Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and the amendments that have been moved in this House. The bill makes changes to the Paid Parental Leave Act. Paid parental leave is not welfare. It is not a right that can easily be legislated away. It is a right that all women, and in fact parents, should have access to in a country like ours, which has the capacity to support families financially when they need to leave the workforce when babies are born.

Public servants and higher-paid professional families have had access to paid parental leave for decades, but part-time workers and low-paid employees have not had access to paid parental leave in the past. So the coalition put on the table its paid parental leave mandated scheme for all families some time ago, and the government of the day, the Rudd Labor government, legislated to put a mandated paid parental leave scheme into place in Australia for the first time. I applaud those moves but I have been disappointed since day one because the paid parental leave scheme put in place by Labor was the leanest, meanest scheme that could possibly be managed and still bear the name of paid parent leave.

We have a situation where only the minimum wage is paid to the mother or, now, with these changes, to the father or partner. We do not have superannuation offered during the 18-weeks-only period of benefit. Everyone knows that at least 26 weeks of support is necessary particularly for a mother—but for either parent or a partner—following the birth of the baby. For the mother, breast feeding and other essential nurturing takes a minimum of 26 weeks to be optimal for the child. But in the Australian scheme, as introduced by the Labor government, we only saw 18 weeks of benefit to the full-time caring parent and at the minimum wage.

Sadly, when you have a mortgage and bills to pay, the bank will not suddenly reduce your mortgage payments because your partner has had a baby. Your payments have been geared to your usual income, but here you come with just the minimum wage to replace it with and to pay the outgoings to keep your household intact during parental leave.

So the paid parental leave scheme, as it stands, leaves a very great deal to be desired. It needs to be extended. It needs to be more generous in the payments made to the parent, but it is important that we add fathers and partners to the measures. Therefore, I am supportive of those particular changes.

The two weeks pay for eligible fathers and partners will, as I said, only be at the rate of the national minimum wage, which is currently $590 a week before tax. That is in line with the existing parental leave pay. To be eligible, the dad or partner would need to satisfy the work test. That is appropriate. They will need to have worked continuously for at least 10 of the previous 13 months, with a break of no more than eight weeks between two consecutive work days. They would need to have undertaken at least 330 hours of paid work during the 10-month period. They need to satisfy the income test that, under Labor, is $150,000. That is based on the dad or partner's adjusted taxable income in the previous financial year before the nominated start date for dad and partner pay or the date of the claim, whichever is earlier. They need to satisfy the Australian residency test and they need to be providing the care, whether this be primary or joint care, for a child born or adopted on or after 1 January next year. And they should not be working during the period that the person receives the parental payment. These are all common sense, and they obviously need to be spelled out in the legislation.

The legislation also includes refining the provisions which permit keeping-in-touch days and clarifying the operation of a number of other provisions, including debt-recovery provisions, notice provisions and provisions relating to the delegation of the secretary's powers under the act.

I am aware that some people still wonder why women in particular need to have paid parental leave: surely, their grandmothers and great grandmothers did not receive such support and they were able to raise their children in a reasonable way. That is how the argument goes. I want to remind the Australian population that women in Australia still suffer a huge gap in payment for same work undertaken. This gender pay gap is not diminishing; it is in fact growing. It is unconscionable to think that a female law graduate can be paid up to $7,000 or $8,000 less than a male graduate who may not have even achieved the same sorts of outcomes in his degree as the woman did and that the pay gap often grows, particularly in professions such as the law. It is not the case that there is a gender pay gap only for the lower-paid professions; it is the case right across the board. That is unconscionable.

There is also a problem in our society with women when they retire having substantially less superannuation—some 40 per cent less—than men do. That is why embedded within the coalition's paid parental leave scheme was ongoing superannuation support. How can we still have before us a paid parental leave scheme—the Labor Party's Paid Parental Leave scheme, which is still not amended—so women have no superannuation embedded in their leave? In Australia women have had to stop-start their work because of childbearing or caring for the disabled or other relatives; they have had to leave the workplace. They make an enormous contribution in unpaid or voluntary work for the society at large and their superannuation is, as I say, on average 40 per cent less than men's is, yet here is a mandated government paid parental leave scheme which does not pay superannuation to those women, who are already at an enormous disadvantage economically.

Women in Australia are more likely than men to face a long retirement alone—they are more likely not to be in a partnered situation—and women are much more likely than are men to end their days totally dependent on welfare. Welfare in Australia does not give you much chance to keep above the poverty line. Women are more likely to be in rental accommodation or to have difficulty finding any accommodation, because they simply do not have the superannuation given their life experience: their biological circumstances where they have been the child bearers and have had to leave work or where they have carried the biggest burden in caring for the disabled or older members of their family.

This legislation is still not fair. Paid parental leave is, as I say, not welfare; it is the right of families to receive payment while they undertake the broader public good of producing the next generations. But embedded and mandated in paid parental leave should be superannuation payment, and I am most concerned that this opportunity to amend the legislation has not included a provision of superannuation.

This legislation could have expanded the 18 weeks of support to at least 26 weeks of support. There could also have been amendments by this government to increase payments beyond the minimum wage. According to the Productivity Commission's report on paid parental leave, at least 37 nations around the world introduced a paid parental leave scheme prior to the launch of Labor's minimum wage scheme. The schemes of 35 of those 37 nations were based on full or part replacement of the person's wage. Australia is the only country with a paid parental leave scheme that is so miserable as to have payments based entirely on the minimum wage.

So this scheme is not fair. It does not include superannuation and it is not long enough. Women have to scuttle back to the workplace before their babies have had enough time to be with them. At least we are now acknowledging that fathers and partners are part of the parenting process. I believe that, until fathers have the same acknowledgement as mothers do that they are critical to the baby's development, women will continue to be discriminated against in the workplace when they are applying for positions on the basis that they, rather than men, are most likely to leave work or to ask for part-time work or flexible hours. Parenting needs to be understood as the role of either men or women. It would be excellent to think that some men could take paid parental leave while their wives or female partners with the newborn were also taking it so that the baby could have the benefit of having two full-time carers to look after them in those early days. Other siblings also in the family could especially benefit.

I am, of course, strongly supportive of our amendments. I think that Labor must revisit their Paid Parental Leave scheme. It is administratively clumsy, and Labor through their amendments are trying to address some of the clumsiness. But Labor failed miserably to take up a great opportunity at the time of the introduction of their Paid Parental Leave scheme. It was the first mandated scheme in Australia. It should have been world's best or at least equal to world's best; it was not. It was too short, too cheap, too mean and there was no superannuation in it. These amendments go a little way to addressing some of those problems but not nearly far enough.

The unions in particular should be ashamed to have clapped and cheered when Labor's PPL—Paid Parental Leave scheme—was introduced and to have said, 'This is magnificent.' It was not; it was just a first toe in the water. Why should Australian women have to accept a first toe in the water for a mandated scheme when there was enormous international experience in administering such schemes and their outcomes? We only had to pick off the shelf another country's example of a world's-best scheme; what we got instead was cheap and nasty.

Australian women are still discriminated against in employment on the basis that they may need time off to have their children. That is unconscionable. It substantially affects the productivity of our nation. It is well understood that more of our women should be able to return to the workplace at an appropriate time after their babies are born and have access to affordable and appropriate childcare, including in-home care, which is not a luxury at all; for many families it is cheaper to have in-home care than to spend $100-plus per day in a family day-care centre.

It is essential that Australia address all of these things. We have a long way to go, and unfortunately this bill does not do much more. Perhaps we will have to wait for a coalition government to introduce an appropriate scheme which will do right by the families bringing forward new generations of Australians.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. We have just heard 13 minutes of diatribe and drivel from the member for Murray. She talked about women waiting—well, women waited for 11½ years under the coalition government, and where was the member for Murray's private member's bill in relation to paid parental leave? Where was the cabinet decision? Where was the bill of the Howard coalition government to bring in a paid parental leave scheme? I did not see one of those for 11½ years. I did not see any agitation from the coalition on the back bench in relation to this. I do not recall any media statements about it. And I do not recall any pronouncements from John Howard, former Liberal Prime Minister.

What did they do about caring for families? They talk about being mean. The first thing the Howard coalition government did was to get rid of the Commonwealth dental scheme. In this budget we are seeing another $500 million going into the Commonwealth dental scheme. The next thing they did was to take $1 billion out of child care. That is the first thing the coalition did when they got in. And the member for Murray criticised us for not having superannuation in this legislation or our Paid Parental Leave scheme. The coalition has never cast a vote in this House in favour of superannuation. In fact, when it came to the minerals resource rent tax, one of the aspects of which was to provide for an increase in superannuation for Australian men and women from nine per cent to 12 per cent—a not insignificant amount—the coalition in this place voted against it. Forty-three thousand people in my electorate of Blair in south-east Queensland will get that increase, and I daresay a comparable number of people in the member for Murray's electorate will get it, but they should know that she who comes in here and talks about superannuation for women voted against that superannuation when she came into this place. We even saw it yesterday.

The coalition say they are a party for families and family values and they talk about forgotten families, but they forgot about families for 11½ years and they forgot about them yesterday. They forgot about them when they voted against the schoolkids bonus yesterday, which is $410 per child at primary school and $820 for a child at high school. They forgot about those; they forgot about the 11,000 families in my electorate and the 2,100 families that were not getting education tax refund. They forgot about the 19,400 kids in my electorate. Even now, they are forgetting about families when they go on about this piece of legislation. Did they do this legislation we have before the House today? Was there a private member's bill in 11½ years in relation to helping dads and recognising their important role in child care and in looking after their newborn babies? Did they do that? No. Do not come into this place and criticise us about that. We have 150,000 people in this country who have made applications under the Paid Parental Leave scheme. That is 150,000 people who would not have got the benefits if we had not won the 2007 federal election. We got there again in 2010 and, because of that, we have a Paid Parental Leave scheme in this country. But the member for Murray criticised us saying that it was mean. It was mean for 11 ½ years for Australian women not to have the benefit of a Paid Parental Leave scheme, and for 11½ years it was mean for the coalition not to assist dads to take up their role and not to recognise the contemporaneous role that families have with dads helping out with their kids.

