Press Release by JENNY MACKLIN MP on
17 June 2010
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services
and Indigenous Affairs
Passage of Bill for Australia’s first Paid
Parental Leave scheme
Legislation for Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme today
passed the Parliament.
This is an historic day and a major win for Australian families.
Australian families have been waiting decades for paid parental leave.
From 1 January 2011 their wait will finally be over.
This government-funded Paid Parental Leave scheme will give thousands of
new mothers the financial support to make their own choices about work
and family responsibilities when their baby is born.
Parents will get more support to stay home with a new baby, and children
will get the best start in life. Businesses will also retain more
skilled workers.
Casual and part-time workers, contractors and the self-employed will be
eligible for Paid Parental Leave, many for the first time.
The Government's scheme provides up to 18 weeks’ Government-funded
parental leave pay at the National Minimum Wage (currently $570 per
week) for eligible parents of children born or adopted on or after 1
January 2011.
Our scheme is fair for families and fair to business
The scheme is based closely on the expert recommendations of the
Productivity Commission and is in Australia's economic interest.
The Government’s scheme should be provided in addition to existing
efforts on employer-funded paid parental leave schemes. This will help
local employers enhance the family-friendly workplace conditions many
already offer.
With the passage of this bill Australia will finally catch up with the
rest of the developed world on this vital reform.
This is a great victory for the many Australians who have campaigned
over the years for a national Paid Parental Leave scheme.
Parental leave scheme set to pass
June 2, 2010 - 11:34AM
* AAP *
The coalition will let the Rudd government's paid parental leave scheme pass the Senate, but has committed to amending it when in government.
The scheme will provide 18 weeks' paid leave for mums and dads at the minimum wage rate of $543 a week from January 1, 2011.
Opposition spokeswoman for the status of women, Sharman Stone, on Wednesday said the coalition would amend the "shambolic" legislation if it won government.
"We'll have to let it pass (the Senate) so that there's something starting on the first of January," she told reporters in Canberra, adding something was better than nothing.
"But we commit to the Australian people that we won't let such a poor scheme remain for working families."
The scheme only paid the minimum wage for four months, which was not enough, and it could also unfairly burden small business, Dr Stone said.
"What we're fearful of is that the small businesses who are being asked to be the paymasters for Labor's scheme may start to discriminate against women."
A woman on the payroll could end up "a major administrative burden".
Dr Stone was also critical of government moves to scale back the childcare rebate, but said the coalition would not act on that either, until it was in government.
"We as an opposition can't deal with all of the government's problems," she said.
© 2010 AAP <http://news.smh.com.au/action/displayCopyrightNotice?sourceOrganisation=AAP>
17.06.10
Leading employers largely welcomed the introduction of the Federal Government's Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme but called for any future scheme to be as simple and as easy as possible to administer.
In a
major debate held last week by Diversity Council Australia and hosted by
Gilbert + Tobin, Senator Jacinta Collins, Special Advisor for Work and
Family Balance and Pay Equity, Dr Sharman Stone MP, Shadow Minister for
the Status of Women, Early Childhood Education and Childcare, Ann Sherry
AO of Carnival Australia, Professor Marian Baird of the University of
Sydney and James Pomeroy, senior lawyer of Gilbert + Tobin, thrashed out
the differences between the Government's PPL scheme and the
Opposition's.
Senator Jacinta Collins said the Government's scheme, which would offer
18 weeks' paid leave at the minimum wage, would begin in January next
year, be fully funded by the taxpayer and be administered by employers.
She added it was the Government's intention that its new scheme would be
in addition to existing corporate schemes.
Dr Sharman Stone promised the Opposition would offer a more generous
scheme of 26 weeks' leave at full replacement wage (up to $150,000 pa)
and would include superannuation. It would be funded largely by a 1.7%
levy on businesses with taxable income of more than $5 million, and
administered by the Government.
