Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying before the 90-second statements commenced at 1.30 pm, Labor understands that small businesses have scarce resources and that is why they must employ people to build their businesses and improve profitability. That is why during the 2013 election campaign we announced that we would amend the Paid Parental Leave scheme to remove the requirement for employers with fewer than 20 employees to make the PPL payments. These businesses would then be able to opt for the Department of Human Services, through Centrelink, to manage the PPL payments for their employees on maternity leave. We saw this as a sensible balance between the goal of maintaining the relationship between the employer and the employee on maternity leave while giving small businesses the option to streamline their administration and reduce their costs.

But this bill goes much further than that. It actually abolishes the role of the employer entirely for all businesses regardless of size. While some interest groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, have expressed some support in removing the employer, especially in small business, from the PPL, it is not always the case. In fact, some in the business community do not support what the government has had to say. The Australian Industry Group in a submission to the Senate inquiry stated that it:

… understands the logic behind the Government-funded parental leave payments being channelled through employers, for employees who are not short-term and who remain attached to the enterprise. Such an approach should reinforce the employee's link with the workplace, and achieve better return to work outcomes.

Labor certainly does not believe that this bill before the House, which abolishes the employer's role entirely, strikes the right balance. We will move to amend the legislation to ensure that only businesses with fewer than 20 employees can have their paid parental leave administered by Centrelink.

I waited during the Treasurer's budget speech to hear fanfare about the Paid Parental Leave scheme but, in fact, the Treasurer barely mentioned the scheme that is the subject of debate before the House. He had plenty of surprises to spring and plenty of promises to break, like ripping $80 billion out of Australian schools and hospitals; having to pay the GP tax of $7 every time you go to a doctor; cutting assistance to low- and middle-income families; making life harder for pensioners through changes to indexation; a tax hike on petrol; forcing unemployed people under 30 to wait six months for Newstart; making university places more expensive; cutting funding to the ABC and SBS; cutting trade trading centres; slashing funds from the CSIRO; and cutting more than half a billion dollar of Indigenous funding, including to Indigenous health.

But there was barely a whisper about this issue in the Treasurer's speech. In the middle of the speech he slipped a single line about the coalition's gold plated Paid Parental Leave scheme. I suppose that was better than the National Broadband Network, which went unloved and unmentioned entirely. Perhaps the Treasurer was embarrassed. Perhaps he foresaw the difficulty government MPs, particularly marginal seat holders, would face explaining this back in their electorate.

It is simply inconsistent with his oft mentioned 'end of the age of entitlement' for the Treasurer then to be splurging $5.3 billion on this Paid Parental Leave scheme which is unfair and inequitable. It does not gel with the 'end of the age of entitlement'. It is inconsistent. No doubt people have expressed—as they have certainly expressed to me when I have been doing mobile offices—their anger about the budget, not just with the new taxes and the broken promises but also in relation to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I have been doing mobile offices for a long time. At the Ipswich Show, across three days, after the GP tax and the pension age, the issue that was raised most often was this Paid Parental Leave scheme. People are furious that we are splurging over $5 billion on this. They feel betrayed and they raised this because of its inequity.

Former Liberal icons like Peter Costello, former Treasurer, described this new scheme of the coalition as 'silly'. Peter Reith, someone for whom John Howard had great regard, labelled it 'obviously bad policy'. Even former finance minister, Nick Minchin—the bloke who actually helped install the now Prime Minister in his current role—said:

I've been on the record many, many times as saying that I'm not a supporter of the paid parental leave scheme.

He even said that he would vote against it. More and more of those opposite should think about what Nick Minchin has said, and vote against it. (Time expired)

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. This bill is very much in keeping with the coalition's commitment to reduce $1 billion of red tape on businesses every year. Already our 'red tape repeal day' has delivered in excess of $700 million in savings. This bill ensures that business no longer carries the burden of having to act as the pay clerk for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. This will save businesses $44 million a year and make life easier for small business owner-operators. This measure will also save the not-for-profit sector $4 million a year.

Earlier in this debate it was suggested by a member opposite that there was no evidence for these savings. I say to that member: read the explanatory memorandum; the detail is there. But Labor has not been very good at getting its head around the detail. We just heard from the member for Blair, who claimed that employers will have no role under our amendments. We have actually made it very clear that, where an employer has administrative capacity and has found the role to be beneficial for their organisation, with the agreement of the employee, they can opt in to take on this role voluntarily. So, again, we hear from the other side of the chamber a deficiency by Labor in understanding the detail of the bill before this House.

The savings to businesses in my home state of Victoria will be around $11.67 million alone. That is a very significant measure. You would think that Labor would get behind these reforms to help small business, because it is common sense. But, like the billions of dollars of savings that Labor is blocking—including $5 billion of its own savings—Labor is once again standing in the way. In 2011 Labor voted down the private member's bill of the member for Dunkley—now, of course, the Minister for Small Business—to remove the pay clerk burden from the PPL scheme, and Labor has continued to block this important measure. The bottom line is: Labor does not understand how important this is for small business, because it does not understand that, taking the cost pressures off small business helps jobs and drives prosperity.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry conducted a survey of its members on the Paid Parental Leave scheme in May 2013. In that survey it found that 84 per cent of businesses either agreed or strongly agreed that the government should not require employers to be the paymaster for the Paid Parental Leave scheme.

Debate interrupted.