We are providing support for stay-at-home mums to care for their babies through the Paid Parental Leave scheme. In the vital early months of a child's life there is important social, cognitive, developmental and physical growth. We are also helping mums and dads to balance family life and helping employers to retain skilled staff. That is what it is about. It is helping economic development and economic productivity. So, under this legislation, on 1 January 2013 we are extending extra support to parents, with a two-week dad and partner pay. The first claims that dads and partners can make is on 1 October 2012. I would like to think that this is important. I would like to think that it is also important to provide for families financially. That is why we have done this; that is why we have seen measures taken in the budget. We have seen increases in superannuation and increases in child support, doubling what the Howard coalition funded in terms of child support—that is what we have done. We have also provided extra funding for a dental scheme in this country, and we have extended family tax benefit A from 16-year-olds to 19-year-olds who remain in school or its equivalent. The coalition did none of those types of things when they were in power, so do not come into this place and lecture us about support for women and support for dads and partners when you did not do it. Do not criticise us for doing it and do not criticise us when you are going to bring in a scheme that will help millionaires and put a tax on business. That is form for the coalition. They did not support us with the company tax cuts we wanted to bring in, and they want to lump a big tax on business to pay for their extravagant and harmful Paid Parental Leave scheme when it harms business. Business employs men and women who are mums and dads.

This is an important scheme we are bringing in, and it goes along with what we have said in terms of assistance for families. It is important, as well, because you have to see this in the context of what we have done in terms of the childcare rebate. Under the Howard coalition government, there was a 30 per cent child care rebate, $4,354 per child, where you had to pay and then wait until you lodged your tax return—for some people that was about 18 months down the track. What we have done is increase that childcare rebate to 50 per cent—$7,500, a 73 per cent increase—to help families and not forget them, and now we are bringing in this type of legislation which aligns with the Paid Parental Leave scheme.

So this is the fulfilment of an election commitment. It is good for new dads, it is good for new mums and it is good for babies. I am a parent; my wife and I are blessed with two daughters who are now adults and at university. But I recall how important it was to be there not just for their births but in the few weeks afterwards. Dads and partners will be eligible whether they are full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal, contract or self-employed workers. It is important to design this scheme right, and we have. We have done it on the recommendation of the Productivity Commission. We have done it because we want to make sure that mums and dads find balance in their budgets and balance in their lives. It is very tiring, particularly for mums after they have had a baby, to care for that child. It is extremely difficult if the child has colic, reflux or other ailments. Sometimes young kids get throat infections or sometimes they are challenged with physical or mental disabilities. So it is very hard for them and it is important that they be supported.

It is good that we are doing this. It is important that we are allowing partners and fathers to help also. It is important to make sure that we allow the partners and the fathers to do this, and at the same time do not impose a tax on their employers—the tradesmen, the small business operators and those who work on farms or in big business as well. So there are tests in relation to this; we do not just hand out this money without some test. There needs to be a residence test and an income test: you have to be an Australian resident and you have to be not working during the time that the person receives the payment. You have to satisfy the income test—you must be earning $150,000 or less, based on adjusted income in the financial year ending before the nominated start date for partner or dad pay or before the date of claim, whichever is the earlier.

We believe, and it is quite common, that people who are on very high salaries are able, because of their skills, talents, abilities and resources, to negotiate agreements between themselves and their employers—if they are an accountant, a doctor or a lawyer for example—which encompass a paid parental leave scheme as well. So we have designed this scheme for middle- and low-income earners, which we think is important.

It is going to be important for my electorate. The average income in my electorate is $57,000 a year, so there will be many people in my electorate who will gain the benefit of this. We know how important it is because we have about 1,000 people in my electorate who have signed up for the paid parental leave scheme since it was brought in. They will benefit by this.

There has to be a work test, and we have made it clear that the person must have been working continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months prior to the nominated start date with no breaks of more than eight weeks between any two consecutive work days. And they have to undertake at least 230 hours of paid work during the 10 months—on average, around one day a week. So, I think that the tests are important. We do not want the system rorted; we want to make sure that dads and partners who are nominated actually are in the workforce.

I do note also that we are providing additional support for families. With your permission, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to nominate just one area where I do think it helps dads as well. I was pleased to see in the budget the extension of another $55.7 million to invest in preparing Australia's most vulnerable children to start school. A two-year home interaction program for parents and youngsters, known as HIPPY, helps parents—mums and dads—and carers to take an active role in their child's education. The kids are quite young, well before school age, and it provides access to tutoring, practical learning activities and materials.

Recently I was in Grandchester at the model steam train day, and the HIPPY program was there. It is run by the Australian Red Cross in Ipswich in partnership with the Brotherhood of St Laurence, which received the funding under the 2008 budget. The local coordinator of that—HIPPY West Ipswich—is Alana Wahl. She was there with her husband and her kids, and there were dozens and dozens of people there. I thank the Grandchester Model Live Steam Association for allowing that to happen. I talked to many families, migrants, mums and dads—just ordinary people—and military personnel from the RAAF base at Amberley, who appreciated the extra parenting support. They appreciated the help with those young kids. It is not just in actually preparing them for school but also the community that forms around these organisations is very important. It provides levels of support and sharing of clothes and ideas in relation to care of children.

Families came from a whole range of backgrounds; some itinerant, some Indigenous and some from overseas. I know how important it is. I recall talking to a number of them who said that any support for them as young parents—and most of them were quite young, in their twenties or early thirties—is warmly received and welcomed. They know how important child care is, and I certainly got that information. There was not one person I spoke to who was staying at home full time looking after their children; they had to work to make ends meet.

There were kids everywhere at that day, and I know how important HIPPY is. It was further funded in this budget. This budget does provide a lot of help; the help with the schoolkids bonus is particularly important and the supplementary help to job seekers, people with students and people who are doing it tough on Newstart is also important. But this particular legislation is particularly helpful, I think.

This legislation adds credibility to what we have said we would do. It is a dedicated payment delivering on our commitment, and beginning in January next year. It builds on the historic announcement—the reform this federal Labor government brought in—when we finally decided that we would join the rest of the world in 2011. It was about time: it took a government of this persuasion, a Labor government, to do it. It has taken a Labor government to bring in so many of the reforms which I have announced today. It took a Labor government to do them. The coalition did not have the wit, the wisdom or the will to do any of that during their 11½ years, and it took a Labor government to bring forward this legislation, which I know dads and partners will appreciate in years to come.

I look forward to the 150,000 people signing up for and getting paid parental leave increasing in years to come. This is a great reform: it builds on superannuation, the age pension, age care reform and Medicare. It goes to show that when it comes to social needs and the family values of Australians it is a federal Labor government, and only a federal Labor government, that cares for what the coalition often calls 'the forgotten families of Australia'.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always interesting to follow the member for Blair. In fact, I thought I was standing up to speak on an appropriation bill rather than the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. What didn't he cover in that speech he just gave? But we are here to talk about the specific bill today, which is the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. Today's amendments streamline and correct many of the original functions in the Paid Parental Leave Act passed in June 2010. However, these amendments do not go far enough, and the coalition is seeking to propose further amendments that will ease the regulatory burden that the Paid Parental Leave scheme creates for Australian business.

The member for Blair, in his very far-reaching speech, spoke about all the things that the Labor government had done for families, but I notice he is very selective. He does not talk about the $12 million that has been cut from occasional day care, particularly centres like the Kitchener Road centre in my electorate of Brisbane, which will close down as a result of that. Not only is that reducing the flexibility of families, but many, many families require occasional care for study or things like having an operation, and that has absolutely devastated the families in my electorate that rely on that occasional day care centre. The member for Blair spoke about many far-ranging things, including the thresholds and childcare rebates, but from I remember quite clearly that those thresholds for childcare rebates have been tightened up under this government. So it is very interesting to see the selective quotation of all the wonderful things that this government has done, but what it is doing, essentially, is reducing the flexibility of families in my electorate, particularly by totally cutting the occasional care that has been offered to them.

The bill that we are talking about today amends the PPL Act. The minimum period of time in which an employer may not request a 'keeping in touch' day will be extended from 14 to 42 days, and that is an important amendment. It will allow employees to perform permissible paid work during the period of leave for the purposes of 'keeping in touch' with their employer. In the cases where an employee is eligible for paid parental leave, this is a very important change. As a mother of two children, I know only too well how important it is to have an uninterrupted six-week period for a parent to be with their child. One of the most important things about this is allowing the mother time to physically recover. Not every baby has the same patterns of sleep, breast and management, and sometimes there are issues when a family brings a newborn baby home. There are some health issues, colic issues and all sorts of settling-in issues. That is a very important aspect, particularly physical recovery. No birth is the same. We have multiple births. We have different births taking place and different periods of recovery according to individuals. So that is a welcome move. Most importantly, employees themselves may still request a 'keep in touch' day after a minimum period of 14 days. What that does is again allow that very much needed flexibility in the PPL arrangements and allow employees to maintain contact with their employer if they wish to do so.

To further increase flexibility in leave arrangements, the bill amends the restrictions on when an employee may begin leave. Currently, a pregnant employee is able to begin her period of leave six weeks prior to birth but no earlier. These amendments will allow employees to begin unpaid parental leave more than six weeks before the expected date of birth if they come to an agreement with their employer, and that is a very important thing.

