Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

In debating the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, we can't really start without acknowledging that we are still a long way from gender equality in Australia. Whilst this bill is a step in the right direction, we still have a long way to go. Women aren't paid as much, they don't have as much super by the time they retire and they are more likely to end up in poverty than men. Steps in the last few years to address areas of gender inequality and equality have been taken, and I very much welcome them. But we do need more action to narrow the gender pay gap, increase paid parental leave and close the super gap between men and women.

Today, the government is acting to ensure that those on Commonwealth paid parental leave receive super. This is important progress. Time out of the workforce caring for children on paid parental leave should not come at a detrimental financial cost for, more often than not, women. We've seen the motherhood price, that cost which is ultimately the cost of parenthood where that cliff of earnings for women often occurs as soon as they start having children. It's deeply frustrating that we still have those systemic inequities in Australia in 2024.

Research shows that in the years approaching retirement age, the gender superannuation gap can be anywhere, still, between 22 per cent and 35 per cent. This is still an enormous gender gap in superannuation wealth and it has consequences. Modelling from Laneway Analytics shows Australian mothers have missed out on some $3.3 billion in super since the introduction of government paid parental leave in 2011 because they have not received super on that leave. That is all because of taking time out of the workforce to have children.

Individuals with low superannuation balances are more likely to rely on the age pension in retirement, so that's why it matters. It matters that women have sufficient superannuation at retirement age. Around 55 per cent of those collecting the full pension are women. The systemic inequities are holding women back economically. The gender pay gap is still contributing to long-term gender inequality.

Financial insecurity in retirement contributes to poverty and housing insecurity in older women in Australia. A recent report from Super Members Council found that women today are expected to retire earlier and live longer than men but currently retire with one-third less super. The same report found that paying super on paid parental leave would leave a mother of two around $2,500 better off at retirement and therefore make a meaningful reduction in the gender super gap, which currently sits at around $50,000. We know this gender gap in superannuation is a problem. This bill helps address it, so it's very welcome.

The government Paid Parental Leave scheme is something we should be proud of, with around 180,000 families accessing the scheme each year all around the country, including in Warringah. Established in 2011, it provided up to 18 weeks of pay at minimum wage to eligible working parents. There have been further tweaks and changes in subsequent years including dad and partner pay, providing two weeks at the same rate for the father or the partner of the paid parental leave recipient. From July 2020, families have had the option of taking the first 12 weeks of paid parental leave in a continuous block then using the final six weeks as flexible paid parental leave, including using it to return to work part time by using the leave on a part time basis or sharing the leave with someone else.

Last year, the government legislated to increase the number of weeks of paid parental leave, expanding it in phases from 20 to 26 weeks by July 2026. While I welcome that, we are still way behind other countries in terms of the scale, scope and length of time of paid parental leave. We really do need to accelerate to catch up with other countries. Research by the Grattan Institute shows that shared paid parental leave boosts a mother's earnings and boosts our entire national GDP.

We also need to see an increase in men or other parents taking paid parental leave. Too often, it is the mothers that are taking it and taking a hit to their careers and their earning capacity, so there really needs to be more work from the government to ensure an increase to the shared component or a use-it-or-lose-it proportion of the scheme to encourage and incentivise more partners to take up paid parental leave. Grattan modelling suggests that increasing the entitlement to 26 weeks shared between parents would cost the government some $600 million per year but would add $900 million to GDP, so there would be a positive outcome of $300 million as well as a boost of some $30,000 to a mother's lifetime earnings. I would like to see the expansion time shortened in relation to paid parental leave, but I was pleased to see at least a minimal expansion be passed through the parliament this term.

As recommended in the final report from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, in 2023, we are legislating the payment of superannuation on paid parental leave, and it will come into effect from 1 July next year. So I welcome this, but I think there are still a few areas of focus for the government—in particular, coming up with some form of acknowledgement that older woman frequently take time out of the workforce to care for elderly parents. That is a time at which they lose earning capacity and superannuation, and there have been proposals put forward to start to remedy that.

