Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Edwards. I thoroughly enjoyed most of your contribution. I did have to check with the Clerk, though, to find out exactly what the question before us was. I should have known, because it was actually my motion. But, when I did check, it was a relief to me that I was actually in the right debate. I thought that, as has been known, I might have come in and not been quite sure of which debate was taking place. But I am relieved to know that the question that we are discussing—I do not always like the term 'debating'—this afternoon is about paid parental leave and the perception that there seems to be some variation of opinion within the government ranks about their scheme, the scheme that they proudly told us a number of times that they have taken before the Australian community twice in elections.

As a member of the parliament, I am desperately seeking some detail about this scheme. I tried at the estimates process to find out specific details about how it would work—the operations, the funding models, the promotion processes, around this—and I got no more than the LNP election material, which I had studied closely through the two election campaigns, and, beyond a couple of statements, it said that there was strong support for an enhanced Paid Parental Leave scheme in Australia and the Prime Minister was standing up for the women of Australia. We congratulate that. Of course we congratulate that. I just believe that we need to see exactly what we are promoting. From my perspective, I would like to see some kind of unity of purpose being put out by the government around this issue.

I have asked questions of the government on these issues, and I have been reassured that there is a very broad church in the LNP. That came as a great relief to me, to know that there is a broad church in the LNP. What it actually means, though, in terms of getting detail around the Paid Parental Leave scheme, I am not sure, because, in this broad church, there is an agreement that people are able to follow their own beliefs and, evidently, make their own public comment about proposals that supposedly have been fully understood by the government—and not only fully understood but promoted actively in their election campaigns.

We all in this place have been involved in election campaigns. I am a person who takes a great deal of interest in the issues around paid parental leave and women's empowerment, and I think that is something that is indisputable across the area, but I do not remember a single forum, during either of those two intensive election campaigns, where the topic of the day was the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I do remember seeing some handouts at some of the functions, amidst other things, which showed glowing happy families and had a two-dot-point focus which said that the new Paid Parental Leave scheme would allow payments for women on higher wages at a more reasonable level, to reflect their wages. And that was what we had.

Point (b) of the motion before the chamber calls for the details of this scheme, 'including its costs and modelling that quantifies productivity and distributional impacts'. That is what we are seeking. There is a cost figure in the public arena for the enhanced scheme. I use the term 'enhanced scheme' because we do have an operational paid parental scheme in our country now. It was a hard fought, long awaited and way too late. I am looking at the other women on both sides of this chamber who I believe were waiting for a government in our country to step into the real world and develop a paid parental scheme for Australia. I remember speaking in this chamber at the time and listing some of the nations that did have paid parental schemes in place when Australia did not. That was to our shame, and I think that has been acknowledged.

We went through a difficult process to develop a scheme that was seen quite clearly as a workplace entitlement for working people to ensure that we acknowledged the responsibilities both for career and training enhancement as well as the very important responsibilities of having children and raising families. The process we used as a government was to give a reference to the Productivity Commission. The commission did an extraordinarily detailed and very valuable report about paid parental leave, not just in our country but across the world. On that basis a scheme was developed, and I wish to strongly acknowledge the work of Jenny Macklin. She was the then minister in our government and she fought hard not just within the wider community to ensure that people understood the background the scheme, the need for the scheme and the detailed operations of the scheme; she fought hard within our caucus. People were raising issues about the cost and the community response and also looking at the longstanding issues about what was the responsibility of employers and what was the responsibility of government.

All these things were in a really dynamic mix of debate and extensive community consultation in terms of the work done by a range of committees looking at both employers and employees, employer associations and trade unions, and working together with the common goal of bringing Australia into the 21st century. The aim also was to establish a scheme which provided for women who did not have either the power or the support in their own workplaces in order to come up with an arrangement through the enterprise bargaining methodology. We all know, and Senator Edwards referred to this, that many companies and businesses through their own workplace relations process have negotiated with their employees an effective paid parental scheme, and there are a large number of those. I wish to acknowledge those companies, because what they had done was acknowledge the workplace reality that the best way to ensure they have trained, skilled and engaged workers, both women and men, was to support them through the time when they are having children and then the time after that. It is not just the paid parental scheme you need to consider, but the full wraparound services in the community to ensure that workers are acknowledged for their roles both in their workplace and in raising families.

All that went on for several months, with consultation across the nation. This consultation exposed serious differences of opinion, as indeed all consultation does. As soon as you acknowledge that you are going to consult you need to be aware that you are going to hear a range of opinions, not all of which meet with your agreement. But, through that process, we were able to identify the key issues. The Labor caucus then discussed how we would introduce a process for paid parental leave in our country. One of the major factors in that discussion was looking at responsible financial management, looking at the environment in which our country was working, internationally as well as domestically, looking at the economic imperatives but also staying true to our strong commitment that we would introduce a paid parental scheme. Linked into that scheme was a very clear review process: while the scheme was operational, the legislation provided for set reviews so that we could look at how the scheme was working, what was working and what was not working, and whether the community was engaging with the scheme and saying that they thought a paid parental scheme was important and they would use it.

