Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It seems fairly fitting and appropriate that I follow a speech about Muriel Matters, because I want to take my time this evening to talk about two pieces of legislation that we have passed in the federal parliament in the last week. Due to time constraints in the chamber I was not able to contribute to the second reading debates, so I will seek to speak on the legislation this evening. The first contribution I want to make is in relation to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, which we passed last week. For far too long Australia has been left on the outer in supporting women at work and for too many years we have been one of only two countries in the OECD not to have a national government funded Paid Parental Leave scheme. The passage of this legislation last week corrects this and it gives babies the best start possible in their lives.

According to the Bureau of Statistics, in 2009 almost 25 per cent of women worked in casual jobs and received no paid leave entitlements. Many families, particularly where the woman is in a low-paid, part-time or casual job, often do not have the option of employer provided paid parental leave and do not have the option of one parent taking unpaid leave after the birth of a child. This government funded scheme will now give parents that option. It means one parent will have the financial security to take time off work to care for their baby at home during those vital early months of their baby’s life. It gives mums time to recover from the birth and precious time to bond with the baby. This sends a very strong signal to the community that having a child and taking leave from work during and after the birth or even the adoption of a child is part of the normal course of work and family life. It supports women to maintain their connection with the workforce and boosts workforce participation. It supports businesses, as they benefit from retaining skilled and experienced female staff but will not have to fund these parental leave payments.

While women’s workforce participation has substantially increased over the past 30 years, Australian women’s workforce participation during the peak child-bearing years is lower than for women in other leading industrialised countries. As Minister Macklin said in her second reading speech:

As a nation, we cannot continue to ignore the barriers to greater participation by women, who now make up 45 per cent of the paid workforce.

That is why the Labor Party, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, committed before the 2007 election to exploring ways to make it as easy as possible for working parents to balance work with adjusting to parenthood and bonding with their children. The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 is the result. This legislation will set in place a government funded scheme providing up to 18 weeks of guaranteed parental leave payments, paid to mothers or adoptive parents who have been working and who have a baby or who adopt a child on or after 1 January 2011.

There is an eligibility requirement for this scheme. Claimants will need to meet the paid parental leave work test, income test and residency requirements to be eligible. In order to meet the work test, though, the claimant must have worked continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth of the child and worked at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. It might sound a lot, but in reality it works out to be just one day a week. This means that those who work part time or casually, who have multiple employers or who have recently changed jobs or are between jobs or on unpaid leave for no more than eight weeks at a time will not be left out of the scheme. This measure also means seasonal workers meeting that requirement will not be left out of the scheme.

Importantly, for those fortunate enough to have access to paid parental leave through their employers, this government funded scheme may be received before, after or at the same time as the employer provided paid parental leave, as well as annual or recreational leave. If a claimant wants to return to work before they have received all of their 18 weeks of government funded paid parental leave then the person’s partner may be able to receive the unused portion of the leave, subject to meeting the eligibility requirements. Otherwise, the government funded Paid Parental Leave scheme will stop once the claimant returns to work. I also want to note that in the case of multiple births—for example, twins or triplets—the claimant can take the government funded parental leave option and the baby bonus can be paid for the second child and subsequent children, subject to eligibility requirements. Otherwise, if you are taking the paid parental leave option for the birth of just one child, the baby bonus is not payable.

I think for Australian women and for Australian families this is a terrific outcome. We know that for 12 years the previous government refused to deliver a paid parental leave scheme for families—and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, once said that he would only support paid parental leave ‘over his dead body’. Only recently have they come up with the idea of supporting this scheme but with a big new tax on business to fund it. They want business to fund their scheme, unlike the Rudd Labor government, who will be funding this scheme from government funds. Our scheme is fair. It is fair to families and it is fair to business.

Ms Heather Ridout, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, has come out in strong support of the scheme. At a doorstop in Melbourne on 4 May, she said:

It’s been a long time in gestation … The Government have been very responsive to concerns about the implementation and the practical issues attached to it and we’re quite comfortable with the outcome.

She also said in relation to the embarrassing fact that Australia is one of two OECD countries that did not yet have a government funded paid parental leave scheme:

Personally I felt it was a league table Australia should not be on.

