Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a generation of young men who do not wish to follow in their fathers' footsteps. They've seen the trade-off of long hours against time spent with family; they've seen the neglect of relationships and the impacts on their partners. They want family and—rather than or—work.

When it comes to raising a child, decisions made in the earliest time of a child's life lock in patterns of parenting for years to come. An Australian woman does more caring, and twice as much housework, even a decade after the birth of the first child. In other words, having children worsens the gender division of work at home, which persists for years to come, serving neither the mum nor the dad's relationship. A survey of 842 men conducted by the Australian recruitment agency Hays in 2019 indicated that 80 per cent of men believe that shared parental leave and child-rearing responsibility would help break down unconscious bias and improve gender diversity.

Australian businesses are stepping up because they've put two and two together. They've realised that equal PPL schemes are good for their bottom line because they help to retain talent. And we are in a war for talent. In this war, every age matters. PWC reported a reduction in the proportion its staff who resign while on paid parental leave from 6.4 per cent in 2017, before the more flexible option was introduced, to 3.3 per cent in 2021. Deloitte introduced similar leave entitlements for mothers and fathers in 2015, and saw an increase in the uptake of parental leave among fathers from 20 per cent to 40 per cent.

I have caught a glimpse of this new generation of fathers. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with their partners in campaigning for the protection of child care in Higgins. The early childhood education centres in Carnegie and Murrumbeena will close in March. These beloved centres have been a pillar of our community since the 1990s. Small in size, they have seen at least a generation of children passing through their doors. One of the children who passed through those doors is now a doctor. The educators have been there for decades—some, as long as 26 years. Such tenure is unheard of in the early childhood education sector. They are caring, professional and dearly loved by the parents and children they service. Every child feels accepted, including many children with chronic conditions like epilepsy and autism.

Now, as the closure of these centres looms, the parents are understandably disappointed, after campaigning hard to have this decision overturned. Theirs was a parent-led campaign, with a petition, garnering over 7,000 signatures; a rally outside the town hall; and coverage in the media. The parents pleaded with Glen Eira council to slow down the process, rethink their decision and invest in, rather than divest from, what were clearly community assets. If the centres were lithium mines, nobody would be countenancing shutting them down.

These parents championed this cause, on top of their day jobs as teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, business owners and public administrators. Why? Because early childhood education delivered by community is a highly-trusted source and has care standards above the national average. Community based child care accounts for 42 per cent of the childcare sector, according to a report by CELA and other organisations, positioned competitively against 49 per cent private for-profit providers.

While affordable, accessible early learning and care is a linchpin for working families, it is not enough in our pursuit of gender parity. According to Treasury, women reduce their hours of paid work by 35 per cent over the first five years following the birth of their children. Part-time becomes permanent part-time, with all its flow-on impacts to individuals and the economy. We need to do more. It was for this reason that the Gillard Labor government introduced paid parental leave in 2011, and it is the Albanese Labor government that has picked up the baton dropped under those opposite.

The Libs presided over spiralling childcare costs and turned a blind eye to a stagnant, moribund gender pay gap. They watched as Australia languished on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index, falling to 43rd place. In just over a year, Australia has climbed 17 places on that index—the largest increase since the index began in 2006. In just over a year, we have made the gender pay gap the lowest in Commonwealth history, at 13 per cent, down from 14.1 per cent in August of last year. But we have more to do. In just over a year, we now have a record-high participation rate for women, at nearly 63 per cent in May of last year. With 53 per cent of women in our ranks, the highest in Commonwealth history, the Albanese government unapologetically drives a hard agenda when it comes to supporting women. But we need to do more.

Why is reform to PPL, paid parental leave, important? It's because stereotypical gender norms, that lock in men as breadwinners and women as homemakers who are also tethered to part-time work, start in those early weeks when baby comes home. Part-time work is fine, if it is a real choice. But too many women who seek to return to full-time work find themselves denied career progression. To put it bluntly, less pay means fewer assets, less super and greater vulnerability in the face of those curveballs in life, like relationship breakdown, bereavement or job loss. This is one of the reasons the gender pay gap is so pernicious.

Approximately 180,000 parents in Australia, and 960 in Higgins, will benefit from this scheme. Our bill will expand access to the scheme and provide more flexibility for families. The value of getting new fathers to spend more time with their babies in the early years cannot be overstated. The bill expands paid parental leave from 20 to 26 weeks, increasing the period reserved for each parent from two to four weeks, and doubling the period that parents can take leave simultaneously from two to four weeks. These reforms will provide much-needed support to mums after childbirth, encouraging dads and partners to spend more time with their children in those formative years.

We also acknowledge that there are calls to expand the scheme even further, but we need to see that cultural shift occur in corporate Australia—for it to become acceptable for working fathers to take much longer periods of time in order to be there in that early period after baby comes home.

