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

I move:

That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

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

I would just like to make some final comments about this legislation. I reiterate that this is an important step in the long road towards delivering paid parental leave in this country. I am not sure that we have quite got it yet; in fact, I do not think that we do. We know that this legislation does not go far enough in terms of providing a proper scheme that is underpinned by a workplace entitlement. That has been quite clear from the evidence that has been given in relation to the bills from the various ministers who have commented here over the last two days—particularly the comments from Senator Evans in the final part of the previous committee stage, when he said that the government would refrain from supporting the Greens amendment to the Fair Work Act because amending the employment standards to ensure that the entitlements for payment would match the entitlements for leave did not suit their time frame. We have quite some way to go to ensure that we have a well-funded and supportive scheme that offers parents—particularly working mums—what they need.

Having said that, this is a really important step, one that has taken many years to take. I am very disappointed that the coalition, despite their policy for a six-month leave plan and despite their assurance that they firmly believe that superannuation should be included in any type of paid parental leave bill, were not willing to use this opportunity to work with all sides to ensure that we could get those things bedded down. At the very least, superannuation should have been included in this scheme. There is really no excuse except for the fact that the government did not want to have to pay that bit extra to ensure that we do something immediately to address the retirement pay gap between men and women. This would have been the perfect place to start to address that issue, and neither the government nor the coalition was willing to do that.

It is very clear that, as these bills pass, it is a historic day. It is one step towards what will hopefully be a much stronger scheme in the future—although we still have to see the commitment from both sides to an extended scheme. The government are to this day still yet to commit to a minimum of six months and still yet to commit to superannuation being included. I hope that in 30 years time when my daughter is looking to have her own children she is not faced with this scheme. I hope it does not take us another 30 years to get the scheme that we should be delivering today. I hope that this is one step in a process that is not going to take another 30 years. I hope that we move on much faster. I look forward to the review in two years time. Hopefully, I will still be here to make sure that we strengthen the legislation as much as we can.

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 disappointed that the House, the government, did not see fit to agree to our very reasonable and sensible amendments to try and take a new burden off small business. The substantive amendments which we moved were designed to extend the six-month period which the government is intending to give to the Family Assistance Office to administer the paid parental leave scheme. The coalition thinks that the Family Assistance Office should be the prime mechanism for the delivery of the paid parental leave scheme indefinitely. We do not want to add additional regulatory burden to small business and our amendments sought to give effect to that view.

As has been the case throughout this debate and throughout the discussion of this legislation in this chamber, the opposition has been very reasonable. We have not sought to obstruct, we have not sought to delay and we have not sought to imperil this legislation. That was demonstrated by the coalition’s approach in relation to the amendments put forward by the government to their own legislation, which we did not oppose. It was further demonstrated by the opposition’s approach to the amendments of other parties. While in many cases we had a great degree of sympathy with them, nevertheless we were being realists, recognising that without the numbers in the other place there was no prospect of those amendments being agreed to. The one area where we moved substantive amendments and the one area where we supported change other than that put forward by the government was in this very particular area of additional burden on small business. We endeavoured to give the government the opportunity to consider that. The government did and they rejected that. That is now very much on the head of this government. Small businesses do not need additional burdens, they do not need more regulation and they do not need more challenges in running their business. That is something for which the government will have to give account.

The opposition has always been mindful during this debate to try and balance two competing priorities, that of seeking to see a paid parental leave scheme that will benefit many working women and the other objective being not to place additional burden on small business. We recognise that we cannot be successful in relation to small business without imperilling this legislation. We do not want to do that. That is why we are not intending on insisting on our amendments at this time. Although recognising that this bill is in many respects flawed and in many respects second-rate, it is nonetheless a step in the right direction and we do not want to be an obstacle to that.

In closing, I note that, despite the Prime Minister holding a doorstop yesterday surrounded by small children and mothers, and his demand that the Senate get out of the way, the Senate was never actually in the way in the first place. The Senate has done its job of taking the appropriate time. Without being needlessly or unnecessarily longwinded, it has taken the time to scrutinise this legislation. So the Senate has certainly done its job. Mr Albanese’s prediction this morning on Sky News that this legislation would not pass the Senate has not come to be. In fact, in no way, shape or form has any action by any non-government senator delayed this legislation by even a day. So all the protestations and all the fear-mongering have proved to be completely false and completely baseless. We do hope that when in future other serious pieces of legislation such as this are discussed the role and responsibility of the Senate can be respected. On this side of the chamber we do not have any issue at all with the government, the Prime Minister or Mr Albanese questioning decisions that the Senate may take, but the deliberate misrepresentation of what is occurring in this chamber is something to which we strongly object and to which we will object each and every time the role of the opposition and the role of this chamber are misrepresented. We are here to do a job; we are paid to do a job. That is what the Senate has been doing, that is what the opposition have been doing. In doing so we have not delayed this legislation and we are pleased that the legislation can proceed in good time and that there will be a benefit for parents, a benefit that we all want to see. We hope that when we are elected to government we may be able to do more.

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

This is a very important day in Australia’s history and it is a very important day for mothers, fathers and children. As we all know, success has many mothers and fathers, and I can only thank the senators who have contributed to the debate.

Question agreed to.

Resolution reported.

On behalf of all parents and prospective parents of Australia, I move:

That the report of the committee be adopted.

Question agreed to.