House debates

Wednesday, 17 June 2015

Bills

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016; Consideration in Detail

10:41 am

Photo of Christian PorterChristian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can make this comment with respect to The Canberra Times article, which I have not read but you have gracefully quoted a part of: what a sloppy and hopeless piece of journalism that is. The idea that there is some form of a lack of clarity—

Dr Chalmers interjecting

There are journalists of varying quality and acumen, and, based on the very little excerpt you have given to us about this particular article, I must say that is not the highest point in the art of investigative journalism which has graced the vocabulary of this chamber.

The position that the coalition has taken is that the $11,000-odd of paid parental leave that is provided for by the taxpayer through the auspices of the government should not be available to be taken by Commonwealth public servants who already have expansive and generous paid parental leave systems. The principle is that if you are a Commonwealth public servant who has a large, expansive and generous entitlement, which is of course also funded by the taxpayer of Australia, then you should not be able to also get a further taxpayer-of-Australia funded benefit. The principle is very clear.

The way in which that principle is enacted in the legislation is also very clear. What is less clear is whether or not there is going to be support to ease the passage of that principle, which is well-defined in legislation, through the parliament. To the extent that there may be uncertainty as to the future, that is not uncertainty created by the coalition government, nor pursuant to the principle nor pursuant to the drafting. That is uncertainty that you are creating, so maybe you should—

Comments

No comments