This bill strikes the balance between supporting mums and encouraging dads to take leave and providing families with flexibility in structuring their care arrangements. The bill sends a clear message: parenting is an equal partnership and should be treated as such. We would like corporate Australia to take heed. It's good for parents, it's good for bubs, it's good for employers and it's good for the economy. This is exactly the kind of critical infrastructure we need to support and champion in Australia. I commend this bill to the House.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the second reading of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. As our lead speaker, Mr Sukkar, has pointed out, we, the coalition, have an amendment here because we have some small business concerns, but obviously, in principle, we strongly support an expansion of paid parental leave. In fact, it's worth noting that we attempted to introduce a 26-week paid parental leave scheme—a scheme that we took to the 2010 and 2013 elections. We, of course, won the 2013 election, but we weren't in a position to implement that paid parental leave scheme, which would have gone up to $150,000 of paid leave for the 26-week period. That, of course, was vehemently opposed by those opposite—including by the Greens, not in the chamber at the moment. So we're pleased to see this development and we're pleased to support it in principle.

Obviously, the coalition is very much a party that wants to look for all sorts of opportunities to make it easier to get the work-life balance right, to support people starting or expanding families and to have as limited an impact as possible on the careers and incomes of the average household because of that.

It's certainly a different world to decades gone by, when we had very stereotyped attitudes and, therefore, very stereotyped policies when it came to the way in which families were expected—virtually required, because of the systems and attitudes of the past—to structure the family unit in a very specific way. I'm very grateful that those days, those years and those decades, if not centuries—even millennia—are well and truly behind us and that we're now in a modern era where we strongly support parents having the decision-making process well in their hands to start a family or expand a family and also to support their career and have the legislated protections and entitlements that they should have to fairly and reasonably expect to not have to sacrifice one for the other.

Obviously, an increase to 26 weeks simply improves even further the support that should be in place. It has clearly got the flexibility that it should have amongst parents et cetera, and people make their own individual decisions when they have children about how they wish to balance and/or structure their leave from the workforce. We know that there are other very important provisions in the Fair Work Act and in our industrial relations system to guarantee leave rights when it comes to leave for maternity purposes and for parental purposes—we now use that more appropriate term. Increasing to 26 weeks is an extension of the important support that should be in place.

But we do have concerns about the burden that the government—not the people accessing the leave—mandates upon business, particularly small business, and that is the crux of what we are seeking to have addressed through the amendments to this legislation that we foreshadowed. As it stands, there is a burden, a requirement, on business to administer a scheme that very much should be administered by the government department, much like any other government payment system is administered. We hear these concepts or arguments that a connection is maintained between an employer and an employee if the employer has the burden of administering the government's payment of the paid parental leave instead of the government. I think this is a complete nonsense.

Firstly, I think that, in the modern world, there are very good enduring connections between an employer and employee, remembering, of course, that this is a circumstance where someone is taking leave from a role that they will be returning to. So there are very simple, straightforward and obvious connections that are maintained between an employer and an employee. The connection that we're told is vitally important here is an administrative, processing and transactional requirement of a business to put money into someone's bank account. The suggestion that that is some kind of enhanced connection and interaction between their employer and them, as an employee, while they are on leave is patently ridiculous.

But what we also know and what we hear from many of the industry groups that represent small business—because we think it's small business that need to have this burden lifted from them and removed from them—is that large companies with big payroll departments are fine. They probably don't really need any dramatic additional resources to undertake the processing of paid parental leave transactions when they've got a payroll department and a complex payroll system. These are not overly consequential additional payroll department burdens for a large company with all that capacity that's largely in place to administer a scheme like this without undue additional burden.

But smaller businesses, businesses of less than 20 employees, would absolutely have to—and we hear very good examples from the consultation very directly that they indeed do, beyond question—have all these additional burdens on what can be very small resourcing towards payroll. If you're a small business with a few employees, you don't have any form of permanent, full-time payroll capability. These days we all know that software systems can provide a lot of assistance, but nonetheless, when it comes to payroll and the obligations on a business, there's a risk of significant penalties if they don't get it right—things like making sure they're paying the appropriate amount of super under the superannuation guarantee. Of course, when businesses have a legal burden on them that they need to comply with, they make sure that they do, but they also incur a cost in doing so. In the case of paid parental leave, we have an enormous government department with responsibility for the scheme. Why can't we have that department administering and transacting the scheme directly with the person receiving the government entitlement, rather than involving the small business that the person works for, putting the burden on them to administer the scheme?

It's very difficult to do business. There's a lot of stress and a lot of risk. We on this side of the House champion the people that go out there and take a risk to start a business. We have nothing against people who have jobs, which includes everyone in this chamber, but we particularly love the people who create new jobs in our economy. We want those news jobs to be coming from new businesses. We want to support the creation of new businesses and we want to support small businesses becoming medium-sized businesses or big businesses. We want a big, thriving private sector, and we want to make it as easy as possible for people to run their businesses.

