Page 2669 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico: Especially if it is a man, I tell you.
MR LAMONT: It is that sort of ridicule that I would expect from you, Mr De Domenico, because that is about your depth of understanding of these issues. A great deal of expertise has been able to be retained in the work force to make our industry more efficient. The costs associated with employing people are less because the level of training is reduced. You have expert workers, trained workers, able now to re-enter the work force, whereas before that opportunity was quite often denied.
A permanent employee might be taken on and there would be no slot for these people to come back in at the end of the period of parental leave. Without doubt, there have been some difficulties experienced in that situation, but the interesting thing is that they have been worked out between employers and employees - exactly the process you were suggesting, Mr De Domenico. They have been worked out within the framework of the regulations, either under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or under State Acts around the country. We are suggesting that, if there are difficulties, there is the opportunity for them to be worked out between the employer and the employee.
I welcome back to the chamber the Leader of the Opposition, who I know has a longstanding commitment to the issue of parental leave. I have heard him speak in the past on the merits of this matter, and it will be heart-warming to hear him support the Government's legislation on this day.
MR MOORE (12.03): Madam Speaker, I rise with pleasure to support this Bill. I am particularly delighted that it should be called the Parental Leave Bill rather than the Maternal Leave Bill. I have experienced the great pleasures of being the house spouse. I know that some people like to use other terms, but I rather like the term "house spouse". I liked it then, and I still like it. It has a nice ring to it. I was fortunate enough to be able to get back into work. However, one of the major factors in making a decision as to whether a particular parent can spend some time at home with the children is the ability to find work at the end of the time.
By legislating in this way, I believe that we are providing people with the opportunity to spend more time with their families in bringing up their children. I would have thought that, with that in mind, the Liberal Party in particular, who are so keen on family values, would have taken the opportunity to support such a positive move. It ensures that the family has the sort of support the legislature can provide for it. It is therefore with great pleasure that I offer my support to this Bill.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (12.05), in reply: Madam Speaker, I will deal with Mr Stevenson's contribution first. He asked, "Where does it come from?". I must say that that was a contribution that was aimed to mislead, as if there is something wrong when we move to improve the rights of working people out in the community. Mr Stevenson might not have noticed, but the history of this country has been about trying to improve the living standards of Australian people, and we will continue to do that. After all, we have the responsibility, as people in government, to improve the living standards of people wherever we can. We are merely caretakers of the existing wages and working conditions and general living conditions in the community. It is our obligation to move to improve them at all times.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .