Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Hansard source

I'm really pleased to rise to support the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. It's actually good to have a positive debate in this place about paid parental leave. It wasn't so long ago—in fact, it was on Mother's Day—when then Treasurer Joe Hockey accused parents of being double-dippers when they took the government paid parental leave and, if they were lucky enough, took employment based parental leave. That was a very polarising debate and a very disappointing debate, because we know that even our current scheme of paid parental leave is actually way behind the rest of the world. While the bill here today is a small but important step along the journey of improving paid parental leave, we are behind the rest of the world. Indeed, the government called anyone, but particularly women, who was taking advantage of two paid parental leave schemes—people cobbling together enough time to spend with their newborn baby—a double-dipper. I had just had a baby at that time and I remember the outrage at my mothers group. My mothers group, or parents group—only women were there—was outraged. Those women weren't necessarily political but took great offence when they were trying to balance work and family—trying to work out how they were going to get back to work, how they were going to balance their childcare responsibilities, how their husband was going to get time off and who would do the pick-ups and drop-offs. When they were managing all of that as new parents and new families, guess what—the government basically told them they were robbing the taxpayer. It was absolutely outrageous. I hope that we won't see any movement from this government to, once again, go down the path of ripping away the government paid parental leave scheme if you are lucky enough to have a small amount paid by your employer. That is just outrageous.

It is a really important issue. As I said, we are behind the rest of the world. Even with our current system, the rest of the world is miles ahead of us. It's not just the Nordic countries, which we so often point to as being very progressive; there are many other countries around the world that are doing much better than Australia. I think that, as time goes by, we are not going to see this as a really important issue in terms of gender equality in this country—in fact, it is really important—but we are going to start to see that this is about economics. It is about ensuring that companies don't lose their skilled workers from the workplace after they've put in the training. It makes economic sense to keep the caregiver, predominantly the woman, connected to the workplace. It is really important that women come back to work and don't lose out on the pathway to promotion. That is also important.

As previous speakers have said, it's also important that we have a cultural change in this country so that either men or women take paid parental leave. I feel very lucky that I have just had another baby, and here I have my partner who has taken 12 months of unpaid leave to raise our child. That works for our family, but I want to get to a situation where I am not an anomaly. I want to get to this situation: when a couple is having a baby, the question is, 'Who's taking the paid parental leave? Who's doing the caring? Are you sharing it? Who's taking it first and who's taking it second?' It's only in that type of society that we will really ensure that women and men are equal. Everyone has a free choice. I'm not suggesting the choice that my family has made will work for everyone, but what we need is a scenario where both cultural levers and policy levers are working together to make sure that it is a free choice for families on how they care for their child and stay connected to the workplace.

The bill before the House will enable working families to split their paid parental leave entitlements into blocks of time over a two-year period with a period of work in between. Currently the Paid Parental Leave scheme only allows for leave to be taken as a continuous 18-week block within the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child. The primary carer is not allowed to return to work before they take the leave. This bill will change the paid parental leave rules by splitting the 18 weeks of paid parental leave into a 12-week paid parental leave. And a six-week flexible paid parental leave, allowing the primary carer to access a 12-week block any time during the first 12 months and making the six-week flexible block available anytime during the first 12 years and allowing it to be used as required, not as a block.

I think it's important that these changes will introduce more flexibility to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. It's likely that the most common use of the increased flexibility will be parents returning to work, perhaps part time or casual, and spreading their flexible paid parental leave over several months. I think this is a really important thing. We see more and more opportunities for flexible work. While we still have a long way to go, there is opportunity to work at home and do bits and pieces with technology. We do have a situation where those on paid parental leave don't feel that they are breaking the rules or are guilty if they take up some of those flexible opportunities to work at home, work part time and do a little bit here and there so that they can continue to have that connection with the workplace. Indeed, as the secondary caregiver to my child, coming to work sometimes feels like a break! There is no doubt about it. For me, the connection to my work, which I feel very passionately about, was really important. It needs to be recognised that some primary caregivers would want to have that connection.