Moreover, there is a provision in the Paid Parental Leave Act that considers Commonwealth employees to be employed by the specific government agency, rather than by the Commonwealth at large. This creates confusion for workers who are employed by two agencies in the 12 months before the birth as to whether such a Commonwealth worker is eligible under the work test. The coalition agrees to the amendment that employees will be regarded as employed by the Commonwealth as a whole, eliminating any possible discrepancies.

The bill also extends the Paid Parental Leave scheme by introducing a two-week paternity leave payment. The new payment will be implemented from January 2013. The PPL will now be extended by introducing a new payment called 'dad and partner pay' for eligible working fathers and partners, and this is a good thing. Dad and partner pay will be available to eligible fathers and partners, including adopting parents and parents in same-sex couples, who are caring for a child born or adopted from 1 January 2013.

The coalition seeks to propose a further amendment to this bill that eases some of the regulatory and compliance burden related to the requirement that businesses act as the de facto pay clerk for the scheme. Let me tell you as someone who has run a small business that this is exactly what businesses do not need: more compliance. There is enough compliance out there day in, day out for the business that I was running to employ someone full time just to deal with the compliance aspects of running a small business. Then this is being heaped on the hundreds of thousands of small businesses out there in this country that will have more and more compliance put on them yet again by this government. They talk about reducing compliance, but all this does is increase the mountain of compliance that already exists.

The member for Dunkley has previously proposed to the House the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010, and we seek similar amendments again. We propose that the government provide employers with the opt-in action of acting as the government's pay clerk for PPL payments to employees and have the Centrelink Family Assistance Office as the default option for administering payments to eligible employees. In the government's current legislation, the Centrelink Family Assistance Office administered payments for the first six months. After this time, it was the obligation of the employer to forward on payments received from Centrelink to eligible employees. On top of that, I understand that from 30 June this year the Centrelink Family Assistance Office will cease to administer PPL payments, and from 1 July all employers will have to bear the additional administrative burden of serving as the government's pay clerk. The government failed to offer any compelling reasons for forcing this on employers, and the coalition is still waiting for one. At the time, peak business bodies all protested at the proposed change, and once again this government is doing what it does best: it does not listen. It refuses to listen to small business.

It is very poor planning by the Labor government to implement a new government program—rushing it through again, as they always do—and at the same time expect businesses to administer it. Australia already has a network set up to administer welfare payments to Australians, and I am sure the members opposite would have heard of it: it is called Centrelink. It would have been a much better alternative, and frankly it is absolute madness by this Labor government not to use the Family Assistance Office in this case. I have heard from very large employers that they have largely been able to absorb this function in acting as the de facto pay clerk for the scheme. However, this issue raises enormous compliance costs for the small businesses in my electorate and in many electorates throughout Australia. Many employer organisations and members of the small business community have spoken to me about being forced to absorb this particular impost. They want to work constructively with the government to ensure that their expecting parents have a safe and secure fiscal position at a time of uncertainty. What they did not expect was that the government would then burden them with more red tape and more compliance, and that the Labor government's paid parental leave would impose more and more burdens on them.

On 8 November the government lumped into the entire Australian economy another significant and costly regulatory burden in the form of a carbon tax. Between 2008 and 2010 Labor passed 12,835 regulations and repealed a mere 58. To any person with any common sense it is clear that this tax-and-spend government is addicted to over-regulating the economy and does not take into consideration the concerns of small business around this great country of ours. Therefore, I call on the government to accept the coalition's amendment to help small business in this very, very small but highly significant and important way.

Originally, Labor designed an inadequate Paid Parental Leave scheme, which provided only 18 weeks of minimum wage from January 2011. As this Labor government so often does, it ignored the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. It is very good at getting Productivity Commission reports but it then ignores them. The legislation did not sufficiently provide for casual workers who are by definition unable to use accrued leave as a further substitution for time off work.

As the member for Murray quite accurately pointed out earlier in this debate, there is no provision for superannuation. I have also had representations from parents in my electorate who are sole providers. For example, there is a mum in my electorate who is the main breadwinner and earns $150,000, and there is absolutely no provision in this legislation when one person is the main breadwinner, and that is something that is clearly a flaw.

The coalition have a proud history of providing support to Australian families. We reformed the family tax system in 2000 to expand access to Family Tax Benefit for Australian families, and in 2004 there was a Baby Bonus scheme implemented to help families when they needed the money most. More than ever, with the rapidly increasing cost of living combined with the additional impost of the carbon tax, Australian families require a system in place that helps them to support and raise a child.

I again want to refer to what the member for Murray said in this debate earlier—that there are many different systems of support and we need to have an open mind. When a child is very young there are many different schemes available. I have used family day care and childcare centres, and I have also used a nanny agency. That does not mean that you use all the different schemes and not have flexibility. As your child grows their needs change, such as when they go to school. We need to have an open mind, particularly when we are looking at care in the home. It is not something that is only the privilege of the elite. There are many families in my electorate who are shift workers, including many nurses. There are also seven-day-a-week hospitality businesses that require the system to have some flexibility. I hope that this government will look at flexibility, particularly for families that have children requiring care sometimes seven days a week and at irregular times.

If the coalition are able to form government we will introduce a scheme that will provide payment to all full-time, part-time and casual workers, provided they are eligible under a minimum work test. The coalition have a scheme that will signal to the community that taking time out of the workforce to care for a new child is a normal part of the work-life cycle of parents. I really believe that as I am among the many thousands of women who have had to have time off when children have been ill. The day we can honestly say to employers that we are taking time off because our children are ill and not feel adversely impacted by that will be a good day indeed. The coalition's Paid Parental Leave scheme will provide primary carers with 26 weeks of paid parental leave at full replacement pay up to a maximum salary of $150,000 per annum. Our scheme will be fully funded and we will strike the right balance to help promote female workforce participation as a financial incentive for women to engage in paid work both prior to and after childbirth. This will have a positive impact on individuals, families and society.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This legislation will improve and expand Labor's fantastic Paid Parental Leave scheme by providing dads and same-sex partners with two weeks' leave at the minimum wage following the birth or adoption of their child. Labor is doing this for, of course, a very clear and deliberate reason. Dads and partners should be provided with the same opportunity to bond with their new child.

As a father I very much enjoyed taking time off at the birth of both of my children, Isaac and Noah, and I know that many parents until now have been able to enjoy that same privilege, that same opportunity. Of course, it was not just to enable me to bond with my new children. Importantly, it also provided me with the opportunity to provide care for my wife who, with the births of both Isaac and Noah, needed to have caesarean sections. It enabled me to provide care and support for her as she was recovering from both those operations. I think it is an extremely important reform that we put in place the opportunity for parents, both the mum and now the dad or partner, to be able to access parental leave. When raising children, particularly very early on whilst the mum is recovering from the birth of the child either in hospital or back at home, I think it is very important for the father or partner to be available to provide that support.

It is important that we reflect on some of the history around maternity leave and the extension of it to paternity and other forms of parental leave for both births and adoptions. I particularly want to pay tribute to the trade union movement, which has advocated for these reforms for decades. The trade union movement very much recognised the importance of new mums and dads being able to take time off not only to recover from the physical consequences of giving birth or having a caesarean section but also to provide the new mum and dad with the opportunity to bond with their children and get their children underway under the best possible arrangements.

Maternity leave was a concept first implemented in Australia in 1974 in the Australian Public Service and it has been extended beyond the Public Service in the decades since. Labor, in our first term and again in our second term, have very much strived to put in place the necessary reforms to provide all employees with the opportunities that had often been in place for unionised employees for many decades. We have legislated for those opportunities, both in terms of the period of time off and the size of the entitlement to be paid but also the practical arrangements that need to be maintained between the employee and the employer. I think they are very necessary.

I want to reflect on some of the comments made by the member for Brisbane about the compliance arrangements. She made the argument, albeit a weak argument, that this dramatically increases the burden on small business in terms of red tape and paperwork. Having seen firsthand the paperwork associated with it, I want to make it very clear to those listening in the House today or via the broadcast that the paperwork burden is actually very manageable and very small and does not take a great deal of effort by either the employee or the employer. If you look at the efforts that this government has made in terms of red tape reduction, I think we have a first-class record of removing unnecessary red tape. Importantly, there is some necessary red tape or regulation to ensure proper operation of our laws. The level of paperwork associated with this is appropriate, it is not a great burden and it does not take an unnecessary amount of time. In contrast, if you look at the Howard government's record, they turned every small business into a tax collection agency of the Commonwealth. If you reflect on the red tape burden associated with that, it is massive and it takes an enormous amount of the resources of small business.

These arrangements to extend Labor's first-class parental leave arrangements are an absolutely appropriate reform. In the Greater Geelong region there have already been several thousand families that have accessed the reforms that this Labor government has put in place. I have no doubt that in the years to come there will be many more thousands of people who will access Labor's paid parental leave arrangements. Those employees who have been accessing these arrangements are a group in society that has previously largely been missing out on the fantastic efforts that the trade union movement has been putting in place for many decades to improve the lives of working families. In getting around the electorate to childcare centres, kindergartens and schools, I know that working men and women across this nation are very pleased with the efforts that this government has put in in a whole raft of ways to make their lives easier, right from the births of their children through to their children completing their education and obtaining their first job and then commencing that lifelong journey of work and looking after themselves, and also, hopefully, in the years to come being provided with the opportunity of having a family of their own.

I would also like to reflect for a moment on some of the more remarkable and significant quotes that have been made by various politicians. One comes to mind, and that of course was a quote from the current Leader of the Opposition. He suggested that Paid Parental Leave would happen over his dead body. They were the comments he made in respect of this scheme. I would also like to reflect on some other contributions that the Leader of the Opposition has made in more recent times about establishing or creating a paid nanny scheme. I think that very much shows just how out of touch the Leader of the Opposition really is with contemporary Australia. A paid nanny scheme is not what this country needs. It would be a very, very expensive level of care; a level of support provided to the very privileged few.

