Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the words of the member for Corangamite. She eloquently summed up where we are at with this bill and the significant work that has been done to date. As a bill that seeks to improve the lives of working families in Australia whilst also improving outcomes for children and advancing gender equality, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 is indeed a welcome step in the right direction. Yet even in the face of its introduction, many in my community of North Sydney continue to lament the fact that Australia remains far behind much of the rest of the world when it comes to family support and paid parental leave provisions. With so much evidence accumulating around the world of the benefits of adopting progressive policies to support shared care and gender balance in a society, why is it that we as a nation seem to still be debating legislative reform that has been operating in some countries for more than four decades?

Australia can and should go further in adopting international best practice, including the payment of superannuation, unpaid parental leave, ensuring 26 weeks is the minimum leave entitlement for a family, and furthering the 'use it or lose it' provisions to encourage greater shared care. Shockingly, expanding the paid parental leave payment from 20 to 26 weeks by July 2026 is the largest investment in this scheme since it was introduced in 2011. In the time of at least four prior governments, this is the single largest investment we have seen in this scheme in over a decade. Our public policy is not keeping pace with societal expectations. In this context, I thank all who have been tirelessly advocating for these improvements over many years, and I'm grateful that this government is currently listening to voices of women and families.

Extending the period reserved for a non-childbearing partner from two to four weeks should better encourage shared care. However, as a mother of three, in the course of a child's life or, indeed, a baby's first 12 months, four weeks is barely a drop in the ocean. Encouraging both parents to share the responsibility of caring for young children fundamentally shifts a cultural expectation which currently frequently forces women into the primary care role regardless of what a family may desire. I believe our goal as a society should be to provide families with the maximum support they need to enable them to choose who the primary carer is and when without a gender biased lens brought no the discussion. As stated by one North Sydney mother: 'I think sharing caring responsibilities is critical. Men need greater incentives to pause their careers, and women need to be free from the patriarchal assumption they are better at the at-home piece and less likely to be able to support the family financially.'

International experience shows us the fastest way to address the gender pay gap is to introduce shared paid parental leave. When I first saw this in action in Finland in 1988, I was incredibly impressed by the impact such a practice had. At the time in Finland, every family expecting a child received an enormous box of products in the later months of their pregnancy. In that box was a pram, formula, bottles, nappies, indeed, pretty much everything a child or a family could need for the first 12 months of a baby's life. The box even doubled as a crib for the first six months of the child's life. In this way, that community was ensuring all children began life on an equal footing, and families, regardless of their economic circumstances, were supported in their decision to have a child.

The other thing that struck me while there was the clear expectation of shared parental responsibility, with each partner taking time to be with their child in that first 12 months. This isn't something that was forced on them. It was something they were empowered to choose, and, therefore, they were encouraged to do it. The long-term impact was absolutely evident in both the operation and the attitudes of their society. At the time, this was in stark contrast to where I'd come from here in Australia. At that stage, it still felt very largely like it was every woman, or perhaps even every baby for itself. At the time, our country was disputing single-parent payments, accusing women of deliberately getting pregnant so they could live off the government, whilst also making it clear that it was the man's job to provide for the family.

As the Grattan Institute noted in 2021:

Greater sharing of childcare is one of the best ways to improve women's economic security.

But I'd go one step further in asserting that greater sharing of child care is one of the best ways to strengthen family bonds and connection and, ultimately, improve community attitudes and behaviour. For this to be possible, however, flexibility and equity in approach are especially important. Ensuring both parents are encouraged and enabled to take leave during a child's first year of life can make a huge difference in the way a family and society operates, and it's for this reason we should be embracing this reform as a priority. My wish is that both my daughters and my son will know that, when they choose to have their families, our community is united in its expectation that they are equal to their partner in parenting responsibilities.

