Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 16 March 2010, from Senator Hanson-Young:

Dear Mr President,

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:

“That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

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.”

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I move:

“That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

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 rise today to speak on an important issue. The reason I have moved this motion is that it is clear that Australia is in the midst of a debate, not about whether we should have paid parental leave in order to support working families in Australia but about what type of paid parental leave that should be and what that form of support should look like. The only piece of current legislation before the Australian parliament is the bill that I introduced in this very same place almost a year ago. While we have not been able to debate that bill, because it was moved as a private senator’s bill, that bill outlined a plan forward for paid parental leave. It was offering six months plus superannuation at the minimum wage. When I introduced this bill, we were yet to see any commitment from the government or the opposition as to this issue. Haven’t we come far! We now have a commitment from the Rudd Labor government for an 18-week scheme and of course we now have a commitment from the opposition, the coalition, for a scheme of 26 weeks with superannuation at replacement income paid for by big business. While we are still waiting to see the legislation for either the government’s scheme or the opposition’s scheme, what we do know is that by the end of this year parents need to know what type of support they will get and what type of scheme they should be looking forward to. Hopefully, Australia can again hold its head high among our OECD brothers and sisters in being able to say, ‘Yes, Australia too believes that paid parental leave is an important aspect of any workforce participation action plan and of course support for working families.’

Australia lags far behind the rest of the OECD countries in relation to paid parental leave. It is often said that Australia is one of only two countries that do not offer a paid parental leave scheme, Australia and the United States. But of course even in the United States 50 per cent of women have access to some type of government funded system through various US states that offer a government funded scheme. It is just not universal across the federation. Of course here in Australia we have nothing. There is no government funded paid parental leave scheme unless of course you work in the public service. Federally we offer 14 weeks for mothers to be able to take time off with their babies. It is a really important step for Australia to take when we know that we have one of the lowest female participation rates in the OECD. Where does that drop in female participation come in, despite the fact that over 63 per cent of our graduates are women? It is during the child-bearing years. It is during that time when women are forced out of the workforce to have their child and that attachment to the workplace is lost because we do not have a properly funded scheme. In other countries around the world which have had schemes in place for quite some time, that female workplace participation rate is brought up and correlates with that level of support that they are given by their federal governments.

It is time for Australian mums and dads to have the best possible paid parental leave scheme. While I welcome the commitment from the government to putting something on the table, 18 weeks is pathetic. Eighteen weeks at the minimum wage without superannuation is really nothing more than a rebadged baby bonus. Not just that but the fact that it seems as though it will not even be an amendment to the Fair Work Act but rather an amendment to the Social Security Act means that it really is nothing more than a rebadging of the baby bonus. If we honestly believe that Australian working families—mums and dads, and women in particular—deserve the workplace entitlement of paid parental leave then, of course, it needs to be in the Fair Work Act. That is where all the unpaid maternity leave provisions are. It would make sense to have it in the Fair Work Act.

I look forward to seeing that legislation. We called the government on it yesterday. Let us see it. Let us see that legislation so we can get on and debate it because until now the only piece of legislation sitting in this chamber is that put forward by the Greens—six months plus super at the minimum wage. I would also like to see the detail from the coalition’s policy. It sounds good on face value but we need to see the detail. Where, in reality, are we going to be in 12 months time? I hope that we are able to, in this place, once we see the government legislation, agree on a six-month paid parental leave scheme with superannuation included. The compromise between the government and the opposition’s proposal would be for that to be at the minimum wage.

That seems like a pretty fair compromise to me. If you asked families right around the country if that would be a good way forward, most of them would say ‘yes’. Why should we accept the argument from the government that we should start with a paltry 18-week scheme that we will build on, even though it is only going to be in the Social Security Act? Why should we accept the argument from the government that is where we should start and we should not be asking for any more?

Let us not forget that it has been more than 30 years since we had the last amendment to legislation to provide unpaid parental leave. It has taken over 30 years to get to the point of talking about paid parental leave. I am not prepared to wait another 30 years to increase it to six months. The World Health Organisation, various women’s and children’s associations and unions—not just in Australia but globally—recognise that the minimum must be six months. It needs to be recognised as part of workplace attachment and, therefore, a workplace entitlement. It needs to include superannuation.