We in Australia have a first-class childcare system. This government has put an enormous amount of effort into making sure that we have a first-class world-leading standard set of childcare arrangements. We have put enormous effort into kinder reforms to ensure that kids get the necessary education required prior to starting primary school and we continue to deliver reform to support families right across the board. Indeed, the budget this week delivered the School Kids Bonus to again support families in delivering the resources those families need to be able to educate their kids—to be able to provide school uniforms and schoolbooks and the like and obviously to be able to provide a very successful education.

It is with some privilege and pleasure that I am able to rise today to speak on these provisions. I have a lot of young families in my electorate considering having children and I know that there will be many thousands of people over the next several years who will be able to access these provisions. I look forward to continuing Labor's great reform of supporting young families in every way that we can. I commend these arrangements to the parliament.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased also to speak on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012—a very florid title for an interesting bill. The government introduced this bill, which will amend the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, to extend the scheme to certain working fathers and partners to receive two weeks of 'dads and partner pay' at the rate of the national minimum wage, which is currently $590 a week before tax. This leave is in addition to the current 18 weeks of Paid Parental Leave available to eligible persons. The dad and partner pay leave would be implemented from 1 January 2013. It also amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to clarify unpaid parental leave arrangements in the event of a stillbirth or infant death, to enable early commencement of unpaid parental leave and enable employees who are on unpaid parental leave to perform permissible paid work for short periods—in other words, what are loosely called 'keeping in touch' days.

The coalition supports the bill. Yet we would like to see an amendment, which has been made by the shadow minister, so that employers have an opt-in option of acting as the government's pay clerk for Paid Parental Leave payments. The undue red tape—and I will address the member for Corangamite's comments in a moment—does put further and unnecessary burdens on small business. It should be Centrelink's Family Assistance Office that is the default administrator for making Paid Parental Leave payments to eligible employees.

It was only in September last year that I made a constituency statement on this very issue. The red tape burden was affecting employers significantly, and the example I used was the Mandurah Retirement Village. Its CEO, Mr Don Pember, told me that the Labor government's way of handling the payments was 'significantly affecting his business'. The retirement village now has to perform extra administrative work through the 'the double handling of payments by both Centrelink and the employer'. The member for Corangamite said, 'It is very manageable and very small.' It might be very manageable and very small but it is extra and, depending on how many people you have to deal with, it is extra work which should be done by the agency rather than the business.

You cannot have it both ways. Through this House this week came the School Kids Bonus from the budget. One of the justifications for having it paid in the way that it is going to be paid, and without any compliance, was that it was all too hard to keep the receipts and it was all too hard to administer from a parent's point of view, making it difficult for people to claim for it. That was one of the reasons that they had to do what they did in terms of handing it out in bulk rather than people applying for it, versus this measure, which requires businesses to involve themselves in a fair bit of red tape. You cannot have it both ways—compliance is not a problem for one set of payments and compliance is a problem for another set of payments—so let's just get real.

It is worth pointing out that the coalition's paid parental leave plan is much better and fairer. At just 18 weeks, Labor's scheme is too short and does not maintain the income of the majority of Australian mothers. Furthermore, Labor's scheme does not provide superannuation. Starting a family is expensive, and I recognise the financial stress that young families face. The coalition's paid parental leave scheme will provide mothers with 26 weeks of paid parental leave at full replacement wage—up to a maximum salary of $150,000 per annum—or the federal minimum wage, whichever is greater. This will bring Australia in line with paid parental leave practices in other countries, such as Germany, Singapore, Mexico—believe it or not—and Switzerland, to name just a few. No other country derives their rate of payment from the national minimum wage, as Labor does.

The coalition's plan will include superannuation payments at the mandatory rate of nine per cent, as it is at the moment. The coalition's paid parental leave scheme will allow two weeks of the 26 weeks to be dedicated paternity leave for fathers, paid at the father’s replacement wage—up to a maximum of $150,000 per annum—or the federal minimum wage, whichever is greater, plus superannuation. This leave can be taken concurrently to the mother's leave to enable fathers and mothers to spend time together with their new child.

Currently, 26 per cent of previously employed Australian women return to work within six months of giving birth, often against their own preference. They do this because they need an income to contribute to cope with the rising costs of living—and, dare I say it, for such things as mortgages. When they do return to the workforce, they are often disproportionately employed in low-paying, casual positions. For many women, access to affordable and flexible child care impacts on their decision to resume work and on the capacity in which they resume. Unfortunately, Labor have a poor record of supporting families in this way. For example, last year Labor cut the childcare rebate from $8,179 to $7,500 and then froze indexation of the rebate. This added about $300 in additional childcare costs per year per child for these families. Labor also broke their promise to build 260 childcare and early childhood education centres on school sites and community land. Instead, they have built only 38 to date.

In my electorate of Canning, there are about 1,600 families with dependent children. In addition, more than 1,300 males and more than 1,900 females in my electorate provide unpaid child care. I am pleased to see that our leader, Tony Abbott, has committed a future coalition government to undertake a Productivity Commission review into child care, so that we can actually get some real figures rather than a political imperative. Improving access and affordability in child care is very much part of our positive plan to improve workforce participation and to strengthen the economy.

In relation to childcare affordability, a new survey, as reported in the Australian on 5 May this year, shows that 88 per cent of families believe the rising costs of child care will force them to reduce the amount they spend on child care. Many will turn to families for support while others will drop out of paid work. Currently up to 70,000 Australian women cannot access employment as they cannot find suitable child care. Others say that they will just delay having children. The number of parents who say that they will delay having more children because of the increased costs of child care has doubled to 70 per cent in just the last two years. Two years ago only 35 per cent said they would delay having children. I therefore state that this government is not that concerned about supporting families in this area, particularly when you see how it has reduced childcare payments.

Under the Labor government's reforms, childcare centres are forced to decrease their ratio of babies to carers from various state-mandated levels to four to one. The cost of Labor's changes will not be felt until 2016, when childcare centres will have to hire one staff member for every five children aged 25 months to 35 months, and one carer for every 11 children aged three to school age.

What was most alarming about this survey was that one-third of parents said that they would place their children into unregulated childcare arrangements if these fees continued to rise. That is pretty scary. Putting your dear children into unregulated care arrangements is thwart with, dare I say, unintended consequences. The extra care the Gillard government is supposed to provide under its reforms to the industry will actually force more children into unregulated care. The rising costs will see that this is just a matter of course. Already parents are paying up to $50 more per week because of the mandated staff ratio changes. Roughly, the current costs of long-day care at a childcare centre, which many full-time working parents use, can be around $55 to $135 a day—and that is after the childcare benefit and the childcare rebate have been factored in.

We just heard the member for Corangamite again—and I hope he is in touch with his electorate, because he has a pretty wafer-thin margin—criticise the 'nanny option' of the Leader of the Opposition. It is actually quite a visionary option because it gives choice. It gives families the choice of keeping their child in their own home. An old fossil like me used that arrangement many years ago. We were keen to have our children cared for at home. When they are cared for in your own home, you do not have to put them in a car to travel to a childcare centre; you do not have all the problems quite often at childcare centres, with the swathe of sickness conditions—mumps, measles or colds—going through these childcare centres; their food is cooked at home and they are fed at home; and they are in an environment that they are familiar with. It is a choice that a lot of people would like to be able to make and have some assistance for. So we are the party of choice in health and education and we are going to be the party of choice when it comes to child care. It is actually quite a hit with families because having your own child cared for in your own home has a whole of upsides to it. In the Productivity Commission review that a coalition government would undertake, we would look at the individual circumstances that affect childcare arrangements. We know that the one-size-fits-all approach to child care does not work. Obviously, Australia needs a childcare system that offers the choice and flexibility that I have just alluded to.

When our children were young, we did not have any subsidies. We did not have the option. My wife needed to return to work early because we had a huge amount of pressure paying the mortgage and I was on a school teacher's salary. It was pretty tough trying to find somebody who we could employ to come into our home, but it was by far the better option. I visit many childcare centres in my electorate and most of them do a fantastic job, but we have heard a number of stories of some operators not necessarily abiding by their obligations. Parents then have to remove their children. I had a similar case with my daughter. We had taken her to a childcare centre and wondered why she was crying every day when we picked her up. We realised that she was very unhappy there due to do some of the care arrangements that were in place. We immediately found her a better option and, as parents, we felt really terrible at having done that to a child, knowing that they could not articulate the reason they were so unhappy. So this choice is something that is going to be very attractive to a whole range of people because it may well fit into their circumstances.

We need to look at a whole lot of other factors—for example, families who live in remote or regional areas. If you live in a remote or regional area, it may be very hard to get the care that you get in a larger town or a city. How about the shiftworkers or the single parent shiftworkers who need help for care? I will give you an example. At Perth airport at the moment they are putting in place child care. Fly-in fly-out workers need occasional child care at the airport because it is a central location for them. This flexibility needs to be understood by the government; the coalition have certainly understood it because Tony Abbott has factored it into his nanny option. Not everybody is traditional. Not everybody has the same working hours or has the support of an extended family. Many of us have been very lucky to have our parents—the great grandparents of Australia—fitting in to help when some emergency or some awkward situation comes up, to give care when you cannot get it at a childcare centre or anywhere else.

There are increasing calls for occasional, limited hours and family day care options. At present there are times, like public holidays, where families are being charged for child care when the child is not even there. The parents who have to pay on these occasions obviously feel aggrieved, but you can understand the childcare centre charging parents as they have ongoing costs. But the fact that the child is not there and parents are still getting hit with a fee is a bone of contention.

