Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments and requests for amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 15 June 2010.

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

I will be withdrawing Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 6111, because it seems as though the government has accepted that this is an issue and it is moving its own amendment. I think it is really good that the government has accepted that there needs to be an amendment to the bill in this particular area, despite the Prime Minister saying himself less than 24 hours ago that the Senate should simply get out of the way and roll over. It seems as though 24 hours ago the Greens and the Senate were being seen as a robot by the Prime Minister, and now all of a sudden we are being seen as contributors to good policy and as putting forward good suggestions, because the government has picked up our amendments. So I will be withdrawing those particular amendments.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move government amendment (1) on sheet AF249:

(1)    Page 2 (after line 10), after Division 1, insert:

Division 1A—Object of this Act

3A  Object of this Act

        (1)    The object of this Act is to provide financial support to primary carers (mainly birth mothers) of newborn and newly adopted children, in order to:

             (a)    allow those carers to take time off work to care for the child after the child’s birth or adoption; and

             (b)    enhance the health and development of birth mothers and children; and

             (c)    encourage women to continue to participate in the workforce; and

             (d)    promote equality between men and women, and the balance between work and family life.

        (2)    Generally, the financial support is provided only to primary carers who have a regular connection to the workforce.

        (3)    The financial support provided by this Act is intended to complement and supplement existing entitlements to paid or unpaid leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If no-one else is speaking, I will certainly speak. I will just read out what this amendment on the ‘object of this act’ says. Item (2) says:

Generally, the financial support is provided only to primary carers who have a regular connection to the workforce.

This, again, is my concern about it being connected just to those in the workforce. Stay-at-home mums need to be valued, and now in the ‘object of this act’ you are putting in that it is only for the workforce. Again, I cannot agree with this going in there, for that reason.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just clarify that the government’s approach to developing Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme has been highly consultative from the beginning and the government has sought to balance the interests of business and families and ensure that the scheme is practical and affordable. Consistent with this approach, we released an exposure draft in early May which facilitated an early start to the relevant Senate committee inquiry into the bill, and the government has paid very close attention to the community’s views on the bill. In response to those views and recommendations in the Senate committee’s inquiry report, the government is now moving four amendments to the bill. This first amendment, which Senator Fielding has drawn our attention to, is to insert the object clause into the bill, which ensures that women who do not meet the work test due to premature birth or a pregnancy related complication or illness can be eligible for paid parental leave if they otherwise have met the work test.

Some witnesses to the Senate inquiry actually gave evidence that it would be helpful to have a very clear statement of the objectives of the Paid Parental Leave scheme in the bill to reduce confusion and to clarify the intended goals of the legislation. This was expressed in recommendation 1 of the Senate committee report, and the government sees merit in this.

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

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hanson-Young for indicating her withdrawal of that amendment, and I just reiterate that the government was very clear in taking the advice and evidence of the Senate inquiry that it was important to be quite explicit that an employer cannot use parental leave pay under this bill to meet their obligation to provide employer funded paid parental leave under an industrial instrument. That is the purpose of the amendment and we are very happy to do that.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have some general questions, which we could clear up in a few minutes if I address them to the minister now. The minister may be aware that in the past I have raised the issue of the eligibility of those having late-term abortions to access the baby bonus. There are a number of coalition senators who are concerned with regard to the availability of government funds for a late-term abortion.

When I raised this, Minister Macklin denied that it was a loophole in the legislation. She was subsequently corrected, and the department assured me that it would be corrected by a change in the forms. The advice I have received, and the concerns of a number of coalition senators and also some in the wider community are that the same criteria will be applied to the paid parenting payment as applies to the baby bonus in that a baby that is deemed stillborn would be eligible for the paid parenting payment. There is some concern that those who undertake or have a late-term abortion would still be eligible for the paid parenting payment.

This is not a political point-scoring exercise; this is a genuine concern because I feel, and a number of other individual senators and community people feel, that it is inappropriate. I am seeking a comment from the minister with regard to this, and an assurance that, barring fraud or misrepresentation by a doctor or medical professional, this payment will not be available to those undergoing voluntary terminations.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to give a bit of clarity to this issue because it is so important to many members of the Senate, as I well know. The government believes that the proposed amendments on this issue are quite unnecessary, for an important reason. The baby bonus and now the paid parental leave can be paid in the case of a stillbirth, as should be the case, but there needs to be an actual delivery of a stillborn child to qualify and all claims for the baby bonus in cases of stillbirth have to be certified by a medical practitioner. The claim form requires the doctor or the midwife to certify that a stillborn child was delivered and this requirement necessarily excludes other events. I think that this goes to the nub of the question you asked. Changes were made to the claim form last year, in 2009, to make this very clear as there was a lack of clarity in the past, which has unfortunately led to some misunderstanding and concern about the law. Those misunderstandings appear to have motivated these amendments, but the law is very clear. The baby bonus and the paid parental leave can be paid only when there is the delivery of a stillborn child.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess the confusion arises from the definition of ‘delivery’. That is the concern of a number of people. I really am seeking the minister’s assurance and the government’s assurance that those who undergo a termination or a late-term abortion will not be eligible for this payment under any circumstances.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to add to the debate and then I will allow the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion to answer the question. This is the reason for Family First shortly moving some amendments to this bill in regard to abortions or late-term abortions. This will clarify the issue completely, so I will save my arguments for when those amendments come up. Family First will be moving amendments to ensure that there is not this grey area between a stillborn child and abortions.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the original question, the point that I make to you very clearly is that medical practitioners have to certify that a stillborn child was delivered and any claim for the baby bonus or the paid parental leave will have to be certified as such. So the notion that someone would, for the purposes of receiving the baby bonus or paid parental leave, proceed to a post-20 week pregnancy and then procure an abortion is anathema. It is really the most incongruous thing that anyone could consider might happen and it certainly would not be something that a medical practitioner or a midwife would certify as having been a legitimate activity.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion that it seems a grotesque suggestion, but unfortunately there is some evidence that these circumstances have arisen. Frankly, I am not sure of the potential implications of Senator Fielding’s amendments across not only this bill but also some similar areas in other legislation. What I am seeking to do on behalf of some of my colleagues and some in the community is to satisfy myself that, barring a misrepresentation by a doctor or medical professional that certifies that a child is stillborn, there will not be circumstances where a termination or someone undergoing a late-term abortion will be eligible for this payment. If you can give me that assurance I will accept that assurance. That is all I am seeking. It is about the language being used, because I do not want people to twist it. I want the government’s intentions to be very, very clear so that we do not make unnecessary amendments to the legislation and that we know we have examined all the circumstances that people are concerned about.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do acknowledge that you are concerned about this. What I can say to you is that this is not the intent or purpose of this legislation and that recently the Federal President of the Australian Medical Association has made public comments that this is not happening and it is not likely to happen.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions about the proposal and how it will work in relation to small businesses, especially employees’ entitlements to workers compensation, superannuation et cetera. Perhaps I could use an example of a lady working in a small business who takes 18 weeks off. Does that small business still have to pay the workers compensation, being aware that a percentage of workers compensation is paid on gross wage, depending on what field and what level of danger there is in certain employment? Do small businesses—and large businesses, for that matter—have to pay workers compensation, superannuation and payroll tax when the lady has the 18 weeks off?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clause 98 of the bill ensures that payment of an instalment of parental leave pay is not relevant for the purposes of the provision of any Commonwealth, state and territory law dealing with workers compensation or accident compensation. The purpose of that provision is to ensure uniformity and consistency across jurisdictions and to avoid the need for amendments to relevant state and territory legislation. What it does is create certainty for employers regarding the intended interaction between the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme and workers compensation laws.