As a parliament, we have an opportunity to do something to achieve a worthy goal that we should all have: helping people who are out there taking a risk to grow our economy and paying the taxes that governments like ours spend. Supporting these amendments is something we could do to make a positive change, reducing an administrative burden on businesses so they have one less thing to worry about. The arguments against that seem pretty weak, compared to the argument for it, which is helping businesses focus on running and growing their business for our economy.

We urge the government to look favourably upon these sensible suggestions. If they're not comfortable with relying solely on our arguments and word, they can simply look at the industry groups that represent the small businesses that are calling for this. Take them at face value and start saying, 'We want to help businesses and take an unnecessary burden of government off them wherever we have the opportunity to do so.' It's not an overly significant request for businesses to ask the government to administer its own scheme. That's not an unreasonable ask of the small-business community, given the enormity that is the Commonwealth Government of Australia.

We hope that the government will look favourably upon the amendments. I certainly support them. I would like to see this bill pass through the House expeditiously—hopefully in amended form—because it's a very important opportunity to support people. As I've outlined, we support the Paid Parental Leave scheme but there's a way to make it better, and I commend that improved version to the House.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased today to be speaking in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, a piece of legislation that is of utmost importance to our nation. This bill represents not just important reform but a really transformative change that holds immense significance for families, particularly women. Of course, it's also vitally important for the overall health of our economy.

The Albanese government understands the significance of this reform, and we're committed to championing the wellbeing of parents and their children while striving for gender equality and focusing on economic growth. Paid parental leave is the absolute basis upon which we build a healthier, more nurturing environment for parents and their children. It's important because it provides much-needed support to new parents during a really crucial and often difficult phase of life and really fosters a strong and healthy start for our children as well. It can be a very challenging time, and we should all be there to provide support for those new parents. As a government, there's a lot that we can do, and paid parental leave is vitally important in that.

This is not merely a social policy that's good for families but also an economic one, contributing significantly to the stability of families and the efficiency of our workforce. And it is, importantly, a key instrument for achieving gender equality—a goal that unites us all. All of us—governments, businesses, unions, community and economists—recognise its profound importance.

When implemented correctly, paid parental leave can be a win-win, not only fostering individual wellbeing and family wellbeing but contributing to the greater economic good, because it offers support for working parents, reduces turnover in the workplace and results in a more engaged and productive workforce. Moreover and so importantly, it empowers women to maintain their careers and economic independence, bridging so many gender disparities.

Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the most effective ways to boost productivity and participation is providing more choices and more support for families, alongside greater opportunities for women. Our commitment to this cause was evidenced in our first budget, where we invested half a billion dollars to extend the scheme to six months by 2026. This monumental investment represents the most substantial commitment to paid parental leave since we introduced the scheme in 2011, benefitting over 180,000 families every year. This reflects the Albanese government's unwavering commitment to improving the lives of working families, ensuring better outcomes for children and furthering women's economic equality.

The paid parental leave bill that we're debating today is, of course, the second phase of the government's reforms, building on the changes we initiated last year. These initial reforms, which came into effect on 1 July, expanded access to the payment, providing parents with greater flexibility in how they take their leave, and encouraged shared caregiving responsibilities. It's so important to do that, recognising different working environments and family environments as well. These changes were designed as the building blocks for the comprehensive 26-week expansion outlined in this bill.

This bill is a really significant leap forward in the evolution of our paid parental leave scheme, as it increases the length of the payment from 20 weeks to 26 weeks. Furthermore, it extends the period reserved for each parent from two weeks to four weeks and doubles the period during which parents can take leave at the same time, from two weeks to four weeks. Implementation will commence on 1 July 2024, and two additional weeks of leave will be added each year until we reach the full 26-week period in 2026.

The significance of this expansion cannot be overstated. It provides mothers with up to 22 weeks of paid parental leave—an additional month compared to the current scheme. That extra time is so invaluable for mothers to recover after childbirth and establish those strong bonds with their newborns. Furthermore, it doubles the period reserved for fathers or partners, encouraging them to take a more active role in parenting. Whether you're a mother or a father caring for your child, gender should not affect your access to parental leave payments.

This bill also sends a resounding message that parenting is an equal partnership, and it actively supports gender equality. This government values men as caregivers just as much as women. We understand that, we want this to be reinforced in both workplaces and communities and we see that so often in our communities and our families—but there needs to be legislation like this to encourage people to take it up.

The bill also ensures that single parents are not left behind. They, too, will have access to the full 26 weeks of paid parental leave. Moreover, the bill introduces flexibility by increasing the number of weeks during which parents can take paid parental leave at the same time.