In Western Australia there have been reports that mining families will welcome the coalition arrangement because of the two-week on two-week off, the fly-out, the midnights—all those sorts of unusual circumstances. So, yes, we support these recommendations. We have made amendments. I want to put on record that choice and flexibility in child care is something that we would like to see factored into this bill and, given the opportunity in government, we will be doing it ourselves.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 is really all about family and work life balance. Probably the biggest issue in society in Australia, and around the world, is the fracturing of family life in the face of a new globalised, competitive economy and, in particular, the creation of what is often called more flexible work—casualised work, work at unpredictable hours—and the rise of the dual income family and other changes in our economy which are radically affecting our society.

Once upon a time there were predictable economic circumstances. Typically men worked and women stayed at home. There was some predictability to work life. You worked regular hours and there were penalty rates for antisocial hours and there was a great deal of regulation to protect family life. If you look at my home state of South Australia, for a long time shopping hours were regulated so that you shopped Monday to Friday. You shopped from eight to six. Then there was half a day on Saturday to shop in the morning. The idea behind that was that it gave shop assistants and everybody else some time for family. That regulation has slowly been peeled back over time as a response to the fact that we are living in a different sort of society. We are living in a society now where, more than ever before, people work irregular hours. Often they work antisocial hours and hours that are not friendly to families. They do a lot of overtime. We have the rise of the dual income family.

People typically do this because they need to pay the bills and because the economy now places those demands on all of us. We heard the member for Canning talk about fly-in fly-out workers in the mines. It is interesting to note that fly-in fly-out workers have very high divorce rates because of the pressures that that lifestyle puts on relationships. So we know this is a massive issue. It is not one where there is necessarily much partisan divide in recognising that it is an issue, but often there is a somewhat partisan divide in our approaches to dealing with it.

These issues are not new to me. In my previous working life as an official with the shop assistants union I spent a lot of time implementing enterprise bargaining agreements which had extensions to paternity leave. First of all, there were extensions to the right to unpaid leave, which were obviously important and significant contributions we could make to family time. We extended the amount of time from 12 months to 18 months to sometimes the full two years by allowing people to use their paid leave at half rates and expanding the return-to-work options by allowing full-time workers to return to work on a part-time basis and the like, and we eventually extended some of those rights to men.

It is interesting to note that most of the evolution of maternity and paternity leave arrangements began with women, and there is this somewhat belated recognition by all involved that men often want to spend time with their children as well at these very important times in their family. I think a lot of men have a fear about being absent fathers, and that is something we need to acknowledge and prevent as far as we can. When we come to making these arrangements in the future, perhaps they will not be through amendments to the act but by being incorporated in the design of the act from the outset.

As I said before, my union was very involved in extending these leave arrangements through enterprise bargaining agreements. The Labor movement generally has been the voice of working people in trying to get some recognition for the family unit and of work-life balance in our system of employment, but at every turn we have heard people complain about paperwork, cost or other things. That is a predictable and persistent argument for opposing progress, and we should not pay too much attention to it because the same arguments were made about workers compensation, overtime, penalty rates and the original maternity leave act. They are predictable and unconvincing arguments.

The fact is that the Labor movement is a family oriented movement. We exist to protect people's working lives and, as part of that, their lives with their families, which is very important for us to acknowledge. That is why Labor have been at the forefront of the industrial fight for these conditions and that is why we are standing here today introducing this legislation. It is a very important role for the Labor movement to defend families in our community and to defend community life, because that is really at the heart of our movement.

The provisions in this bill are enabled by the fact that we have a strong economy. If you look at us in comparison with the rest of the world, you would find that most other countries would give their right arm to be like us. We have low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates, we have a predicted surplus and we have protected wages through our Fair Work Act. All of those things are important to families because there is nothing more important than having a job where you can have some predictability about your wages and having some predictability about prices; there is nothing more important than having low interest rates—obviously, most families are buying a home while they are raising children; and there is nothing more important than having a strong family budget, and I think that is what our most recent budget has set out to do.

These plans that we have in place extend paid parental leave to fathers and partners, with two weeks pay at the national minimum wage, the same weekly rate as the parental leave rate of some $590 before tax. That means eligible families can welcome a new child into the world while receiving up to 20 weeks in paid parental leave pay and in dad and partner pay. Those are all new entitlements that can be put in place to support families at the appropriate time. They can be combined with periods of paid leave, such as long service leave, annual leave and paid maternity leave, to stretch out a period where families can rely on income from that source rather than having to head back to work early, and I think that is a particularly important thing to do.

I heard the member for Canning talk about the plans of the opposition, and I must say that they all sounded like wishful thinking to me. It is not that they might not be desirable, and I acknowledge the generosity of the coalition's scheme, but they sound like something that might have come out of the Socialist Left in Young Labor, to be frank. It is not that I would be criticising them, but, if you think about a very generous scheme funding people on incomes up to $150,000 a year out of increases in corporate taxation, I would think that sounds a bit like something on the Far Left of Australian politics. It is not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems to me particularly ambitious. I find it curious that the member for Canning should be up here complaining about the paperwork that our scheme might inflict on small businesses while he is advocating an increase in corporate taxation to pay for a very generous paid parental leave scheme. I find that quite odd. I find it nearly as odd as the fact that he talks about nannies being desirable. I think nearly every family would love to have a nanny—it sounds like Shangri-La—but you have to look at the costs of that and who might pay the costs. As those opposite have said, it will be out of the existing childcare budget. One predicts that in order for some people to get nannies others must lose benefits. The questions the Australian people must ask themselves are: how will that work; will they means-test child care; will they cut childcare places; will they cut the rebate? One expects answers out of the coalition about what they might do with these grandiose plans they put out there that sound very good but which I predict will fall down when they are examined more closely.

The legislation we have put down is right for the time. It is right for the economic circumstances that we face at this time. This government, as I said, has pretty good fundamentals for the economy—we have protected people's jobs and we have protected their wages at a time when the rest of the world is mired in unemployment and joblessness. There is no greater blight that you can inflict on a family than to make breadwinners unemployed. We have to be very careful that we chart a modest course in this country and not embark on grandiose schemes which sound good but which the nation can ill afford at this time. There may well be some evolution of benefits over time, but I do not think that time is now.

The government's program supports families in a responsible way, it protects families in a responsible way and it is right for our nation—a welcome addition to the assistance this government gives to families and to the assistance and respect that the Labor movement has always had for the Australian family. With those words, I commend the bill to the House.

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( I rise to speak today on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This bill seeks to refine and iron out a number of issues with the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, including 'keeping in touch days', debt recovery, notices and delegation of the powers of the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. This bill also amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to clarify unpaid parental leave arrangements where there is a stillbirth or infant death. Other amendments to the Fair Work Act include provisions to enable the early commencement of unpaid parental leave and to enable employees who are on unpaid parental leave to perform permissible work paid for short periods for the purposes of keeping in touch.

I cherished my time with my two beautiful daughters when they were newborns. Being able to take leave and not worry about how to make ends meet would have been an added blessing to the joys of becoming a father. Balancing work and family is difficult at the best of times; however, the financial pressures of a mortgage and a new baby meant that my wife and I had to continue in the workforce while our two daughters were newborns. We were, however, fortunate to have the loving support of our parents, who cared for our daughters while we were at work.

The Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 has provided a basic level of Paid Parental Leave for working parents. I know my wife and I would have been overjoyed to have the opportunity to receive some financial assistance and leave to spend a significant amount of time with our daughters when they were little. Dad and partner pay provisions within this bill will give dads and working partners the opportunity to take paternal leave and still receive some income.

Fathers and working partners have traditionally borne a heavy burden of responsibility during the birth or adoption of a newborn child. They must provide for their new family as the main source of income and, once completing work, they must still spend quality time with their newborn—and their spouse, might I add. Being able to support your spouse through this incredibly rewarding challenge of being a new parent is so important for both the mother's wellbeing and the overall health of the family relationship.

I am also very encouraged that the government is finally acknowledging the contribution and the role of fathers by making these provisions for dad and partner pay within the Paid Parental Leave Act. These provisions will give fathers and partners of mums with newborns the opportunity to bond with their young child in those first critical months of development without having to dig into their annual leave or take unpaid leave. I have always firmly believed that fathers play an important role in the healthy development of their young child.

During the 2010 election the government committed to extending the Paid Parental Leave scheme by introducing a two-week paternity leave payment. I must say that while this government has a shocking record of delivering on its election promises—the carbon tax and the company tax spring to mind—I am glad that they have at least honoured this important issue.

Through this bill, dad and partner pay will be available to eligible fathers and partners, including adopting parents and parents in same-sex relationships, who are caring for a child born or adopted from 1 January 2013. Under this legislation, eligible fathers and partners will be able to receive two weeks of dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage; the same weekly rate as for the existing parental leave pay of $590 a week before tax. Eligibility for dad and partner pay will be the same as that of the income test, work test and residency requirements applied to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Dads and partners will not have to undergo an additional assessment for eligibility for dad and partner pay if they have already made a secondary claim to receive parental leave pay. This is an important feature of the bill for fathers who have claimed parental leave pay as the primary carer of their newborn who could otherwise fail an additional work test or income test for dad and partner pay.

The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and other Measures) Bill 2012 also makes a number of amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. These amendments have been introduced to address a number of uncertainties surrounding provisions for employees to return to work for up to 10 days in total during their Paid Parental Leave period, referred to as 'keeping in touch days'. The bill also seeks to clarify the operation of a number of provisions within the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 which deal with debt recovery, notice and provisions relating to delegation of the secretary's powers.

Other important amendments to highlight are those that deal with changes to the Fair Work Act 2009. These amendments clarify unpaid parental leave arrangements where there is a stillborn or infant death. They also seek to enable early commencement of unpaid parental leave, allowing a parent to start unpaid parental leave more than six weeks before the expected date of a birth, where the employer agrees.

Another important amendment to the Fair Work Act made by this bill is the introduction of 'keeping in touch' provisions within the act. These provisions will allow parents who are on unpaid parental leave to perform permissible, paid work for short periods for the purposes of keeping in touch. Currently, if a parent accesses a 'keeping in touch' day at work, which is allowable through the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme, they will jeopardise their National Employment Standards entitlement of up to 12 months unpaid parental leave. This is because a national employment standard stipulates that entitlement to unpaid parental leave must be single, continuous unpaid leave for a period of up to 12 months. I am glad that the government has identified this grave oversight. This amendment will ensure that 'keeping in touch' arrangements within the Paid Parental Leave Act will align with the Fair Work Act, ensuring that no parents get caught out in this legislative muddle again.

While I am in support of this bill and we supported the government's Paid Parental Leave Act, the provisions in the coalition's paid parental leave package are far more generous and supportive of working Australian families. I am proud to be part of a team delivering a visionary approach to policies to assist Australian families. The coalition's alternative paid parental leave scheme would provide for up to 26 weeks leave, as opposed to the 18 weeks provided for by the government. Those 26 weeks would be paid at the rate of the mother's or primary carer's current wage, or the federal minimum wage, whichever is greater, and would allow the father to take paid parental leave at the same time as the mother. The coalition's paid parental leave scheme would also include compulsory superannuation contributions, which are so important to securing the future of Australian families as they grow older. The coalition's paid parental leave plan would enhance child and maternal wellbeing by providing working mothers and fathers with real time and real money during the important period following childbirth.

This policy is in line with many paid parental leave provisions in other OECD nations. An interesting addition to this bill is that the payment of dad and partner pay will be administered and paid solely by the Department of Human Services' Families Assistance Office. This is very interesting to note, as the Paid Parental Leave scheme lumps employers with the administrative burden of playing pay clerk for the government's scheme. The administration of Paid Parental Leave may not be as cumbersome and difficult for some large organisations with their own human resource departments. However, for small business employers this impost comes with significant compliance costs and additional regulatory burdens that they could well do without.

It is absurd that the government is satisfied with administering one paid parental scheme but not the other. Why they will not allow Centrelink's Family Assistance Office to administer both the Paid Parental Leave scheme and the dads and partners leave scheme is a question that they continue to refuse to answer. The Family Assistance Office should be the default option for administrating Paid Parental Leave to eligible employees, both parental leave and dad and partner leave. The shadow minister for small business's amendment to enable all employers to opt in to administer the payment of these leave payments is a sensible one. I commend his amendment to the House.

This amendment would allow larger employers to continue to provide an ongoing relationship with employees who are taking parental leave and yet still balance this with the needs of small business employers who struggle with an already overregulated and suffocating red-tape bound business environment. This amendment would reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, both large and small, and reduce their already growing compliance costs at the hands of this government. While I firmly believe that working mums and dads would receive a better deal under the coalition's paid parental leave plan, I have no qualms in supporting this bill and commend it to the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Gillard Labor government's Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. On 1 January 2011, the Gillard government delivered historic reform for working women and families: Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme, which has seen over 600 families in my electorate of McEwen assisted. It is one of the largest intakes in this country, because we have an electorate that is growing very quickly, every day. The Paid Parental Leave scheme provides working parents with parental leave pay for up to 18 weeks at the minimum wage, which is currently $570 a week, before tax. Paid Parental Leave gives babies the best start in life and helps women remain connected to their workplace when they have a child, with this bill establishing 'keeping in touch' days to ensure parents can keep in touch with their employers while not at work.

Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme is funded by the government and is paid through employers so that employers can stay in touch with their long-term employees while they are taking time off to care for the new baby. This was the approach recommended by the Productivity Commission after a very extensive inquiry. It also means that one parent has the financial security to take time off work to care for their baby at home during the vital early months of the baby's life, as well as giving working mums time to recover following the birth and bond with their child. Paid Parental Leave also assists with the challenges and realities of modern family life, helping parents balance work and family responsibilities. Business will also enjoy the benefits of PPL, which helps them retain valuable and skilled staff as well as boosting workforce participation.

This bill makes amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to include provisions that deal with debt recovery, 'keeping in touch' days, the provision of notices and the delegation of the secretary's powers under the act. The bill also amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to clarify unpaid parental leave arrangements where people have to deal with the tragic circumstances of a stillbirth or an infant death, to enable the early commencement of unpaid parental leave and to enable employees on unpaid parental leave to perform permissible paid work for short periods for the purposes of keeping in touch. The 'keeping in touch' days in the bill make changes to ensure employees on Paid Parental Leave are able to perform paid work for up to 10 days for the purposes of keeping in touch with their employer. This is a move that is vital in some circumstances, particularly in those of highly skilled workforces and highly specialised fields.

The bill makes amendments so that a 'keeping in touch' day that is taken at the request of the employer cannot occur within six weeks after the child's birth or, in the case of an adoption, the placement of the child. This will allow an adequate period of time after the birth of a child for the mother to recover physically and will give her an uninterrupted period of six weeks with her newborn child. The bill will also provide greater flexibility for pregnant employees prior to the birth of a child so that an employer and employee are able to agree on unpaid parental leave commencing earlier than six weeks prior to the expected date of birth. As well as increasing the flexibility of unpaid parental leave, the Fair Work Act will be amended to give parents the right to return to their employment, subject to four weeks notice, should there be a tragic stillbirth or infant death. This bill also gives me a chance to speak about the Gillard Labor government's Paid Parental Leave scheme, because many families—as I said, over 600 in McEwen—have embraced it, unlike those opposite, who have been dragged kicking and screaming to support Paid Parental Leave and are still in a mess on where they stand. Over 100,000 parents have applied for Paid Parental Leave since applications opened on 1 October last year, and half the mothers who have so far been beneficiaries of the scheme earned less than $42,000 in the year before their baby was born or adopted. This illustrates the importance of the scheme for women on low incomes, many of whom would not have been able to access Paid Parental Leave through their employer. The scheme will be extended on 1 January 2013 to provide further support for new parents, with two weeks of dad and partner pay. Dad and partner pay will give fathers and partners financial assistance to take time off work, helping them bond with their new child and be involved in their care from an early age.

The Gillard Labor government believes in supporting families and in giving every child the best possible start in life. We understand the cost-of-living pressures on working families, and we are easing those pressures through initiatives such as the PPL scheme, tax cuts, family payments, fairer and more sustainable childcare assistance, and the schoolkids bonus introduced in the budget this week. There are many families in McEwen who are benefiting from this Labor government's commitment to supporting them. For instance, we have increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and increased the annual limit for each child from $4,354 to $7,500 a year.

We have also established a $102.5 million maternity reform package, which is a key element of our health reform plans to deliver improved maternity care, particularly to regional Australia, and give women more choice. This includes $66.6 million to expand Medicare support for eligible midwives; $25 million to restore access to professional indemnity insurance for eligible midwives, allowing access to cover for the first time since 2002; $9.4 million for improved access to information and support; $11.3 million for expanded medical outreach services to rural and remote areas, bringing care closer to home; and $8 million for workforce support. We have also created a 24-hour pregnancy, birth and baby helpline and website, giving parents access to accurate information and directing parents to other services, like breastfeeding support.

The opposition has no real plan to support families when their child is born or to deliver child care when they need it. Let us not forget that, as workplace relations minister, the current Leader of the Opposition opposed a paid parental leave scheme and said it should be introduced over his government's 'dead body'.

The Gillard government's Paid Parental Leave scheme allows families to make their own work and family choices. Parents can transfer the leave so mums and dads have more options for balancing both work and family. Women in seasonal, casual and contract work, and the self-employed, will have access to Paid Parental Leave, most of them for the first time. The scheme has helped prepare Australia for the challenges of the future. Business will benefit from the retention of skilled and experienced female staff but will not have to fund the parental leave payments. The government has also made it easy for businesses: they get the money up-front from the government and pay their employees through their usual pay cycle. There is no need for special bank accounts or special reports. The scheme has been designed to ensure employers do not encounter new costs. Local employers only need to provide government funded paid parental leave to employees who have been with them for at least 12 months.

The Productivity Commission inquiry report Paid parental leave: support for parents with newborn children, of 2009, states:

The more that parental leave arrangements mimic those that exist as part of routine employment contracts, the more they will be seen by employers and employees as standard employment arrangements, with the dual effect of:

The Productivity Commission also found that there would be a number of benefits in adopting a paid parental leave scheme, such as increasing the average length of leave taken by employed women after childbirth by around 10 weeks and encouraging increased workforce participation for women prior to having a baby and between pregnancies. Importantly, the Productivity Commission found that PPL would change community attitudes by sending a strong signal that having a child and taking leave from work around the time of the birth or adoption is part of the normal course of work and family life.

ABS findings in Employee earnings, benefits and trade union membership, Australia 2008 found that women in lower paid jobs have less access to employer provided paid maternity leave. We also know that PPL is more available in some industries than in others, and that the industries with the lowest levels of access to Paid Parental Leave are highly casualised. In 2007, less than one-quarter of women on low wages had access to Paid Parental Leave, compared to three-quarters on high wages.

This is a historic Labor reform, because only Labor delivers for Australian families and parents. Paid Parental Leave is a workplace entitlement, not a welfare payment. And it helps employers retain valuable skilled staff. Skilled staff is an issue that we have had to deal with after the 11 years of neglect under the Howard government left us with a nationwide skill shortage. That is why it is disappointing that the Liberals are trying wreck the Paid Parental Leave scheme that so many women and employers, right across the country, are benefiting from. We do not support the Liberals' amendments that would undermine the link between women taking time off to have a baby and their workplace. They have tried wrecking it once, and it got voted down. Now they are trying to wreck it again, with another ill-thought-out, short-sighted amendment that shows that they just do not get it. Paid Parental Leave is not welfare; it is a workplace entitlement. That is why I support this bill and hope that it has a very speedy passage.