Professor Marian Baird said the Government's scheme would place
Australia in the 'ball park' according to international practice whilst
the Opposition's scheme would jump Australia ahead. She also said the
mechanism for payment was important and argued that if PPL is about
recognising women's workforce attachment and compensating them for time
out of the workforce (like annual and sick leave), then, as recommended
by the Productivity Commission, employers should take some
responsibility for the payment of it. If it is pai d directly from the
Government, it effectively becomes a welfare payment.
Ann Sherry, CEO Carnival Australia said that employers recognise the
productivity benefits to be gained from a PPL scheme but were wary of
increased compliance costs and complexity of implementation. She
expressed concern about the Opposition's policy where larger businesses,
who were already providing paid parental leave, would also be expected
to cover the cost for those who weren't.
Participants also called for greater flexibility to enable employers and
employees to vary the amounts of pay received to take account of
individual circumstances (e.g. have it paid on a part-time basis over a
longer period).
James Pomeroy, Senior Lawyer with Gilbert + Tobin said he believed
employers' existing PPL schemes, provided they are part of an employee
contract or industrial agreement, would need to be in addition to the
Government's scheme. If their schemes were provided by way of a policy
that was not part of an employee contract, or if industrial agreements
were up for renegotiation, employers might choose to substitute rather
than top-up the Government's scheme.
The legislation for the Government's PPL scheme was today in the Senate.
The “I can do it better” principle for
policy making
By Dr Diann
Rodgers-Healey, Founder, Australian Centre for Leadership for Women
(CLW)
Tony Abbott's latest thoughts on paid parental leave have been said to
have created uncertainty for families who might be planning to have a
baby, ripples of discontent in his own party due to the lack of
collaboration, and in the business sector that has been unwillingly
nominated to pay for the scheme with a $3 billion tax. Questions about
his lack of credibility in back pedalling from his commitment to a paid
maternity scheme and the Baby Bonus continue to abound.
What is interesting to observe is the game of conflicting politics in the context of a looming election. This particular scenario, however, is marked by a parallel goal of both the Government and the Opposition wanting to help Australian working women. The marked difference is that Abbott believes that he can do it better than Rudd. Abbott is offering 26 weeks of leave at replacement salary as opposed to the Government’s offer of 18 weeks of paid leave at the minimum wage.
It is clear by virtue of Abbott’s generosity that his and his party’s drive to finally address the issue of providing a “decent” national paid parental leave scheme excels that of the Government. It must follow then that the only way forward for Abbott and his Party is to build on the foundations the government has made in establishing the case for a national Paid Parental Leave scheme that rests on the extensive Productivity Commission Inquiry of 2009. This Inquiry, conducted in consultation with business, employees and with parents about the type of scheme that is feasible considered the economic, productivity and social costs and benefits of providing paid maternity, paternity and parental leave. It identified the models that could be used to provide such parental support assessing these against a number of criteria including their cost effectiveness; impacts on business; labour market consequences; work/family preferences of parents; child and parental welfare; and interactions with the Social Security and Family Assistance Systems. The Inquiry assessed the impacts and applicability of the various models across the full range of employment forms (such as the self-employed, farmers, and shift workers) and the efficiency and effectiveness of Government policies that would facilitate the provision and take-up of these models.
Does it make sense for
two parties who appear to be mutually wanting to shift this type of
relentless discrimination against women go head to head on the same
issue, and in doing so, obstruct the very first crucial stage of it
coming into being as Australia’s legislation for families?
In an election
year, while the focus remains on getting votes, it is easy to find
policies at opposing ends of the spectrum being touted.
Here, however,
the electorate is faced with different angles of the same mirror.
The
mirror reflects the long-awaited vision of an
With Labor’s scheme
due to start on 1 January next year, we are so close to this
contemporary vision and yet so far. What is needed is for our leaders to
cement the foundational blueprint which we have finally arrived at and
then, by all means, continue to build its structure in discussion with
key stakeholders and the electorate to improve its effectiveness.
Election year
or not, it is imperative that paid maternity leave is not seen as one of
the issues on the agenda, but is acknowledged as a right for women in
the workplace, as has been done internationally.