Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to get up and speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I will signal, at the outset, that the opposition will be supporting this bill for a number of reasons. Firstly, credit to the government. They have picked up a number of the amendments to paid parental leave that the former government announced as part of the March 2022 budget. In fact, the vast majority of these changes have been adopted from there, and credit to the government for picking up on initiatives to provide increased flexibility and more user-friendly and more fit-for-purpose paid parental leave for modern families that were announced as part of that March 2022 budget.

We all know that PPL commenced in 2011. It currently consists of some constraints that this bill proposes to remove—a 12-week PPL period and six weeks of flexible PPL, and a dad and partner pay component of leave, which is a two-week period. This bill essentially increases the total number of weeks of available paid parental leave from 18 to 20 weeks and removes some of the constraints around the two-week period of dad and partner pay and the 12- and six-week PPL periods. We wholeheartedly support that because we know that mothers and fathers—parents—make household decisions around caring arrangements. We think increasing the number of weeks from 18 to 20, with the enhanced flexibility that represents, is eminently sensible.

The bill will do this by combining the PPL and DAPP, forming a single 20-week payment that, as I said, can be shared between parents. We agree with the provision in the bill for two weeks to be reserved on a 'use it or lose it' basis for each claimant. I think both parents, a mother and a father, having some time with their new child is important. That increased two weeks, to some extent, encourages both parents to have a period of leave. The bill removes the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants. That's really a result of removing some of the existing rigidity that exists between who takes leave, when and how, between a mother and father. The bill also expands access by introducing a $350,000 income test, which will ensure that, rather than just assessing individual income between two parents, household income is considered when determining eligibility to PPL. We also approve of the increased and expanded flexibility, including the concept of PPL days and the flexibility around when they are used over a two-year period. This allows parents to take leave in big blocks or, indeed, in a single block or in whatever way works for that particular family. That was, to some extent, at the heart of what the former government sought to do with PPL, with our announcements in the March 2022 budget, and we are pleased to see these measures as part of this bill.

As I said at the outset, we'll support the bill, in stark contrast to what the former opposition did the last time there was a change in government. For those of us who have been around a bit longer, and have the battle scars to prove it, the former government was elected in 2013 with a very defined paid parental leave policy that was taken to an election. The then Labor opposition in no way respected the mandate of that particular government and sought to oppose it. That was quite a shameful thing to do. As the shadow ministry in opposition, we will not repeat that quite shameful position that the Labor opposition took. We will support these enhanced and sensible changes to paid parental leave. I note that this bill does not include the staged increase from 18 to 26 weeks; obviously, in later bills over the next few years the increase will take place bit by bit.

My message to the Australian public is: the coalition was a government that really stewarded paid parental leave, which saw it become a mainstay in mainstream Australian life. Our changes complimented, in many instances, paid parental leave offered by employers working in harmony with the baseline government scheme. But, where there are enhancements and improvements that can be made, where there are ways that we can help with what is an extraordinarily joyful but difficult time in every parent's life, that should be done. Walking through that door with a new baby, regardless of your family's circumstances, is a remarkable joy, and it changes people's lives. The purpose of paid parental leave is to provide, in particular, for mothers, who bear the physical burden, in most cases—where we don't include adoption—of having a child and then the huge adjustment in looking after and caring for a baby who needs you 24/7; this is a remarkable thing.

At its heart, paid parental leave should make it easier for mothers and fathers to make decisions that work for their family, that give them the opportunity to spend what is a very precious and important time with their child, unencumbered by the pressures of work, where they choose to do so. I think the changes in this bill that provide greater flexibility for families to determine how they use that 20 weeks of leave are in keeping with the changes to modern families. But this legislation also maintains what is a timeless aspect at the heart of paid parental leave, which is trying to give parents time with their child and trying to help them adjust to the remarkable differences in family life when having your first child, or your second or third or more, and the additional burdens that places on families.