Recently the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce reported Australian women still face deep gender inequality and continue to shoulder a disproportionate burden of unpaid labour across all spheres of life. From being caregivers, nurturers and educators to taking on professional roles and community leadership, women's essential contributions are often undervalued and unpaid, perpetuating economic inequality. Outdated systems, policies and norms discount women from active participation in our society and our workforces. Indeed, the estimated value to the Australian economy that could be realised by purposefully removing the persistent barriers to women's full and equal participation in economic activity is an astounding $128 billion.

As one North Sydney carer said to me recently:

Being a full-time carer for a young child is such an undervalued role in society. It's an enormous undertaking to raise a healthy, happy, kind child with both parents working.

We are indeed fortunate to live in this country, yet it must be acknowledged that the Australian Paid Parental Leave scheme is one of the least adequate in the developed world. Not only is the leave significantly less than OECD countries' average; it presents significant gender inequality and limited access to services and leaves Australian families facing financial hardship. If current working patterns continue, the average 25-year-old woman today who has just one child can expect to earn $2 million less over her lifetime than the average 25-year-old man who becomes a father. How can this be allowed to be so in our nation? The North Sydney community have shared with me the difficulties with the current Paid Parental Leave scheme, with 75 per cent of them expressing that their leave time was simply too short. The global average of total paid parental leave entitlements available to mothers is 54.1 weeks. That's over two times more than what we are aspiring to offer here in Australia under this bill.

So how do we continue to build on the efforts of this bill to further improve the lives of many working families in Australia at the same time as improving outcomes for children and at the same time as advancing gender equality? Firstly, as mentioned in the final WEET report, North Sydney joins in calls to legislate the payment of superannuation on all forms of paid parental leave, with 100 per cent of North Sydney constituents agreeing superannuation should be paid on parental leave, when they were recently consulted. An inequitable labour market and household career dynamics have resulted in a superannuation gap of approximately 23 per cent at retirement age between men and women. In the 2019-20 fiscal year, the median superannuation balance of a woman aged over 65 was $168,000, compared to $208,000 for men. I understand this is a measure the Treasurer has said the government would like to implement when there is budget to do so, yet to date there has been no action in this area. Given that modelling done by KPMG has estimated that this reform could cost as little as $200 million, I call on the government to prioritise this investment, as we all know the truth is governments choose to afford what they want to afford. The security of our families and the strengthening of our broader social constructs should be just as important as investments in weaponry or fossil fuels.

Secondly, North Sydney supports calls for the 26 weeks paid parental leave to be the minimum leave entitlement and calls on the government to do more to phase the scheme up to an eventual 52 weeks of paid leave, whilst maintaining the principles of shared care and flexible arrangements. ABS data from 2021 showed 24.7 per cent of respondents cited 'caring for children' as the main reason they were not available to work, with women of all ages spending nine hours more per week, on average, on unpaid care and work than men.

While 26 weeks of paid parental leave covers the child's first six months of life, there are indisputable benefits to introducing 52 weeks of paid parental leave spread across two parents, with modelling showing that a scheme such as this would only cost the government an extra $600 million a year. In turn, this investment would boost GDP by $900 million a year, thanks to increased workforce participation by mothers, whilst also boosting the average mother's lifetime earnings by $30,000.

In the words of a North Sydney constituent, 'Living in Sydney is expensive. Without paid parental leave we can't afford to pay our mortgage, with rates going up, and will have to go back to work sooner. Please advocate for the professionals, the women, the supportive men that want to care for their children. We need to support men to take time off to care and bond with children and we need to enable women the right to choose when they return to work.'

The commitment of this government to women's economic equality is evident in the measures included in this bill, and the benefits of purposeful action can already be seen in the reduction of the gender pay gap to 13 per cent. But we still have so far to go and there is no time to rest on our laurels. As a society, we must decide who we want to be, not just in the next three years but over the decades to come. I implore this government and this 47th Parliament to be that moment, to be the moment that we decided, as a nation, that it was time for us to embrace equity: gender equity, racial equity, financial equity and social equity—indeed, equity in every meaningful way—and, ultimately, invest in moving our society forward.

See this speech in context