Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

As this was a very similar amendment to the Greens amendment which has subsequently been withdrawn, I just want an opportunity to speak to it. I think it is really important, as I said, that the government has picked this up as a glitch in their draft legislation. It is really important with a bill like this, particularly one that is so historic and that is setting down a new framework for how we support working mothers to have that time off with their kids, for us to be very clear about what the objectives are. The objectives in the bill as drafted currently without this amendment are not clear; there is confusion. We need to be very clear about what the objectives are so that down the track when we deal with the review we know what we are measuring: the success of the bill and how it has worked. Is it meeting the objectives?

Of course, one of the key objectives should not be just financial support for families—mums and dads who need to take time off when their baby is born—but about allowing women, in particular, to stay connected to the workforce. While the government has adopted a need to clarify their objectives, the subsequent amendments that I will move back that up. If this is a workplace entitlement—if this is about finding ways to allow women to stay connected to the workforce, increase female workplace participation and provide that really crucial financial support to families—then it must become a workplace entitlement. That is where the rest of the Greens amendments flow to. So if the government accepts that they are the objectives then let us see the government accept the rest of the amendments to fix this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Similarly, the government in their wisdom have seen that the second Greens amendment here is worth picking up on, and they have moved their own. Again, it is very good; it is a very good reflection on how this process works.

This, of course, it goes to the concerns around the fact that this payment should not be replacement of or absorbed by existing employer funded schemes. For women who already have access to employer funded schemes, this should be in addition to; it should not be in replacement of. We have heard concerning reports, with one published in the Financial Review only last week suggesting that a majority of companies were actually assuming that this could be absorbed as part of their payments. This has been a concern that the Greens have had for a long time, and the fact that the government has finally picked up on this was clarity that we needed to see.

I withdraw my amendment (2) on sheet 6111, but I am thankful that the government has adopted our criticisms and our amendment as it was put forward.