I will support good changes to paid parental leave. We'll have a lot more to say about these things over the next couple of years. As I said, we'll adopt a different approach in opposition than the Labor opposition did in the last government. We will support this. We won't stand in the way of paid parental leave, as the Labor opposition did after the 2013 election. We'll very happily support this, acknowledging that a huge number of the changes and a significant portion of the increased flexibility in this bill were adopted from the coalition, who announced this in March 2022.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We brought in paid parental leave. You opposed it.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection. The member opposite did not support enhanced paid parental leave after the 2013 election. There will be a number of new Labor members who we can't blame, but we can certainly blame that member for not listening to the will of the people at the time. Well, we'll do something different. We will not stand in the way of sensible changes to paid parental leave for the sake of being different to the government when in opposition. That's what Labor did in opposition. We won't do it. We will support these very sensible changes, many of which are coalition changes. We'll be very happy to see where the government wants to take paid parental leave. Hopefully, in providing this bipartisan support for these changes, those members opposite, who very shamelessly and shamefully opposed our paid parental leave proposals after the 2013 election, will reflect on that. Sometimes, what's in the best interests of the country and in the best interests of families, even if they're not in your political interests, is worth supporting. We're here to support good things for Australian families. That's what we're doing. Coming into 2023, the government seem to have forgotten about many of the pressures and struggles that Australian families are suffering and are not wanting to engage or talk much about those pressures. But we're very happy to support this bill, and we commend the government for adopting a number of measures that were announced by the former government.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to speak on this piece of legislation, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. Just listening to the shadow minister, I find it quite extraordinary; he shows the front and chutzpah of the coalition. You'd think they'll start taking credit for Medicare, the NDIS, the NBN and a whole range of initiatives of Labor. I must say, they had three prime ministers during their nine years. They had Tony Abbott, whose thought bubble was an extraordinary idea—trying to get rid of what he thought was a 'woman problem' in terms of his relationship with female voters. So he came up with his ridiculous idea of a paid parental leave scheme that had virtually no support from any of the women's groups in this country. Then there were two subsequent prime ministers who didn't follow Prime Minister Abbott and bring in these types of legislation. So, don't give us history lessons, when you had two prime ministers on the coalition Treasury benches who didn't bring in a paid parental leave scheme, and don't try to claim that somehow it was your paid parental leave scheme—when we actually brought it in, under the Gillard government. What an amazing degree of historical revisionism goes on in the heads of those opposite in relation to this issue. It's amazing. It's simply astonishing, that you're going to take credit for things we did—when you opposed them, for heaven's sake!

I'm looking forward to the next two years, to hear those opposite taking credit for so many other Labor initiatives—perhaps Blue Poles or something like that; they may take credit for that initiative under Gough Whitlam, or a whole range of initiatives under Andrew Fisher, the Labor Prime Minister back in the early 20th century, or income tax reform. Chifley and Curtin will be turning in their graves over the credit the coalition government takes. So, thank goodness for those opposite—naysayers in government and naysayers in opposition and then trying to take credit for things that Labor governments do.

By the way, there are 2,554 families in my electorate of Blair who'll benefit as a result of this particular initiative. We know that, because they got paid parental leave payments last year. So, they'll benefit, at least. And there'll be more, who'll get additional assistance by virtue of the flexibility and choice that this legislation and subsequent legislation will provide to their family life. Those opposite go on about family values. Well, this is about family values, I can tell you. This is about helping families. This gives families choice and flexibility and it helps them in their local domestic decision-making. Those opposite love to parade themselves as champions of family values. But when it comes to supporting families with financial support and these types of things, they'll take credit from when they were in government, when they did nothing about it.

I'm very pleased to see this legislation, because families come in different shapes and sizes, and they come in different forms. There are not just nuclear families; there are flexible families. There are blended families. There are families in the LGBTIQ community. There's a whole range of different families and different forms that they take. So, this is particularly important. It also recognises that dads are very important carers for young children. About one in five children is, by the age of two, primarily bonded to their father. We also recognise that women are often high-income earners. The minister pointed that out in her second reading speech, where she talked about 3,000 additional parents getting a benefit as a result of this reform because the mother is the primary income earner in the family.

