Senator STOTT DESPOJA (3:28 PM) —I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to acknowledge the questions asked particularly by the ALP today and to take note of the answers particularly in relation to this so-called family friendly budget. The Australian Democrats have already put on record our grave concern about the lack of assistance for low- and middle-income earners during the period of this government but I emphasise, in particular, the concern that we have about tax cuts aimed at high-income earners instead of equal tax cuts and an increase in services for those in our society who suffer the most.

This budget looks very generous at face value when you deal with not only the tax cuts but, in particular, some of the so-called family friendly provisions. Most Australian families would readily acknowledge that they will be paying increased costs and have been paying an increased amount in the form of user pays over the period of this government for services such as health and education and through the social security system, particularly in light of means testing arrangements and the government's penalties in relation to overpayments when it comes to social security.

It comes as no surprise that, having tabled the first ever piece of paid maternity leave legislation in this place, I have an interest in the maternity payment that this government put forward last night. While the Democrats are on record as acknowledging that this is a welcome and long overdue measure, it is still a measure that slaps working women. It hits hard at working families, particularly those where a woman is in the workplace.

In the last few hours in the debates in this chamber and on television last night, I have heard continual references to the `average worker'. One reference I heard was to an average worker `who has a wife and children'. We are talking in this debate as if women are not the average—as if they are not part of the community. I say that as a warning to senators opposite, particularly government members and ministers, who seem to forget, when they talk about family friendliness and inclusiveness, that women are 52 per cent of the population.

Another figure worth remembering for this government is that two-thirds of Australian working women did not have access to any payment upon the birth of a child if they were in the work force. I acknowledge that the government has changed that. Last night the government talked about a $3,000 payment applying to all women upon the birth of a child. I commend the so-called universality of that payment—it was certainly a problem I had with the Labor Party's so-called baby care payment. But $3,000 is still not good enough. I know that working women and women around Australia who have children are desperate for some kind of payment, but $3,000 is a real token effort.

I put forward a private member's bill on this matter years ago, as senators would know. I costed my model based on paying 14 weeks maternity leave. That is the ILO recommended period that women should have off work when they have a child, for biological and other imperatives. For 14 weeks women should be paid at least the minimum wage. The minimum wage over 14 weeks would amount to around $6,400, and this payment is $3,000—less than half of that payment. That is not good enough. Any workers out there—male or female—with families, who are bringing up kids or who have just had children will understand that, while $3,000 is good and no-one sniffs at it, it is not enough. It is not enough to end the systematic discrimination that takes place against women in the work force who decide to have a child.

Women often put off having a child. In particular, families put off having a second child because of the increased costs of living in our society. Some women decide not to tell their workplaces that they are pregnant because of the possibility of discrimination and indeed termination of employment. Women worry that they will not get their jobs back after having a child. Of more concern from a health and social perspective are the women who go back to work too quickly. We heard during a Senate inquiry the story of one woman who, two weeks after a caesarean, returned to the office.

You have to remember that women are often the heads of sole parent families, which have not been adequately assisted by the budget package that came down last night. Australians are conscious of the need for increased services as well as the need of some families for tax cuts, but these tax cuts are not equitable, they are not fair and they do not deserve to be passed in this form. As for the maternity payment, the Democrats will acknowledge that it is a start—but talk about the longest gestation period in history for a policy! (Time expired)

Question agreed to.