Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we debate the adjournment of the House, I would like to take the opportunity to consider some of the debate that occurred in the House today—in particular the discussions during question time around the opposition leader’s announcement of a proposed parental leave scheme. We heard today in question time several questions to the government about individual cases indicating that, under the opposition leader’s as yet fairly sketchy proposal on paid parental leave, people would receive the amount of their wage at the point at which they go on leave, but under ours they would receive only the minimum wage.

I want to raise this issue because I acknowledge, as the Leader of the Opposition and shadow ministers did not, that there is concern reported in the media amongst their own backbench about the fairness of such a proposal. I indicate that the idea that the government would have a—to use the opposition leader’s words in a new context—‘great big tax’ on businesses to redirect that into a paid parental leave scheme that gives people vastly different entitlements based on their earning capacity prior to taking leave is not necessarily a particularly equitable way to allocate a paid parental leave scheme sponsored by the government. Indeed, I acknowledge that there are media reports that members of the opposition backbench, in their own party room today, raised the concern that, for example, there is a bias towards city based people who have access to jobs that pay significantly more as opposed to country based people who, while doing the same sort of work, may well not be on the same sort of pay levels, and that this sort of proposal would entrench a disadvantage between people based on their earning capacity before they took paid parental leave. It was interesting to note that none of that disquiet and those legitimate concerns and questions raised in the coalition party room were addressed in the way in which the questions were addressed to the government today.

I also want to acknowledge that during question time, when the Prime Minister and ministers outlined that our proposed paid parental leave system provided the minimum wage, the shadow minister consistently interjected that that was inadequate. I would assume from her interjections that, if she considers that to be inadequate, given that the current scheme provides nothing to people who do not have an individual arrangement for paid parental leave, they would be supporting, at the very least, our legislation when it comes up. But we are yet to hear that they are willing to make that commitment.

When I came through the doors in the previous sitting fortnight, I was asked about a report in the media about the opposition leader’s views on welfare reform. I said at the time, ‘Let’s just see how long this thing survives before I expend too much energy debating this.’ Not strangely, I would suggest, it has since disappeared, and my concern is that this is a particularly political intervention into the debate in terms of paid parental leave. I will just finish up by reflecting the local views in my area on this proposal. I refer members to the editorial in the Illawarra Mercury today. It is headed ‘Parental leave levy reeks of party politics’. It says:

Federal opposition leader Tony Abbott’s plan for a six-month paid parental leave scheme to be funded by big companies smacks of political opportunism.

He chose International Women’s Day yesterday to propose firms earning more than $5 million a year be charged a 1.7 per cent levy on their earnings to pay new parents the equivalent of their salary up to $150,000.

Can this be the same Tony Abbott who recently made comments that housework and ironing are the role of women?

Is this the same former workplace relations minister, who in 2002, publicly declared the introduction of paid maternity leave would be ‘over his government’s dead body’?

Unsurprisingly, the Business Council of Australia, which represents the chief executives of Australia’s top 100 companies, was less than enthusiastic, after all it burdens Australian businesses emerging from the global financial crisis with a new $2.7 billion a year tax.

Mr Abbott hasn’t a snowflake’s chance in hell of selling his proposition in its existing form to his Coalition colleagues.

Yet, if Mr Abbott is serious, he should accept the challenge from ACTU President Sharan Burrow for him to declare his support for the Government’s—

(Time expired)