So, this is particularly important. The current settings have obstacles and hindrances to decision-making in family life and the flexibility that families need. Currently the paid parental leave scheme really comprises two payments for eligible carers of a newborn or a recently adopted child. We're talking about an 18-week payment for the birth parent, while the dad and partner leave is two weeks for fathers and partners. The paid parental leave may be taken in conjunction with the employer paid leave, but dad and partner pay cannot.

There's a need for parents to benefit from these changes to be able to spend more time with their children, to maintain their connection to the workplace—that's good for workforce participation amongst men but particularly women. International experiences show more paid leave results in an increase in the number of hours and the time taken by partners, particularly dads, in looking after their children. That's a very important significant reform that we're talking about today that will change the lives of lots of Australians.

Lots of times we pass legislation in this place and it has a peripheral impact, a minor impact—for example, customs regulation reforms, statute law revisions and a whole range of things that don't seem to have that much impact on families individually. But there are thousands of families in every electorate around the country that will benefit from these changes. That's absolutely important. Promoting gender equality is also absolutely crucial, and it's an important part of this bill.

The purpose of this bill is a commitment of over $531 million by this government—the biggest expansion of the Paid Parental Leave scheme since its introduction in 2011. That's 12 years ago. We had those opposite infesting the treasury bench for nine years and doing nothing about it—presiding but not governing. This is important; it is about flexibility and assistance for families individually. Our party, now the party of government, is better for having a strong and meaningful commitment to equal representation and equal opportunity for women. When you look at this side of the chamber, compared to the other side of the chamber, you can see that is the case.

You can also see that—and it is true for the economy and for our nation—equality for women is at the heart of the Albanese government's vision for a fair go for work. It was at the centre of our first budget. Equal, full and respectful participation of women in our economy is our nation's greatest untapped resource. This is why the October budget delivered the biggest boost to PPL we've ever seen.

This budget and this bill will implement the first of a couple of tranches of reform. It will go a long way to gender neutrality claim rules governing PPL. By 2026 we will see every family with a new baby be able to access a total of six months paid leave under legislation this government will bring in, at the national minimum wage shared between two parents—choice, decision-making, individuals and families making those decisions. Single parents will also be entitled to the full 26-week leave payable so their kids don't miss out as well. These changes will be part of a second tranche.

The purpose of this bill is combining the PPL, 18 weeks, and the dad and partner leave, two weeks created, into a single parental leave payment available for 20 weeks, with two weeks reserved on a use-it-or-lose-it basis for each claimant. It removes the requirement that the primary claimant of the PPL must be the birth parent. It allows claimants to take the payment flexibility within two years of birth or adoption. It introduces a $350,000 family income limit under which families can be assessed if they do not meet the individual income test, which is about $156,000 at the moment. This is really important. It will benefit about 181,000 families, and around 4,300 people will gain access to what they are ineligible for under the current scheme.

It's important to note that the change in this bill commences on 1 July this year—just the first step. From 1 July 2024, the government will start expanding the scheme with two additional weeks a year until the scheme reaches its full 26 weeks from July 2026. The government has sought advice from the independent Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, chaired by Sam Mostyn, on the optimal model for increasing the scheme to 26 weeks and on what mix of flexible weeks and the use-it-or-lose-it component for each parent will deliver the best outcome for families and encourage more shared parenting. That's crucial. We see that in our family law legislation, about the need for children to be cared for by both parents regardless of their parents' marital status and by other people significant to their care, welfare and development. This legislation picks up that notion. This second tranche will be legislated later and done in a fiscally responsible manner.

The reality is that the current scheme doesn't do enough to provide access to dads and encourage them to take parental leave. While it enables mothers to take PPL at the same time as employer paid leave, this option is not currently available, as I said, to fathers and partners, so there's that limit on flexibility. The bill fixes up this issue, so both parents will be able to take the PPL at the same time as employer paid leave.

The bill means more families can take up this leave, sharing their precious time more equally in care responsibilities, and that's absolutely crucial. Those of us who are parents know how important our children are. As, I'm sure, does everyone here, I remember when my daughters were born as though it was yesterday, and the fact is that I've got a little grandson now. That love, that respect and that affection comes straightaway. Parents want to care for their kids; they want to spend time with them. My youngest daughter, Jacqui, said to me the other day that, because of that bonding between parent and child, she misses her son, Joshua, when he goes and has a sleep. Spending time with their kids is the sort of thing that parents want to be able to make decisions about, and this legislation will assist in that regard.

The government values men and, as someone who practised as an accredited specialist in family law, I can tell you I did hundreds of cases involving men winning what we used to call custody and being the primary caregiver for children. Dads can be great parents, and I saw it many, many times in private practice as a lawyer. Dads are so important, not just in those circumstances but as role models in caring and as examples of hands-on giving, showing kids how to play sport and music and how to be respectful men and grow up to be decent human beings. All of those things are so important for little kids. They are important as children grow and learn. In the first two or three years of a child's life you can see how much they absorb and take in and how much they learn, so that time is so precious. The government really wants fathers to take a greater role from the start, and this legislation will benefit dads, mums and kids.

We know it's important to participate. We know participation is important for productivity. A lot of times in this place we use language that seems to be about economics, and solely economics—and I studied economics at university as well. It's so important because we're running a nation, running an economy and running a community. But families are the basis of our society. They're the absolute hub. They make decisions about where they send their kids to school, what extracurricular activities they engage in and what faith they adhere to or don't adhere to. They make decisions about all of those things each and every day. Sometimes it's mundane. Sometimes it's what food we put on the table at night. Sometimes it's where we have a holiday or what sport or cultural activity our kids will participate in.

This legislation here today is the sort which assists parents to make decisions each and every day of their lives and provides some security for them. We know relationships break up. We know that about 50 per cent of second relationships and one in three first relationships break up, so we want to give as much support as possible. There are real pressure times, in terms of domestic and family relationship break-ups, and one of those times is when your kids are really, really small. We want to support families in that way. We don't want to tell people who they partner with and how they live their lives, but we want to make sure that they have the greatest opportunity to participate in the lives of their children and be the best parents they can possibly be.

The burden of child care is disproportionately borne by women at the moment. That needs to change. In a modern policy—that is, for the modern family unit that we all see in our electorates—we need to have the legislation and a paid parental leave scheme that are reflective of modern Australia, to give choice and greater security and, I think, aspiration to families. This is something that Labor has consistently championed. With this legislation that we have before the chamber today, I'm proud to be a Labor MP; I really am. Seeing legislation like this introduced here, I'm proud to be the member for Blair and a Labor MP. It's good social policy. It's good Labor reform. It's good women's policy. It's good policy for men. It's also good economic and workplace reform and good for participation.

I commend this legislation to the chamber and I thank the minister for bringing it in. It's great to see that it's a Labor government doing the great reforms that are needed to help families in this country. We'll continue to uphold their aspirations for local, individual family units.

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

STEGGALL () (): I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. I support the amendments that the government is proposing in this bill in its first stage of reforms. These changes are long overdue, with so many families have been struggling under the current system. The changes will have a positive impact on the lives of some 180,000 Australian families, many of whom are juggling work and family life. It will take some of the pressure off their household budgets. These changes will give more families access to the payments and greater flexibility on how they take the payments. They will encourage sharing of the caring load, which supports gender equality and increases the number of fathers taking on carer roles with newborns.

I must say that this is still not an ambitious bill. There are a lot of things in this bill that are not vastly growing the Paid Parental Leave scheme in this country. We are still miles behind our OECD counterparts. This bill is getting rid of discrimination and improving flexibility, which I welcome, but I do want to be measured in speaking about what we are achieving here.