I welcome this bill and it's intent. But I should note that, while the coalition's second reading amendment has some elements that I support, I am concerned with an attempt to yet again undermine the superannuation system, through the third part of the amendment, which seeks to encourage early withdrawals for a variety of reasons, particularly for the collection of this paid parental leave component as a block to be used to meet the cost of the child. Whilst I appreciate the cost of having children is great—I certainly have been there and I know that is really hard—the point of super is to ensure a comfortable retirement. It's to ensure people aren't living in poverty in retirement. If we allow the amendment, as proposed by the opposition, for the receipt of the paid parental leave payment as a block and to be available now, then we undermine the very purpose of this, which is to ensure women do not have inequality at retirement when it comes to their super. I simply cannot support that.

We've seen this happen before, during the COVID pandemic. Whilst it was maybe well intentioned to ensure that people struggling financially could access finance, we saw moves to be able to withdraw from superannuation two payments of up to $10,000. The difficulty with that was that overwhelmingly it was women, and overwhelmingly women are now finding themselves with significantly less super for their retirement. The Australia Institute found that, between April and December 2020, 1.5 million women drew down their super, and that is one-quarter of the entire female workforce. Some $14.9 billion was stripped from women's already small retirement savings, and some 345,000 women completely emptied their accounts. That is really concerning because that means a huge number of women will be exposed when they come to retirement age. What was even more dramatic was it overwhelmingly younger women. That means that, after withdrawing what little amounts were in super, they won't have as much opportunity to grow their super through their working life into something substantial at retirement age. All this undermining of the intent of super was really concerning, and it's really important to preserve that.

At the moment, I believe this amendment is fundamentally undermining what the bill is trying to achieve, which is to close the gap in super between men and women at retirement age. So I have to ask the question: Is it the opposition's view that women should continue to be disadvantaged in retirement? Should they continue to have less super? Otherwise, I don't understand the intent of this amendment. If it's to better support families to meet the cost of children, then that should be a separate proposal; that's something that could be put to the budget. For example, is it a baby bonus like what used to happen in the Howard years? But it should not be via undermining superannuation.

There's still more to do to achieve better economic outcomes for women and better economic outcomes for Australia. These policy suggestions, as outlined by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, are ones that I've supported and called for: increasing investment in childhood education and abolishing the activity test, which requires both parents to be working to access childcare subsidies; boosting the availability of high-quality, flexible work and strengthening the rights of employees to flexible work and family-friendly working arrangements; encouraging employers to set gender equality targets and strengthening reporting obligations to include meaningful benchmarks; and introducing a tax offset for people with caring responsibilities who are re-entering the workforce, to curb the motherhood penalty facing women which means they earn less.

I want to repeat what I've said in the debate in relation to the Superannuation (Objective) Bill earlier this year, which is that many of our First Nations people in our communities never get to realise the benefit of superannuation. When we talk about superannuation, even in the context of this bill, there is a whole other level of disadvantage when it comes to First Nations Australians. Many First Nations people just don't get to realise the benefit of superannuation. There's a huge amount of policy work that needs to be done to improve the retirement outcomes and access to super for First Nations Australians. The 2020 Retirement Income Review found that many First Nations people were likely to have either no superannuation or low super balances at retirement way more often than non-Indigenous Australians.

As of June 2022, $16 billion was sitting in the tax office lost or unclaimed, so that's an area of concern. Analysis shows that the issue of lost and unclaimed super disproportionately sits in postcodes with larger First Nations populations. It does beg the question: Is this an area that's being overlooked? Do First Nations Australians need some assistance? Do we need to focus on why there is so much unclaimed super sitting disproportionately in those postcodes? Worse yet, the full extent of the impact of lost super on First Nations communities isn't quantified. Why? Because super funds don't collect data that's specific to Indigenous people.

Whilst I welcome these changes, I think First Nations women are in an even-worse situation than non-Indigenous women in Australia, so, whenever we are putting forward legislation that is seeking to address inequalities, we must make sure we have a specific lens and a specific focus on those that are at greater risk and are experiencing so much more inequality on top of the gender inequality. It's a good step, and I certainly commend the bill to the House and will be supporting it. It's positive, but, certainly, my call to the government is more can be done in this respect. I do call on the minister and the government to focus on how we're going to help First Nations Australians access super.

See this speech in context