Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Paid parental leave is a fundamental support for working families. It is life changing for families to have that support at one of the most precious times of our lives—as the member for Mackellar said—to share that time with a new baby and to not have to worry about the fact that you don't have a wage or that you might not have a job to go back to if you don't have that time covered.

Before the Labor Party introduced this scheme, so many people had access to nothing at all from their employers. That's why it is so important that we have this government scheme. It was a proud Labor achievement, pioneered by one of Labor's greatest reformers, the then social services minister, Jenny Macklin, under the Gillard government. Back then, in 2011, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a paid parental leave scheme. In 2009 the Productivity Commission released a report that was pivotal to the implementation of the scheme. The report laid bare the economic, productivity and social costs of not providing paid parental leave. It also explored employer provisions and assessed possible models for the scheme.

As I said, apart from the United States, at the time, Australia was the only developed nation without a scheme, and, under the leadership of Julia Gillard and Jenny Macklin, Labor changed that. Jenny Macklin, in her speech introducing the bill which established the scheme, said, 'As a nation, we cannot continue to ignore the barriers to greater participation by women'. PPL removed one of the biggest of those barriers.

In this term of parliament, the Albanese Labor government has proudly acted to improve that system that started over a decade ago. I am very proud at this moment to be standing in this place in support of this very important bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, just as I was in February last year when the House considered a bill to expand access to and the flexibility of, as well as fix equity issues, in the scheme and just as I was in November last year when this House considered our bill to extend government paid parental leave to 26 weeks, the most significant expansion of the scheme since its inception.

The Prime Minister said, 'A parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for the economy.' But the reality is that without superannuation paid on PPL we send a message to women that the time they spend caring for their children is less valuable, that the time they spend recovering from birth is something less valuable, that the time they spend bonding with that baby is less valuable.

Paying superannuation on paid parental leave is a matter of economic justice. Since Australia's compulsory superannuation scheme came into effect, women have been at a disadvantage when it comes to their retirement savings. Like the gender pay gap, the super gap is persistent and hard to close. This disparity is alarming when we look at the figures. Women on average retire with 28 per cent less superannuation than men. That's almost one-third less. On average, a man will have around $400,000 in his super account when he reaches the age of 60, whereas the figure for a woman of the same age is $318,000. This isn't just an academic statistic. This makes such a difference to people's lives in retirement and the outcomes for them.

When the fastest growing cohort of Australians experiencing homelessness is women aged over 55, addressing the superannuation gap needs to be a priority. The superannuation gap is a direct reflection of the structural inequalities within our workforce and society, including the compounding effect of the gender pay gap. But one of the biggest factors, and I believe the biggest factor, is the time taken off work for caring responsibilities. Often the most significant period of this gender advantage is exacerbated when a baby is born. Women are overwhelmingly more likely to take on underpaid caregiving roles, often at the expense of their long-term financial security. In fact, according to WGEA, men currently only account for 12 per cent of all primary caregiver's leave taken. When women take time off to raise children their superannuation is effectively put on hold.

I really do believe, as I say any time I talk about these things, that the greatest barrier to gender equality in the workplace is normalising the taking off of time to care for children for both men and women. This is such an important thing and that is why government schemes such as PPL are a key part of breaking down the barriers for that and normalising that and showing as a society we value people, men and women, taking time to raise the next generation. When women take time off to raise children, at the moment, their superannuation is effectively put on hold. While their income may continue as a result of PPL, the crucial contributions to their retirement savings are absent. This pause contributes directly to the widening of this superannuation gap. The current situation is quite unique to PPL. For almost all other types of leave taken from work, superannuation will be paid on it. Whether it is annual leave, sick leave, personal leave or long service leave, you can expect your employer to pay superannuation on that leave. It makes sense. Leave should be considered part of your ordinary earnings, a necessary part of your earnings, of your conditions at work with the payment of superannuation. Right now PPL is the exception to that rule and that is why the Albanese government with this bill is ensuring that superannuation will be paid on the government scheme of PPL.

The decision to have children, to raise and nurture our next generation should not, the cost of financial security in retirement. By paying super on PPL we begin to correct this historic injustice. By setting this example with the government PPL, we hope the standard is being raised and that employers paying superannuation on their own parental leave schemes will follow. We saw when PPL was first introduced that employers that were not offering any leave for new parents began to and many also topped up the scheme to make it longer. It sends a powerful message that this is something that as a society we should value and support.

