Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was on a roll before I was rudely interrupted by the business of the House, so I'll try to get back into the rhythm of things. I was talking about the coalition's record of supporting government funded paid parental leave and how far that commitment goes back. In the 2010 and 2013 elections, the coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver mothers six months paid parental leave based on their actual wage. If those opposite, who today have been celebrating this legislation and their party's commitment to paid parental leave, had supported this landmark coalition policy back in 2010, Australian families would have had access to one of the most generous government funded paid parental leave schemes in the world. That scheme would have now been in place for over a decade. Imagine how many families would have been able to access that scheme over the last 10 years and how many Australian women could have benefited from that policy.

The coalition recognises both the social and economic benefits of paid parental leave. It's the coalition that will always be fully committed to supporting women's participation in the workforce, which, we should never forget, rose to record highs under the previous coalition government. It should come as no surprise given our record that the coalition, even in opposition, will not waver from a long-standing ambition to provide genuine support for Australian families, so we will be supporting this bill. As previously mentioned, the amendments in Labor's Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 builds on the changes to the PPL scheme originally announced by the coalition in the March 2022 budget less than a year ago. We welcome the government's plan to extend parental leave pay from 18 weeks to 20 weeks from 1 July.

In government, the coalition set out to create a single 20-week payment under the PPL scheme by combining dad and partner pay with the PLP. Making a 20-week payment fully flexible to eligible working parents will also see parents share the entitlement between them by as much or as little as would work with their specific circumstances within two years of their child's birth or adoption. As the increased flexibility offered by this bill may pose some administrative challenges for small and family businesses, the coalition has sought assurances from the Albanese government that amendments will not negatively impact small businesses and has requested that Services Australia will provide meaningful support and guidance to businesses to manage the scheme to minimise any possible financial impact and, further, that businesses will be made aware of the changes to the scheme well in advance of the 1 July this year.

Beyond expanding access by introducing the $350,000 income test previously proposed by the coalition and further increasing flexibility by allowing claimants to use their paid leave entitlement that best suits them, this will also significantly expand eligibility under the scheme. The bill also provides for an eligible father or partner to receive parental leave pay irrespective of the birth mother's income test status, residency requirements or newly arrived resident waiting period. The impact of these measures are significant both in their scope and in the sweeping nature of their impact, and, while resolute in our support, the coalition is mindful of Labor's poor record when it comes to the implementation of the many schemes they've brought about. That's something that we'll certainly be keeping an eye on as the government seeks to, beyond the passage of this bill, implement this scheme.

One final point, in the lead-up to the 2022-23 October budget, the Albanese government announced the scheme would be progressively increased to 26 weeks. As this bill fails to mention this change, if Labor has now shelved its proposed increase to 26 weeks, the Prime Minister needs to come clean with the Australian public. We deserve a straight answer from the government on that front about what has happened to their commitment regarding 26 weeks. I know this isn't a government famed for providing details on its policies. Those on our side have certainly been asking for a lot more detail on a lot of the government's policies in recent weeks and months. But my constituents do want to know. It's a question that's been asked by many of my constituents when I've gone door to door discussing changes to PPL. They want to know whether the proposal to extend this leave to 26 weeks is anywhere in the government's thinking for this program in the future. With that in mind, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context