Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last month the minister for families hailed the 12-month anniversary of the introduction of the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme as 'an historic day for Australian families'. She also described it as 'the day Australia caught up with the rest of the developed world'. She went on further to say that it gives 'low income, casual and part-time workers, contractors and the self-employed financial security and a connection to the workforce that they've never had before'. But does it do that for low-income, casual and part-time workers?

For at least four months now I have been battling, on behalf of a constituent, to have the minister recognise an inherent flaw in the current guidelines for the scheme. Mrs Amanda McIntosh is a relief state school teacher in Bundaberg who gave birth on 3 May, but she is not entitled to receive Paid Parental Leave because she fails the criteria which dictates that she cannot have more than an eight-week gap between two consecutive working days despite meeting other qualifications like the number of hours worked. The crux of her problem lies in the fact that she is a relief teacher and the very nature of her work dictates that she is not employed full time. In fact her paid employment is dictated by school holidays. As a relief teacher she very rarely gets paid to work during the last two weeks of a year or the first two weeks of the next year. When you consider that state schools get six weeks Christmas school holiday and private schools get seven, you can understand that by adding four weeks to that, you get a figure of 10 or 11. Mrs McIntosh has fallen into that 10- or 11-week timespan.

I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister on a number of occasions and I have not yet been given an answer or an acknowledgement that the problem even exists. The most detailed advice I have been given about Mrs McIntosh's circumstances is that she could qualify for the baby bonus. What is not freely admitted, however, is the fact that the baby bonus is, in some circumstances, only about half the amount available under the Paid Parental Leave scheme; roughly the comparison of $5,000 with $10,000.

I ask: does the minister fail to understand the problem that now faces relief and supply teachers and others whose work revolves around the vagaries of the Christmas holiday calendar? Can the minister explain why the circumstances of relief teachers were not taken into account when the eligibility criteria for this scheme were drawn up? I recognise that the minister has told me a review will take place in two years time, but that will be too late for Mrs McIntosh and for any other person in her circumstances.

Another matter which complicates this case is the fact that Mrs McIntosh cannot have her infant added to her Medicare card until she claims either the baby bonus or Paid Parental Leave. It is a catch-22 situation. So, for as long as this problem drags on, Mrs McIntosh cannot properly claim any of the child's medical expenses. To date, those bills have reached about $600. My representations have included dealings with two separate ministers and their offices and numerous phone calls and letters, but to no avail. I raise this matter tonight because I think Mrs McIntosh and all other people who are caught up in this unintended anomaly deserve a straightforward answer as to why their employment was not taken into account along with that of others. I am no political bigot. It would be fair to say that I did not prefer the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme; I preferred the model offered by the coalition. Having said that, if the government's model is the modus operandi to which all Australians are now attached, let it be fair to all women who need to use paid parental care and do not discriminate against teachers who happen to have had their pregnancy over the Christmas holiday break.