Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Australian Democrats I indicate that we support the amendments. We are actually in the process of circulating the same amendment but we have put a hold on that because it makes more sense to support the ones before the chair in the name of Senator Siewert. We initially circulated a backup amendment because of our concern at the discriminatory provision that we are currently debating. That is the notion that those below the age of 18 should be given payments by instalment and therefore that those young women, in this case teenage women, are mature enough to have a child—and I am sure there would be some people who would debate that notion—but are not mature enough to handle money in a lump sum. To me that is a concern.

My preference, and my party’s preference, is that, if the instalment argument is to carry weight—and I think it does have some validity—it should be applied across the board. Why not provide payments on a fortnightly basis for all those women who as mothers are eligible for the payment? The Democrats are on record almost a squillion times—if someone wants to define a squillion!—in this place extolling the virtues of a national paid maternity leave scheme provided by government, not as an impost on business. We had concerns about the initial baby bonus and then its replacement, the maternity payment, which is now back to being the baby bonus but obviously as a somewhat different scheme that is certainly more supportable than the original baby bonus. This scheme, however, has its flaws. We know that. It does not necessarily provide a payment that enables working women in particular to be compensated for time out of the workforce—a time out that is a biological imperative given the fact that women are responsible for giving birth to children. That is the reason for our strong support for maternity leave as a priority and parental leave as something that is equally important to provide, but we also recognise that there is a biological difference involved.

We had the maternity payment, the new baby bonus, and now this debate before us relates to the instalment payment process. It is one that we think would have merit if it were applied across the board. That way it would solve some of the concerns that people have in relation to younger mothers. It would also deal with what newspaper articles have talked about of women of all ages going out and recklessly spending on whitegoods as a consequence of receiving a lump sum payment. And, no, I did not feel the need to go out and buy whitegoods or anything else with the maternity payment; I actually did not claim it. The issue of women’s access to this payment is important if we are going to acknowledge the role of mothers in our society to support this so-called fertility boom, whether there is one or not, over the years. We have to acknowledge that women should receive some support and that it should come from government in some form. It should be equal. That is, it should not advantage high-income earners over others. It should be systematic so that women who take time out of the workforce are compensated just as women who choose to stay home—and it is all about choice, or at least it should be—should receive some level of support as well.

In terms of this age discrimination with which we are confronted today—and I understand that the government is talking about this from the perspective of being concerned about vulnerability—I cannot help, Chair, but to say through you to Senator Scullion that we have to be very careful where the slippery slope of paternalism comes into this debate. I know some women who might be considered older mothers who would not necessarily treat a lump sum in a way that some may deem sensible, just as I know teenage mothers who would deal with a lump sum with integrity and the financial cleverness that some of us may not always be capable of.

The Democrats will be supporting the amendments. We are not circulating one of our amendments and we have withdrawn the other one, which, I say to Senator Siewert through the chair, I think would have been a backup amendment that would not necessarily achieve the same outcome that you and I and our parties would like to achieve. I have also spoken to people in the sector, people of all ages and various sector groups in relation to this issue and the consensus seems to be that if you want to resolve some of the issues that people are aware of then you do it with instalments for all. I might also put on record that, whilst I am conscious that there is a debate about the fertility boom and increases in pregnancy in Australia, particularly among certain groups of women, we need to remember that there has been a slight decline in the rate of pregnancies for 18-year-old women. Obviously the figures that we deal with tend to be from 2005 or 2006, if we are lucky. I think we are still waiting on some of the 2006 figures. Certainly it is worth noting that, from 1980 to 2005, bearing in mind that the baby bonus was introduced before 2005, there was a decline in the rate of pregnancies for 15-year-olds to 19-year-olds. I know that there are elements of that argument that are up for debate, but certainly there is a decrease for 18-year-olds.

Although the minister uses terms such as ‘disincentive’—and forgive me if I misrepresent the minister because I was running down the stairs as I was listening to him—I do not believe that this payment is necessarily an incentive to have a child. Of course, there will always be exceptions to the rule, but we should remember the headline we all read when the maternity payment lump sum was introduced. Again, I want to make it clear that it was not just about so-called teenage mothers; it was about all mothers and all families going out and buying, namely, whitegoods. I think that we have to move on from some of those superficial, simplistic headlines and look at some of the facts and figures. Yes, we should consult with some of the people in the sector but, if we are going to make this fair, it should apply to everyone. I cannot cope with the notion that some women are old enough to have kids but are not old enough to have a lump sum. That just does not make sense to me and that is why I will be opposing the government’s measure and supporting the amendment that Senator Siewert was, unfortunately, a little faster than I was in circulating.