On your question about payroll tax: parental leave pay will also be exempt from payroll tax under the Australian government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme due to start on 1 January 2011. The government has confirmed that employers providing parental leave pay to their eligible employees will not be liable for payroll tax under current state and territory payroll legislation. The treasurers from all states and territories have provided advice to confirm this—that is, that parental leave pay under the Australian government scheme is exempt. The government has welcomed this advice and appreciates and wants to thank state and territory governments for their consideration of this issue.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make just a couple of points. On superannuation: will the business have to pay the superannuation? Thank you for that sign to say no. On holiday leave, the four weeks leave for a full-time employee: when a lady takes the 18 weeks off, will her holidays accumulate during that 18-week period? For example, over a 52-week year, with 18 weeks off you would think she would be eligible for only 34 weeks worth of holidays. Would she be eligible for the whole 12 months worth? In other words, would she accumulate holidays while having that 18 weeks off on paid parental leave?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I assure senators that the government has given a lot of consideration to the interaction between this leave and other forms of leave. On the issue of accumulation of recreation or holiday leave, no, it does not accumulate. It doe not impact on accruing entitlements to any other leave.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Chair.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too have some inquiries along the lines of Senator Bernardi’s. I followed this in the Senate estimates committee hearing, and I got what I thought was a reasonable assurance. But, after reading back what was said in that hearing, I do have some further questions for you, Senator Stephens. I understand the intent of this. Hell is paved with good intentions. Everyone tries to make the right decisions here, and obviously you are doing that. Let me read to you from the transcript of the Senate estimates committee hearing. One senator said:

My understanding is that, with a late-term termination, you could be eligible for both the baby bonus and paid parental leave.

Mr Warbuton answered:

That is not correct. You can only obtain one or the other.

It went on. The senator said:

Sorry, I know you cannot obtain both, but you could be eligible for one or the other if you had a late-term termination.

Mr Warburton said:

People who have stillborn children may be eligible for paid parental leave and they may be eligible for baby bonus, and they get to choose, as everyone can. They have a choice between those two payments, but that is for a stillbirth with certification as we have outlined.

The follow-up question was:

But a late-term termination can be considered to be a stillbirth by the doctor?

The answer was:

That would be up to the medical practitioner.

He did not say it would be illegal, that he should not do it or that he would lose his licence if he did do it. He said:

That would be up to the medical practitioner.

I find that not very convincing, Senator Stephens. I am not a doctor. What if a baby is stillborn but was aborted? Where does that leave paid parental leave? Yes, I know no-one should do it. People would be stupid to do it. No-one should do it. But these things do happen. We are playing with legislation here. We are not talking in estimates committee hearings. This will become legislation. Even some babies that are aborted actually come into this world alive. Where does that leave paid parental leave? I know this is not a very edifying discussion, but nevertheless it does take place. Babies are born and left to die in a dish. Are they stillborn? Are they eligible? Can you give us some assurances?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, I have the transcript of that discussion in the Senate committee hearing as well. If you go to the first page, you will see that you ask this question:

Is the baby bonus payable following a post 20-week elective abortion?

The response was:

… there is a payment made for stillbirths that are certified by a medical practitioner and there is a process within the baby bonus system for stillbirths that are certified by a medical practitioner.

You say:

There is a division between stillbirths and abortions?

The response was:

The only provision for payment of baby bonus is for stillbirths that are certified by a medical practitioner.

I want to take you to an outcome of an appeal by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, which was heard in April 2007. The tribunal found:

Whilst the narrow definition is the delivery of a dead child, a stillborn child is usually considered to be progressing towards a live delivery until some adverse event occurs that ends the child’s life. Such an event may include antenatal haemorrhage, placental insufficiency or foetal abnormality et cetera and all of these events are unintended events. In contrast, an elective termination in which there is no life-threatening abnormality or risk to the mother’s health is very much intentional and does not fit the accepted meaning of a stillborn death.

Therefore, an intended termination after 20 weeks does not fit the definition of a stillborn death and therefore would not be seen to be eligible for a parental leave payment.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question in follow-up to that from Senator Williams. Senator Stephens indicated that she had written advice from each of the state treasurers that paid parental leave would not be subject to payroll tax. Could the minister indicate whether she has also received advice from each of the territory treasurers and could she table the advice she has received from treasurers.

What the minister shared with the chamber before was news to this side of the chamber because, when the question had been specifically asked by the opposition during briefings, departmental officers were unable to answer that question. So I ask the minister whether the territories have also provided advice and whether that advice could be tabled.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, treasurers from all states and territories provided advice. I do have copies of the letters and I am happy to table them for the information of senators.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister advise whether she has received advice in relation to workers compensation schemes and whether PPL will also be subject to that.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps Senator Fifield was not here earlier when Senator Williams asked that question. Clause 98 of the bill ensures that the payment of an instalment of parental leave pay is not relevant for the purposes of the provision of any Commonwealth, state or territory law dealing with workers compensation or accident compensation.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (5) to (11) on sheet 6112 together:

(1)    Clause 4, page 3 (line 27), omit “the work test,”.

(5)    Clause 12, page 23 (lines 26 and 27), omit “the work test,”.

(6)    Clause 26, page 36 (line 9), omit paragraph (1)(a).

(7)    Clause 26, page 36 (line 19), omit paragraph (2)(a).

(8)    Clause 30, page 38 (line 11), omit “the work test,”.

(9)    Clause 30, page 38 (lines 20 to 24), omit the paragraph relating to Division 3.

(10)  Clause 31, page 40 (line 8), omit paragraph (2)(a).

(11)  Clause 31, page 40 (line 32), omit subparagraph (4)(a)(i).

Family First opposes clause 6 and part 2-3 in the following terms:

(4)    Clause 6, page 18 (line 7), definition of work test TO BE OPPOSED.

(13)  Part 2-3, page 42 (line 1) to page 45 (line 12), Division 3 TO BE OPPOSED.

The amendments basically get rid of the work test, which would mean that stay-at-home mums would not miss out on the paid parental leave payments. Therefore they would not be discriminated against through this bill. As I said before, mums who stay at home to look after their kids and who are not in the paid workforce would be $2,000 worse off if they decided to stay at home after having their first child then continued to stay at home after the second or even third child. All of a sudden they are worse off under this bill, and I think that is crazy.

I was making this point before. People may say it is emotive, but I will say it again: prisoners and prostitutes get payments under this paid parental leave arrangement but stay-at-home mums do not. Is that fair? Is it fair that someone who decides to stay at home to look after their first child then has a second child and chooses not to go back into the paid workforce ends up being financially not as well off as those in the paid workforce? I think that is wrong. You are giving a greater incentive to those in the paid workforce than to stay-at-home mums, who I think also should be valued.

Each senator has to look at this and think about how they have been saying to communities outside this place that they are for stay-at-home mums. There are concerns that, through this legislation, those parents in the paid workforce will be $2,000 better off than those who are staying at home. This is a real concern. In relation to items (4) and (13), if the government does not get 39 votes—in other words, if there were 38 votes against this—those clauses would be deleted from the bill. I make it very clear that senators cannot go out to the community and say that they are for stay-at-home mums and then, in considering this bill, not vote for these amendments. Basically, these amendments remove the work test from this bill to make sure that stay-at-home mums are not discriminated against.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1) and (4) to (11) and (13)

Amendment (13) removes a work test which otherwise must be met before a person qualifies for payments under this Act. The effect of the amendment would be to expand the class of people entitled to payments, resulting in additional amounts being paid. The increased expenditure would be met from the standing appropriation in clause 307 of the bill.

Amendment (13) is therefore circulated as a request.

Amendments (1) and (4) to (11) are consequential amendments, and are therefore also circulated as requests.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

The Senate has long accepted that an amendment should take the form of a request if it would have the effect of increasing expenditure under an appropriation clause in a bill.

On the basis that amendment (13) would result in increased expenditure under the appropriation in the bill, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that those amendments be moved as requests.

It is also in accordance with precedents for the consequential amendments to be moved as requests.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just respond to Senator Fielding’s argument. Clearly the government does not support his proposition, because fundamentally we are introducing a parental leave scheme. It is a scheme designed to provide parental leave for those in the workforce. I will come to some broader points in a moment, but Senator Fielding says we should amend it to be something other than that. He makes an argument about the relativity between those in the workforce and those outside the workforce when they are about to have a child. I will come to those comparable issues. That is a reasonable point to make in terms of a public policy debate about how various persons are treated under broad public policy, but this is a debate about a parental leave scheme and fundamentally Senator Fielding’s amendments undermine the whole objective of the bill and the parental leave scheme.

The scheme is designed to provide financial support to parents in the paid workforce so they can take sufficient time off work for the exclusive care of children while in the longer term helping to maintain and further encourage women’s labour force attachment. We think it is good for families, good for business and good for the economy. Most women participate in the labour force and most women want to maintain that attachment. Industry groups and others have been very supportive of us introducing the scheme. It is about achieving better outcomes for parents in the paid workforce but does not skew assistance to working mothers at the expense of non-working mothers. I think Senator Fielding looks to use an emotive argument but, as I said, if you look at the scheme you will see it is about parental leave. It is about achieving that objective—for the first time providing the right to parental leave for those in the workforce. That is what this legislation is about. Senator Fielding’s amendments seek to undermine that. He seeks to undermine that on the basis of a comparison about how persons not in the workforce are treated. I would therefore urge him, if he wants to run that argument, to look at the totality of how those persons are treated. Their treatment is not solely contained in this bill. Families who are not in the workforce are entitled to FTBB. So their package of social support is not just the parental leave system but also family tax benefit B. To be fair, if Senator Fielding wants to make a comparison, he has to put in the whole package. It is not what this bill is about.

I would argue that fundamentally Senator Fielding’s amendments seek to undermine the whole purpose of the bill, but the argument he uses to do that is not sustainable. It is based on an argument that women outside the workforce are worse off, and that is just not true. If you take into account their family tax benefit B, in totality they will receive more assistance on average than those women who are in the workforce, because this financial year an eligible mother who has not worked prior to the birth of a baby will receive the $5,185 tax-free baby bonus and up to $3,829 in tax-free FTBB—a total of $9,014 in government support free of tax. A mother receiving the taxable PPL, paid parental leave, will obtain the equivalent of the baby bonus and an average net additional gain of $2,000. If the mother has income over $23,800 she will not receive any FTBB.

So the argument that Senator Fielding makes fundamentally undermines the whole objective of the bill and seeks to introduce wider issues. But his argument in support of the wider issues is not true. It is just not true. The total assistance for those families comes from other measures in addition to this bill. While you have to look at each individual circumstance to work out what each family or woman might get out of the system—depending on when they were working, how long they have been off work, their family income and all those things—the fundamental argument Senator Fielding seeks to advance ignores the FTBB arrangements. That is just not right. If you are talking about total financial assistance to a woman for the care of a child and the taxpayer support for that, you have to look at the whole package. On average, non-working women will get more support than those who are in the workforce.

This bill is about achieving what this parliament has supported in theory for many years but which no-one has ever done—that is, introduce paid parental leave. That is something that has been established in most Western democracies for many years and has been highly successful as a means of supporting particularly women but parents more generally and supporting good connection to the workforce while allowing people time to care for their child. It is a family-friendly measure. It is a family supporting measure. But, as I say, the argument that somehow non-working mothers will receive less support from the government is not right.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the key issue here is that the government is not valuing the work that stay-at-home mums do. That is the issue here. All of a sudden there seems to be this valuing of paid work above and beyond the work that stay-at-home mums do. The government is not valuing stay-at-home mums and the work that they do in looking after kids.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) and (5) to (11) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that clause 6 and part 2-3 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (2), (3) and (12) on sheet 6112 revised:

(2)    Clause 6, page 8 (after line 8), after the definition of ABN, insert:

abortion means intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy with the consent of the woman by:

             (a)    using an instrument; or

             (b)    using a drug or a combination of drugs; or

             (c)    any other means.

(3)    Clause 6, page 17 (line 16), at the end of the definition of stillborn, add “; but does not include a child whose period of gestation was terminated by abortion”.

(12)  Clause 31, page 41 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:

        (6)    Despite subsections (2), (3) and (4), a person is not eligible for parental leave pay for a child on a day if the child:

             (a)    is stillborn following an abortion; or

             (b)    has died before that day following an abortion.

These amendments are to do with the issue of abortion. I know that this is always a difficult topic for discussion, but it is a discussion that needs to be had. These amendments will close any loophole and remove any greyness which currently allows parental leave payments to be paid to someone who has an abortion after 20 weeks. It takes away any greyness. All the assurances that we may have heard before are just talk. We do not need assurances; we need to make sure it is in legislation. These amendments are quite clear. Amendment (2) says: ‘abortion means intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy with the consent of the woman’. It is a clear definition that will be written into law and will not be left to someone’s guesswork or to assurances that the minister or the government may give. This makes it clear. It is not an assurance from the minister. This puts into law that people who have an abortion after 20 weeks should not be able to receive money from paid parental leave.

These amendments will close the loophole that is clearly there, which means that it will not entice people. I find it horrific to even think it for a moment, but there may be people out there who want to cheat the system in a horrific way. It is a difficult discussion to have, but I want to make it quite clear that this is about making sure that if there is an abortion post-20 weeks there will be no payment of paid parental leave. I think it is quite a simple thing to put and I think most people would agree with this position. I will leave it for senators to think about as they vote on this issue.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These amendments do not create an assurance; they create a wedge. These amendments bring into this chamber an issue on which there are deeply held beliefs around the parliament. It is a conscience issue. The way in which this issue has been introduced takes the debate to a base level. You know full well that if you bring the abortion debate up then a bit more diligence is required than you have shown with the process you are following here. I am disgusted by the mechanism of this. An assurance has been given. We have actually been doing the footwork—asking people and getting the assurances across parliamentary lines on this issue. I find it one of the more base forms of politics to bring up an issue that you know full well, Senator Fielding, is held as an absolutely primary issue by so many people around this place. I really question the motives you have at the forefront of your mind in bringing this issue forward in this manner.

It is quite clear—it has been disclosed by the minister and also by Senator Stephens. You are asking what we are to do if a person commits a criminal act—that is, if the doctor lies about the motives that they have put forward. I suppose that if the doctor lies they go to jail or they lose their registration. What are your motives on this one, Senator Fielding? What are you trying to do here today? What is your motivation? Is this a sincere and honest approach on which you have spent a period of time lobbying people, discussing the issues and going through the proper mechanisms and processes? Have you done that, Senator Fielding? Or have you just brought in a highly emotive issue without actually consulting or doing the footwork? What is your primary motivation? Can you tell the chamber about all the people that you have discussed this with? Can you tell the chamber about all the lobbying you have done on this issue? Or is this merely a political ploy of yours? If it is, I think it is absolutely disgusting.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to put on record the government’s view. Senator Fielding has raised the issue of abortion and Senator Joyce has replied. But let us look at this calmly and logically before we get carried away with a de facto debate on abortion. It is not a matter of my providing you with an assurance; it is the current law. It has been the law since about 2002 that we do not fund abortions in this way. I think it was originally covered under the maternity payment and then under the baby bonus when a change in name was introduced in 2005. What we have here is the application of the Howard government legislation covering this issue. It is not a question of an assurance from me; it is about what this parliament has legislated. The payment can only currently be made in the case of stillbirth. There has to be an actual delivery of a stillborn child to qualify. There has been legislation and regulations for the various forms of payment—maternity payment, baby bonus and now parental leave. This legislation does not change the conditions around the payment of the bonus for abortions or stillbirths. The current regime applies to the new payment. There is no change going on here. That has been the legislative framework for a number of years as enacted by the Howard government and continued by this government. So let us get that straight. It is not about this minister providing an assurance; it is about the law that this parliament has passed, which has been in place for some time.

There was a change made in 2009. Senator Boswell and I discussed this at length at estimates when he sought assurances about these things—and I think I have done that two or three times at estimates in recent years. Concerns were raised about the form on which the doctor or midwife certifies that a stillborn child was delivered. The concern was raised with the government and more generally. Changes were made to the claim form in 2009 to make it clear that the payment would only be made in cases of a stillbirth where there was an actual delivery of a stillborn child. The misunderstanding and lack of clarity in the form was addressed in 2009 and the form was changed. But the form was changed to better reflect the law, not to change policy. The law is clear. The baby bonus and parental leave payments can only be paid when there is a delivery of a stillborn child as certified by the relevant medical practitioner. Those are the rules and the guidance we adopted years ago. They have applied to the payments under various names that have been paid to parents in relation to the birth of a child—maternity leave, the baby bonus and parental leave. So there is no change. It is not a matter of assurance; it is about the current law. The law remains the same under these proposals.

These amendments are unnecessary and they do not improve the legislation. The legislation is now clear. The problem with the form was fixed at the time to meet the concerns that had been raised, but the legislation is clear. The law provides that the baby bonus and parental leave payments can only be paid when there is a delivery of a stillborn child. The medical practitioner has to certify that and, as Senator Joyce correctly pointed out, to do otherwise is to breach the law, to commit a criminal offence. It is an offence under the law for a medical practitioner to certify falsely, just as they are bound by a whole range of other laws in how they carry out their practice. That legal protection is there and it has been passed by us. There is no change today. We are merely applying the same legal framework that was applied to the baby bonus with the name change that occurred under the Howard government. That framework will continue to apply now.

Senator Fielding, I do not think the concerns you have raised are justified. Senator Joyce is concerned that there is an attempt to use this debate as a vehicle for debating abortion. People can behave as they wish, but let us be very clear about it: there is no change to the law and the laws are very clear on this. This is the same framework that applies to the baby bonus and applied to the maternity leave prior to that. This government took action in 2009 to clear up concerns about the form and make it absolutely clear how the law is to apply. That is the current law and there is no change to those arrangements in this legislation.

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

The Greens will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendments. Although I might have put my concerns in different words than Senator Joyce used, and although I come from a different perspective on this issue, I could not agree more with him. This legislation is meant to be a historic opportunity for us to deliver support to working mums in particular but Senator Fielding has taken the debate down to the level of dirty politics. As far as I am concerned, there is no way we should consider Senator Fielding’s rabid right-wing views any further.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to Senator Fielding’s proposed amendments, it is entirely unclear that there is actually a problem here. In the committee stage Senator Bernardi asked some very direct questions of Senator Stephens, who gave assurances that a scenario like that outlined by Senator Fielding was highly unlikely to eventuate. Obviously we cannot stop people from committing an act of fraud. We cannot stop a doctor from falsely filling out a form; that is not something we can address in this place. I think the chamber needs to rely on the government’s assurances that this is not a problem. Senator Boyce also extensively ventilated these issues in Senate estimates and her concerns were satisfied. Senator Joyce, who is in the chamber, is known to be not unsympathetic to some of the concerns that Senator Fielding traditionally has in this area.