Let us touch on the issue of why superannuation is important. It is because we know already that we have generations of people worried about their superannuation to date and about whether they can actually retire. My mum and dad are worried about whether they can retire on their superannuation. I can tell you, the gap between the superannuation levels that men are going to retire on and the levels of superannuation that women are going to retire on are vastly different. Why? It is because of that gap during those child-bearing years. It is absolutely fundamental that any government that is committed to the rights of women in the workplace, to workplace participation and to the rights of people to have a secure retirement through their superannuation, must include, in any type of workplace entitlement, superannuation. That has to be in any type of paid parental leave scheme.

It is a scam by the government to try and convince Australians that 18 weeks without superannuation is anything more than a rebadged, glorified welfare provision otherwise known as the baby bonus. We need to move on from that. We need a paid parental leave scheme that has the guts to deliver the real action and support for parents. It has to be six months; it has to include superannuation. The compromise, I do believe, between the government and the opposition proposals, is that minimum wage component. Let us move forward from there. Let us not settle for something less simply because it does not taste politically nice to the government of the time. Let us strive for something that is worth supporting and worth building on, and that has to be that six-month time frame. Let us not wait another 30 years to have the debate just to make things better.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I sincerely hope today that we are not witness to the spectacle of the Greens combining with conservative parties in this country to sabotage the implementation of this much needed, important and progressive policy. Having hooked up with those opposite to defeat the CPRS, I hope they are not, on this issue, seeking to combine with a man who believes climate change is ‘absolute crap’ or to defeat a scheme like they did when they lined up and defeated a scheme that would have, for the first time, put a price on carbon. I hope today they are not lining up with the opposition to sabotage a scheme that will, for the first time, give all working women on low-to-middle incomes access to paid parental leave.

I know the Greens do not think the scheme goes far enough but I hope they are not gearing up to stop the parliament from introducing a paid parental leave scheme from 1 January next year. Just because they believe this scheme does not go far enough, I hope they are not preparing to sabotage it. Playing politics on this scheme could leave Australian women with no ability to plan for pregnancy secure in the knowledge that they will be eligible for leave next year.

I remind senators in this chamber, the Greens and those opposite, that the government’s scheme is based extensively on research and analysis conducted by the Productivity Commission. It has widespread support in the community, amongst business, unions and women’s advocates. Some of these groups would like our scheme to go further and I certainly hope that, in the future, it can. But none of them—unlike the Greens—are stupid enough to believe that nothing is better than something. None of them are reckless enough to sabotage the government’s ready-to-be-implemented scheme for the sake of some flight of fancy concocted by the likes of Abbott—a man who said paid parental leave would be introduced over his dead body.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You must refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his proper name.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Abbott?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President, I do believe I said Mr Abbott. This is a man who was a cabinet minister in a government that did nothing about paid parental leave for 12 years. The seasoned campaigners for paid parental leave in our community are not crazy enough to believe that Mr Abbott is going to deliver on this issue. Apparently today that honour is reserved for the Greens, the party that on this issue does not seem to be able to tell left from right and cannot distinguish a practical, progressive policy from an archconservative’s thought bubble. We cannot lose our way on this debate for the sake of big statements such as those embodied in this spurious motion. The government scheme is fully costed and budgeted and has a starting date of 1 January next year.

I urge the Greens not to be led astray again—not on this matter. Let us not miss a historic opportunity to make a real difference. Right now, by far the most important thing about paid parental leave is that we should not let this chamber stand in the way of working mothers in this country receiving paid parental leave as of 1 January next year. Sharan Burrow knows this, Elizabeth Broderick knows this, Heather Ridout knows this, the press gallery knows this, working mothers know it and the Rudd government certainly knows it. This chamber, and indeed the Greens, will be held to account if, spurred on by Tony Abbott’s latest thought bubble, it sabotages the government’s—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Pratt, you must refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his proper title.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon. Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The Greens will be held to account if, spurred on by Mr Abbott’s latest thought bubble, they sabotage the government’s scheme for the sake of another opportunity to use this chamber as a soapbox. There is no other fully developed paid parental leave scheme on offer; there is only the government’s—there is only the government scheme or Mr Abbott’s thought bubble, which has not been developed. No real thought has been given by the opposition as to how the scheme will interact with other family payments. This thought bubble is not fully costed, let alone budgeted, and will be paid for by a new tax on larger businesses, although the opposition promised not to fund election promises with new taxes. Presumably, this is why the opposition says this proposed tax on larger business is not a tax; it is a levy—or perhaps an ‘investment in human capital’. It is no wonder that Mr Abbott’s own party room is confused and business in this country is up in arms.

