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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Moore and Cameron today relating to paid parental leave.

Today we heard again about the extraordinarily broad church that the government has, and the LNP, to allow individual members to make comment, to be concerned and to have different opinions. We heard that in great detail, particularly from Senator Abetz, when he went into detail about the numbers of times that he agreed with particular senators—in this case, Senator Macdonald—but actually made the case in a much wider area. An integral part of the way that the LNP operates is that individual members can disagree or agree on certain elements of policy and principle. The point that we are getting in consistent questions over the last couple of weeks is around the fact that individual members of the LNP have different views around the paid parental scheme, and many have made it very public through the media and through discussions in the community.

We asked questions of Senator Cormann about the AiG. If industry and business groups have been raising specific concerns about the proposed paid parental scheme, then a simple question that we asked—a very simple question—was: who then supports it? Who agrees with the paid parental scheme that we believe is going to be put before the Australian parliament? We have not seen it yet. We keep hearing about what is going to be in it, but we believe there is a proposal coming forward. In terms of today's straw poll, we had two brave hands come up, which I know cannot be recorded in Hansard. We asked a direct question and for once there was a direct answer from the government, which we seem to have some trouble getting through question time. Two brave senators raised their hands. One, of course—and we have to admire it—was Senator Boswell's. Actually, until this stage I had not heard of any great support of the Prime Minister's proposed paid parental scheme from Senator Boswell, but today we had it in this chamber. His hand was briefly raised to say that he is a strong supporter of the paid parental scheme.

The point, consistently, is that this is a proposal that has been talked about and, as Senator Cormann said today in parliament, has been taken to the people throughout two elections. It has been taken to the people but obviously not to all the members of the LNP caucus, because consistently within the LNP caucus there are people who are raising concerns about how it will work, about how much it is going to cost, about the timing—a whole range of issues about how this new paid parental scheme is going to work.

One of the problems of actually being involved in this discussion around paid parental leave for a very long time is that I remember the debates we had and I remember the Senate inquiry we had around paid parental leave schemes when we introduced the one that is active now. The paid parental scheme which we introduced as a government has recently had yet another one of the standard reviews which points out how many people in the community have received and worked with the current paid parental scheme. I remember considerable concerns being raised by members of the then opposition about how this particular payment should fit into the system. Senator Cormann today strongly questioned whether the scheme is a workplace scheme or a welfare scheme. There is no doubt in our minds that this paid parental scheme for working families, for fathers and for mothers, is a work entitlement. It is not a welfare payment. Yet seemingly one of the core aspects of the paid parental scheme being talked about now and into the future is the need to have the payment of this paid parental scheme through Centrelink. I have some issues there in terms of the logic of that argument.

Certainly the core aspect of the discussions we have been having is to find out who actually supports this scheme in the way it has been presented. We have had discussions with the community. We have had discussions around the areas of people who are currently using the scheme. We have even tried to get information out of the department around what work has been done, through the Senate estimates process. We did not have a lot of success in finding out exactly with whom these consultations have taken place. We are still unsure about the details of this scheme and the way it will operate. The amount of money is still under discussion. We believe $50,000 is now the cap. Nonetheless, our question remains. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I love it when the Labor Party come in here so incredibly frustrated at the idea that a member of this parliament can have a conscience. I love the way the Labor Party seems to want to constantly remind people that when you vote Labor the opinion of that person on that ballot paper is irrelevant: they must run with the mob. In the modern-day Labor Party the lobby is increasingly controlled by those outside parliament. Since the Labor Party adopted the binding caucus, it has successfully pushed people away. It pushed away people like Joe Lyons, who went on to become Prime Minister in that case, and people who felt that they were not going to be controlled by forces external to this parliament, that they were not going to be controlled and have their consciences overridden by a mere simple majority of factional bullies in one party room.

Senator Moore betrays the fact that members of the Labor Party cannot understand the role of individual conscience when she refers to our party room as a caucus. It is not. It never was. When Sir Robert Menzies founded the Liberal Party, the right of a Liberal Party member to cross the floor, to question party policy and to do so publicly was entrenched—and it has not been questioned. In every division of the Liberal Party around Australia a member of parliament has the right to do that. That is a right we all cherish. But the people opposite cannot comprehend it.

For the last six years in the corridors of this place, behind the President's chair or eventually in the newspaper, we knew what Labor Party members thought of their own government. We knew what Labor Party members thought of policies. They would mutter it under their breath as they crossed the chamber to vote, like drones, like sheep. But they never have the courage to stand up. Why? Because of their rules and culture. Their rules prohibit it. That allows every member opposite to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own vote. They hide behind the caucus. They hide behind the binding caucus and they hide behind the idea and say, 'Look, I'm sorry. The caucus decided it, so my vote's irrelevant.' They did that on border protection. They did it on the carbon tax. They did it when they broke their promise on the carbon tax. And they are doing it now when they vote to oppose explicit policies, such as the repeal of the carbon tax, that this government took to an election. This is a profound difference between the parties. I disagree with what Senator Macdonald said yesterday. But I defend his right as a member of my party to say it. That is a critical difference, and it is one that every Liberal will stand to protect.

