Ms BIRD (9:06 PM) —I am very pleased to rise to support the member for Ballarat’s motion before the House tonight, and I have followed with interest the member for Murray’s comments. I should indicate that I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations that brought down the Making it fair report, a report on pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce. I say to the member for Murray: I find the opposition’s new-found enthusiasm for dealing with these issues of great interest and somewhat amusing in the context that we saw, for 12 years, that so little was done on the things that the members of the opposition now complain we are not doing enough on.

In the evidence that we took during the Making it fair inquiry, it was quite clear that one of the outstanding issues over years in Australia that had not been addressed—if we want to make OECD comparisons—was the lack of a paid parental leave scheme. It was something that, when they were in government, the opposition clearly had very little interest in; in fact they often expressed an active lack of interest in introducing a paid parental leave scheme. I am pleased to see that the member for Murray is so passionate about it. I did not hear her being quite so passionate on that issue when the coalition had the government benches and I did not hear her insisting on a scheme that is in fact even bigger—

Dr Stone —Better?

Ms BIRD —No, not better—I will have that argument with you. In fact, you might want to talk to some of your National Party colleagues, who also have a view about the equity of providing women who work in cities and earn a good income paid parental leave that reimburses them for those opportunities and denies justice to women who work in country areas and do not have the capacity to earn the same income.

Dr Stone —I’m sorry, country people have the same need to work as metro people.

Ms BIRD —I suggest to the member for Murray that, rather than arguing across the table with me, she could continue that debate in her own party room, where I understand it has been raging with some considerable disagreement. The importance of a paid parental leave scheme is that it provides equity to all women who apply for it—that is exactly what the government’s scheme does. I was listening to the debate on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 earlier in this place and I welcome the newfound enthusiasm of those opposite for a paid parental leave scheme. However, as they struggle within their own party room to find a scheme they can all agree on, one can only be thankful that they have finally realised in this modern age that it is something they should actually support.

I also take the opportunity to point out how important the report found the issue of superannuation and retirement incomes for women to be. Many women—

Dr Stone —Where is your report? Why isn’t the minister dealing with it?

Ms BIRD —I did not interrupt the member for Murray once while she was speaking; I would appreciate the same respect. In terms of superannuation, the report made it clear that the over-the-lifetime income of working women was one of the major issues contributing to the pay equity gap in Australia. That is because women quite regularly have a form of broken employment that means that they do not actually have the capacity to accumulate superannuation at the same rate as men. Also, because, sadly, we have one of the most gender segregated workforces in the world, they are quite often in the lower income types of jobs, which are often casual and part time. So, over a lifetime of working they often end up with around only 60 per cent of the superannuation that males accumulate. Furthermore, women do tend to live longer than men—unfortunately, some of my colleagues may think. If you look at single-income homes of people in the retirement age bracket you will often see women living by themselves. Their having to sustain themselves on significantly less super is a real issue.

The government’s commitment to the low-income super contribution rebates, which provide an opportunity for those earning up to $37,000 a year to take benefits of up to an additional $500, as announced in the budget, on top of the existing co-contribution payment scheme, is important to encourage people on low incomes and incomes based on casual and part-time employment to put away more for their super. I also think it is really important that we maintain and deliver on the commitment to raise the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. It is well overdue, and it will make a huge difference for those on low incomes in particular at the point at which they retire. In fact, by the time she retires, a woman now aged 30 who has broken employment will have $78,000 extra. (Time expired)