Senator CROSSIN (5:02 PM) —I move:

I would like to make some comments about this report and in particular about the issue of paid maternity leave. We certainly welcomed the Workplace Relations Amendment (Paid Maternity Leave) Bill 2002, which was introduced by the Democrats. This bill, and the contents of this bill, has contributed to the continuing debate on paid maternity leave. You will note that in our minority report, while we are unable to support the contents of this bill, we do recognise that the referral of this bill to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee has given not only this chamber but those who provided evidence before this committee a valuable opportunity to consider in detail some of the issues surrounding the introduction of paid maternity leave in this country.

Firstly, it is important to mention that the Labor senators' minority report conveys the overall opinion of the 34 submissions that were made to the committee that paid maternity leave is needed in this country and is supported. From memory, we received only three submissions that did not hold the view that paid maternity leave should be supported. Submissions came from a number of areas, such as industry, unions, community organisations and individuals. Most of the evidence and submissions before the committee supported the introduction of paid maternity leave by government and the benefits that would flow from that.

One of the cornerstone issues of this inquiry was whether paid maternity leave was an industrial right or a social right of women in this country. It is interesting to note that the majority report on behalf of the government refers to only the submission from the Women's Action Alliance, who argued that they saw it as a social right. The Australian Family Association also held that view. They are the only two. Most of the people who presented evidence to this inquiry—particularly industry, I might say, and the unions, the Australian Council of Trade Unions—felt that it was most definitely and appropriately classified as a workplace relations issue. That is, industry bodies saw that it was absolutely a work related entitlement. It was like annual leave, leave for Army Reserve or jury service or sick leave. Related to the fact that you necessarily take a period of time off work to have a child, the relationship between taking this sort of leave and work puts it clearly in the industrial arena and the arena of it being a workplace relations issue rather than a social policy issue.

The other thing that is interesting is that this bill seeks to amend the Workplace Relations Act. The Labor Party would contend that perhaps in the introduction of paid maternity leave this is not entirely the appropriate way in which this should be done. Our report goes to the fact that, while the Workplace Relations Act specifies that women in this country should have a right to unpaid maternity leave and makes provision for that, the Workplace Relations Act does not currently provide an avenue for payment of government moneys. For example, just as the Workplace Relations Act does not provide for, say, the payment of superannuation or workers' entitlements on becoming redundant, nor should it provide for this payment. In our report we have suggested that there would need to be an entirely separate act struck for this purpose—perhaps a paid maternity leave act in its own right—that would somehow enable this provision and the recognition of this right being paid to women. So one of the basic elements on which we would differ is the actual use of the Workplace Relations Act in order to ensure that this entitlement is introduced.

A wide range of views were expressed to the committee regarding the appropriate level of payment under a paid maternity leave scheme. Four levels of payment were suggested: minimum wage, average wage, average female wage or full wage replacement. A number of those options were canvassed. The contentious issues before the committee were: who should be eligible for this paid maternity leave, what the qualifying period should be—or whether in fact there should be a qualifying period at all—and whether mothers outside the paid work force should be included in the scheme. A number of submissions expressed concern that currently there is not adequate support available to women and families in Australia. This is despite the government's position that the baby bonus is more than appropriate. We have seen Senator Minchin expressing that view in question time this week. Certainly, though, the introduction of paid maternity leave is intended clearly for women who are in paid work and recognises that they need time off from that paid employment in order to have children.

The other contentious issue was whether the Workplace Relations Amendment (Paid Maternity Leave) Bill 2002 fails to provide sufficient support for women in state governments. We have seen that there is inconsistency in state government provisions across this country. South Australian public servants only get two weeks paid leave, as opposed to those in the ACT or the Northern Territory, who get 12 weeks paid leave. The other issue is whether the leave should be available only to mothers or to either parent. It was consistently suggested that there should be a certain amount of flexibility included in the bill, for various situations. This was advocated by the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women, for example.

The economic benefits for industry and society as a whole were also discussed. I think this has to be seen as the key focus as to why you would want to introduce such a scheme in this country. The economic benefits were mentioned in a submission made by Esprit, for example, who we know have introduced paid maternity leave. This is not just about women and it is not just about fertility rates. There is a broader social, economic and moral issue involved here. That was supported by the industry groups that appeared before us in this inquiry.

We now know that the Australian Labor Party are committed to the introduction of paid maternity leave for all Australian women in paid work. We see that it would be one part of a set of coordinated policies that will help balance work and family. Although, as the Labor Party have previously stated, paid maternity leave is not in itself sufficient to eradicate any gender based inequities in employment, it is an essential aspect of any attempt to enhance the capacity to balance work and family responsibilities and to lessen the adverse impact of parenthood on women's employment outcomes.

Throughout the inquiry, it was quite evident that this issue is not about Australia's falling fertility rates. The Democrats' report to this bill, like our report, suggests that the case for paid maternity leave is not dependent on the fertility argument, as some members of the government want it to be. The case for paid maternity leave is very strong on the grounds of antidiscrimination, the welfare of mothers and babies, employer costs, and equity between women. Those who made submissions to this inquiry have not presented the fertility rate as the main driver of the need for paid maternity leave.

In finishing, I want to say that I found very disappointing the submissions given to us by the federal departments and the OSW as they appeared before the committee. I now understand the dilemma they were in, because this government clearly does not have a solid position on the introduction of paid maternity leave—as this report shows. This government believes the introduction of paid maternity leave should be left to market forces. It believes that employers and workplaces should be responsible for introducing their own workplace arrangements, their own paid maternity leave arrangements. The split in the government's position on this issue is shown in this report and is shown in its complete lack of commitment and lack of understanding of the issues and the complex arguments. It is shown in the fact, for example, that the chair of the legislation committee could not even be here to present this report himself.