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

I rise today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and to very much support the amendments that the coalition will be moving in this place after this second reading debate. This bill extends the Paid Parental Leave scheme to working fathers and partners who meet the prescribed criteria, enabling them to take two weeks paid paternity leave at the federal minimum wage. That in itself is unremarkable and the coalition have no particular objection to it because we are supportive of any measures which will improve Labor's, quite frankly, substandard Paid Parental Leave scheme. As far as Australian families are concerned, right now every little bit helps as they struggle to make ends meet. However, regrettably, even despite this measure, Labor's proposal falls well short of the coalition's paid parental leave policy. I think that is the message that will come out of today's debate, when people listening and considering the two schemes realise that the coalition scheme is vastly superior. It does so much more in looking after families, in looking after mothers and in recognising the very great need for increasing, in particular, female workforce participation.

As I said, Australian families are doing it really tough under this Labor government. Our side of the chamber appreciates the pressures being felt by families. What is also blatantly clear to us is that the Gillard Labor government must bear responsibility for a number of these pressures. The carbon tax will see family power bills skyrocket. Childcare costs are soaring, with the Australian Childcare Alliance predicting that some families may have to pay an additional $22 a day for care. Parents are fearful that they will not be able to continue to afford child care for their young children.

As I travel the country I am being made aware of more and more real-life examples of parents placing their children in backyard care. I was provided with all the details of one case where the parents, who live quite close to Sydney on the coast of New South Wales, travel into the city and are leaving three of their children to be minded by somebody in their street. At no stage do I blame parents for the childcare decisions they make or the safety concerns they do or do not have about particular arrangements they may make. But what I do see presented to me continually is parents under stress with the rising cost of child care. They are genuinely fearful that they will not be able to continue to afford the cost of child care. Just managing the weekly budget is a massive nightmare for so many families, as they juggle their finances and have to prioritise which bills get paid.

I note that members opposite, particularly the ministers in this area, refuse to accept that rising childcare costs are making a difference to the decisions and the choices that families make. I receive emails from women who say things such as: 'I would have had a third child, but I can't afford it. If the coalition's paid parental leave scheme was in, I would continue to be paid at my current salary and that would make much more sense. I could continue to afford the mortgage and take some of the stresses off my family.'

We on this side of the House understand what it is that families really need—paid parental leave, paid at their real wage, not the added stress of trying to adjust to a lower wage when one member of the partnership, the earning partnership, is stepping back from full employment.

In addition to the rising cost of living under Labor, this budget predicts unemployment to rise to 5.5 per cent. I, as the opposition spokesperson for employment participation, must note that because it is worth noting. This forecast comes from a Treasurer who promised to create 500,000 more jobs last year. Tragically for Australians, the Treasurer did not get that forecast right and, even more tragically, for those who find themselves amongst the ranks of the newly unemployed, the government have decided: 'You'll be on your own.' They have savaged employment services support for stream 1 job seekers, leaving them to fend for themselves, despite rising unemployment. These are job seekers who have recently lost their jobs. We should be acting quickly, efficiently and effectively to reconnect them with the workplace before they fall off the edge of the cliff and become the long-term unemployed.

The government has failed to introduce any real measures for unemployed youth, either. I am personally very alarmed by youth unemployment. The average rate across Australia is about 11.7 per cent. That is double the general unemployment rate. But in certain parts of Australia it is way higher. I have been provided with figures that show that, in the north-west of Melbourne, it is about 40 per cent. In central and western New South Wales, which include parts of my own electorate, it is about 25 per cent. In New South Wales, the average rate is 23 per cent. There was no mention in this budget by any minister in an employment portfolio of youth unemployment. More importantly, when you look through the programs, you will see that there is nothing that actually addresses this specific and looming national problem.

The coalition's proposed paid parental leave scheme is a comprehensive one. We have proposed 26 weeks paid leave at replacement wage, up to a maximum of $150,000 a year. We based our decision for a 26-week scheme on World Health Organisation research that indicated that 26 weeks is the recommended period for exclusive breastfeeding, and I think that is an important consideration. But it is not just about World Health Organisation recommendations; all of us in this place should understand the critical importance of the early years. With respect to the importance of child development, the research continues to emphasise that fact. Increasingly, we are being provided with research that the first three or four years of life are a period when a baby and toddler's brain grows to about two-thirds its full size, evolving in complexity at a greater rate than it ever will again. This is the period during which key learning takes place. But this learning is more than just first words, first steps, colours and numbers. The emotional lessons that we learn as babies and children, at home and at school, shape the emotional circuits in our brains that we carry with us for life. The roots of empathy can be traced to infancy. Developmental psychologists have found that infants feel sympathetic distress before they even realise they exist apart from other people. The most basic lessons of emotional life are laid down in those intimate moments, those intimate exchanges between parent and child. The reassurance of feeling emotionally connected provides children with their core emotional outlook and capability, equipping them with the resilience they need to tackle the challenges of life. This attunement that a parent develops with a child in these vital first months shapes the child's emotional expectations about relationships, in all realms of life, for better or worse.

I make that small diversion not to suggest that these things are not happening in the homes and families around Australia—because of course mothers, fathers and parents are living this everyday—but simply to say that we can place no greater importance on the development of maternal and paternal bonding. It is not just a feelgood concept; it is something very real and something that governments must make sure they invest in. For we that have had families and young children at stages of life where we were under financial stress, where it was always very difficult to manage the bonding and the time that you needed with young children with all of the other particularly financial pressures that you found yourself under, a measure such as the coalition's scheme that says, 'Twenty six weeks at your existing wage and, please, take the time to build that bond with your baby,' would have been welcome. And, remember, often women in these situations have other toddlers at home as well and they will also enormously benefit by having mum and dad spend some extra time with them.

Sometimes people say to me, 'Why should certain members of society get a paid parental leave entitlement at a higher rate than others?' I simply answer by saying this: we should not see this as a welfare payment or a handout; we should see this payment as analogous to sick leave, long service leave or annual leave entitlements that you might receive in the workplace. It is something that is just paid at your normal rate and that you access when you need to in the normal course of your working and family life. It is there for you to make use of. It is not something that the rest of society is giving you. It is not a welfare payment; it is not a benefit payment; it is a recognition by government that, in order for parents to properly take the time to bond with their newborn children and set themselves up for those expensive early years, they do need to have parental leave from the workplace. Employers are not in a position to fund all of this. Not only that, but the last thing we want to see is employers stepping back from employing people who are in their child-bearing years because of the cost that they might incur when mothers step out of the workforce to have children.

Our scheme is a stark contrast to Labor's scheme, which is cobbled together, is underfunded and, most importantly, does not recognise superannuation entitlements. The coalition's policy recognises just how critical this is for the long-term future welfare of women. By incorporating superannuation into our paid parental leave scheme we demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that women are not financially disadvantaged later by taking the time to start a family. We recognise that on average women retire with approximately 40 per cent less money in the bank than men. By including a mandatory superannuation contribution as part and parcel of our paid parental leave scheme we can help redress this imbalance and ensure that when the time comes for women to retire they have a superannuation balance that will provide them a respectable standard of living. I cannot emphasise that enough. I meet women in their 50s in small towns in my electorate struggling on very small superannuation entitlements because they have taken this time out of the workforce to have families. Look at the contribution they have made to those small towns: they have raised fabulous children, they have been fabulous community members and they have been part of the fabric and the life and soul of the community. And now they are struggling with not enough to keep them in their retirement. It is something that we should be concerned about. Our approach is a long-term, practical one; Labor's is little more than a flash in the pan.

We sought to reduce red tape for business, with the administration of the Paid Parental Leave scheme resting with the Family Assistance Office, where I understand it rests now but is due to be sent back to employers after the end of this financial year. We do not want to see individual businesses do that, but Labor is determined to strangle businesses in more red tape by making them the paymaster for the scheme. We instead want to provide small business with the opportunity to use the Family Assistance Office as their pay clerk for paid parental leave.

Small businesses are struggling under this government—many are stressing day by day as to how they will remain viable—yet Labor is still insisting they fulfil the role of pay clerk, further imposing red tape and forcing small business owners and operators to spend valuable time on paperwork instead of on their businesses. We know that small businesses do not have the same capacity for infrastructure and investment in their HR divisions as, say, Coles and Woolworths. The government has seen sense on this particular measure, ensuring that the Dad and Partner Pay is administered by the Department of Human Services. Yet Labor fails to concede that it would be far easier if this department were to have responsibility for the administration of all parental leave payments.

Making the Family Assistance Office the default administrator of the Paid Parental Leave scheme is unquestionably practical. It alleviates the pressure on small business but allows for an opt-in should a business decide to fill this role. The government is yet to convince me of its offbeat reasoning as to how small businesses assuming the role of paymaster fosters a bond between employee and employer. That is a bridge too far in terms of an argument.

The coalition has made this undertaking to reduce red tape and, if the government had any understanding whatsoever of small business and the struggles they face on a daily basis, they would support our amendment. Alas, though, if I am to consider the past record of those opposite, I will not hold my breath.

What is needed is a parental payment leave system that is easy to administer, that does not have additional burdens on business, that adequately provides for Australian families and that gives mothers and fathers the right amount of time to truly bond with their newborn babies. If we reinstate the Family Assistance Office as the default paymaster for all businesses, we can also reduce the red tape burden. As a coalition we present a very strong package of policy in this area for the people of Australia to consider. (Time expired)

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

I believe this is very important legislation. It makes a few minor amendments to the functionality of the Paid Parental Leave scheme as it operates now, but the really important part of this legislation is that it provides for dads and partners, from 1 January next year, for the first time, to receive paid parental leave or pay. Eligible fathers and partners will be able to receive two weeks paid leave and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, the same wage per week as paid parental leave. This legislation is groundbreaking because it not only provides extra support to families at a time when they have a new baby but recognises the role fathers play in relation to babies. I think that is a very important message that the government is sending out—the recognition that fathers play a very, very important role in the care and development of their newborn baby.

I have spent a bit of time looking at and researching some of the implications of the father being able to be intimately involved in that first process—and there is hardly a father now who is not present at the birth of their baby. It is a time that is quite challenging within the family. It is a time when it is really important that both the mother and baby connect. The mother has carried the child for nine months and in many cases goes on to breastfeed their child. Dads need to establish their role once that child has appeared. They feel a significant need to be close to their new baby and help deal with the challenges that occur when a new baby makes its presence felt in the family.

'Engrossment' is a term that is often used to describe the powerful response that fathers often feel towards their newborn child. This includes his attraction to the infant, a perception of the newborn child as perfect—and most fathers have had that feeling that their new baby is perfect—and the elation and feeling of self-esteem he has at the time of the birth. From the research I have done, experts encourage fathers to hold and examine their babies and to feel that they are really a very important part of that period. This bonding that often commences with the father at the birth—the initial eye contact and the response the baby has towards them—is important to develop.

This two weeks paid parental leave will allow a number of workers who have previously been denied the ability to spend time with their newborn child to do so. In 2011 Australia finally caught up with the rest of the world with the introduction of our Paid Parental Leave scheme. I note the amendment from the opposition, and I will speak to that as I get towards the end of my contribution to this debate. Needless to say, the opposition opposed paid parental leave all the way along the line. And then, at the end of the day, the Leader of the Opposition came up with his very, very, very expensive model of paid parental leave after publicly saying for years that he did not support paid parental leave. This legislation builds on the historic reform of the introduction of paid parental leave, which allowed women to spend time with their child nurturing, bonding and setting in place the relationship that they will have into the future.

At the 2010 election we made a commitment to give dads and other partners a chance to have two weeks leave to support the new mum at home and be involved in the care of the baby right from the very start so that the mother would be able to rely on the father of her child, or her partner, to provide that support during a difficult period when you have sleepless nights and you have a strange creature who is making its presence felt within your house. What it does is allow the family time to consolidate. It allows the family time for the new baby to be integrated into the family. In cases where there are toddlers, it very much helps when the father can be involved and help the transition of a new baby into the house. Anybody who has been associated with a family that has a new baby knows that, if there is a toddler, there are problems and there are little barriers that have to be passed. Quite often that toddler is the only one in the family, and it really changes the relationships within the family.

This is good for new dads, new mums and other siblings within the family, and it provides the best possible start for new babies. This legislation means that it will be available to all eligible fathers and partners. That includes adoptive parents and parents of same-sex couples who care for a child born or adopted from 1 January 2011. The current rate is $590 a week before tax. It means that eligible families welcoming a new baby into the world can receive up to 20 weeks Paid Parental Leave plus the dad and partner payment. I know from my own sons, who have become fathers, how important the time they had had off work when their babies came home was. They had to use their annual leave entitlements. They do not in any way regret that. But when fathers are not automatically given Paid Parental Leave for such periods, it is not recognising the role of fathers. The dad and partner payment will do that.

Claims for the payment will be able to be made from October this year, and it will be available for a wide range of people. This is particularly important. It is going to go not only to those employed in ongoing positions but to casual employees and self-employed people such as tradespeople, small business owners and people working on farms. It is a recognition that fathers come from a variety of backgrounds. It is a recognition that often, when self-employed people and tradespeople have to go away from their workplace, it means that they get no income at all. It is very important that they are able to receive this payment. The legislation is based on and consistent with the independent expert recommendations of the Productivity Commission. The payments will be available in addition to any employer-paid leave but cannot be taken at the same time as paid leave.

Another important aspect of the legislation is that there was widespread consultation between government and employee groups, business groups, family and community groups, and individuals. People were asked to provide feedback on the legislation that we are debating here today, and that feedback was positive. As such, I would argue that each and every member of this parliament should support this legislation. It is about recognising the role that fathers play in our society. It is about ensuring that babies have the best possible start in life. I agree with the previous speaker from the opposition—child development starts from the day a baby is born. The emotional security a baby feels, from the support and input they receive, is reflected later in that baby's life. This legislation is about providing babies with the best start and providing the right sort of support to the family unit.

I am really disappointed that the opposition is once again engaging in wrecking tactics. I had hoped that when this legislation came to the parliament the opposition would support it. Instead, what we have before us is an amendment designed to wreck the legislation. The opposition's mickey mouse paid parental leave scheme appeared as a thought bubble to the Leader of the Opposition after years of opposing paid parental leave. It is so disappointing. I had hoped that, just for once, the opposition would walk into this place and say: 'This is really good legislation.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, put up some good legislation, then.

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

It's legislation that will be good for families. It's legislation that recognises the important role that fathers play.'

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does it include superannuation?

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

As I said, it is very disappointing.

I hear members on the other side interjecting, saying that fathers do not deserve to have this legislation passed through this parliament. This legislation is not about welfare; it is about workers entitlements. Now we are going to see the opposition voting it down, voting against families. They voted against families yesterday—they said that families did not know how to spend the schoolkids bonus, when families have to pay thousands of dollars to educate their children. Today they are set to vote against babies, against fathers, against the welfare of children into the future. I can only say I am extremely disappointed and I would beg the opposition to think again, to get behind and support this important legislation.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment to which I am speaking points out that whilst we are not declining to give the bill a second reading—if you had listened to the previous speaker perhaps you would not realise that—we are moving an amendment that notes that the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme is too short and does not provide superannuation and does not maintain the income of the majority of Australian mothers, and calls on the government to immediately adopt the coalition's better, fairer paid parental leave scheme.

I have to say that this amendment gives us the opportunity to speak about the benefits that will flow both to mothers and to the economy if our scheme is adopted. In 2006 I was chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services and we brought out a report called Balancing work and familya very strong and important report. A lot of research was done on the benefit to the economy as a whole when women are able to work full-time in the paid workforce. The need for adequate childcare expenses and Paid Parental Leave were both very important in the submissions that were made to that committee.

Many of the submissions that came to the committee pointed out things like:

… Australian women have embraced the expansion of tertiary education and the opportunities opening up in the workplace. In 1951, only 20 per cent of university enrolments were women. In 1987, for the first time, female students outnumbered males, and by 2004, this majority had risen to 54 per cent.

That is, there were more women than men in tertiary education at university. This means that we have many trained women who want to be able to utilise their experience and their qualifications in very sensible ways that will work to their own benefit, that of their families and that of the nation.

It was pointed out in other submissions to us that loss of salary is one of the reasons that those women who have taken tertiary education do not have children. One of the things that came out very importantly was that the simple fact of having a child reduces a woman's lifetime chance of being employed by seven per cent. The authors Dr Matthew Gray and Professor Bruce Chapman writing in the journal Family Matters stated this fact and calculated that on average this hypothetical woman would lose 37 per cent of her lifetime earnings by having a child, and that the impact of having the first child was greater than the second or third children.

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers of Australia noted that, of their female membership, 69 per cent did not have children. By comparison the current estimate of the Australian population is generally that 16 per cent of women are likely to remain childless. The association, in its submission, said:

The very high proportion of childless female professionals found in the APESMA Surveys also reflects the reality that professional women with children are leaving the workforce or reducing their level of workforce participation due to family responsibilities …

They also said:

Lack of access to part-time work in such professions—

that is, professional engineers, scientists and managers—

has not been caused by any industrial or legal limitation, but by culture, custom and practice. This is also reflected in the predominance of professional development opportunities being based upon full time workplace participation.

In other words, the women who are going on to take tertiary education face difficulties in choosing to have children and seeking full-time work without proper paid parental leave and without adequate child care arrangements.

Accordingly, the scheme that we are asking the government to introduce is the one that, should we be elected, we will introduce. That is, that there should be 26 weeks of paid parental leave, a full-time replacement wage—that means the whole wage—of a salary of up to $150,000 per annum or the minimum federal wage, whichever is the greater. This paid parental leave should include superannuation at the mandatory rate. To put that into context, we are always hearing about the serious need for people to enter the scientific and engineering areas, but those women who have chosen to do that are penalised more than any others.

We had Access Economics do some research for us on the benefit to the economy overall should we see a greater participation rate of women in the paid workforce. They estimated that the impact of that change could be as high as 4.4 per cent and that GDP could increase by 4.4 per cent—more than that estimated by the government in the Intergenerational report. As a reform initiative, increased women's participation would be placed above the 2000 tax reforms, which had a 2.5 per cent increase in GDP and below the national competition policy reform increases of 5.5 per cent.

We also found, in the submissions and in our findings overall, that women will eventually hold the majority of post-school qualifications, which means that we need to remove all barriers to women working, where they wish to do so. So by paying women the full existing wage that they are paid at the time that they have children, and by including superannuation, we would be encouraging women to return to the paid workforce and to have children—which are equally important.

We also say that we would use the same work test and eligibility conditions as the government designed scheme, but we would fund our scheme by a 1.5 per cent levy on companies with taxable incomes in excess of $5 million and that the levy would apply only to taxable income in excess of $5 million. It would be paid and administered by the Family Assistance Office and would not impose an unnecessary administrative burden on employers, unlike Labor's scheme. There is no reason that small business in particular should be burdened with becoming an organ of government for the payment of paid parental leave. It is far better that we utilise the Family Assistance Office.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1:45, the member for Solomon can go and debate with somebody else and try to get my good graces in some other way! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will resume at a later hour today.