Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important opportunity for the parliament to listen to and respond to very legitimate concerns about the compliance burden, the cost and the regulatory risk to employers in implementing the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. What I need to make absolutely clear at the outset, given the mischievous and ill-informed comments the minister has made today, as reported in the media, is that this in no way changes the nature of the benefits available under the Paid Parental Leave scheme or the eligibility criteria and in no way impedes the introduction of the scheme from 1 January. In fact, from 1 January, the scheme will be administered by Centrelink. It is Centrelink that will be handling the paperwork, making arrangements for the payments, confirming eligibility and resolving any disputes that may arise so that the Paid Parental Leave instalments are paid directly to eligible recipients.

The proposition contained in the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010, is a very simple one: maintain that system. Keep that investment, the infrastructure to deliver the Paid Parental Leave services and all the systems that go along with it that the government is putting in place for the first six months, by continuing those arrangements indefinitely. The bill seeks to ensure that that is the case, because the government’s stated plan and the provisions that exist within the Paid Parental Leave Act actually enable the government to require employers, big and small, to carry out the pay clerk function for the Paid Parental Leave scheme after its first six months of operation. This bill seeks to ensure that that does not happen and that the government continues, through Centrelink’s Family Assistance Office, to administer these payments.

In June 2010, parliament passed the Paid Parental Leave Act, and it comes into effect from 1 January next year. The scheme provides for eligible recipients to receive up to 18 weeks paid parental leave per child, paid in instalments, at the national minimum wage. Under the scheme, payments are administered by Centrelink’s Family Assistance Office for the first six months, after which employers will be obliged to receive payments from the Commonwealth for forwarding on to eligible employees, and employers will need to account for these transactions. Significant fines may be imposed on employers that fail to meet the numerous obligations and compliance requirements imposed under the scheme.

Let me reiterate that this is not about changing the scheme, the nature or amount of the payments or the eligibility criteria; it is about the way in which the scheme is administered. It is completely mischievous of Minister Macklin to suggest this would in any way hold up the scheme.

Employer organisations and the small business community are deeply concerned about being forced to be the pay clerk for the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme, because of the costs, the red tape and compliance burdens and the risks it will impose. These unnecessary and avoidable costs and risks include the need for employers to become aware of and familiar with their obligations and responsibilities under the government’s scheme—to make necessary changes to their payroll and accounting systems; to train staff; to receive, handle, process and make payments in a timely way, in instalment amounts. There are compliance, verification and reporting requirements, and of course the opportunity cost of this displaced effort and these resources. From the government’s own information, there will be more than a dozen transaction points that will need to be handled by an employer, big or small, and they need to put in place the systems to ensure that they are undertaken in the way the law requires.

This bill is about removing that administrative and compliance burden and the costs and risks that the government wants to impose on employers by obliging employers of eligible recipients to carry out this pay clerk function. The effect of the bill will be to indefinitely maintain the role of the secretary to administer the payments to eligible recipients through Centrelink’s Family Assistance Office beyond the first six months of the scheme. What is extraordinary is that the government sees fit and believes it to be entirely appropriate, safe and thoughtful to have the Family Assistance Office administer the scheme for the first six months but not after that. It is an arbitrary cut-off arrangement where no credible justification or persuasive argument has been presented. The bill will not change any of the scheme’s parameters or the provisions about eligibility.

When the original paid parental leave bill was considered by parliament in June, the Senate agreed to support the coalition’s amendments, and these amendments are replicated in this private member’s bill. But the government threatened to delay the entire scheme if the Senate insisted on these amendments. I have not seen such an extraordinary overreaction and piece of parliamentary bullying in the 15 years I have been representing the Dunkley community here. On an issue of relieving employers, big and small, of a pay clerk compliance obligation, the government was prepared to delay the entire scheme. It makes you wonder: what is really going on here? There has been a chorus of concern raised right across the country—from small businesses, big businesses, representative organisations and thoughtful and leading thinkers such as Peter Strong, the Executive Director of COSBOA, who is in the gallery here today—for the government to abandon this nonsense.