Fortunately, the most recent review has very recently been released—a little later than we thought it would be made public but nonetheless it is now public, so I will not have to ask at the next Senate estimates when it will be made public, which will be a relief to everybody. That very detailed review talks about the fact that over 340,000 women have already accessed paid parental leave since it was introduced in January 2011. It also shows that nearly 40,000 fathers and same-sex partners have accessed the dad and partner scheme since January 2013. We introduced the paid parental scheme for women workers in the first place and then enhanced that in view of the very real need for fathers and same-sex partners to be involved both in the birth and in the initial time with their children. That need for that kind of scheme had been raised consistently through the Productivity Commission process and through many community consultations, so many of which I have been involved with for over 25 years. So we know without doubt that, in this period of time, the scheme is being used in our country and it is being used by women from a range of economic backgrounds and circumstances. The limitation is that the time is limited, as is the quantum people receive. The quantum under the government sponsored paid parental scheme is based on the national wage; that is the process on which it operates.

Do I think it would be good to have an enhanced paid parental scheme? I do. I am on record saying that no program should be set in concrete and left to sit there without review and evolution to meet the needs of society. Do I think now is the time? No. It pains me to say that, but I do not believe that now is the time to widen the scheme. What we are talking about is widening an existing scheme.

By this time we should have achieved, absolutely, a cessation of the debate about whether there should or should not be a paid parental leave scheme in our work places. My fear is that by widening the scheme—it will cost about $5 billion a year; $20 billion around the forward estimates—the debate will be around the quantum, and that will inflame the division and the negativity in the community about whether this is the right way to spend our money.

We have had that debate. That debate was finalised. We accepted that there needs to be acknowledgement for women and their partners about the birthing of children and the raising of families, and the linkage of that with work places. That debate should be over. But the extreme generosity—I am trying to be very calm and kind in my terminology—of this scheme has caused the debate to be reopened in some places, where people have come forward and said that it is a waste of money and that women make their own decisions. I have seen this in the media and I have heard it in public meetings. We are re-awakening debates that should have been finalised.

This comes at a time when many attacks are being made on the most vulnerable in our community—at a time when we are lectured continually about the dangers of the budget crisis. You only have to take a quick snapshot of any time we have a question or debate in this place at the moment to see that the budget crisis in this country is constantly talked about. In this environment it would be extremely valuable to have a reasonable discussion about the role of parenting in the work place and the best way to work with that.

Coincidentally, I think we need to have in our community a debate about that. It is not just a debate about what happens around birthing and paid parental leave; we need an ongoing and responsive debate in our community about the issues of work and family and the cost of raising children and working. The Productivity Commission, when they did the initial work on the Paid Parental Leave scheme, identified that we need to have a clear discussion about, and decision on, how to have a more flexible arrangement within work places and around child care. Once you have children and you are maintaining your career you need to have the security that you will be supported in your work place.

The first two speakers in this debate concentrated extensively on the wider budget arrangement but my belief is that one of the reasons that this debate has become so heated is its timing. The environment in which we are discussing it this Paid Parental Leave scheme sets up a contest, where, on the one hand the government is introducing schemes which are going to be extraordinarily harsh for young unemployed people. These are unprecedented social welfare changes for young people who have survived being born—they have got through that bit—and have reached an age where they are looking for work and are not able to find it. The government is proposing to put in place a range of schemes which ensure that they will get no social welfare support.

At the same time, the government is freezing indexation on a number of existing social welfare payments. We are waiting with expectation for the McClure report, which I believe is going to recommend wide-ranging changes to our whole social welfare system. It seems to me that when we talk about these sorts of things 'wide-ranging changes' often means reductions. And there is also the increased HECS fees and so on.

So in the same budget you have a whole bucket-load of reductions and restrictions on people who are the most vulnerable in our community. That is the government's priority, and that is what they have put forward. The government do not deny that the changes that they are putting in place will impact on some of the most vulnerable in the community. So you have that in one part of the debate.

None of those things I have talked about were in the election promises document, but if the government were releasing such a document now you would find all those measures. Then, if you turned the page, you would find the proposed new Paid Parental Leave scheme, with a price tag of $5 billion a year, or $20 billion in the forward estimates. That is what saddens me. The people on this side of the chamber are not creating this division. It is a division which is being discussed in the wider community. We have an existing paid parental scheme, which people are using and we are now talking about changing that to a great extent.

Always when people feel strongly about something they tend to be more excited and more elaborate in their debating style. But we have had some on the other side of the chamber who have the sheer gall to accuse people who are questioning this Paid Parental Leave scheme—they are not saying it is abhorrent but are questioning it—of not supporting working women in our community. That does not help the debate. That it is false should be self-evident. It does not acknowledge the reality: there needs to be an understanding of the priorities in our community.

We need to celebrate the success we have had in establishing a paid parental leave scheme in this country. We need to bring people along with us to see that, in the future, there can well be changes to the scheme. We do not oppose looking at how we can enhance the scheme but at this time I do not believe that our community, our economy or our future are best served by looking at a scheme, the full details of which we still do not have. And whilst I am making these comments on this side of the chamber, there are very many people in the LNP who are seemingly able to make similar comments both in the media and elsewhere, and while not always in this place, sometimes the comments have come up within a wider discussion around the debate.

That is the reason for the motion on the paper. It is focused on paid parental leave. It is focused on the fact that we do not know the details but its clear focus is that we are not in opposition to the working women and men in this country. We actually worked to develop a paid parental scheme in this country, and we do not want to go back to the debates which question whether you need such a scheme at all.