Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. I refer to a mum-to-be in Brisbane, Sienna Perry. Sienna writes that if she and her husband have to choose between government and employee benefits because of the Prime Minister's plan to cut to paid parental leave it is likely she will have to go back to work at 19 weeks instead of six months. Why does the minister think Sienna is a rorter because she wants to spend more time with her baby?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question and I reject the assertion in terms of what she claims my statements have been. That is not my claim. The member might be interested in the following.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They may wish to verbal on that side, but we have every right to reject the way they do that.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield is perilously close to leaving.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the member to the PPL evaluation that was commenced under the previous government, the evaluation of the Labor public service union scheme that was introduced by the previous government.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a) for one hour.

The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The contention that has been put forward today is that somehow the Labor public service union scheme will allow people to stay at home longer with their kids—but the evaluation report did not find that. It said that there has been an increase in those who are on the PPL scheme, both higher income earners and lower income earners, up to 18 weeks. But after 18 weeks of the proportion of people staying at home under these arrangements has fallen. So the Labor public sector union scheme has resulted in fewer people staying at home longer, but the public sector union have been able to ratchet up the entitlement, as they do. They are the masters of those who sit on that side of the House.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The woman concerned is not a public servant—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Resume your seat.

Ms Butler interjecting—

The member will resume her seat.

Ms Butler interjecting—

The member for Griffith will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Griffith then left the chamber.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is absolutely the case—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You previously ruled that it is not in order when raising a point of order on direct relevance for somebody to restate the question. On this occasion, the member concerned referred specifically to the fact that the—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. The reason that the member for Griffith was asked to leave under 94(a) was her refusal to respond to the Speaker's command.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All those who receive employer funded schemes will continue to receive those schemes. In all cases where those schemes are not as generous as the safety net scheme they will be topped up to the safety net scheme. That is what will happen. What will not happen is this. If you are an executive level 2 in a government department currently earning a salary of $130,000, under the department enterprise agreement you will get 14 weeks of paid maternity leave.

Ms O'Neil interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be silence from the member for Hotham.

Ms O'Neil interjecting—

The member for Hotham will leave under standing order 94(a).

The member for Hotham then left the chamber.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is worth $35,000. On top of that, you will get $11,500 under the Labor public sector union scheme.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a serious matter—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The woman is not a public servant—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume her seat. There is no point of order. The member knows perfectly well that that is engaging in debate and that is not permitted.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What those opposite are trying to protect and maintain is an unfair scheme that they put in place with their union mates when they were in government. But this government is going to maintain a safety net paid parental leave scheme for those who were not getting something before. Do you know where they were working? They were working in small businesses. Small business employers could not afford to pay for that. Now, under this scheme, they can. We support that. But what we are not going to support is cost shifting and subsidising of large employers, particularly those in the public sector, which is what the Labor public sector union scheme is designed to achieve. We support a fair scheme, not deals cooked up between the Labor Party and public sector unions. (Time expired)