But what do we get instead? Minister Macklin was reported in this morning’s paper as saying the coalition wants to delay the start of the scheme. What utter nonsense! There is nothing in this bill that will cause any delay to the scheme. It was the government that threatened to delay the entire commencement of the scheme if the coalition, given that the Senate supported our amendments, insisted that those amendments be captured in the law.

You do not necessarily have to agree with me, but I would like to think that Minister Macklin might agree with herself, that the Prime Minister might agree with herself and that Minister Plibersek might agree with herself. I take them back to their 13 July 2007 media release. This was a joint media release from shadow ministers Plibersek, Gillard and Macklin headed ‘Maternity leave’. It stated:

Labor will not support a system that imposes additional financial burdens or administrative complexities on small business …

Those were their words. They not only said they would not support it but demanded it; they insisted on not having those kinds of burdens imposed on small business and other employers. Otherwise they threatened to delay the entire commencement of the scheme. If for no other reason than personal integrity and implementing election promises, all sides of the parliament should back this bill. In fact, Labor ministers are running around the countryside talking to small business and employer organisations, saying that they agree with the proposition in my bill but that they did not win the argument within Labor. I think it is interesting that even the ACTU, in its Productivity Commission submission in May 2008, stated:

The simplest administrative system would seem to be that the government provides the safety net components—

it handles the payments—

to all the new mothers via the existing welfare system, as it does with the baby bonus. Employers would provide any additional top up payment to employees as per their usual methods.

That is the union movement’s position, a position reinforced more recently when the exposure draft was developed and entirely consistent with the position reflected in its May 2008 submission. What is quite extraordinary is that the government has gone ahead with a thing completely opposite to what it promised as articulated in its July 2007 press release.

So what are we left to conclude? We are left to conclude that the government has no interest in hearing from and responding to the concerns of the small business community. COSBOA Executive Director Peter Strong astutely picked up how the Gillard government’s decision to impose this PPL pay clerk responsibility on smaller employers shows that the government:

… does not value the time and effort put into the economy by small business by continuing with this.

What Mr Strong was saying is that small businesses are not machines; they are run by people, and the people are saying, ‘We have enough of a burden trying to maintain the viability of our businesses and the employment and economic opportunities that they facilitate without having this pointless and completely unjustified imposition distracting us from that work.’ COSBOA has been consistent in its criticism of the government’s imposition of the additional red tape and compliance burden, rightly questioning:

Will the government never learn the simple needs of small business?

I fear not. It seemed to know it when there was an election in the air; it made clear statements that it now turns its back on.

So what are we left to conclude? I think that what we are left to conclude is that something else is going on here. It cannot actually be the substance of the issue. Why would the government threaten to delay the entire commencement of its Paid Parental Leave scheme because of the opposition and the Senate simply wanting to continue the administrative arrangements the government itself was putting in place for the first six months? Why would it want to junk the whole scheme, and why would it make statements of a similar ilk today in opposing this private member’s bill that should have the support of all members in this parliament, particularly any Labor member who wants to stand behind election promises from their side of politics? So what could this be? The government has failed to provide any persuasive justification. There must be something else going on here, not only requiring the administrative arrangements but putting this system in place to fit small business up to top up the commitments. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion moved by the shadow minister seconded?

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, in contrast to those opposite, to voice my opposition to the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010. It is raining in Queensland, but it is another beautiful day here in Canberra with yet another horrible political stunt from the opposition. It is straight out of the opposition playbook—the ‘deny, delay, destroy’ playbook. It does not matter what the policy is; it seems that those opposite, since August, have been making exactly the same play—or actually we might go back to December last year, perhaps. If we look at the stimulus package, at significant healthcare reform, at a national curriculum or at the National Broadband Network, it is the same thing: deny, delay, destroy.

Now those opposite are so ashamed of their own shocking policy on paid parental leave that they are taking the wrecking ball to the federal government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. For the first time in history Australia has a fully government funded Paid Parental Leave scheme, and I am proud to be a part of the government that has commenced this process: six months pay at the minimum wage following the birth or adoption of a child. This is an historic social reform. It is not something that was achieved under the 12 years of the Howard government.