I welcome the introduction of the $350,000 family income test. Single parents can can also access it, but they don't meet the individual income test of $156,647. Previously, for those who maybe aren't familiar with the scheme, the test was calculated solely on the birth mother's income and strongly discriminated against professional women, because as soon as a woman earned above that cap of $152,000 the family was not entitled to paid parental leave. But you had the converse situation where a man could be on any income above that—on any income, essentially to $1 million—and if the birth mother was below that cap that family was entitled to paid parental leave. The discrimination against women in professional occupations was quite extreme and ridiculous. I raised it in a motion under the previous government in 2021 and raised it again in 2022, so I absolutely welcome the fact that the government is getting rid of that provision that discriminates against professional women. There are many families in Warringah and elsewhere around the country who are missing out under the current scheme because the payment was pegged to the mother's income in that way.

According to the ATO, between 2010 and 2020 the number of Australian women with taxable incomes over $150,000 more than doubled, with almost 250,000 women now earning over $150,000. The proposed higher family income threshold will mean more families can access paid parental leave, especially where the birth mother is a professional and the higher income earner. This is really only bringing this scheme into the current day and age, where both men and women birth parents work and pursue professional occupations. The current scheme is grossly outdated and desperately needed to be fixed. It effectively assumed that a woman would not be the primary breadwinner in the family. It beggars belief that it has taken this long for such a measure to be amended, but I commend the government for addressing it so quickly in this term of government.

Not only will more families be eligible for the payments, but basing the income test on the joint household income will encourage fathers into caring roles. It will also get rid of the disparity where you had the situation of the very high income earning father of, say, a million dollars; those families will no longer be able to access the payment, which I think is appropriate. Having more fathers in caring roles will improve the long-term bond with children and increase their participation in unpaid work at home.

The proposed amendments also include increasing flexibility for families. Parents can now decide how and when they take their paid parental leave days, allowing parents to take payments in multiple blocks as small as a day at a time for the first two years of their child's life. Importantly, the requirement to not return to work in order to be eligible will be removed. This will help facilitate mothers transitioning back to work. It can also be taken in conjunction with any employer leave entitlements. Under this amendment, parents will also be able to take two weeks of their leave at the same time so that they can spend time together bonding with and raising their child.

The proposal to simplify the claiming process is also welcomed. It will now be made gender neutral, by removing distinctions between primary and secondary carers. Currently, if a family wants to share parental leave, the birth mother must claim first and then transfer it to another parent. This new, simpler claiming process allows eligible fathers and partners to qualify if the mother or birth parent does not meet the income test or residency requirements. This change will benefit about 2,000 Australian families a year.

This is finally bringing paid parental leave in Australia into the modern day and age, but we can do more. The government's proposal to combine the existing payments into a single 20-week scheme is more a reconfiguration rather than an extension of the scheme. This is not extending paid parental leave. We are still stuck on 20 weeks. We know the proposal combines the 18 weeks of paid parental leave that traditionally the birth mothers took with the two weeks of dad or partner leave to form a single 20-week payment that can now be shared between both parents.

The full rollout of the scheme to increase to 26 weeks of paid leave is promised by 2026—essentially another election cycle away. That is too long for families to wait. That's three more years. I remind the House that, at 26 weeks, Australia will be lagging well behind developed countries, with the average in OECD countries being 55 weeks of paid parental leave. Just think about that—55 weeks and 26 weeks. That is a monumental difference.

Last year the Grattan Institute released research showing that shared paid parental leave not only boosts mothers' earnings but it can boost our entire GDP. Increasing the entitlement to 26 weeks, shared between parents, would have a net positive impact on the economy. We would benefit by $300 million. It would cost some $600 million per year but would return $900 million per year. So why are we waiting three years to do it? I just don't understand. It's the patriarchal nature of this place. Changes to break down gender inequities and pay inequities take so long. You have to develop the political will, the political courage, to change the status quo. We need to increase paid parental leave sooner if we want to have a chance of increasing female workforce participation and decreasing the gender pay gap.

We know two major issues are facing the Australian economy: increasing savings for superannuation and moving women from part-time to full-time work. The government has maintained the two weeks reserved on a 'use it or lose it' basis to encourage both parents to share the leave. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce see a further increase in the 'use it or lose it' provision as a key to ensuring more women stay connected to the workforce, rather than being expected to take all the leave to care for the newborn. The Parenthood organisation, who have done phenomenal advocacy work in this space, say that a goal of four to six weeks of 'use it or lose it' is essential to achieving a behavioural change in men whereby they do more of the parenting in early months.

I encourage the government to also consider the inclusion of a bonus provision. A 2021 Grattan Institute report recommends an additional two weeks of bonus leave which could be used by either parent if both parents take at least six weeks leave. When these 'use it or lose it' provisions and incentive schemes have been introduced overseas, there have been significant increases in men's uptake of parental leave. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that only one in 20 fathers take primary parental leave and 95 per cent of all primary carers leave is taken by the mother. These figures highlight the importance of the 'use it or lose it' and bonus provisions.

A Warringah constituent's petition to me, with 8,000 signatures, which I've presented to this place, has not been addressed in these amendments. The petition calls for Australia to align with the World Health Organization guidelines and the National Breastfeeding Strategy goal of children having the opportunity to be exclusively breastfed for the first six months, which means you need to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks at the minimum. These are the basic things that need to happen.

So I welcome the government's amendments to paid parental leave. They will give families more access and greater flexibility, they will help to eliminate gender inequality in some small way, they will get more fathers into carers' roles and they will facilitate women's participation in the workforce in a small way. But the timing of the full rollout to 26 weeks of paid parental leave should be brought forward. There is no justifiable reason to wait three more years. We can't make families wait that much longer.

As we look to the future, we have to encourage the government to be planning to bring further improvements to this bill. We need to consider these two important incentives to achieve equitable sharing of leave: extending the use-it-or-lose-it provision to at least four weeks and including a bonus provision. I haven't even begun to touch on the problem of the inequity of access from community to community and the costs involved. And then, of course, there are the skills shortages. We know there are not enough carers in the child care sector. For paid parental leave to work, children need to be able to go into care so that women can go back to the workforce. There are so many issues in these areas. It is so gendered, and the patriarchal nature of this place has meant that for too long it has gone unaddressed. But I do hope in this term of parliament we have sufficient loud voices from women in this place and men who know and care about how important this issue is to finally make some changes.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 is one of a suite of measures the Albanese Labor government is implementing to promote healthier, more equal communities across Australia, and it's something I know is very welcome in my community of Chisholm in Victoria. We were very clear, heading into the election, that ours would be a government that listened to the community and that we would honour commitments made during the campaign and beyond, including through the budget. This bill is an example of our government doing just that; listening and acting on the promises we've made.

Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the very best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families and more opportunities for women. It's really important that this bill's title is 'improvements for families and gender equality' because, of course, investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy and advances gender equality.

We are committed as the Albanese Labor government to expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks, a full six months. This bill will implement the first tranche of the government's changes announced in the budget. Crucially, the bill will give more flexible access to government payments, giving parents greater choice in how they take leave, and encouraging parents to share care, to support gender equality. Paid parental leave reform was one of the most frequent proposals raised at the successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September. Indeed, in my own local Jobs and Skills Summit this was a topic we discussed also. Our government has listened, and that's why we're introducing this bill here. It is a really significant step to improve the scheme—of course, it was Labor who introduced the scheme into parliament in 2011.

This bill reflects our commitment and desire to improve the lives of working families, support better outcomes for children and also advance women's economic equality. There are around 181,000 families who will benefit from the changes in this bill, including around 4,300 people who will gain access for the first time because they would have been ineligible under the current scheme. We are modernising paid parental leave in this country to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed since its establishment over a decade ago. These changes, to commence from 1 July this year, are the very first stage of our reforms, and they lay the foundation for expansion to 26 weeks by 2026.

It's clear the current scheme does not do enough to provide access to fathers and partners. It limits flexibility for families to choose how they'd like to take leave and transition back into work. The eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. We need to modernise the scheme, and our bill fixes these issues, giving more families access to the government payment and giving parents more flexibility in how they take leave. It also encourages parents to share care to improve gender equality, which is a really important thing to do given Australia's standing on gender equality has gone backwards over the last decade.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. As the member for Chisholm was interrupted, she will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed.