Baby Care Payment, paid maternity leave, Eden-Monaro, Iraq

Doorstop Interview

Transcript - Uniting Church Hall, Queanbeyan - 31 March 2004

LATHAM: Okay, thanks for coming along to join us here. I'm here with Jenny Macklin, Wayne Swan and Kel Watt, our candidate for Eden-Monaro to make an announcement … policy announcement about Labor's commitment to work and family.

For the last three years the Howard Government's been talking about work and family, well today Labor's acting on it with the introduction of our new baby care payment.

Having a new child in the home is one of the great experiences of life, it's full of love and nurturing. But for a lot of families it can also be an experience with financial pressure. And our baby care payment is designed to take the pressure off families and give them greater choice and flexibility in balancing the different commitments and pressures of work and family.

Now, we've heard a lot of talk from the Howard Government, it's time to take some action. And our initiative is going to give families the support, the flexibility, the choices they need, to ensure that great experience of parenting and new child in the home is going to all be about the peace of mind, the happiness, the joy of raising the child, not all the financial worries and concerns that can come from the extra expenses and the quite significant change in lifestyle.

So, Labor's announcing this new initiative today, and following the birth of a baby, eligible mothers will receive a baby care payment. This is not just for the first child, it's for every baby under our policy. And there will be a payment of three thousand dollars from the first of July 2005 and that will be phased up to the full amount of five thousand three hundred and eighty dollars in 2010.

The payment will be available to working and non-working mothers alike, we don't make a distinction between working and non-working mums. Bringing a new child into the world is a big challenge whether you're in the workforce or not, it's got lifestyle pressures and can have financial pressures, so we don't make a distinction as to whether the recipients are working or non-working.

They need the support, they need the support and they'll get it from a Labor government. The payment will be means tested on family income at the time of the child's birth. So it won't include the mother's regular income.

The means test will be in line with the family text benefit part A. So this is a generous arrangement through which ninety per cent of families will receive the payment. The payment is tax-free and will be available through Centrelink or family assistance offices. The payment will be made fortnightly over a minimum fourteen week period.

But if families, mothers want to stretch out the amount over a longer period of time they can do so up to a year. But it won't be available in the form of a lumped sum.

This fulfils Labor's commitment of our very strong commitment we've repeatedly made to fourteen weeks paid maternity leave and it does so with no cost of business. No cost to the private sector. It's a simple, easy-to-access payment that will help families enormously. In substance, it's a two point two billion dollar commitment to Australian families and babies.

It's a significant down payment on Labor's commitment to get it right in the area of work and family. And it's also a fully funded, fully costed policy. We'll be placing a five hundred dollar cap and a phase out on the government's failed baby bonus scheme. And also absorbing the maternity allowance.

In other areas detailed in the released, we're eliminating government waste and mismanagement. I've said all along, that our goal in terms of budget management is to take money from the centre of government and get it out to the communities and the families in need. Get it out to communities and families on the edge of our society who need the support. And this baby care payment, fully funded, fully costed, will certainly do that.

I want to thank Jenny and Wayne for their work over a significant period of time along with other shadow ministers in getting this right. It is the right thing for the country. It's the right announcement for Labor to make and I might just ask Jenny and Wayne to say a few words in support.

MACKLIN: Thanks very much Mark. This is a very exciting announcement for all new mothers who from 2005 will be eligible for this baby care payment. Three thousand dollars to help mothers whether they are working or whether they are at home, to make sure that they can either have some time off work or spend time with their baby and get some financial support which is so desperately needed.

By the time the baby care payment is fully phased in, in 2010, mothers will be getting over five thousand dollars, which will be equal to the Federal Minimum wage at that time, after tax. It's a very simple payment. The whole idea is to make sure that mothers are able to get the financial support that they need when they have their baby. That they can have their time off work without the financial worries that they currently have.

And I just think it's such an exciting thing that finally Australian mothers are going to be able to get the financial support they need to have time with their babies.

SWAN: Just briefly, this puts the care of children and support for parents right to the centre of our national debate. It basically recognises that parents raising children are doing a vital job for all of us, and in that sense, this is perhaps the most significant announcement that we have made as a party in social policy for a very long period in time.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, under the policy you've announced today, some women who already receive maternity pay will receive this payment as well. Is it fair for some women to receive two material pays?