Ms Ridout also addressed comments made by the opposition that it was a ‘mickey mouse scheme’. She said:

… this isn’t a Mickey Mouse scheme. This is a substantial scheme … My concern about Tony Abbott’s scheme … As a representative of business putting a 1.7 per cent levy on the company tax rate which in another life I’ve been trying to reduce through the Henry process didn’t make an awful lot of sense to me.

She also stated that there are many employers putting in place schemes that add on to the government’s scheme, which women in the workplace can only benefit from.

I also want to acknowledge in my speech tonight the work of Ms Sharan Burrow, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and use this as an opportunity to publicly thank her for her advocacy and work as leader of the trade union movement over many years and also to publicly wish her well in her move to Brussels, heading up the International Trade Union Confederation. It is a job I know she will do eminently well and we as Australians will be eminently proud of her taking up that role. She has been very vocal in her support for this scheme. On 4 May in Melbourne, when it was launched, she said:

But right now a Labor Government, this Labor Government, determined to put four and a half months in place, income in the hands of working Australians. We congratulate them.

20:37:17

It is important to remember that this scheme is fully costed and well thought out. In February 2008, the government asked the Productivity Commission to look at the economic, productivity and social costs and benefits of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave as well as to consider the health and developmental benefits of any scheme for babies and parents. The commission analysed evidence from surveys and international research. It undertook extensive public consultation on proposals for the scheme and sought submissions and conducted public hearings. In the end, the government recommended a government funded statutory scheme paid at the national minimum wage for up to 18 weeks, a recommendation based on extensive evidence and rigorous analysis. This is the scheme that this government has finally delivered. It is a scheme that is long overdue. I am particularly proud to be part of the federal government that introduced this bill and ensured that it was passed by the parliament.

I want to dedicate the second half of my speech to the legislation that we passed last night in relation to the restoration of the Racial Discrimination Act and to changes to the Northern Territory intervention. As a senator from the Northern Territory, this has taken up almost 310 per cent of my time in the last three years. I am very passionate about the outcome of this legislation. I was very keen to support its passage through the Senate and am keen to ensure that it is implemented fairly and properly as it rolls out around the Territory. The bill that we proposed followed very extensive consultation around the Northern Territory with Indigenous communities that were affected by the intervention in 73 regional towns and town camps, but we consulted much more broadly than that. Eight measures were discussed in the consultation process and there are many more changes in the legislation we passed last night than just income management. I know that has been the sole area of concentration by the national media and national non-government organisations, but the legislation we passed last night went much further than just changing the income management arrangements for people. It goes to alcohol restrictions, pornography restrictions, five-year leases, community stores licensing, controls on the use of publicly funded computers, law enforcement powers and the roles of government business managers in these communities. The legislation was developed taking into account the views of Indigenous peoples affected by the intervention. The reforms in the bill tackled the destructive and intergenerational cycle of passive welfare. The reform of the welfare system so that it fosters responsibility and engagement was front and centre in our minds when this legislation was developed. It quarantines 50 per cent of regular welfare payments and 100 per cent of lump-sum payments to make sure that money is spent on life’s essentials and in the best interests of children. It sets out clear criteria that will determine whether an individual is subject to income management and offers evidence based incentives and responsibilities targeted at exemptions for families who demonstrate responsible parenting and for young people and long-term unemployed who take personal initiative through participation in education and training.

I want to place on the record that I very carefully monitored the way in which the consultations were conducted in the lead-up to this legislation. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, was probably not particularly happy at the way in which some of us diligently went about ensuring the consultations were done properly. But we worked cooperatively and I managed to get feedback from a significant number of those consultations. What has not been picked up in the national dialogue about the changes to income management and what has not been acknowledged is that this legislation truly reflects what the majority of the people on the ground wanted. It truly does reflect what people were asking for. They want income management to be optional and pensioners and people on a disability pension to be exempt, but they do want people who are not looking after their children, who are not sending their children to school or who are spending most of their Centrelink payments on grog and smokes to somehow have their money managed. The surveys that FaHCSIA has undertaken and the discussions that government business managers have had with their communities are all part and parcel of the constant dialogue that occurs in the Northern Territory. As I get around the Northern Territory, people often say to me—in fact more people than not—that they believe that the income management we instituted produced change for the better but they think it went too far. They think that there needs to be a rollback. People should have the option to be included and pensioners, people on a disability pension and families that are doing the right thing should come off it. This legislation truly reflects this. I can honestly and proudly say in this chamber that this legislation that Minister Macklin put together with her department is the one piece of legislation that does actually reflect what Indigenous people want. Far too often we listen to the half-dozen or so Indigenous people who speak the loudest and who speak often, but they do not often reflect what is happening on the ground with people in the communities on a day-to-day basis.

I want to make some comments about reinstating the RDA. In opposition the Rudd Labor government promised to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act, so this legislation marks yet another election promise fulfilled by the Rudd Labor government. The former Howard government intentionally and expressly prevented the Racial Discrimination Act from applying to its legislation. It did so in two ways: by creating express provisions that said the RDA did not apply and by creating express provisions that would have effectively instructed courts to treat their actions as special measures.

This bill repeals those express provisions that prevent the RDA from applying. I have heard the arguments that say it does not, but I do not believe that to be the case. I profoundly believe that this is major welfare reform in this country, and I wholeheartedly support it. What people need to understand and come to terms with from this day forward is that, if you are a Centrelink recipient in this country, we are going to change the way in which you receive that benefit from the government. We are not going to reduce the payment, but we are saying that Centrelink benefits from the federal government are going to be paid in a different way.

I hear the criticisms from ACOSS and some of the churches, but on the ground I firmly believe that this is a change this country needs to make in order to ensure that people spend their money in the right and proper way. I take it that some people will feel affronted and feel that their rights have been imposed upon. But this legislation provides that, if those people are actually doing the right thing by their children and by themselves in looking for work, studying, training and getting their kids to school, they will not have their income managed.

The new reform scheme, by its very nature, is designed to be nondiscriminatory. I know that when this rolls out across the Territory there will be problems and concerns. I imagine that the door of my office will become a revolving one as a result of the non-Indigenous people who did not expect that this would be the outcome of this legislation. But we have a duty as a government to inform and educate people. We need to make sure that they are aware that this is a change that has been supported by both major parties in this country and that it is a significant welfare reform.

There has been criticism from some quarters—from Amnesty International, for example—suggesting that this is not sufficient to fully reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act. Dr Sarah Pritchard, who appeared before the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee of which I am a member, said:

It is a fairly standard principle of statutory interpretation that the provision that specific provisions prevail over general provisions, and we consider that there is a real risk that the repeal of the suspending provisions will leave the specific provisions to operate and override the protections intended to be conferred by the Racial Discrimination Act.

In other words, what these people wanted to do was to ensure that this piece of legislation would say that the operation of the RDA would need to apply a notwithstanding clause—so: notwithstanding everything else, the RDA would apply. We found out during the committee hearings, of course, that the problem is that we do not have notwithstanding clauses in other pieces of legislation. It is not custom and practice to put those in other pieces of legislation, so why would we put it in this piece of legislation? The answer is that we have not. The fact that the legislation does not specifically refer to a notwithstanding clause has led people to a belief that the RDA has still not been properly lifted, but it is not common practice in other pieces of legislation.

During the minister’s second reading speech, she clearly stated that the provisions that modify the operations of the RDA and that deem the legislation and acts to be special measures are to be repealed, and they have been. The explanatory memorandum contains a number of statements about the effect of the repeal, including a clear statement that the RDA will no longer be excluded. If ever contested in a court, both of these documents would be used consistently with the Acts Interpretation Act to demonstrate the very clear intention of the minister and of this government.

In conclusion, I want to say that people also need to look at the other provisions of the legislation that were part of what we passed through this parliament last night. One issue that has been picked up by the legislation, and which I know was raised extensively through the consultations, goes to alcohol restrictions. I have been following this debate in the House of Representatives and at estimates, and I think it is an issue that has not received as much attention as it deserves. What we have done is reinstate the Aboriginal communities’ right to develop their own alcohol management plans again. I think that this is a good way to go. This legislation empowers Indigenous communities to manage their lifestyles and their outcomes. A strong view emerged from the consultations that effective alcohol controls were an important part of the Closing the Gap strategy but that they had to be owned and controlled by the Indigenous people. This legislation does that. In finishing my contribution to the Senate tonight, I want to say that I believe this legislation takes the Northern Territory and the intervention to the next step. I hope the next step is that we stop calling it the intervention and that we start to normalise life in the Northern Territory, but it is legislation that I fully endorse.