Sky News PM Agenda with Laura Jayes
E&OE
Subjects: Paid Parental Leave
LAURA JAYES:
Now turning to your portfolio, what is the purpose of the reforms you’re persisting with? Because it was politically difficult when Joe Hockey was the Treasurer, to clamp down on these so-called ‘double-dippers’, a term you’ve not used, which is noted, but what are you actually trying to achieve here?
MINISTER PORTER:
Well the reforms that I’m perusing are quite different from the ones that Joe Hockey announced in the 2016/16 budget, but in effect this system, the paid parental leave system, is in some strong need of reform. Presently under the system that we have, a whole range of mums are excluded. Mum’s in physical professions like mining or construction – jockeys, female jockeys are excluded – because of the nature of their work and the work test. A whole range of mums in casual jobs end up being excluded, and then yet, at the other end of the spectrum you’ve got a whole range of high-income white-collared workers who have the benefit of getting a combined PPL of sometimes around $44,000 or greater, which is takes a low-income worker an entire year to earn. So we’re seeking to try and rebalance, bring more people into the system and spread it more generously to low-income earners, but provide some reasonable limits, based in effect around income and the generosity of a private scheme at the other end of the PPL spectrum.
LAURA JAYES:
But if this is not about saving money, why are you making savings in this area? Or why not reinvest that entire $1.2 billion?
MINISTER PORTER:
Well this is, obviously, about trying to make the system, i.e. the PPL system, sustainable and the overall welfare system sustainable, so no one’s arguing that there aren’t some savings here, there are. Some of those are being reinvested to make the system more generous at the lower income end, and to bring in casual workers and bring in women who work in physical environments of which, happily, there are far more, and that’s a growing number.
But to make that system sustainable going forward, we have to have some reasonable limitations around the access at the other end. And the scheme that we’re proposing is that everyone will get a minimum of 18 weeks at, at least the minimum wage. So if your employer pays you pro-rata at your wage for 14 weeks then the government, through the taxpayer will top you up for the extra four weeks at minimum wage. So, everyone gets the base minimum at minimum wage for 18 weeks. Now some people who have generous employee schemes will do a little bit better than that, but what it also means is we can grow the scheme at the lower income end. And it’s not just this generation of mums, Laura that we’re trying to look after here. It’s a generation of mums in a decade, or two decades time. And we just think that where the growth should happen in this scheme is at the lower income end of it.
LAURA JAYES:
But how many mothers do you know can actually go back to work after 18 weeks? It’s not all that generous is it?
MINISTER PORTER:
Well no one’s suggesting that people should go back after 18 weeks. That is a minimum safety net period that the system will allow for. And 95 per cent of all of the women who enter into the PPL scheme have partners, and that’s just what the data shows us, so the tests around income are of course just for the parent, they’re not tested around family income. And of course many people take longer than 18 weeks, and they do that in consideration of their own circumstances, their family income and what it is that they feel is the best blend and balance for themselves.
So no one’s saying that everyone has to return to work at the end of 18 weeks, but what we are saying is that if we could have a system that grows at the lower income end year in year out, and provides a minimum safety net, then that safety net properly is around about 18 weeks, which we can guarantee at least minimum wage.
But what we can’t afford to do is having someone getting a combined amount of PPL greater than another person takes all year to earn through full time work – now that’s a system that’s just not sustainable…
LAURA JAYES:
But Minister, it’s very convenient for the government to sight the Productivity Commission, and Productivity Commission reports when it suits you, and the Productivity Commission, which you’re ignoring in this interview, is that they said that this scheme was designed, and these recommendations were designed to coincide with employer schemes as well. Why haven’t you taken that into account?
MINISTER PORTER:
Well that’s precisely what we have done. Because what we say is that, if you have an employer scheme and that provides you with 12 weeks, than you’ll be topped six weeks, if you have 14 weeks, you’ll be topped up four weeks to 18 weeks. So we’ve taken into account the way in which private schemes work, and generous employer schemes work, and we’ve blended the two – but in a way that we think is sustainable.
And it is growing Laura, but what we want to have is the system growing where the need is the greatest, which is at the lower income spectrum of mums to be.
LAURA JAYES:
You haven’t given mothers, mums to be, a lot of lead time here. Why have you chosen to want to implement this in just a couple of months?
MINISTER PORTER:
Well, to be fair I think that this was a matter that was introduced in last December’s midyear economic forecast. We spoke about it openly and transparently before the election. I remember doing several interviews where the point of those interviews was to acknowledge that if we were re-elected than we would be pursuing these reforms that were announced in December last year. So, it’s not as if this matter has been a surprise or a secret, in fact…
LAURA JAYES:
It wasn’t a huge feature of the election campaign though. It hasn’t been a huge feature in the last couple of months, and you and I know that the voters are pretty much well plugged in to what can and can’t easily pass the Senate and then therefore effectively pass into law. So given where this is at the moment, I mean are you guaranteeing – I assume you’ve spoken to the cross-bench – how confident are you this will pass by the end of the year?
MINISTER PORTER:
Well, I mean we’re in continuing negotiations. We’ve certainly had some positive signs, I think, even the media over the last couple of days from Derryn Hinch, from Pauline Hanson and Senators that she represents…
LAURA JAYES:
What about Nick Xenophon?
MINISTER PORTER:
Those negotiations are continuing. But the same arguments and rationales that we’re putting to Nick Xenophon’s Team are the same that I’m putting to you here today – that it surely isn’t right that we have a system where one mum, with a generous employer scheme, who might work for a bank or be a very senior public servant, is able to take home $44,000 over an 18 week period, and then a cashier at Coles who can work fulltime and still not earn that amount in a full year. Now that’s a system that, we would say and we are arguing with Nick Xenophon and his team and other crossbenchers, is not a sustainable system going forward. And as I say, it’s not just this generation of mums that we have to make the system sustainable for, it has to be sustainable well over the next several decades. And we want to have the system grow, but we want it growing where the need is the greatest at the lower income end of the spectrum.
LAURA JAYES:
What do you think it says to voters about the governments priorities when you’re making $1.2 billion is savings in a paid parental leave scheme, but you’re refusing to look at negative gearing?
MINISTER PORTER:
They’re two, obviously, very different issues, but if I were an Australian family, and I were expecting a child and someone told me that negative gearing was going to be changed along Labor’s lines, I would be very concerned that either my house price would drop – my established home price would drop – or indeed that rentals would go up.
So the opposition to the Labor changes to negative gearing are very, very well placed. And if those changes were ever to happen, and I hope that they don’t, that would be a very bad thing indeed for families.
So chasing revenue which could cause house prices to decrease and rents to go up, is not a very a good way to chase revenue in the observation of the Turnbull Government.
LAURA JAYES:
Minister, just finally, I want to talk to you and ask you about this story on the front page of the Daily Telegraph today. A couple who are Ice addicts have had eight children removed from their care, are now pregnant with their ninth child, who they’re fighting to keep – how can it even be contemplated that they would be allowed to keep this new little baby??
MINISTER PORTER:
Well ultimately those are the decisions for state government departments of child protection. But I must say I would share the view that you’ve put, that it seems to me it would not be a very wise decision to allow that child to stay with that family.
From a federal perspective, one of the things that I noted in the speech to the Press Club recently is that we need to really examine mutual responsibilities because inside the welfare system there are a whole range of monies that are transferred, and welfare payments that are made in a whole range of areas there aren’t very strong, if any, mutual obligations tied to those monies.
But, what you’ve noted is a state responsibility, and I must say that I share the view that you’ve put in your question.
LAURA JAYES:
Social Services Minister, Christian Porter, we thank you for your time.
MINISTER PORTER:
Thank you Laura.