When we look around the world we see where we were behind. Let us look at some of those countries like Bolivia, where they get 12 weeks; Equatorial Guinea—now there is a real OECD leader; Eritrea; Cambodia; and Mongolia. They are just a few of the countries that Australia was behind when it came to a paid parental leave scheme. It is truly a shameful state of affairs that we took until 2010, under the Gillard government, to bring in this historic social reform.

Australian families, as I am sure you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, need this reform, because just like annual leave and sick leave this is a workplace entitlement that is good for the economy. It gives one parent the opportunity to spend more time with their infant in the early months and also to keep on top of the mortgage and the bills. As anyone with kids would know, these bills do not let up just because they have a baby. In fact, it is probably just the opposite.

More than 2,000 applications for paid parental leave have already been received from expecting parents, and businesses are also getting on board, with up to 550 employers already signed up. So our Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair to business and good for business. Despite the protestations of those opposite, we are seeing businesses getting on with the fact, catching up with Bolivia, Eritrea and Equatorial Guinea, and saying, ‘This is a good way to treat our employees.’

Let us look at why we should have Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. It is not just because it is the right thing—something that you feel in your gut. We also need to look at the economic reasons. The Productivity Commission, a very well respected body, recommended this model because it would help employers retain skilled staff and boost workplace participation. As I am sure anyone from COSBOA would know, one of the big costs associated with small businesses is retaining good staff or, more importantly, finding good staff. It can cost $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 to find a good employee. So this initiative from the Gillard Labor government is about making sure that small businesses and big businesses can retain skilled staff.

The shocking irony from those opposite is that, having spent months crowing about their plan to slug business with a new tax, they are now, all of a sudden, concerned about the impact our scheme will have on business. I put it to the member for Dunkley that given that during the election his side were putting forward a proposal for a 1.7 per cent levy to be put on everyone shopping at Woolies or Coles or putting petrol in their car—that great big tax on everything that was going to be passed straight on to consumers; that 1.7 per cent levy or tax—it is a bit hard to swallow to see the member for Dunkley now putting this proposal forward. The Labor government consulted appropriately with stakeholders, and we now have a system that imposes very little on businesses—certainly not the billions of dollars in extra tax that would have been passed on to all Australians and would have come straight out of their wallets.

It is worth explaining to the member for Dunkley how the system works and perhaps putting to rest any fears he may have cultivated amongst Australian businesses. I think it was on Thursday last week that his colleagues forgot his name in question time, but I want to assure the honourable member that I will not forget him. Employers will receive funds from the government before they are required to pass them on to their employees, and will make payments in line with the employee’s usual pay cycle. Employers can choose to receive payments from the government in as few as three instalments. Employers will provide government funded parental leave pay to their long-term employees only—so only those who have been with them for at least 12 months. Payments will be made on a ‘business as usual basis’, so there will be no special rules or special bank accounts or special red tape; it will just be business as usual. Employers simply have to provide parental leave pay in accordance with their usual pay cycle and provide a notice, such as a pay slip, to their employee—just as with other leave like annual and sick leave. Obviously, small businesses have a close connection with their employees and, with modern email distribution networks, it is not uncommon for people to receive an email notice with their pay details while they are at home.

Employers are not required to pay the superannuation on parental leave pay, and the government has made sure that employers do not have any increased payroll tax liability or workers or accident compensation premium liabilities. To help ensure that employers can prepare and adjust, the government has phased in the new payment arrangements over six months, kicking off from 1 July 2011. This is the best time for most businesses, at the start of the new financial year. And, of course, any reasonable costs incurred by employers in administering the scheme will be tax deductible. So the parliament should judge this opposition bill for what it is: it is sour grapes dressed up as legislation.

We all know that paid parental leave is long overdue. Almost all modern countries have a paid parental leave system in place. From my research, the United States and Swaziland, in southern Africa, are the only countries in the world without some sort of paid parental leave scheme. Even Sudan and Rwanda are progressive enough to have funded schemes in place. But this does not stop the opposition in their aim to wreck this historic reform. As I said, I think it is a case of sour grapes that they are not able to associate themselves with this great reform. Australian families have already waited far too long for this paid parental leave scheme. For 12 years, the opposition were dead against paid parental leave. I think the suggestion was that it was going to be introduced over the member for Warringah’s dead body. Unfortunately, that is another election promise that has gone by the wayside! But, despite their pie in the sky election commitment to the 1.7 per cent levy, it seems that little has changed—it is just one more delay, more denial and more destruction from the opposition.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is not about whether we should have paid parental leave or the merits of the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme versus the opposition’s paid parental leave scheme; it simply seeks to revoke the unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements of the Paid Parental Leave scheme due to come into effect on 1 January 2011. The Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010 is a proactive measure introduced by the coalition to reduce the burden on business. Under the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme, the Family Assistance Office will undertake responsibility for parental leave payments for the first six months of the scheme. Thereafter, Labor has proposed that responsibility falls to the individual employer, who will be forwarded payments by the Commonwealth only to on-pay them to workers. What a clumsy administrative arrangement that is. The coalition, instead, proposes that the Family Assistance Office retains responsibility for the administration and payment of paid parental leave indefinitely after the first six-month period. By having the government retain responsibility as paymaster, we can prevent an additional regulatory strain on businesses, which currently suffer enough red tape. In particular, this strain would be felt disproportionately by small business, which may not have the specific human resources or payroll personnel to administer the scheme. Labor risks threatening the livelihood of some businesses which just do not have the capacity for another layer of bureaucracy or the additional administrative costs that are likely to flow on from this. Employers who fail to meet the administrative requirements of the scheme are liable for hefty fines. In all likelihood small businesses that have difficulty in coming to terms with that additional administrative requirement are the ones that will suffer.

Business lobby groups have been vocal in their criticism of passing the role of paymaster from the Family Assistance Office to an individual business. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland Vice-President, Ken Murphy, has stated:

… what has not been taken into account is the impost of administration costs associated with the scheme. Any national paid parental leave scheme must be wholly administered by government.

Yet by having responsibility for the administration of Paid Parental Leave remain with the Family Assistance Office, we can avoid an administrative nightmare for businesses. Surely the logic of this is evident to all, barring those opposite.

Regrettably for Australian families and Australian businesses, this Paid Parental Leave scheme is neither as family friendly nor as business friendly as the scheme proposed by the coalition. Our scheme offered 26 weeks paid leave at the wage level previously received by the parent up to a salary maximum of $150,000 per annum or the national minimum wage, whichever was the greater. In addition, superannuation payments would be maintained. Labor’s scheme has neglected superannuation contributions, which will see many women worse off when it comes to their retirement. Shame on them. Ours was a scheme offering real time and real money.

We also proposed a more user-friendly, comprehensive model that saw the paymaster role stay with the Family Assistance Office. We heard the concerns of business and took these into account. Labor, on the other hand, has ignored the calls of businesses and lobby groups. By supporting the Family Assistance Office to retain responsibility for the administration of PPL, we can at least go some way towards improving the scheme but removing unnecessary hurdles for business. Everyone who has signed up to the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme has signed up on the basis of the current administrative arrangements—that is, with the Family Assistance Office. All we are saying is: just keep those arrangements going, just keep them on. It is disingenuous of those opposite to suggest that this debate is about us versus them in terms of the merits of the scheme or having a paid parental leave scheme at all. I ask members opposite to debate what is on the table. Not only do we need to ensure looking after the economic needs of working families but we also have to make sure businesses are not unduly pressured as result of any government policy. The Family Assistance Office is positioned best to administer the scheme. The government has failed to provide a coherent or valid reason for its decision to handball administration to individual businesses. The coalition will continue, as we always have, to go into bat for Australian businesses and Australian families.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the proposed bill, the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010. It has taken workers, campaigners and parents more than 30 years to achieve a paid parental leave scheme in this country. It took the hard work of so many people, together with this federal government, to implement the scheme, which will operate from 1 January next year. This matter certainly was not a priority of the Howard government during its many years in office.

