Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Of course, when you're not in the chair there, Deputy Speaker, you have many other lives. You're a renowned paediatrician yourself and know firsthand the importance of paid parental leave for families and the importance of parents being able to bond with their newborns in those critical first months of life. Member for Macquarie, my dear friend, if you chose to have another baby now, you'd get full support from the chamber—I'm sure the Deputy Speaker would help you deliver said baby. You'd probably be all over the global newspapers; you'd be even more famous!

The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 is so important. It's a new law that will expand Australia's paid parental leave scheme to 26 weeks. It is the largest single investment in the scheme since the Gillard Labor government introduced it back in 2011. It benefits over 180,000 Australian families every year.

Of course, if we want to do the time line, there was promised to be a much larger expansion of the scheme by Tony Abbott, who then abandoned that funded expansion with his nasty secret budget cuts. Do you remember 'no cuts to health, no cuts to education'? Well, I am really pleased that it is a Labor government, again, now expanding the scheme. Crucially, the expansion will support both parents by increasing paid parental leave for mothers by four weeks, by doubling the time reserved for non-birthing parents—usually fathers, but not always—from two to four weeks on a 'use it or lose it' basis.

Paid parental leave is imperative for the health of Australian families and children. The more time parents can spend with their newborns and young children, the better. It is so critical in those first months of life. But it is crucial not just for Australian families, for that relationship and for the development of children but it is critical for women's equality and for our economy. This is an economic reform, and that is not always understood with the government's agenda of cheaper child care and of expanding paid parental leave. They are not just nice-to-haves, they are not just cost-of-living reforms—they do that, too—but they are economic reforms.

Business, unions and experts know that if we want to advance productivity, if we want to get productivity moving again after a decade of sluggish or, in some years, negative productivity growth under those opposite in that wasted decade of division and decay and dysfunction, if we want to get more women able to—if they choose to—participating in the paid labour force then we have to provide more support to families. Crucially, we have to provide more opportunities for women to access greater paid parental leave, as I said, cheaper child care and tax cuts for all taxpayers, not just a select few. It is all part of an agenda. It is a cost-of-living agenda but also an economic reform agenda.

The government's position is clear. We took to the election to expand the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, a clear commitment being delivered. But it is, of course, useful to reflect on those opposite and on the coalition's position. They have claimed to endorse this legislation. Good on them. We will see how they vote. They have claimed to endorse it, which is interesting given their history. It was Scott Morrison, the member for Cook, who, in 2015 when he was social services minister, before he knifed good old Malcolm—do you remember that? We saw that on TV on Monday night on Nemesis; third episode coming soon—before he was the Treasurer—he had a little pathway there, didn't he?—he tried to scale back paid parental leave. Let's be very clear. It is nice they say they're going to vote for the government's legislation, but the history of this in Australia is absolutely crystal clear.

It was the Gillard Labor government that introduced paid parental leave. It was Tony Abbott who went to an election and lied when he said, 'I am going to expand it,' and then abandoned it after 'no cuts to health, no cuts to education.' He just abandoned it. He didn't reform it, didn't scale it back, didn't adjust it, didn't front up to the National Press Club and explain what had changed; he just abandoned it. Then, when the coalition were elected, Scott Morrison, as social services minister, tried to cut it back. Worse, he insulted women who accessed the scheme. He labelled women who use both the government leave scheme and their employers scheme as 'rorters and frauds,' which was a bit awkward when the then assistant Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, was forced to acknowledge that his own wife had accessed both schemes after giving birth to their daughter.

But then when the Human Rights Commission warned Scott Morrison, then social services minister, his proposed cuts to paid parental leave could be in breach of Australia's international obligations, he labelled that concern a First World problem. Well I say, on that point, I will agree with the member for Cook. This is a First World problem. Australia is a First World country. I would hope there is no member in here that would disagree with the proposition that we are a First World country and we want to continue to develop and improve as a First World country. And this kind of scheme, expanding paid parental leave, as many other countries have done, as many other countries in the world are way ahead of us in doing, is part of remaining a quality First World country. So, on that, I'll agree with the member for Cook.

It is so important, and I'll quote again the study of the University of Sydney that was prepared for the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and that really drives home the point that this is an economic reform. They modelled the direct impact of the introduction of a 26-week paid parental leave scheme on women's labour-force participation. They said, 'The Grattan Institute shows an increase in national GDP of $900 million a year.' So, if you want to see the economy boosted and want to give more options for women who choose to participate in the labour force, you'd vote for the Paid Parental Leave scheme and you'd vote for Labor's tax cuts for all taxpayers, which also, as the Treasury showed, incentivise low-income workers, particularly women, to pick up a few more hours. We would also see with this bill an increase of $30,000 to the average mother's lifetime earnings.

So the very final point that I do want to make and emphasise is that the change in this bill to up the leave available to, usually, fathers—or the non-birthing parent—on a 'use it or lose it' basis will mean that four weeks cannot be transferred to the birthing parent. So four weeks out of the 26 will be 'use it or lose it'. If you want to access that taxpayer support, the father, in most cases, needs to also take a bit of time off to spend with the child. That's a terrific reform. It results in men increasing their contribution to unpaid care in the home and over time changes gender norms. But, despite the support that's available even at the moment—a couple of weeks—there's just one in 20 Australian fathers that takes paid parental leave. That's one of the lowest amongst all of the developed countries in the world, all of the OECD countries, and dramatically below the OECD average.

Like the member for Macquarie's children, my daughter was born last millennium. She was actually here in Canberra over the last few days, and she went off back to work at 5.30 this morning. You're not going to see her in here sitting on my knee because she's now 27. So, when she was born, I didn't have the option of this support. I did live for some years as a single parent, and we have a very close relationship, but I know firsthand, like so many that have gone before, the benefit that this this scheme would have provided. It would have made things a lot easier in those critical first six months and year to have that bonding time, which, as we know—it's another topic for another day—and, certainly, as Deputy Speaker Freelander, a leading paediatrician, knows is so important to a young person's life outcomes. So I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context