But I think the key here is making sure that we are listening to what families want. I would like to congratulate the former member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, for pursuing the changes in front of the chamber today. She was a fierce advocate and a good role model for women in politics. I know that she had an uphill battle with her own party a lot of the time. She didn't tell me that; I just witnessed it. I would like to recognise the work she has done, but I think it's important to recognise that the changes before us are modest. What they don't do—and it's something that many of us on the side of the House feel very passionately about—is make the change to pay superannuation on the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. The shadow minister for health is here in the chamber. This is an issue that he has been pursuing with a passion—ensuring that we can have superannuation paid on parental leave. While it's important that we are paying women—and men—for the time they have off work, their superannuation balances take a hit when they take this unpaid leave. That has ramifications in the later years, in retirement. And we know that that hit is compounding: for every dollar that doesn't go in early, it compounds so that there are many more dollars that those individuals miss out on when it comes to their retirement savings.

This isn't something that is part of this bill, and I think we need to look very closely at ensuring that we address the issue of superannuation on paid parental leave. I know that many companies pay parental leave as part of their enterprise agreement. They have chosen to do this, and I commend them for it. But let's be frank. Many companies do this not because it is the right thing to do—although they might think that—but because it makes economic sense. They don't want to lose their talent. Especially in specialised industries, where there is a real labour shortage, they need to be competitive and attractive—and they need to be attractive to skilled women workers as well. That's why many of them have chosen to do this. It is time that the government scheme caught up with that. I would certainly be very keen to look at that.

The paid parental leave scheme that we have in this country, the government Paid Parental Leave scheme, is a legacy of the Rudd-Gillard government. This was something that was pursued at the time. It is well out of date. What it did was provide a safety net for many women who were in casual work who did not get a paid parental leave scheme as part of their base employment conditions. It was a very important social reform in this country. But we cannot stand still. I think we need to very much look at both government levers and cultural change where we can do better when it comes to paid parental leave.

The new government in Finland has announced it will provide each parent with more than 6½ months of paid leave, with a further six months to share. Iceland has recently introduced three months of paid parental leave for fathers or the secondary caregiver, making sure that the burden of domestic, at-home, unpaid work is shared with the secondary caregiver. The world is moving. I think we need to have a serious look at how we are doing. When we look at the duration of paid parental leave and the rate of pay, we are now ranked near the bottom of the OECD, only ahead of the United States and Ireland. We need to work as a parliament, as the Australian political class, to do better.

We know that women currently retire with superannuation balances 42 per cent lower than those of men, and so part of that is looking seriously at the time out that they have not just during the paid parental leave period but also during a much broader spectrum of their caring responsibilities. That is something that I know weighs heavily on the minds of many on this side of the House. How do we make sure that women don't retire into poverty? It is a critical question. Of course, we need to also look at how we change and model the culture of dads and partners taking more time out of work. As I started, it would be great to have a situation where a new baby is coming and the question is: 'So, how are you going to split your parental leave? How are you going to manage it? Who's taking the first bit? Who's taking the second bit?' That should be the question. There shouldn't be an automatic assumption that it is the woman, no matter how much they are paid. I've heard many scenarios where it has actually been the woman earning more than the man but the automatic assumption is that the woman takes the time off.

I have to say, I think dads in this country are yearning for this. I probably shouldn't disclose this, because my husband is here in the building, but I will: I think he was very concerned about taking unpaid parental leave off work. He was concerned about how his work might perceive it and how his colleagues might perceive it. I think he thought he would get daddy day care T-shirts left on his desk and things like that. Indeed, many of his friends and colleagues had said to him, 'I wish I could have done that.' I think there is a yearning for dads to want to play more of a role in the caring responsibilities. I think we need to send a clear message as policymakers that we welcome it. We want this to happen. The best outcome that I see for my children is that if one of them gets hurt they are able to go to either mum or dad for comfort. That is ultimately what I want for my children, that we are equal partners in achieving this.

I commend the bill in front of us. It is a modest measure, but we do need to do better. We can do better. I think all of us owe it to the Australian community to put our heads together about how we help Australian families to juggle their care and work responsibilities.

See this speech in context