Senator Moore pointed out that somehow this particular argument was inconsistent because under our policy we plan to make the payments via Centrelink. That again betrayed the weakness and the narrowness from which Labor Party members are drawn. When Labor did bring in the current paid parental scheme, we tried to amend it. When as a new parent you have to fill out all the forms at Centrelink, when Centrelink makes payments for everything from immunisation to child care to family tax benefits, why on earth when it comes to this one issue of paid parental leave would you make the small business do the paperwork? Why would you make the small business fill out an extra form and send it into Centrelink? The payment comes from Centrelink and then that payment is given by the employer doing work on MYOB on their kitchen table, mind you, to their employee on parental leave. That betrays the narrow background of those opposite. They have no concept of what it is like to run a small business. That betrays. It simply makes no sense to make that happen.

In fact, one of the things they never thought of was that because their system did not include superannuation payments, no business accounting software used by every small business in this country actually had the facility to make a payment without incurring state payroll tax liability and superannuation liability. So the software had to be redesigned. Small businesses spent hours trying to figure out why their books were not balancing, but it was because Labor's paid parental scheme forced them to incur liabilities that they did not have to pay.

We want this payment to be made through Centrelink because it is has the most efficient means to do so, because it takes an utterly unnecessary burden off the back of small business and because Centrelink already collects the data. Labor's hypocrisy on the issue of individual conscience in this place—on this policy, in particular—is well known by all.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that the Prime Minister's Paid Parental Leave Scheme is unpopular. It is very unpopular amongst the Prime Minister's own supporters. The Prime Minister's Commission of Audit did not like it. The Australian Industry Group do not like it. They said it is gold-plated and should be abandoned. The Business Council of Australia do not like it. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry do not like it. Even the Institute of Public Affairs do not like it. But most embarrassingly of all, many members of the parliamentary Liberal Party do not like it and members of the National Party hate it.

Senators Williams, Smith, Bernardi, Boswell and O'Sullivan and, so far, lower house MPs Mr Hawke, Mr Christensen and Mr Chester have indicated they do not like it. They have said so. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Truss, admitted on the ABC's Insiders program how unpopular the paid parental scheme is. He said:

I accept that there are people in our party room, and for that matter the Liberal party room, who are not that keen on the scheme.

But of all the opponents to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, I do have to today particularly single out Senator Ian Macdonald. That is because Senator Ian Macdonald is not just against the Prime Minister's PPL scheme; he is against everything. This came about, I think, on 15 September last year—a day when Senator Macdonald said:

What should have been one of the proudest days in my life has turned into one of the worst.

Since that time, Senator Macdonald has turned opposing the Abbott government into an art form.

He has accused the Prime Minister's staff of running the government with obsessive, centralised control phobia. He accused unelected advisers in the Prime Minister's office of ignoring commitments and breaking promises to Queenslanders. In May of this year, Senator Macdonald accused his own government of displaying a lack of 'maturity' in keeping the Commission of Audit secret for too long and in not selling the federal budget properly. He attacked the deficit levy. He said that was unfair.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you agree, Senator Bernardi. Yesterday, Senator Macdonald accused poor old finance minister Cormann of not making any sense. I thought that was harsh, but fair from Senator Macdonald. But, even after the Prime Minister's very, very clumsy attempts that we have seen to water down his Paid Parental Leave Scheme in April, his own mates from the big end of town are running away from this policy at a million miles an hour. So you have to ask yourself: who does support this scheme? If the Prime Minister cannot convince his own party and his own backbench to support this ill-conceived scheme, why should the rest of us support it?

We have just had the spectacle after question time of a point of order from Senator Macdonald that was ruled correctly out of order by the Deputy President. My advice to Senator Macdonald—who of course said that he and I are very long-serving senators, which is true—is: make sure, as you move towards the end of your career, with six years to go, Senator Macdonald, that you are treated by your party and colleagues with respect and loyalty. Do not— (Time expired)

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given today by Minister Cormann and Minister Cash. I support my colleague Senator Ryan's early comments in his protests about the shrill nature of the argument that is coming from the other side. There is some kind of inference that a discussion amongst parliamentary peers on this side is somewhat unusual. It is unusual for us on this side to imagine that you could be muzzled in your parliamentary debate publicly, as we see so often in this chamber where everybody on the other side mundanely and routinely votes in the same way, have no colour, have no character and have no conversation about various policies that are before the country. What that turns into is an inane conversation.

When it is in government, which we saw for six years prior to the September election in 2013, a dysfunction starts to occur and that robust argument—which we on this side of the chamber enjoy—is muzzled and therefore the backroom deals start. That is where the dysfunction that we saw with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government era occurs. They drive everything underground. It is a subversive culture. It is one which is not healthy in a functioning, First World democracy. We have seen it bubble out in the way in which the unions—where all but a couple of the members from the other side come from—run themselves. That is playing out in royal commissions now in the south of this country, where we have seen suggestions of slush funds and other secret issues which affect the culture and the way in which governance on the other side is bred. You see that type of dysfunction come from those organisations, and they bring it here.

We do not do that. You are going to be talking about Senator Macdonald and you are going to be talking about this. It really is a bit ho-hum. It is somewhat boring. Senator Bernardi is here. We agree on a lot of things. We agree on the majority of things. But we do not agree on all things, and we are quite happy to air those. But we will not be expelled from our party for doing that. We will not be jettisoned out of here in some way. We will see the trappings of parliament and the trappings of being in this place—

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Yes, that is right, Senator Bernardi. You will see the trappings finish. Of course, those people would not want to see that, because it is a club over there, and they make all these agreements outside.

I am absolutely delighted to see the conversations that go on between people on my side over here. I think it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that you know how everybody is going to vote on this issue, because you do not know. There have been suggestions, and I know that there are a lot of conversations going on about it.

But what I do know is that the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to paid parental leave, in his eyes an equitable solution for mothers in this community. He is absolutely committed to ensuring that there is an extension from the current 18 weeks to 26 weeks, and he is absolutely committed to ensuring that that is paid at a rate which reflects the professional standing which people had before they had their baby. He views it as a progressive policy, a policy which he stands behind and a policy which I am sure will be argued somewhat democratically over here over the next days and weeks, and which we can be proud of in this place.

I just remind those on the other side of the answer from Senator Cash about border protection. It is projected that some 200-odd lives have been saved by boats not coming to this country. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have known for some time that Senator Macdonald has not been a happy camper on the government side. It has been well reported. He has certainly used his opportunity, his freedom of speech within the Liberal Party, to make it very well known to the Australian public how unhappy he is. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I think Senator Macdonald is the grumpiest senator in this place. He is a grumpy guts. He is the grumpiest senator in this place.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Singh, first of all I think you need to withdraw your last comment.

An opposition senator: What, grumpy?

It was following on from that, and I am not going to repeat it. Senator Singh, it would assist the chamber if you withdrew that.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Singh to continue, could I have order on both sides of the chamber.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Senator Macdonald has been unhappy for some time in relation to a number of decisions which the government has made. What we have heard from the answers to questions during question time today is in relation to another area which he is not happy with, and that is the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. He has made it very clear to this chamber how unhappy he is with this scheme, as have his colleagues—as has Senator Bernardi. I know that Senator Bernardi wants to be added as also being very clearly not supportive of this scheme—as well as the National Party senators, including Senator Williams, Senator Smith, Senator Boswell and Senator O'Sullivan, and the list goes on. They are just the senators. Then of course there are the House of Representatives members as well.

Clearly, they have been thinking about this particular policy area, and clearly they know how out of touch it is at this current time with the broader Australian community. The answer provided by Senator Abetz to Senator Moore's question in this regard was: 'It is good, sound public policy.' Good, sound public policy! How can Minister Abetz regard this as good, sound public policy while at the same time saying that it is not good, sound public policy to have affordable child care, that it is not good, sound public policy to have a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner and that it is not good, sound public policy to have a safety net for people under 30 who might lose their job? They are just three of the examples by which this government affects so many ordinary Australians.

On the one hand, they are quite happy to regard it as good, sound public policy to give women on salaries of $100,000 or more a year $50,000 in paid parental leave, but at the same time, if a young person loses their job, what do they get? They get nothing. They get nothing! That is simply bad, unsound public policy. There is nothing sound about that, and that is what this budget provides. It may be a pet policy of the Prime Minister's, but he needs to start listening to some of his own coalition members, like Senator Macdonald, who has provided a fulsome contribution in this place against this paid parental leave policy. Because if he cannot convince his own MPs—and I do not think that he will ever convince Senator Macdonald on a lot of things; as I said earlier, I think he is pretty unhappy about most things—if he cannot convince the majority of the National Party senators, a number of Liberal Party senators, as well as a number of lower house MPs, to support these budget measures, to support this gold, Rolls-Royce scheme, then why on earth should the rest of the Australian public support it as well?

We have had very clear rejections from the AiG. The government is happy to support the AiG on most other things but, at the moment, apparently, according to Senator Cormann, they are not correct. And while the AiG, according to Senator Cormann, are not correct, what about the government's own Commission of Audit report? They are not correct, either. Surprise, surprise! They have rejected this Paid Parental Leave scheme, recommending a 'targeted expenditure at those most in need'. Yet, no, they are not correct. They do not want to think about those most in need, they do not want to talk about those most in need—those such as young people who become unemployed or those perhaps on a pension—they do not want to think about them, so we are just not going to agree with our own Commission of Audit. Then there is their friend, the IPA— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.