After all of that effort by so many people, what we see from the opposition is a disingenuous attempt to undermine the scheme. The opposition is, yet again, playing politics with one of the most important social reforms that this country has seen. The Leader of the Opposition is very well documented as having said there would be paid parental leave ‘over my dead body’. Then he changed his mind in the lead-up to this year’s federal election. Now we see the opposition reverting to its true values, its true position. The shadow minister is now using his very best endeavours to interfere with the smooth implementation of the government’s scheme and to create confusion. I hope, and I am sure, that both parents and businesses will see this for the stunt that it is.

The bill is merely an attempt to disrupt and confuse the introduction of the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme on 1 January next year. The bill is creating significant uncertainty for Australian families, which have been waiting decades for paid parental leave. It is extraordinary that the opposition is seeking to laud its business credentials in relation to this matter because, not particularly long ago, one of the various iterations of its paid parental leave scheme policy was announced on International Women’s Day 2010. At that stage, various people remarked on the operation of the proposed scheme. In fact, we had Peter Anderson, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, saying at that stage that the proposal was unfair. We heard Katie Lahey, from the Business Council of Australia, saying that at that stage they were also firmly opposed to the scheme. And in a statement Heather Ridout, from the Australian Industry Group, described the scheme as ‘flawed, unrealistic and a deterrent to investment in Australia’. So it is somewhat curious that the opposition now seeks to remark so vehemently on its business concerns and credentials.

The scheme that the Australian government is proposing is fully funded, and we know that legislation approving it has passed through parliament. But, unfortunately, about six weeks out from the beginning of the scheme, once again we see the opposition taking the tack of wreckers. It is a fairly consistent and uniform theme. They were wreckers of the stimulus package that protected jobs and saved our economy. They were wreckers of the badly needed healthcare reform in this country. When it came to plans for improving our schools and our education system they were wreckers. Australian families and businesses are counting on the Paid Parental Leave scheme starting on 1 January. As has been said, more than 2,000 applications for paid parental leave have already been received from parents expecting a baby in the new year. Anecdotally, from my campaigning in the recent federal election, I note that many parents were particularly pleased to know that from 1 January they would be entitled to access a paid parental leave scheme. They specifically raised that matter with me during the campaign.

We know that at least 550 employers are already signed up to provide government funded paid parental leave. Around two-thirds of these employers are ready to start before 1 July. Under our Paid Parental Leave scheme, leave payments will be made by businesses for their long-term employees. These arrangements will be phased in over the first six months of 2011. Because the government believe that paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement, we believe that that leave should be paid through employers, just as annual leave, sick leave and other leave are. We consider our scheme is fair to business, based on the expert recommendations of a major, independent inquiry undertaken by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission recommended this model because it will assist employers to retain their skilled staff and boost workforce participation.

Earlier, my colleague the member for Moreton mentioned the significant steps undertaken by the government to consult very widely with business and to implement a range of measures in the scheme to ensure that their role is made easy. Once again, this legislation is simply an example of the opposition moving to wreck policy that is currently being relied on by so many families around Australia which are expecting children in the new year.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Dunkley on the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010. I think the title of this bill says it all: the ‘reduction of compliance burden for employers’ amendment. That is wholly and solely what this is about. It does not cause any delay. There are no uncertainties about paid parental leave. This is all about the reduction of the compliance burden for employers, particularly small businesses. I have over 14,000 of those in the south-west, Member for Dunkley, and they are the backbone of Australia, as you have rightly pointed out, and yet we are constantly seeing examples of how this government has no understanding of those same small businesses, how they operate and what small business people do in the course of their days. They do not sit around drinking coffee; they are the ones who have to work days and nights just to keep their businesses operating, often on very tight margins. They have really seriously committed to their small businesses. But this government is directly and deliberately imposing a further burden on small business—on owners and operators who work in their businesses as well as on their businesses, often every single day. They have often mortgaged their house and every single other asset to finance their small business venture. The small businesses tell me constantly that government regulation and red tape are major costs and burdens for small business, and yet we are going to see an increase here.