It is not clear which businesses are going to be liable or who is going to pay for the shortfall if the new tax is insufficient to fund Mr Abbott’s promises. It is no wonder that unions, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and women’s advocates are sceptical when the funding mechanism for this scheme is so unclear. Mr Abbott’s thought bubble gives the most support to those who earn the most and gives the least to the many women on low wages and part-time wages—those who currently have the least entitlement to paid parental leave.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that was the most recent adjustment, Eric.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been a recent adjustment of policy on the run? I stand corrected. Thank you.

The government’s scheme, unlike the opposition’s scheme, will provide paid parental leave at a minimum wage for all those eligible mothers and deliver the greatest gains to women on low incomes. Again, it is no wonder that unions, women’s advocates and the business community have concluded that Mr Abbott’s scheme is more concerned with buying votes, whatever the price tag, than with actually getting down to implementing a workable paid parental leave scheme.

Mr Abbott’s thought bubble has no specific starting date, unlike the government’s scheme. The allegedly forthright Mr Abbott cannot seem to get his spin straight when it comes to the start date for his scheme. He cannot make up his mind about whether it will be within a few months, within a couple of years or sometime in his first term. If it is the latter, working women could be waiting more than three years for paid parental leave. Everyone knows that Mr Abbott will not be able to get a scheme up and running in months, not when so many details are unclear. Contrast that with the way the government has put its scheme together, with the great deal of consultation that has taken place. There is no way that Mr Abbott’s thought bubble is going to give working mothers paid parental leave on 1 January. Senators in this chamber all know in their heart of hearts that only the government’s scheme can do that, and I hope this chamber will not stand in the way.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Paid parental leave is an issue that we need to address as a nation. As is becoming the hallmark of the leadership of the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, he has developed a direct, practical, workable action plan to deal with this issue—an action plan that deals simultaneously with the social and economic imperatives facing our nation. Sixty-two per cent of women about to give birth are in the paid workforce. Therefore, two-thirds of women having children forgo income. Sure, this is a decision of choice, but the evidence is suggesting that many women defer or have fewer or no children because of the financial impact of making such a choice or decision. I pose the question: is it good social policy to limit the number of Australian born children because of financial considerations? Of course not. I also ask: given the Intergenerational report and the need for more young Australians to be engaged in the workforce, does it make good sense to show society’s support with a relatively modest paid parental leave scheme to ease the financial burden on families having children? Of course it does. Finally, given the need for greater participation rates in the workforce, does it make good sense to encourage women to combine paid work with child rearing? The answer again is a resounding: of course it does.

So the coalition’s policy, bold and dynamic as it is, ticks all the boxes for social equity, planning for our nation’s future and economic wellbeing. It is recognised that many Australians make the choice to be full-time homemakers—one of the greatest, most challenging and most rewarding career moves that can be made. I, for one, salute them. I was the beneficiary of such a home. It was a great privilege, and I will always be indebted to my parents for that. We as a coalition will shortly be announcing a specific policy for them. They will not be forgotten. They are often the parents who help build community by helping on school trips, in the tuckshop, in school and community sports clubs or with the elderly in the local community. These homemakers and community builders will not be forgotten under coalition policy.

Some people ask the question: ‘Why does the coalition plan provide six months worth of income to a threshold of $75,000? Does that make some babies worth more than others?’ The answer, of course, is a resounding no. The paid parental leave proposal would reflect the income actually forgone by the parent and bulk up to the minimum wage the incomes of those who work part time. Above the threshold of $75,000, it is less likely that family decisions on having a child or the number of children to have would be so heavily based on forgone income. As I said, this direct, practical action plan is about genuine action dealing with the genuine needs of our fellow Australians. On top of the income support there would be the superannuation support to protect retirement savings.