LATHAM: Well, this is payment we're making for the right reason, and it doesn't rule out or effect work-based maternity … paid maternity leave arrangements, although in considering the means test, the paid maternity amount, recreation leave, would be included.

So we acknowledge that, but we make the payment irrespective of arrangements in the workplace and we expect that unions and workers will continue to negotiation as they see fit for work-based material leave.

This is Labor's commitment for working and non-working mums. We want to do this across the board in a fair and reasonable. It is an exciting initiate and we want it as available as possible within the limits of our means test, and that's the right approach.

JOURNALIST: (indistinct) now move towards paid maternity leave, if you're stepping in with a chequebook to pay for them?

LATHAM: Well, it a matter that employers and employees will have to work out for themselves in the workplace, and there'll be different priorities according to working conditions, the different arrangements that are made.

We don't believe in a fully centralised industrial relations system. People are going to have the flexibility to bargain and reach their own arrangements according to their own priorities, and I think that's good in the industrial relation system.

But we're not mandating things or waiting for the IR system to sort it out. We're taking action for working and non-working mums now. And we'll be bringing in this payment from the first of July 2005, phasing it up to the full amount in 2010 and that is the best approach to get the resources needed by the families who want to make a better balance of work and family commitments.

JOURNALIST: What if some people get two maternity leave payments, though, and some people only get, you know, the basic minimum of one?

LATHAM: Well, if that maternity payment to work pushes them out of the means test, then they won't be receiving the baby care payments. So we take account of that in the means testing of these arrangements, but as I said to Greg, we think this is the right thing to do. We're not waiting for the Industrial Relations system, we're not ruling it out.

We want to make this a Labor Government commitment to working and non-working mums. It does fulfil our commitment to paid maternity leave but it also extends a very, very important payment to non-working mums who want to make that choice, raise their children, take the financial pressure off and get it right in terms of their work and family commitments as a partnership in the home.

REPORTER: [inaudible question]

LATHAM: Well, we've got to do this in a financially responsible way. It's a big commitment, it's a two point two billion dollar commitment and phasing it in up to the full amount in 2010 is saying two things: one, we want to do it within the limits of sound budget management; and secondly, it's a mile ahead of the government's failed baby bonus.

It's a mile ahead of the finances available to families under the baby bonus, where a third of them receive nothing, and of those who apply, ninety per cent receive five hundred dollars or less, so three thousand dollar starting amount is a mile in front of the government's failed scheme, and this is something the government's been acknowledging for a long, long while.

We've produced reports in the parliament and elsewhere where you can describe the baby bonus as a flop. Well, the government should be taking action. We're not waiting for them, we're doing it now and three thousand dollar start up amount is very good indeed.

JOURNALIST: With the starting date, does that mean that a baby born the day before won't quality for the payment? Are we going to have timed conception here?

MACKLIN: (Laughs)

LATHAM: Well, we're not getting into that. But there's obviously got to be a start up point, and we don't have a Labor budget, of course, until next year after the election so we've got to have a start up point and that's just the reality of any public policy initiative like this.

JOURNALIST: Will it be indexed after 2010?

LATHAM: Ah, yes it will, at the federal minimum wage after tax, that's an indexation commitment, so the real value of the payment is maintained over time.

JOURNALIST: Is this the beginning of the election campaign for the marginal Eden-Monaro seat?

LATHAM: Well, we're here today, it's a great spot. I dossier overnight myself when I'm in Canberra, so I know Queanbeyan quite well and been out here a few times in support of Kel, who's a great candidate.

I don't think we're starting or finishing anything here today, in terms of campaigning. What we're starting up is Labor's very firm commitment to the baby care payment and hopefully putting some pressure on the Howard government to face up to the failings of its policy and after all this talk at barbeque stoppers and three or four years of study and rhetoric, how about the government actually does something that's good for Australian families instead of just talking about?

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, on the subject of these briefings, are you going to be able to prove that you had the briefings, that the briefings extended to Iraq? Like, will you seek a clearance to produce the notes or is there some way you can prove it?

LATHAM: There weren't note takers in the meetings that I'm talking about, but in a democracy, as the Federal Parliamentary Leader of the Labor Party, I take seriously the obligations in the Parliament. And the Prime Minister started a debate … or really the Foreign Minister started it, saying I hadn't received briefings from Foreign Affairs or Defence officials. That's not true. They said those things in the Parliament. They should apologise and withdraw because I placed on the Parliamentary record the facts, the truth of the matter. And if the Prime Minister had some decency about him, he'd apologise and withdraw in recognition of what I've had to say this morning and also yesterday.

JOURNALIST: There's two very senior public servants though who have sort of contradicted your version of events. Who are the public supposed to believe? What are the public supposed to make of that?

LATHAM: Well, I placed on the public record and the Parliamentary record the truthful account of what happened, and that's what I needed to do. That is the truth. I've got to be careful about how much detail I can go into because these are two intelligence briefings, where at one level, I'd love to give a word for word account of what was said. But given the nature of the briefings, I can't do that.

So, I've given my honest account, my truthful account in the Parliament particularly this morning in response to the Prime Minister's allegations yesterday evening, and I think you'll find that what I've had to say is also consistent with the material that the Prime Minister's produced. It's consistent with what actually happened, which is the main thing.

JOURNALIST: How serious…

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, Mr Howard has referred to a record of the interview. You say there were no notes taken.

LATHAM: At the meeting itself? No, the discussion with Mr Bonighton was one on one. He was talking and I was listening. And then, I'd ask him questions and he'd give me some more information, and that's the way in which that meeting proceeded, one on one, and so too with the other meeting, there weren't note takers present, but.

JOURNALIST: What (indistinct) interview could Mr Howard have been referring to when he at first said he'd seen it, and then said he was … had been briefed on it?

LATHAM: Well, that's right. He was confused. In his own presentation, he said that he'd personally seen the record of interview, and then he said some unnamed person told him about it. I don't know how he…

JOURNALIST: [inaudible comment]

LATHAM: Well, I … well, it's unnamed. How would I know? But…

JOURNALIST: [inaudible question]

LATHAM: Sorry? And I haven't seen the record of interview, and I don't know how extensive it is. I can only give you an account of what I heard from being there, and that doesn't rely on me having written documentation or note takers. It relies on me giving you the truth – and that's what I've done.

REPORTER: So, would you like to see that record?

REPORTER: (indistinct) as Opposition Leader, you're briefed by the heads of intelligence agencies or their representatives. Do you regard those briefings as confidential or do you think it's appropriate that a record of those briefings should find their way into the Office of the Prime Minister one way or the other?

LATHAM: Well, I was treating them as confidential, and in my explanation to the Parliament yesterday, I wasn't seeking to name the agencies or go to any of the intelligence matters. The Prime Minister chose to do that yesterday evening, and I've got to say I'm surprised that he did that, given the nature of this material. As I say, I'd love to give a word for word account of what was said, but I can't.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible comment]

LATHAM: And I was surprised that the Prime Minister went that far, and from confidential briefings. Yeah, I'm surprised that these documents are now mentioned in the Parliamentary records. The Prime Minister says he hasn't seen the record of interview but he certainly mentioned it in the public arena. So that is surprising to me and a bit out of kilter with what I expected confidential briefings on intelligence matters in Australia's national security would actually be about.

JOURNALIST: Will you seek to get a clearance to talk about what happened in the meeting?

LATHAM: No, I'm not seeking anything other than an apology and withdrawal from the Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister who said, and you've all seen the Parliamentary record and heard these comments, they said that I hadn't received any briefings from Foreign Affairs or Defence on Iraq. It's just untrue. And they should apologise and withdraw for that, and that's where the matter can be cleared up in the Parliament later today.

REPORTER: Do you want Mr Bonighton to come out and support your case?

LATHAM: Well, look, he's a Defence Intelligence Officer who does his job. He's not a political figure and I'm not too sure that dragging him out into the middle of a political debate is appropriate. The Prime Minister should acknowledge the truth of what I've said this morning and apologise and withdraw for saying things that weren't true. Saying things that weren't true in the Australian Parliament.

I was thankful for the briefing I received from Mr Bonighton, but I'm not seeking to involve him in this matter any more than his proper professional duties, very serious professional duties, as an Australian Defence Intelligence Officer.

JOURNALIST: How serious is this issue in terms of your credibility?

JOURNALIST: In Parliament you said that … this morning in the parliament you said that your (indistinct) from the ASIS representative contained material relevant to Iraq. Was it about Iraq or not?

LATHAM: Well, look, in the nature of the intelligence matters I just can't specify.

JOURNALIST: But you said …

LATHAM: No, look, I need to be careful about what I say to get my truthful account out on the public arena in response to the Prime Minister's false allegations. On the other side I've got to be careful about not betraying the confidentiality and the supreme national security issues that get mentioned in these briefings. So I need to be careful about the precise form of words that I use and that's what I did in the Parliament today. It's on the public record and it's the truth.

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, have you misread public mood on this issue? Most people seem to think that we should keep our troops there.

LATHAM: Well, you know, journalists can make those judgments as they look at these polls and what not. We make policy in the national interest. We do things because we think it's right and we had the Parliamentary debate yesterday and it's all on the public record as to why Labor's policy is the right approach for Australia.

JOURNALIST: You said one thing and the Prime Minister's said something else, how serious is this issue in terms of your credibility and his credibility?

LATHAM: Well, others can make those judgments. I'm just reluctant to go into it any further. I've answered the questions. I've given my account under Parliamentary record. Given the sensitivity of the material I've really just got to leave it at that.

LATHAM: Any other questions?

JOURNALIST: Mr Latham on the baby care, you have a couple of couples in here. Joe and Anna and Steve and Tanya are those real couples and if they are not what is the difference between this and what Dr Nelson got up to in Parliament the other day?

LATHAM: Well they don't live in Green Valley. They haven't written me a letter.

SWAN: They are cameos and can be identified as cameos.

MACKLIN: They are cameos.

SWAN: There is a world of difference and no-one said they were anything else.

LATHAM: And I haven't referred them to Pat Farmer. And nobody is standing in the Parliament pretending it to be true.

MACKLIN: They are cameos.

LATHAM: Case studies.

JOURNALIST: Will you now seek a briefing from DFAT? Not from the intelligence agency but from Foreign Affairs as Mr Downer has offered?

LATHAM: Well, I answered that yesterday by saying we're always receiving information. The two Shadow Ministers, Chris Evans, Kevin Rudd. Kevin was in Baghdad last year. Chris received his briefings as Shadow Minister for Defence. He went through an extensive Senate Estimates process just recently, so we're not dancing to the government's tune. We're collecting information to support, verify Labor policy making.

And if you're asking me, my time as Opposition Leader all the information I've gathered on the Iraq issue, if you're asking me is our policy correct – absolutely, absolutely, from the things that I've been told.

JOURNALIST: Is David Irvine telling the truth in the letter that the Prime Minister tabled yesterday?

LATHAM: Look, I mentioned on those details I'm not getting into that particular area. I'm telling the truth, that's the important thing. I'm telling the truth on the Parliamentary and the public record and that's what the Prime Minister should recognise by apologising and withdrawing.

JOURNALIST: Is the whole issue over problem too over the briefing (indistinct) politicisation of the agency?

LATHAM: Well, others can make that judgment. I've expressed my surprise that confidential briefings are used by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives seemingly as a political tool. I'm surprised by that. Maybe I shouldn't be, given some of the past scandals of the Howard government – kids overboard and the like – and some of the recent experiences with the Australian Federal Police Commissioner. But even with the low standards of the Howard Government sometimes you still live in wonder.

JOURNALIST: If you think that's a serious issue why would a … why is an apology and a withdrawal sufficient? Shouldn't … is that all you're seeking?

JOURNALIST: Maybe he should resign over it I reckon.

LATHAM: (Laughs) Well, there's a fellow who reckons they should resign. Well, the chance to get the Prime Minister to resign is to vote him out at the next election and a good start is in Eden-Monaro with Kel Watt so (laughs) okay, thanks very much.

Ends. E & OE