I think it is important that this chamber resist the temptation to look for proxy wars or ways of waging a proxy battle on the issue of abortion. It is a very serious issue. It is one where people have very strongly held feelings, but this particular piece of legislation the opposition does not believe is the place to have those discussions. Discussions are not relevant to that particular subject on the basis that we have the assurance from the government that there is not an issue here. I am sure that if over time it did appear that there was a problem then government, opposition and everyone in the chamber would combine to rectify that. But it is not clear at all to the opposition that there is a problem. For that reason the opposition will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s proposed amendments.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is no secret that my views are very pro-life. I have campaigned on it, I have gone out there and run my colours up the mast. And I do not think it is any secret where Senator Ursula Stephens is. I think she would share my views and I do not think she would mind me saying it. She gave an assurance here. Not only did she give an assurance; she read out the law. It was not just an assurance; it was the law and she read it out. You cannot tamper with the law, and she would be the last person that would. I am assured that the only way mischief can happen is for a doctor to be a blatant liar and risk his ability to earn money, because if he did sign off a stillbirth as an abortion or vice versa he would lose his right to practise—I presume that would be the penalty or one of the penalties—and risk his reputation and his good standing in the community, and I do not know what for. The law is the law. That was read out by Senator Ursula Stephens. Maybe the Leader of the Government in the Senate can read that law out again, read it into Hansard again, to reassure Senator Fielding. But I think the people who are pro-life on this side of the house have accepted that the law is the law as read out by Senator Stephens and have accepted the assurances given by other ministers. Let’s not build up a straw man to knock it down here.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite clearly even before I got to my feet to move these amendments there was concern around the chamber about this issue. So it is not just Fielding raising the issue; there were a number of others who raised this issue specifically. It was not just Fielding raising this issue; this is a genuine concern. Groups are genuinely concerned about this issue. I am surprised that there have been concerns raised about me raising this issue. It is a very difficult topic to discuss and to have to debate. We have had assurances today. All I am seeking is to make sure that this legislation is absolutely clear, because with the baby bonus it was not clear and there are still concerns out in the community. This would clarify it by adding at the end of the definition of stillborn that it ‘does not include a child whose period of gestation was terminated by abortion’, with the definition I gave before. It makes it absolutely clear.

In actual fact I am a little surprised that some people are speaking against making sure it is clear and having this included in the paid parental leave scheme bill. I believe there are still prospects, as the bill currently stands, that drug addicts and welfare cheats could go out and get themselves pregnant and after 20 weeks have an abortion and get paid taxpayers’ money. There is a concern and we should rule it out completely in this legislation in writing so that there is no doubt. Quite clearly there was doubt among coalition senators. They raised this issue even before I got to my feet. I think we could make sure that it is clear for everybody through this bill and these amendments.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I tell you what I know is clear: that the views that are held on this issue are absolutely primary in the motivations of many people in this chamber. I tell you what I know is clear: that Senator Fielding never came to see me about this issue if he holds it so dearly. I do not think he ever saw Senator Boswell. I do not think he went to see anybody in the Liberal Party about this issue, I do not think he went to see anybody in the Labor Party on this issue and I am pretty certain he did not go to see anybody in the Greens about this issue. He did not go to see Senator Xenophon, because I asked.

So what I question is the motivation of Senator Fielding on this issue. Yes, you are stating the obvious that it is a primary aspect, and that is why it is contemptuous to believe that you are working what I would suggest is a wedge, what I would suggest is a political chess manoeuvre by the most minor pawn in the most base way to deliver an outcome that, to be honest, I do not believe the many people in this place who genuinely hold a pro-life view would want. It is more for the base political gain in a very minor period of time and no real acumen, consideration or hard work has gone into it. Therefore it remains contemptuous. The statement is that, if an action happens that is illegal, it is illegal and it makes you a criminal. We spend a lot of time in this chamber making laws that make you a criminal. If you are a criminal then I do not know what legislation we can pass that is going to somehow stop criminality. So what is your motivation, Senator Fielding? Can you please table for this chamber the footwork you did prior to moving these amendments.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite clearly this issue does need to be clarified. I ask Senator Joyce: what is the wedge? This quite clearly is a concern, and one way of making it absolutely clear is by having it in this bill.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to Senator Boswell, what Senator Stephens did on behalf of the government was refer to a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal from a hearing in April 2007 which affirmed the decision by a Centrelink review officer who affirmed the original decision to reject a claim for maternity payment for a termination of pregnancy at 22 weeks gestation. In fact, they tested the legislation and found it to be sound and achieving what it was supposed to achieve. This was the original Howard government legislation. The framework applied here is the same that applied in that legislation. There is no need for amendment; in fact, it can be argued that one might weaken the provision. The concerns that were raised were addressed in 2009 with a form to make it absolutely clear how the law applied.

Senator Fielding, I think the reason people like Senator Joyce get upset about these issues is that when people start saying things like, ‘Drug addicts, prisoners and welfare cheats are getting better deals,’ there is a bit of a sense that maybe we are trying to whip up a little hysteria in the debate. I think that is what concerns people. We should take a calm, considered view of it. First of all, ‘welfare cheats’ means, I assume, that you are on welfare; therefore, you are not entitled to parental leave, so I am not sure how welfare cheats get into the act. If they are cheating and, therefore, on welfare, they are not entitled to parental leave. But it is all rhetoric. The bottom line is this legislation has been in place for a long time under successive governments and was passed by this Senate. It is meeting the objectives set for it. The type of payment paid has changed—this is a significant social reform—but the same framework applies in relation to consideration of payments for stillbirth and for those who have an abortion. Nothing changes. The legislative framework has been tested and found to be sound. It is meeting the objective of the parliament and, therefore, ought to be supported on this occasion.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I still urge senators to look at these amendments. At worst, they do exactly what the government is saying cannot happen, so they reinforce it and make it absolutely clear. I say again that coalition senators were raising this issue before I even got to my feet. It makes sure that the definition of stillbirth does not include abortions after 20 weeks. I think it is a simple proposition to put forward and I ask senators to support it.

Question negatived.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(2)    Clause 6, page 9 (after line 15), after the definition of birth verification form, insert:

born prematurely: a child is born prematurely if, at the time of the child’s delivery, the child’s period of gestation is less than 37 weeks.

(3)    Clause 31, page 40 (line 8), after “(see Division 3)”, insert “or subsection (4A) applies to the person”.

(4)    Clause 31, page 40 (line 32), after “(see Division 3)”, insert “or subsection (4A) applies to the person”.

(5)    Clause 31, page 41 (after line 6), after subclause (4), insert:

     (4A)    This subsection applies to a person if:

             (a)    the person does not satisfy the work test in relation to a child; and

             (b)    the person is the birth mother of the child; and

             (c)    the Secretary is satisfied that either or both of the following subparagraphs apply:

                   (i)    the child was born prematurely;

                  (ii)    while the person was pregnant with the child, the person had complications or illness related to the pregnancy which prevented the person from performing paid work; and

             (d)    the Secretary is satisfied that the person would have satisfied the work test if either or both of the subparagraphs in paragraph (c) had not applied.

Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 AF249

Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests

Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:

Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation

53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

Amendments (2), (3), (4) and (5)

The effect of these amendments is to allow a birth mother who does not meet the work test to be eligible for parental leave pay if the Secretary is satisfied that the mother would have met the work test but for the premature birth of her child, or pregnancy related complications or illness. This expands the eligibility criteria for parental leave pay and will increase the amount of parental leave pay that is payable under the Bill. Parental leave pay is paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in clause 307 of the Bill. The amendments are covered by section 53 because increasing the amount of parental leave pay paid out under clause 307 of the Bill will increase the proposed charge or burden on the people.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (2) and (5)

The effect of these amendments is to expand the eligibility criteria so that certain mothers who do not satisfy the work test may still be eligible for parental leave pay. Although the payment is subject to the Secretary’s discretion, if such a payment is made, the increased expenditure would be met directly from the standing appropriation contained in clause 307 of the bill.

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. On the basis that these amendments would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in clause 307 of the bill, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that these amendments be moved as requests.

Amendments (3) and (4)

Amendments (3) and (4) are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments purely consequential on amendments framed as requests should also be framed as requests.

The government seeks to amend this bill to pick up a concern that was raised during the Senate committee inquiry regarding premature birth and pregnancy complications. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in its report recommended:

… that the government examine the eligibility requirements … to ensure that … women who experience unexpected difficulties during pregnancy which may affect their ability to meet the eligibility requirements of the bill are able to access paid parental leave.

Arising out of consideration of that Senate committee recommendation, the government is requesting these amendments to the bill to modify the work test for women who experience a premature birth or are unable to meet the work test due to complications or illness related to their pregnancy. These requests will allow a birth mother to be eligible for parental leave pay where the secretary of the department is satisfied that she would have met the work test but for the premature birth of her child or pregnancy related complications or illness.

The changes will ensure that women in these circumstances are not precluded from the Paid Parental Leave scheme because of unexpected developments during their pregnancy that prevent them from doing the amount of paid work they would otherwise have undertaken. The costs of the requests are likely to be negligible, because many women experiencing pregnancy related illness or complications will have accessed paid leave, sick leave or annual leave, which already count as qualifying work for the work test. The new provisions will ensure that the smaller number of women who may not have met the PPL work test for these reasons will be able to access parental leave pay. It would not be appropriate for women who clearly have a genuine labour market attachment to be made ineligible in these sorts of situations. It picks up the concern that the Senate committee raised. We think it is a legitimate concern, and the requests seek to make sure that we have the ability to respond to prevent detriment to those women who might have issues brought about by premature birth and pregnancy complications.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be opposing the requests.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make Greens amendments (3) to (5) on sheet 6111:

(3)    Clause 7, page 19 (lines 23 to 27), omit “18”, substitute “26” (thrice occurring).

(4)    Clause 11, page 22 (line 30), omit “125 days”, substitute “181 days”.

(5)    Clause 11, page 22 (line 31), omit “18 weeks”, substitute “26 weeks”.

These requests go to the heart of much of the disappointment about this particular Paid Parental Leave scheme, as 18 weeks is simply not enough. In fact, my requests suggest that we should go with the bare minimum of six months—that is, 26 weeks. That is what has been represented by the World Health Organisation, various other organisations and associations, and experts, who understand that, if we really want to be able to give mums, in particular, time off with their newborn baby, exclusively to care for their child, that needs to be a six-month period. It goes to the heart of this argument about putting forward a Paid Parental Leave scheme that really offers the support that parents need. We know that the opposition support six months. The government’s official position has never been put on the public record so I am not sure what their official position is. They say, ‘Maybe we will start at 18 weeks and move upwards,’ although there has been no firm commitment as to whether they would support a six-month scheme.

We need to go to six months. Let us use this historic opportunity of all sides of parliament wanting a Paid Parental Leave scheme. Let us put it in place. In the big scheme of things, let us not wait another 30 years to try to improve this piece of legislation when we can bed down the bare minimum here today. If you compare Australia with other countries around the world that have already had paid parental leave schemes in place for quite some time, the numbers of weeks that they offer parents far outstrip this miniscule 18-week period. Sweden offers 47, New Zealand offers 28, Finland offers 32 and even the UK offers 39. Even 26 weeks, which I am suggesting would be the bare minimum, is still behind most of those countries.

We really should be looking at how long it has taken us to get to this point. For years and years women in particular trade unions and health organisations, advocates for the rights of children and health officials have been saying that we need a Paid Parental Leave scheme to give parents—mums, in particular—time off to spend exclusively with their newborn child. Let us do it properly and give them six months to spend with their newborn child, to recover from childbirth and to give them the best chance of breastfeeding. We know that that is such an important aspect and that, if you can do it, you should be able to do it for a six-month period if the Paid Parental Leave scheme is supportive enough. That is what this is about.

I hope that seeing as this is now an opposition policy position—Tony Abbott has said that he wants a six-month scheme; that has been backed up by his shadow cabinet and his backbench—this is the place where we can start to see this happen today. I look forward to their support on this particular matter. As I said, it would be nice to hear from the government as to where they stand. There has been a lot of talk from various ministers that they acknowledge 18 weeks is not good enough but that this is simply one step along the road. Where does the road lead to? Perhaps the minister could indicate whether the government support, and will show commitment on the record for, six months, because as of today they have not actually said that.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be accepting the requests seeking to extend the scheme from 18 to 26 weeks. Clearly that would be quite a different proposition and would more than double the cost of the scheme. The estimated cost would be at least an additional $300 million a year to fund the extra eight weeks of the minimum wage with the same offset in savings. But we have made it clear that this is a foundation proposal. We have worked very hard to build community support for this. The reality is that Australia has talked about this for many, many years. Senator Hanson-Young is right to point out that parental leave arrangements have been in place in other countries for many years and that many are more generous than this. It is equally true that during all that period when they have had those schemes we have had nothing. She undervalues the importance and significance of this reform.

We have put in a lot of work to build community support and to assure employers about the efficacy of the scheme and that it will not place unfair imposts on them and the management of their business, which has always been a major argument used against us going down this path. The Productivity Commission’s final report supported the compelling evidence of child and maternal health and wellbeing benefits when mothers can take at least six months off work, but the report also noted that a paid parental leave scheme does not need to cover the full six-month period. It estimated that an 18-week scheme would enable most primary carers to spend six months exclusively caring for their baby.

The scheme is expected to increase the average length of leave taken by employed women after childbirth by around 10 weeks. Currently, working mothers take an average of 37 weeks leave after childbirth but around one-third return to work within less than six months. Obviously, these 18 weeks of funded parental leave can be taken in conjunction with or in addition to employer provided maternity leave and other employer provided leave. It is possible to extend the period people have off work but this parental leave introduces a very significant social reform in this country’s history. It is overdue, but this government has made that commitment. We have negotiated with industry and other constituent groups with an interest in the subject and we have brought something that is feasible, that is practical and that is broadly supported.

While many will argue for 26 weeks, 38 weeks or 49 weeks, and I understand all those arguments, we think this is a very important initiative. It is one where we have built community support and, quite frankly, political support because it was not until recently that the opposition endorsed such a move. It was not one they were prepared to support while in government. I am not trying to score political points but that has been the reality. Recently, the now opposition have got to that point of accepting the rationale for such a scheme. We are grateful for that political support.

We think that this is a good basis for the nation to move forward. We think we can make this work in the interests of all Australians and of all parents who access the scheme. It would be good if we could get this in place. We can always have the arguments about how we might be able to fund a scheme that provides more leave. But we have done the work, we have done the consultation, we have built community support and we have built political support. It is an important social reform and I would urge the Senate to reject this amendment and accept that this is an important foundation step and that we ought to focus on the positive not on the future agenda that perhaps some may have for the scheme. Let us get this in place. Let us get it right and let us make sure it works for parents in this country.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition is more than sympathetic to Senator Hanson-Young’s amendments, because 26 weeks is indeed the opposition’s policy, but the opposition has taken the judgment that, although the government’s scheme is clearly inadequate, although it is clearly second rate, it is a step in the right direction. The opposition does not have a desire to thwart or frustrate a step at least in the right direction.

Having said that I must say it was disappointing yesterday when the Prime Minister in his doorstop in one of the courtyards of the parliament surrounded by mothers and their babies said that the Senate should—words to the effect of—’get the heck out of the way.’ I was not actually aware that the Senate was in the way of this particular piece of legislation. The Senate is, as always, merely doing its job. It is our job to review legislation. It is our job to seek to improve legislation where we can.

On this occasion the Greens and the opposition have taken a different view as to the best way forward. The Greens have taken the view that the best thing to do is to endeavour to alter this legislation. We are fully aware that we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives and that to insist on particular amendments would frustrate the passage of this bill. That is not something that the opposition wishes to do. It is clearly our policy that a PPL scheme should be for 26 weeks. That is something that we would like to see, but we do think that something is better than nothing and for those reasons the opposition will not be supporting Senator Hanson-Young’s amendments.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First supports a more generous scheme for mums, but not one that discriminates against stay-at-home mums and this amendment will make the difference even greater. Therefore stay-at-home mums will be, I suppose, discriminated against even more so under this more generous scheme. Family First does support a more generous scheme for all mums, but obviously these amendments are for only those mums in the paid workforce and stay-at-home mums are discriminated against.

To show at this point in the debate whether stay-at-home mums are better off under the government’s assistance than people in the paid workforce, if you take an example of a stay-at-home mum where the father earns $80,000 and the mother has no income, the total net income after tax and assistance—I will not bore you with the details, I am happy to go through this with the minister later on—is $77,019. In the case of a working mother where the father earns, say, $60,000 and the mother earns $20,000 the total net income after tax and assistance is $81,279. Quite clearly that particular family with the stay-at-home mum is about $4,000 worse off. After you take into account all the assistance and the tax advantages through working, they are actually worse off.

So this is the argument, and I suppose that you can go back and forward in this argument: stay-at-home mums are discriminated against and their work of looking after kids full time is not valued by the government. Therefore, this amendment actually makes the difference even higher, and stay-at-home mums will be worse off compared to those in the paid workforce. That would be a concern to Family First.

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

It is extremely disappointing to see what has happened despite all the evidence and despite every witness that appeared before the Senate inquiry into this piece of legislation bar the government’s own department. The witnesses all said that this bill should be extended to six months and that that should be the amount of leave that we are talking about. Despite the opposition’s position—and, of course, I am not sure whether Tony Abbott had it written down, so perhaps it was not gospel—there was an opportunity here for us to get a scheme that delivered that support that families needed.

The minister says that actually most women will get access to six months because of the top-up arrangements if they include their employer funded schemes. Well, one of the key reasons why the government has argued that it needs this scheme and that it needs to be administered the way it is is that it provides support to those women—the majority of women—who do not have access to an employer funded scheme. Those are, of course, those in the casual workforce, those in the more low-paid workforce and seasonal workers. They are, of course, the very same women who now will not have access to the top-up and therefore the six-month leave schemes because it simply does not exist for them now. Under this scheme, they will continue to be worse off in relation to their counterparts, simply because the government is relying on the goodwill of business to continue their employer funded schemes in order to create what the government has acknowledged would be a better scheme if it were six months—although it is interesting to note that the government still refused to commit to extending the scheme or to agree in principle to a six-month scheme. I just think that is important for everybody to remember. In two years time, when this bill is reviewed—and we will get to the amendments around the review further on—it will be very interesting to see whether the government will move to extend this scheme, because we have not heard the commitment from the minister or any of the ministers to date.

Question put:

That the request (Senator Hanson-Young’s) be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (6) and (7) on sheet 6111 together:

(6)    Clause 36, page 44 (line 24), omit “56”, substitute “84”.

(7)    Clause 36, page 45 (line 7), omit “56”, substitute “84”.

These amendments relate to the definition of permissible breaks as outlined in the work test eligibility criteria that are limited to eight weeks. These came out of evidence presented in the Senate inquiry that the work break time did not effectively reflect some of the various different seasonal work that exists and, of course, the university and school terms where people work on various contracts.

The Greens propose to extend this eight-week limitation to 12 weeks, recognising that a number of casual workers may miss out on the payment despite working for a significant period during the previous 12 months. This was a problem identified, as I said, in the various submissions to the Senate inquiry. In particular, the extension of 12 weeks covers people who have casual employment in occupations that often have a break over the summer such as universities. For a lecturer, a tutor or a researcher for example, who are only employed for the official semester periods, that eight-week period permissible break would cut them out from being able to apply for this parental leave. Surely, it seems to be something that the government should just be able to accept. This does not change the operation of the bill at all; it is simply saying, ‘We know there are significant numbers of people—women in particular—in those fields which will be caught short if we keep the permissible break period at only eight weeks.’

Twelve weeks seems to cover most people; in fact, I found it difficult to find anyone who would not be able to fit into that category of the 12-week break. But those who need to work on a semester-by-semester basis need to have that 12-week permissible break. That is what these amendments are about.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not be supporting these amendments. The bill does provide that a person can have a break of up to eight weeks between consecutive working days and be regarded as having worked continuously. It is a fairly generous arrangement, which we think will pick up people like school teachers and others who have quite a serious break within their working year. A working day is defined as a day on which a person has worked for at least one hour, so it is not a big hurdle in that regard either.

This, of course, means that for the first time many women in seasonal casual work, as well as contractors and self-employed people, will have access to paid parental leave—so it is a big step forward. They will get access even though there are some significant periods when they will not be at work.

While the work test needs to have some notion of a permissible break to ensure those workers have access to the scheme, we do have to find the right balance. We believe an eight-week break finds that balance and we do not support pushing that out even further to three months. You have got to retain a genuine attachment to the labour market, and we are not convinced that a person who has a genuine attachment to the labour market would be unable to find one hour of paid work within a two-month period. This is all it takes to retain continuity of work over the required 10-month period: one hour of paid work every two months and a total of 330 hours of paid work in the 10-month period then the person will meet the work test.

It is a pretty generous arrangement and it is designed to address the concerns of some about casual workers and contractors. We think it does that. Obviously though, if there is a problem we can address that in the review of the act. But we think this will meet those needs and it will extend an entitlement well beyond previous arrangements and try and pick up all those who are maintaining serious contact and genuine attachment to the labour market. We think the balance is better placed with the eight-week proposal in the bill and do not support the Greens suggestion to extend it even further.

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

I am very disappointed that the government is overlooking a significant group of female employees in this country—those who work in our universities educating the future leaders of tomorrow who finish their teaching in November and do not resume until March. There is no way they can fit into the eight-week permissible break period. That is the evidence that was given by various people to the Senate inquiry. I would like the minister to address that specific example. How does the minister excuse not giving parental leave to a woman because of the birth of her child who has to take more than the eight weeks off simply because she works in a university as part of the core teaching staff?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have considered those matters and we think the government’s position accommodates those concerns. As the son of a former lecturer, it has been well ingrained in me that formal teaching is not the only work that they do; that periods of marking and course preparation et cetera are also work. That is the first point I want to put on the record—or my late dad would never forgive me.

Secondly, people with postgraduate scholarships, people doing research and people who have other connections as part of their work at a university will have those arrangements recognised. The strict interpretation of the term we think is not a problem. We have looked at this and are happy that it will deal with those persons in the education sector and that they will be able to meet the requirements through their ongoing contact with the workforce.

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

I would assume that the minister’s father who was a lecturer was perhaps part of the permanent staff, back in the days when universities promoted permanent employees. We know that the casualisation rate of staff at universities is growing significantly. It is another issue that the government should not hide behind but actually deal with. Putting that aside, we know specifically that those on contracts that end in November that start again in March will not be eligible for this payment. If the government want to vote it down, that is their problem and they will have to explain it to the NTEU.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting these Greens amendments.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (8) to (10) on sheet 6111:

(8)    Heading to Chapter 3, page 61 (line 1), at the end of the heading, add “and superannuation”.

(9)    Clause 62, page 61 (at the end of line 10), after “(see Part 3-3).”, insert “Instalments are treated as salary or wages for superannuation purposes (see Part 3-6).”.

(10)  Page 101 (after line 8), at the end of Chapter 3, add:

Part 3-6—Superannuation

115A  Entitlement to superannuation

                 Parental leave pay instalments are to be treated as income, in the nature of salary or wages, and as part of ordinary time earnings for the purposes of superannuation law.

115B  Payments in lieu of superannuation

        (1)    Section 115A does not operate so as to impose taxation.

        (2)    If, under section 115A, a superannuation contribution may not be made to a person in relation to an instalment because of the operation of subsection (1), the Secretary may make a payment to the person in lieu of that superannuation contribution.

115C  Regulations—Superannuation

        (1)    Regulations made for the purposes of this Part may provide for the following matters:

             (a)    the calculation of amounts of superannuation;

             (b)    the making of superannuation contributions;

             (c)    the calculation of amounts to be paid in lieu of superannuation;

             (d)    the payment of amounts in lieu of superannuation.

        (2)    Without limiting subsection (1), regulations made for the purpose of that subsection may:

             (a)    modify provisions of this Act or of the superannuation law; or

             (b)    provide for the application (with or without modifications) of provisions of this Act or of the superannuation law, to matters to which they would otherwise not apply.

115D  Interpretation

                 In this Part:

superannuation law means:

             (a)    the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 and instruments made under that Act; and

             (b)    the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and instruments made under that Act; and

             (c)    the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and instruments made under that Act, to the extent that they deal with superannuation.

These amendments go to the failure of this bill to allow for a core workplace entitlement that includes superannuation under the Paid Parental Leave scheme. We know that one of the biggest issues in relation to the gap in retirement savings between men and women is that women need to take time off from the workforce when they have their babies. From day one they are behind the eight ball when it comes to saving for their retirement. We know this and the government have specifically spoken about this only recently—that they want to do more to ensure that the retirement pay gap between men and women is closed. This would be a perfect place to do it—paying for superannuation as part of what is meant to be a workplace entitlement under this scheme. Paid parent leave should include superannuation. It is a no-brainer.

If this is meant to be a workplace entitlement like other workplace entitlements then let us ensure that women are not disadvantaged or discriminated against simply because they have ovaries and let us ensure that the scheme includes superannuation. That is one of the key aspects of any paid parental leave scheme put forward by this parliament, particularly by a Labor government who understands the importance of superannuation. Let us make sure it is important to everybody, including mums. That is what these amendments are about: ensuring that superannuation is included.

It may not seem like a lot of money—the superannuation for an 18-week period over the minimum wage works out to be $800 per person. We know that women have their babies at a particular period of their lives. The compound effect of that saving of course will pay dividends into the future. It is not an awful lot of money for the government to include, but will be quite significant in helping to bridge the retirement savings gap between men and women, and of course a very symbolic representation of how fair dinkum the government are about addressing this inequity in women’s superannuation.

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

Senator Fifield? No. Minister.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield lets me do all the hard running and take the flak.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are so good at it.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a big target. The government will not be supporting these amendments. I understand the argument that Senator Hanson-Young puts and I have a couple of things to say about it. Firstly, we think the amendment is a bit unclear and its consequences are unclear. We are not sure of all the implications of the amendment. Having said that, that is not the basis of our opposition. Under this proposal, it appears that both employers and government would be required to meet the cost of introducing compulsory superannuation contributions on parental leave pay. It appears that the level of contribution of each of these parties for a person would depend on that person’s circumstances.

The key principle is that the bill does not provide for superannuation contributions on parental leave pay and Senator Hanson-Young seeks to amend the bill to bring about a change so that superannuation contributions will be paid. Our approach is in line with the Productivity Commission’s final report, which proposed that superannuation contributions under the scheme be delayed until after the review of the scheme. As I say, I understand the reasons for the amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young. I share her concern about lifetime superannuation contributions of women and the inequities in the scheme. It has been an issue I have been engaged with for many years from my early days in the Senate when I was on the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation as it then was.

As I understand it, the current superannuation guarantee legislation does not require employers to make contributions while persons are on private parental leave arrangements, so the super guarantee legislation does not require it. Some employers apparently do; some do not. But, in line with the Productivity Commission report, we have decided not to support superannuation contributions on parental leave pay at this stage. It is something that we have picked up under the review of the scheme. Like many of the issues, I think this reflects Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens’ desire that it go further. I understand that. This is about the government having worked to reach a proposition that is workable and broadly supported, and while it does not deliver everything some people would want we think it is a major reform. It is a good scheme; it will deliver for working parents. As I say, while a superannuation payment is not included at this stage, it is something that we will take up in the review in line with the Productivity Commission’s final report.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition clearly appreciates the intention and objective of Senator Hanson-Young’s amendments. We do have great sympathy with the objective. However, as there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House we will be declining to support the amendments because, as I have indicated before, we do not wish to frustrate the passage of this legislation. Although not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Hanson-Young’s) be agreed to.