This is a practical step towards gender equity in the workplace and in retirement, and it represents a significant investment of $1.1 billion over the forward estimates. This bill will implement a 2024-25 budget measure that was announced in March as part of Australia's national strategy for gender equality—Working for Women. It will introduce superannuation on government funded PPL for children born or adopted on or after 1 July next year. Parents or caregivers who receive government funded PPL will receive an additional payment based on the superannuation guarantee of 12 per cent as a contribution to their super fund. PPL has been life-changing for Australian families and Australian women and Australian babies, and we are making it even better. But it does not just benefit recipient families; PPL also benefits our economy and, when implemented right, it can advance gender equality.

Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families and more opportunity for women. The government has been working hard since we came to power to improve PPL for working families. We made changes from 1 July last year to give more families access to the payment, made it more flexible to support parents in the transition back to work, and made it much easier for parents to share care by creating a single payment that both parents can access.

In July this year we delivered the largest expansion to PPL since it was established. By 2026, PPL will be expanded to a full six months, meaning families will receive an extra six weeks of paid leave following the birth of their child. This was in line with the original recommendations of that pivotal Productivity Commission report that recommended six months was the time that was best for health of the mother and baby. That was why they recommended that, and increasing it to the full 26 weeks has been something that we have wanted to be able to do for a long time, and many people have campaigned on that, as well as on the addition of superannuation. It has been something that many people have tirelessly advocated for. Again, I'm really proud that we are doing this now.

Our work on PPL is just one part of a broader reform agenda. We've reformed our early childhood system to make sure that more Australians can affordably access that critically important early education for their newest family members. Just recently, we've ensured that early childhood educators are being properly remunerated for the work they do by fully funding a 15 per cent increase to the award wage. This is about ensuring that Australians get the best start to life, where families can take the time they need to welcome their little ones and, when they do decide to go back to work, are safe in the knowledge that their children are receiving the best care and education possible. This legislation is so important to close the superannuation gender gap. It's an issue of fairness and an issue of equality. It's an issue that the Albanese Labor government is addressing. Labor created our Paid Parental Leave scheme. We're improving it in this term of parliament, and we're making it even fairer here today.

I want to briefly touch on the response that we saw yesterday to this legislation from those opposite. While waiting to give my speech, I had the pleasure to listen to the member for Sturt's contribution. The Liberal Party has once again decided to politicise superannuation. They will do anything to undermine the superannuation system, because it is one of their ideological obsessions. Just like the disgraceful thought bubble under the Morrison government when he decided that women fleeing domestic violence could raid their super to escape that violence, today the coalition would rather undermine the retirement incomes of women than pay super on paid parental leave.

They pretend like it's a choice, and it's not. That was clear from listening to the member for Sturt earlier. He talked about letting people decide if they want to take a lump sum or have the superannuation paid on their PPL. This is where it becomes so clear that what they don't understand is when you have a lower income, you don't have the same choice. It's not the same choice to think about something that is off in the future when you're worrying about putting food on the table with a new baby and paying your rent and your bills. People who are on lower incomes dealing with the cost of living do not have the same choice about that at that time. They have to prioritise that time, and they rob themselves of their retirement savings—savings that would be growing and growing over the next 20 or 30 years that they would be working. It is the cruellest thing.

For example, this week I met with a man called Lester, who came with ACOSS to talk about his life on the Austudy payment. Aside from that, he is a cancer survivor. He had to take some time out of work and study while he had his treatment, and he accessed his superannuation to help him through that time. He now will have basically no superannuation to live on in his retirement, and he is one of the people that needs that superannuation the most. People with low incomes and people who experience interruptions in their working life, like women, need this more than anyone. They need it to be growing. The coalition consistently thinks that people like that should make the choice to rob their future selves, because the coalition don't understand that it is not a choice for people who are just struggling to make ends meet, struggling to support their families or struggling with a health condition to raid their superannuation, which would be growing exponentially for them to live in their retirement and enjoy the comfortable retirement that they deserve.

That is what this bill is about. It's about recognising the time that parents, particularly women, take off after the birth of a child. While we want to encourage men to take that time, and our changes to the scheme are doing that and making it easier for parents to share, it is the woman that gives birth, may breastfeed the baby, needs to recover from that birth and needs that time. It is not a decision for her to do the birth or not—that's part of the process—and therefore she is the one taking that time. Without paying superannuation, we are saying that that time is somehow less valuable than the sick leave, annual leave or long service leave that we pay our employees.

So this is incredibly important, and I am incredibly proud. This is a great Labor scheme, a Labor reform, and we are building on it under this Albanese Labor government.

See this speech in context