Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the urgency motion, which reads:

The failure of the Rudd Government’s paid parental leave scheme to support parents for the World Health Organisation’s recommended minimum of six months, and address the great inequity between male and female retirement incomes.

I really do welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. The Rudd government’s paid parental leave scheme falls well short of the six months recommended by the World Health Organisation and what has been proposed by the coalition. Labor’s scheme quite simply does not meet the financial or maternal needs of families. It falls well short of the real-time, real wages support that a coalition government would deliver. The coalition has proposed a national paid parental leave scheme which would give the principal carer of a newborn baby six months leave at her or his actual salary, capped at an annual salary of $150,000. This is six months of real-time support and real wages.

A paid parental leave scheme should be set at six months because that is the recommended minimum period for exclusive breastfeeding—as a midwife I certainly recommend that to all the mums out there—and it gives parents and babies time to bond. While I am talking about parents and time to bond, I will quote from the transcript of last evening’s Q&A. On that program, Mr Shorten said:

First of all, I was listening to what Peter said—

Peter is Peter Dutton—

and Peter said “paid maternity leave” and this is the first issue I want to get out. Why did Liberals always think that it’s paid “maternity” leave. It’s paid paternity leave.

He continued, ‘Men should have the opportunity if they want to raise their kids too.’ Peter Dutton responded:

And they do. Under this scheme they do.

Mr Shorten then said:

Yeah, but Peter, just Liberals use the language of the women have got to stay - it’s women’s responsibility. The first issue is blokes want to take time off. Certainly, I’ve taken five and a half weeks off at the beginning of this year. It’s a good thing.

I would like to remind those opposite that the Labor scheme does not provide any paternity leave, whereas the coalition scheme provides two weeks of paternity leave. I think that is very, very important.

The funding of the coalition proposal will affect only 3,200 big companies out of an estimated 750,000 companies in Australia—that is, less than one per cent of Australian companies will be levied. There would also be potential offset savings for those large businesses that are already paying some parental leave. Small businesses will not pay the levy and they will not administer it but their employees will benefit. The coalition’s scheme will also be administered by the government. This is unlike Labor’s scheme, which places an administrative burden on small business.

Unfortunately, Labor has spent the surplus that was left by the Howard government. That is why a levy on big business is proposed for the time being—it can be removed later. There have been a number of occasions where a levy was applied and removed later. The paid parental leave scheme should ideally be paid for from a surplus. But because Labor has spent everything that was left in the bank and then run up a huge debt a levy is necessary to fund this program. Examples of previous levies include, in 1996, a 15 per cent superannuation surcharge levy that was applied to high-income earners to fix Mr Beazley’s black hole in the budget. It was then abolished in 2005 after Labor’s debt had been almost paid off. In 1996, a 0.2 per cent levy was placed on the Medicare surcharge for the gun buyback scheme. This levy was abolished after 12 months. In 2001, a $10 levy was placed on airline tickets to cover Ansett employee entitlements. This levy was abolished in 2003. The coalition wants to meet paid parental leave out of a budget surplus, but, unfortunately, there isn’t one. Labor has spent it all with its excessive stimulus spending. So, as we have done in the past, a temporary levy will be used until such time as government can pay for the scheme.

Labor is also doing nothing to address the great inequity between male and female retirement incomes. An issue that disturbs me greatly is the level of financial difficulties for many retired Australian women. Seventy three per cent of single age pensioners are women, and half of all women aged between 45 and 59 have $8,000 or less in their superannuation funds, compared to $31,000 for men. The average super balance in 2004 was $56,400 for men and $23,900 for women. The average retirement payouts in 2004 were $110,000 for men and only $37,000 for women. Quite simply, women in Australia are worse off in retirement. This can quite probably be put down to the fact that older women in our society have had their careers interrupted or did not have the flexibility in work arrangements to be able to meet their family responsibilities. So with this initiative we are going to make sure that women who have had to give up their careers to have a family, which is a very worthwhile exercise, will not end up in later years in the same very sad position that some women of my age have. We cannot go on with this situation and I would like to see more done in that respect. The shadow minister for seniors, Bronwyn Bishop MP, held two very successful seniors forums in the electorates of Canning— (Time expired)