Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, a young woman employed as a chef on a salary of $68,000 will only receive $9,788 for the 18 weeks spent on parental leave under Labor’s scheme—a reduction in her usual wage of over $14,000 for that period. Under the coalition’s plan, the same young woman will receive 26 weeks leave at her full salary plus superannuation, giving her real time with her new baby and no cut to her income during that period. Prime Minister, why won’t you support a real paid parental leave scheme that lets young families spend real time with their new babies without having to take a pay cut?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Murray for her question which began with the financial impact of the government’s proposed paid parental leave. She asked why people would only get $9,788. I say to the member for Murray: that is $9,788 more than your government ever provided to anybody. That is because those opposite, in their 12 years in office, refused to lift a finger and do a thing for paid parental leave—not a thing.

This debate about paid parental leave is particularly interesting because it goes to the credibility of those opposite on two fronts. Let us simply go to front number one, which is about this minor promise which those opposite, led by the Leader of the Opposition, gave on taxes. Six weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition said he would not raise taxes to fund policy proposals. He said:

We won’t increase taxes. There will be no new taxes. There will be no increased taxes.

Now there is to be a 1.7 per cent levy on businesses in Australia. How can the Leader of the Opposition stand there with any credibility on the question of his commitments about no new taxes when, six weeks later—he did not even make the 100 days mark—he is in there fundamentally violating one of his first commitments to the Australian people? He says, ‘No new taxes’ one day and then, suddenly, whacks a huge tax on business the next day.

There is a more fundamental question of credibility because—those opposite and the member for Murray know exactly where I am going with this—the Leader of the Opposition has said in the past that there should be no such thing as paid maternity leave. Several years ago, he said:

I am dead against paid maternity leave as a compulsory thing.

That was the position of belief. That was ‘straight-talking Tony’. That was the Leader of the Opposition who says he never changes his position, but suddenly, it seems, the circumstances change. Having been challenged on it since he became Leader of the Opposition, he went out and said, ‘Well, of course, we would not be funding that from business.’ Then the member for Murray says, ‘Of course, he would not be funding it from business.’ Now we find that they do propose to fund it from business.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. We were asking: why should this woman take a pay cut under his crummy scheme.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question went to why the Prime Minister would not adopt a certain policy. The Prime Minister is addressing the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the $10,000 or thereabouts that the member for Murray referred to in her question, I go back to what I said at the outset—it is $10,000 more than was ever, ever offered by those opposite. Secondly, the member for Murray has asked why would working families want to receive such a small amount relative to what they suggest. Can I suggest that those same working families might be interested in something else—it is called penalty rates. It is called their basic working conditions. It is called unfair dismissal. It is called the introduction of AWAs. It is called Work Choices. When you take home your pay at the end of the week, you are confronted with a few things. One is whether your fundamental conditions of work have been blown apart, and working families depend on penalty rates. Those opposite have said that they will take them away. Secondly, if paid maternity leave is drawn upon, the $10,000 we are speaking of, taking the number at face value from what the member for Murray has just said, is $10,000 more than was ever offered by those opposite. It comes back to credibility. The Leader of the Opposition said he never believed in it—now he does. He said he would never increase taxes—now he will. The member for Murray said it would never be taken from business—now it is. Is it any wonder we all wonder what will next come forth from the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition, given that his crack economic team did not know about this scheme until he opened his mouth about it yesterday?