The simple fact is that a paid parental leave scheme would be an economic stimulus and help future proof the needs of the Australian workforce in terms of both participation and numbers available. It is affordable, but we have seen Labor from Mr Rudd to Ms Gillard squander not millions but billions of dollars on disastrous pink batt schemes employing backpackers installing formaldehyde-ridden pink batts from overseas.

Remember the cash splash, when tens of millions of dollars went overseas? How quickly we forget. We now think of that $78 million having been splashed overseas as just petty cash, but Labor, flushed with the success of that debacle, turned their minds to doing even better. Instead of wasting just $78 million here and there, they lifted the high bar to solar panels, with hundreds of millions of dollars wasted to now billions of dollars wasted on the so-called Building the Education Revolution, pink batts and the interest payable on all the moneys that have been borrowed—and all this from such self-described ‘economic conservatives’ as Mr Rudd. The waste and the reckless spending are reminiscent of that of Messrs Whitlam and Cairns about a generation ago, albeit without all the fun that was attached to the then Whitlam government. However, the waste, the recklessness and the incompetence are all there, as is the party in power—Labor. Without this waste, a paid parental leave scheme, as proposed by the coalition, would be easily affordable and a great investment in our families, workplaces and economic wellbeing.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn’t you do it, Eric?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins interjects and asks why we didn’t do it when we were in government. We did not do it for one simple reason: we had to pay back $193 billion worth of Labor debt. The Australian Labor Party always want to forget the debt. They always want to forget the debt that they incurred for this nation without introducing paid parental leave. They racked up the debt without even introducing paid parental leave. Given Labor’s recklessness, we have proposed a source of funding on which we are consulting. But seeking the support of Australia’s large companies is based not only on their capacity to pay but also on the fact that they will be the major beneficiaries through increased workforce participation.

What is Labor’s response to all this, having been left flat-footed and wallowing in the wake of Mr Abbott’s announcement? It is to bring in Senator Pratt to claim that Elizabeth Broderick does not support our scheme. I suggest that in the time available Senator Pratt ring the commissioner to find out what the actual position is, and she might like to come back into the chamber to make a clarifying statement.

Mr Shorten, the brains trust of the Labor Party, was on Q&A last night. To Mr Peter Dutton, who accidentally said ‘paid maternity leave’ instead of ‘paid parental leave’, Mr Shorten said:

Yeah, but Peter, just Liberals use the language of the women have got to stay—it’s women’s responsibility …

He tried to make a big point of it. Unfortunately, Mr Shorten forgot that Mr McClelland, the former shadow Attorney-General who is now the Attorney-General, when in opposition and announcing Labor policy said:

The Labor Party is committed to introducing paid maternity leave …

‘Paid maternity leave’ were the words Labor used. Mr Shorten’s response to Mr Dutton was intended as a cutting riposte—there is no other way to attack the coalition’s policy but to seize on an accidental slip of the tongue and say that using the phrase ‘paid maternity leave’ is a heinous crime. But what do we find in Labor’s own documentation? They refer to ‘paid maternity leave’. I dare say that Mr McClelland will now be taken out to re-education classes courtesy of Mr Bill Shorten. Really, the Labor Party are scrambling all over the place on this issue. They have been left wallowing in the wake of Mr Abbott’s bold announcement. It is a bold announcement for the 21st century and something that will assist individual families, society at large and also our economy.

I am very proud to be associated with this forward-looking policy. Never have I seen a government and a leader after only 2½ years in government run out of puff and run out of words. This government is all about words and never about action. We have shown, whether on climate change or on parental leave, that we have the answers. We are ready to step up to the plate in the event that the Australian people support us at the next election. We are ready to take over from Labor.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to paid parental leave, as on so many other issues, Labor is all talk and no action. We commend the Greens and Senator Hanson-Young, who, along with former Democrat senator Natasha Stott Despoja, have had a long commitment to paid parental leave. If the Rudd Labor government were serious about paid parental leave, we would have seen legislation by now. It is nearly 12 months since they announced their mickey mouse scheme at the last budget. This is yet another example that this government is all talk and no action.