I have very serious concerns about the additional workload and compliance costs this PPL scheme will have on small-to-medium businesses. This Paid Parental Leave scheme will add significantly to their cost and burden. It will be a serious administrative burden on small businesses to have to make time just to understand their obligations and responsibilities. That will cost them because they will not actually be working on or in their business. The costs and risks of compliance to their business if they have staff include training their staff, managing the system and changing the payroll and accounting systems, as the member for Dunkley has previously said. They include the processes of receiving, handling, processing and paying in a timely manner instalment amounts and the fines that would be imposed. If you were a small business and you knew you were going to be fined for this, you would be seriously concerned about your role in this. So this really comes on the back of small business at the moment facing significant costs in accessing finance and in interest rates, and now here we have a government that is adding further administrative burdens and costs, preventing the small business owners and operators from working in or on their business.

We should not underestimate the challenges to small-to-medium businesses in finding replacement workers for the parental leave period either—and it will be quite difficult. I see that Julia Gillard said:

Labor will not support a system that imposes additional financial burdens or administrative complexity on small businesses or in any way acts as a discouragement to the employment of women …

I have to say that that is what I am seriously concerned about with these additional compliance costs, burdens, risks and costs to small business. Some small businesses may be forced to make the decision to potentially not employ women. I think that is a real issue. There is a further quote from the Tasmanian Small Business Council:

Paid parental leave is a fact of life in most of the western world and small business owners are happy to see it introduced in Australia. However, the move by the Government to make the business owners responsible for making the parental payments shows little or no real understanding of the culture of small businesses …

That is something that we on this side, with our experience in small business, are very directly aware of and concerned about, which is why the member for Dunkley has introduced this bill. We want to reduce the administrative and compliance burden from small business owners and operators. Centrelink’s Family Assistance Office is and should be the paymaster for the government’s scheme. They could well also have to handle the practical issues and queries that will be ongoing in dealing with this. It should be done through that source. The taxpayers’ funding that the government is already expending to set this up should simply be used to the best effect. As I said earlier, I am seriously concerned that there may be some small businesses that will be forced to look at this and say, ‘I am seriously concerned about employing women.’ I very strongly support the member for Dunkley’s bill that the Family Assistance Office should administer this Paid Parental Leave scheme.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010. This is a bill where the opposition is just playing politics with a really vital piece of social reform. One of the best pieces of legislation to pass through this House was the bill for paid parental leave. The government’s legislation that was passed through the House establishing paid parental leave was the greatest reform that has taken place in this country for women in the time that I have been in parliament. It is going to benefit so many women. Women are already registering to obtain the benefit when they have their babies in January, and I believe over 500 businesses have already registered.

What this bill before us today does is create uncertainty and show a blatant disregard for women. It is playing politics—blatant political game playing—and I am pretty disgusted with the member who has raised this here today. This is six weeks out from the commencement of the scheme, and the opposition are showing once again that they are wreckers. The member opposite has brought to this parliament a piece of legislation that is delaying an act that is already in place. The legislation is creating uncertainty—something that women having babies do not need—and is creating confusion in the community which will lead to women not registering for the Paid Parental Leave scheme passed by the government. I note that the date for the member for Dunkley’s legislation to take effect is 1 July, and I note that he is really creating this uncertainty in the community.

Businesses are looking to the benefits of the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme, with 550 employers already signed up to provide government funded parental leave scheme pay. That will make it much more efficient. Around two-thirds of these employers are choosing to start playing their part before the ongoing payment arrangements for long-term employees start. I have been contacted in my office by a number of my constituents—women having babies—and they have told me just what the legislation that has been passed through the House means to them.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the opposition did not support the legislation. They were against it from the start. The Leader of the Opposition had a thought bubble that led to him introducing his amendment to the legislation; it was going to be a tax on everything, which every Australian had to pay for his proposal for a paid parental leave scheme—a scheme that was flawed right from the onset and one that he could not fully explain and on which he could not bring the community on board with him.

It is important for women to maintain a connection to the workplace when they have a baby. The Paid Parental Leave scheme that is in place will allow this to happen. Women do not need uncertainty. They do not need an opposition that is playing politics to erode a scheme that is in place and that will benefit most women having children in Australia. It is about security and about keeping a skilled workforce in place, and I think that the member who has brought this to the House should have thought this through a little better before he introduced his legislation.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.