they want to be available to their new child and to their partners for support at home.

Dad and partner pay will recognise the challenges faced by families who find it really difficult to balance the family budget when their child is born. In particular, this is likely to be the case for casual employees, who may not have annual leave entitlements accrued, and for self-employed people such as tradespeople, small business owners and those working in a family business or farm. Coincidentally, a number of those categories of person are often mentioned by the coalition as being people that they represent but, needless to say, they are not likely to support these arrangements applying to them.

The design of dad and partner pay has been based on independent expert recommendations made by the Productivity Commission together with community consultation on the policy. It is consistent with the Productivity Commission's recommendations. The payment will be available in addition to any employer funded paid leave, but it cannot be taken at the same time as paid leave. This will encourage fathers and partners to take more time off to care for their child in the important early months of their lives.

It was of note that, on Fathers' Day last year, the government invited employer and employee groups, small business groups, family and community groups and individuals throughout the community to provide feedback on the Productivity Commission's recommendations and on the dad and partner pay arrangements. These consultations and feedback from the Paid Parental Leave Implementation Group have informed the development of the payment that is included in the bill before us today.

The government-funded dad and partner pay will be provided in addition to employer funded entitlements. The government expects that employers will retain their existing parental and paternity leave provisions, continuing to set themselves apart, we hope, as employers of choice for parents, and providing fathers with the maximum opportunity to take some time off work at a critical time in the development of their child and at a critical time for their additional family members. Families eligible for dad and partner pay may also continue to receive other family assistance payments such as baby bonus and Family Tax Benefit payments. The bill also makes minor refinements to the legislation for the Paid Parental Leave scheme by making some amendments to improve clarity and consistency and by making amendments in other areas of legislation. I know, in terms of the practical realities of this bill, that young families in my electorate will certainly stand to benefit, and that this will certainly be welcome news for fathers and partners in many of those families that are planning to have a child in the near future. I am sure they will be relieved to know that not only has this government implemented a fully funded paid parental leave scheme which is not opposed by the business community, unlike that proposed by those opposite, but that there will be additional financial support for fathers and partners under these new arrangements.

When we speak about parties that are here to support families, there is only one party in this place that has put its money where its mouth is, and which has committed itself to providing families with practical financial relief in a range of policy areas. It has factored it into its clean energy future package; it has included significant reforms, such as this; and it has moved to ensure that parents have better access to child care by increasing the childcare rebate. We have made practical moves to ensure that families are able to respond to cost-of-living pressures and we are doing this in the context of ensuring that our economy remains robust in an increasingly difficult global economic climate. And we are doing all of this while at the same time pursuing a surplus.

I certainly commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 17:53 to 19:30