Of course, last week we had a conga line of failed Labor ministers attacking us for blocking legislation and attacking the Senate for obstructing the government from getting its many broken promises and other policy failures through this chamber. You know what, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett: among them was Minister Jenny Macklin. She was accusing us of blocking Labor’s paid parental leave scheme, except that there is no legislation. Minister, where is the legislation that we are allegedly blocking? If the Rudd government were serious about paid parental leave, they would join us and support the coalition’s proposal for a serious paid parental leave scheme. The coalition’s plan for a national paid parental leave scheme would be good for women, good for families and children and good for our economy moving forward. Our plan for a paid parental leave scheme would help us lift our employment participation rates and it would help us lift our productivity moving forward. These are some of the issues that the Prime Minister himself has pointed out as having been identified in the Intergenerational report.

Tony Abbott’s plan, the coalition’s plan, for a national paid parental leave scheme provides for six months leave at the actual salary level up to a certain threshold. As is pointed out in the motion put forward by Senator Hanson-Young, the World Health Organisation’s recommended minimum for paid parental leave schemes is six months, because that is the recommended minimum period for exclusive breastfeeding and it gives parents and babies time to bond. The coalition’s scheme, put forward by Tony Abbott, is very clearly a superior scheme. Labor’s scheme is a mickey mouse scheme—the sort of scheme that you put forward if you want to tick a box, like a bureaucrat does, and say, ‘We’ve delivered. We promised we would deliver,’ but you do not really. It is a pretend scheme. It is the sort of scheme that you put forward so that you can go out into the community and say, ‘We promised you a paid parental leave scheme. Here it is,’ even though it does not actually properly address the needs of families, children and our economy moving forward.

Have there been any comments supporting our scheme? Have there been any comments out there in the community? I will read just a few: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10—I have about 10 for you.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will run through them, and some of the people might surprise you, Senator Collins. Prominent feminist, Eva Cox, cautiously welcomed the plan. I quote from the Age on 9 March 2010:

I think it’s a game-changer. Whether it comes off or not it’s radical and ambitious and sets a benchmark of 26 weeks instead of the 18 that was originally proposed by Labor.

               …            …            …

If you’re a woman (or man) of baby-making age, it’s a difficult scheme to fault from a personal point of view.

I applaud the time-frame of 6 months and I applaud the idea of the payment being at full wage.

That was in an article by Mia Freedman, in MamaMia, on 10 March 2010.

The national chairwoman of the Women’s Electorate Lobby, Eva Cox, again—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s the same person, now!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give you a further comment:

“The thing I would agree with ... is that the government’s plan is Mickey Mouse,’’ Ms Cox said.

John Sutton from the CFMEU, in the Australian Financial Review, said: ‘I like the fact it asks the corporate sector rather than taxpayers to foot the bill. What I don’t like about Labor’s is it lets employers off scot-free.’ These are your people, Minister. We have allegations from that side attacking us for introducing a supposedly great, big new tax. This is from a government that, long before the global financial crisis, rediscovered spending, taxing and borrowing like drunken sailors. Well before the global financial crisis, the government increased taxes in their first budget by $20 billion. They increased spending in their first budget by $15 billion. They whacked on a $2½ billion additional tax on the North West Shelf Gas project in Western Australia.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle should be very embarrassed about the eastern-states-centric performance of this very eastern-states-centric government. The reality is that we would much rather introduce this scheme and fund it out of a surplus, but this reckless-spending government has put the budget in serious deficit. It has lumbered future generations of Australians with serious debt. The responsible way for us to introduce Tony Abbott’s and the coalition’s responsible plan for a paid parental scheme is through a temporary levy on big business. As I said in the introduction, this is an important proposal. It is a positive proposal which would be good news for women, good news for families and children and good news for the Australian economy moving forward.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the debate today, we could all enjoy Tony Abbott’s wonderful social policy adventure. The Greens are obviously on board. If it were not such a serious matter then perhaps we could have such a light debate today. The problem is that this is a very serious matter. As I indicated in the adjournment debate last night—and I probably will not have sufficient time now to go through all of the detail here; I will follow through later this evening—the serious issues at stake here should not be of the nature of the banter that we have just been enjoying. When we go back and look at the history of this matter—and perhaps Senator Hanson-Young might absorb some of the aspects here—we can see that, yes, it is definitely about time we acted. But suggesting that there has been no action in Australia for 30 years is a bit rich.

I remember the very first thing I did in this chamber when I entered in 1995. I was six months pregnant at the time. Personally, I would not have been entitled, but that was when a Labor government introduced a maternity allowance in Australia. That maternity allowance, as Senator Hanson-Young will acknowledge, was based on welfare related payments, although they were not to be means tested against a spouse’s income, and they introduced for the first time as an entitlement for women in the immediate period before and after childbirth. That was back in 1995. There were some enhancements to that program when the previous government adjusted it and turned it into what they then characterised as the baby bonus—a cheap and light tag that I do not think an entitlement of this character should ever have been called, but there were some improvements for women. However, as even Senator Abetz characterised today, there are a lot of gaps in this debate that Tony Abbott has introduced, and I will cover some of them. Before I do that I want to also comment on this procedural farce—or fraud, as I would call it.

The Greens say that they have introduced a bill. Well, how many bills have the Greens introduced? How many bills have ever made legislation? For them to portray this procedural fraud in such a serious policy issue is an outrage. For them also to join with Mr Abbott in sticking his chin out on this particular issue is a joke. All of us could have predicted that in Tony Abbott’s leadership of the opposition he would fairly soon stick his chin out somewhere. He has probably chosen a poor area from my point of view in terms of the issues of policy that I value, but I think he has made a poor judgment on the views of Australian women about these issues also. This is partly why we have various iterations of the policy. Let us run through a few of them and then, if I have time, we will get to the gaps.

How will it be funded? First up, Sharman Stone was working on one which would be funded by taxpayers. But the announcement by Tony Abbott was that it would be funded by a big new tax on big business, which of course Australians all understand will translate to increases in costs and other charges that they themselves will feel very quickly, let alone the technical issues about how you separate these different businesses and the problems that will be created by businesses avoiding getting into those categories to avoid this big, new tax. Apparently now, in the next iteration, if you listen to Julie Bishop, this big new tax will only be temporary. I am a bit confused over exactly who has authority in the Liberal Party. I remember when the shadow minister said there was going to be a $30 increase in pensions and very quickly afterwards she was shut down and that was not going to be the case. So is this going to happen here? Must we wait to see a notice on a Liberal senator’s board—as I did as I walked down the corridor—which is apparently now on their website, before we get further details of the next iteration?

I am very pleased that, as Senator Abetz seemed to indicate, the opposition is now talking to Liz Broderick, because perhaps that explains the next iteration I saw. We are now giving some assurance to part-time working women that they will not miss out on at least the minimum-income level of support, which was the most obvious, glaring gap in this scheme on the first day. Most of the newspaper reports picked it up straightaway. If you are a low-income, part-time working woman—which, let us face it, are most of them—then you are not going to get very much out of this scheme. You are probably going to get less than the minimum wage, if anything, and you will lose out from the Tony Abbott scheme. So, if the opposition has repaired that aspect of their original proposal, that is great. That is very assuring. But of course what is not assuring to the Australian public at large is the credibility factor. Talk about policy on the run: we announce a policy on International Women’s Day, we have not consulted cabinet, we have not consulted business and indeed we probably have not even read the Productivity Commission report that investigated these issues in considerable detail.

The Labor Party has the ambition of 26 weeks leave too. That was part of the Productivity Commission’s brief. But what it also dealt with was a whole myriad of aspects in a fairly complex policy area that needed to be taken into account. I wait to see the next iteration of the opposition’s policy in this respect, because there is still one area that is missing. They are suggesting that their new public funded schema will absorb people’s current entitlements. Why should low-income, part-time working women in retail pay in their taxes dollars to help fund women working in full-time, high-paid, high-level jobs, with reasonable levels of income, through public spending?

I wonder what the next area Tony Abbott is going to come up with that we should introduce full income replacement for. Will there be other areas, apart from parental leave, that he believes should now attract full income replacement? Not only are we going to have middle class welfare; now, according to Tony Abbott, we are going to have higher class welfare. We are going to start funding schemes and absorbing existing entitlements into public spending. Our scheme aims for 26 weeks too. I think the figure was that 90 per cent of women would combine existing entitlements with our 18 weeks and achieve that goal, and certainly we have objectives for the longer term on superannuation and additional support. (Time expired)

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am privileged to rise today to speak on this matter of urgency. I would like to speak not only as a responsible government senator but as a former trade unionist who represented a number of women in the airline industry, particularly in Qantas Flight Catering, and also as a parent. I am proud to say that my wife and I have brought up two fantastic kids who are off doing their own thing in the world, now. My wife would have loved to have had the opportunity to have paid maternity leave. We made the decision that we wanted kids and for that there were a lot of sacrifices. This is a wonderful initiative from the government to take the massive step forward to introduce paid maternity leave.

God bless the Greens. I certainly think sometimes they have the best interests of Australia at heart. They are opportunistic at times—one can understand that, because they do not have the numbers—but I will give them the benefit of the doubt when I need to. But they excuse the coalition, who stand up in this chamber when Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, has a thought bubble. He witnessed the latest polling. I do not know how the Liberals do their polling—through their focus groups or whatever—but all of a sudden, wowie, a party officer has found out that the Leader of the Opposition does not connect with young women! Having been photographed in budgie smugglers, which he could not even fill, no wonder he does not connect with the public!

This is a darn disgrace. They had 12 years when they had control of the tills. What did they do? It was very quiet over there. They did not talk about paid maternity leave. Sorry, I have misled the Senate; there was a statement on paid parental leave. It was the now Leader of the Opposition who uttered words something along the lines of ‘over my dead body’. Well, whoopee! They got the latest polls, saw Mr Abbott does not connect with women and thought, ‘My goodness, how can we fool the Australian public into thinking that we’—them over there—‘care for young families, mothers and working women?’ What an absolute farce!

The biggest farce—I was in this chamber last year witnessing it—was the swords-at-dawn caper of the extremist anti emissions trading and climate change mob, who decided to take the swords to their leader at the time, Mr Turnbull, after Mr Turnbull had got it through their caucus that he was going to send off Mr Macfarlane to negotiate with the government to get through an emissions trading scheme. Whoppee! It was great for five or six weeks. I have got to tell you, I was frightened walking through the staff canteen: every time a National or Liberal got near a knife I shuddered! There were knives flying. They could not wait to take out their leader. They took out their leader because of this ‘great big tax’ they were talking about. What do we have here? If $2.7 billion is not a great big tax—strike me down!—what is?

This is absolutely incredible. It is bad for them but it is worse for Australians. But Australian voters will not be fooled. Australian voters can see through the nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition, who took out Mr Turnbull because Mr Turnbull would not consult—he allegedly was not inclusive—has come out, after reading the polling, to make an announcement, but not through his caucus. Mind you, I would not like to take anything to that rabble, anyway.

The Leader of the Opposition did not even consult with big business. I am not in the pocket of big business. I am the last one, as a trade unionist, to ever be accused of being in the pocket of big business. But, my god, what planet are the opposition on? They think that they can impose a 1.7 per cent tax—this monstrous financial slug—on businesses. I will tell you some of the businesses. It is important that people understand what businesses we may be talking about. We are talking about ANZ—wowie, the banks! And the banks will not pass it on, will they? No, no, no!

Then there is Ramsay Health Care. Will the health funds pass the tax on? No, out of the goodness of their hearts they will just wear the 1.7 per cent slug! Then there is McDonald’s. This is getting worse. I mean no disrespect to these companies; they are major employers in this country, and I love major employers because they employ Australian workers. When Australian workers are employed they spend money—and it goes around and around and it is a wonderful situation. Medibank Private is another company that will probably cop the 1.7 per cent monstrous tax slug from that lot over there! Optus will not put the price of phone calls up! How could I be so silly? Look, here is another one that has jumped out at me—Shell Australia. Perish the thought that the big oil companies would pass the tax on! They will wear it; there’s no worries!

But here are the scary parts—these are really scary parts. Myers will be affected. Shopping will be affected, and there are a lot of women employed there. Coles has predominantly female employees. There is Woolworths, but it gets worse—Bunnings and David Jones. We hear the nonsense that the cost will be absorbed and that it will not be passed on. Those who say that are in cuckoo land. I cannot believe it. What planet are they on to believe this?

That mob on the other side of the chamber slagged off at us for our stimulus program to save 200,000 jobs—two MCGs full of workers whose jobs were saved because we initiated the stimulus program. What the heck do they think their policy would do to shoppers and purchasers? Your grog would go up. Consider Tabcorp. Crikey, I’m even going to cop it on my $10 bet on a Saturday. Oh me, oh my! But it gets worse. I will show you how united this lot on the other side of the chamber are! Only three or four hours ago we had the serial pest for breaking ranks, Senator Joyce—I think he holds a front bench spot now; he was gagged last time I heard and he is still gagged but here he is putting out a press release—with the headline ‘Joyce breaks ranks on parental leave’. ABC News reported:

Senator Joyce has agreed the extra tax will feed into the price of goods such as bread and milk ‘in a fashion’.

What the heck does ‘in a fashion’ mean? He clearly says that the tax is going to influence the price of bread, milk, fuel, clothing and everything that we purchase from those top 3,200 employers.

But it was not just Senator Joyce; we have a couple of different people on the other side of politics. I am allowed to call them ‘different’ because their own party calls them different. There is the ‘mad uncle’. We know who that is: the member for O’Connor. He has come out and recognised that it would be a massive big slug. They call him the mad uncle: it is Mr Tuckey. Mind you, it does not matter because all he does is bag everyone. The other is the member for Tangney—this is an interesting one. If Mr Tuckey is the mad uncle—

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I think for Senator Sterle to refer to members of the other place by titles such as ‘mad uncle’ is clearly outside the standing orders and he should withdraw those expressions.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, I will ask you to consider your language. I have given you a fair amount of latitude in the last many minutes and I would ask you to withdraw the comment that referred to members in the other place.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw it, but it was not me that tagged him the ‘mad uncle’ but his mate the member for North Sydney. Do you feel better? Dry your eyes, you lot over there, because the truth will not stop. We have another one in the member for Tangney. He has come out and made a fantastic statement in relation to Mr Abbott’s wild thought bubble that translated into: ‘Oh my God, we’re going down in the polls. Women can’t stand me. I’ve got to resurrect this.’ The member for Tangney warned the leader that if he does pre-emptively produce a policy again—without consulting his caucus, I suppose that means—there will be quite a few people lining up to give him a smack. There you go. If the member for O’Connor and the member for Tangney get it and Senator Joyce, our esteemed colleague from Queensland gets it, of the 41 people who did not vote for Mr Abbott as leader, what are your thoughts?

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

I rise to conclude the debate on the urgency motion today. Wow! Obviously, the Labor Party have their knickers in a knot over this one. They know that their 18 weeks paid parental leave scheme is a sham and is paltry and they have spent the entire debate not defending it. What we heard from the members of the Labor Party, representing the government, is that they want 26 weeks or six months. Their aspiration is for 26 weeks. Come on guys, let’s get it together. Let us deliver 26 weeks, six months, with superannuation. We can do this—we do not have to wait another 30 years. We can do this now. Let us move beyond the aspiration and move to action; otherwise, it is just going to be one of those other promises without delivery from Mr Rudd, like so many other things. It is all talk, no action—no delivery. It is all talk, all promise—no action.

It is absolutely clear that the government have no intention of defending their 18-week scheme. They want 26 weeks. Let us bite the bullet. Let us debate it properly. Let us see the legislation and bring it on. Let us ensure they get the support of all the groups that they need, including the ACTU, which knows well and truly that its associate unions all want 26 weeks. Let us get them in the room with the government and admit that 26 weeks, six months, is what we should be delivering. We should not be delivering anything less. Let us move beyond the aspiration and into the action.

Question agreed to.