When we announced our paid parental leave reform in the 2022-23 October budget, we, of course, sought the guidance of and listened to the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to determine the best model for the 26 weeks—one that would really work to advance women's economic equality. The task force recommended reserving four weeks for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and allowing parents to take up to four weeks of leave at the same time, which is a great option as well. We wholeheartedly embrace this advice, as it represents a well-balanced approach that increases support for mothers, encourages fathers to take leave and provides families with the flexibility to structure their care arrangements to their unique needs.

As a result of these reforms, from 2026-27 the government's total investment in paid parental leave will be around $4.4 billion a year. It is a massive investment in a plan that will be so important for families. The government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer provided leave as well. Of course, we were all really pleased to hear the data that was collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, which reported that in 2021-22, 62 per cent of employers offered employer funded paid parental leave. This is a very positive trend, as in 2013-14 that same figure was only at 48 per cent. Seeing that increase in employer contributions means that employers are recognising the value and the worth to their employees and to the economic productivity of their business as well. Data such as this is indicative of a society that has evolved greatly and a business community that sees itself as having a role alongside government in providing that paid parental leave. I concur with the comments by Minister Rishworth in saying that we want to continue to see this trend grow, and I thank all those employers who have seen paid parental as a workplace investment that returns better benefits for parents, employees and the economy.

In summary, the changes that are outlined in this bill strike a critical balance between providing more support to mothers, encouraging fathers and partners to take an active role in parenting and offering families the flexibility they need to structure their care arrangements effectively depending upon their family circumstances, their particular occupations and their working environments. They will be able to do that effectively. We know that for so many people they were unable to continue to work in the past because that capacity was not there, that financial support wasn't there, that flexibility wasn't there. But that's what we are saying with this bill in terms of providing that.

It's so essential that our Paid Parental Leave scheme aligns with the needs and dynamics of modern Australian families and embodies a policy that's flexible and fair and that promotes positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children. When children are born is wonderful time, and to have access to that leave to be able to do all the necessary bonding, to have that time and to not be rushed will reap huge benefits.

This bill is a foundation support for parents and children. It's good for employers and a catalyst for economic growth. The Albanese government is always proud to provide the support that Australian families need and deserve, to strengthen our economy and to promote gender equality. We have seen that same belief in terms of our tax cuts for every taxpayer throughout Australia. We are always looking at measures that will help Australian families, and, as our tax cuts will do a great job, so too will this paid parental leave be at the heart of providing that support to Australian families.

We, as Labor governments, have a proud history of improving the lives of Australian families, whether it be from Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme to no-fault divorce, the single mother's benefit and the child support system. It was Labor who first introduced the maternity allowance in the early 1900s. Despite many efforts from those opposite to dismantle the support for Australian families, it's Labor who introduced the Paid Parental Leave scheme that we know now.

I also acknowledge those many people who have advocated for paid parental leave for years and years. So many different groups and organisations and unions were advocating for this for years. We listened and we delivered it in 2011, and we extended it and we're expanding it again. As I said, it's been wonderful to see the changing attitudes in the community, and business as well, recognising the value and the worth of it. Now, here we, Labor, are again, continuing to bring forth reforms to improve the lives for all Australian families.

I'm really proud to be a part of a Labor government who have been, and always will be, on the side of Australian families. This bill, along with our many, many other measures—including, as I mentioned earlier, our tax cuts—are making a huge difference to Australian families. All of these measures are designed to improve the lives of Australian families, and we're very proud of them. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important bill that I rise to speak on, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. Paid parental leave is something that is really important and crucial for many families.

Like many in this House, I had the opportunity to benefit from paid parental leave, and that time at home with my children when they were born was very important and special for my wife and me. It's been a few years now since I was at home. They're growing up too quickly. But, just before Christmas, I was lucky enough to welcome a niece into the world, young Lotti, to my sister Michaela; my brother-in-law, Hugh; and young Noah. To see them together; get the memories of those early days, weeks and months together; and see Hugh be able to take advantage of paid parental leave and be at home to support my sister and spend time with his children is another reminder of how valuable this leave is to families and how important it is in a modern society. No doubt, the world had changed a lot for the better in this regard, and there's more that we need to do to ensure that paid parental leave meets the needs of a modern Australia.

As many have said, it was introduced in 2011, so it's been around for quite a long time now. These reforms to the act will move paid parental leave away from the previous 12-week period of paid parental leave, six weeks of flexible paid parental leave and two weeks of dad and partner pay.

I've shared a little bit about my experience, but it's a reality for many Australians. The ABS showed that, in 2022-23, there were 171,280 parental leave pay claims and 88,645 dad and partner pay claims. So it's making a significant impact for many people.

In March 2023, the scheme was amended to combine the PLP and the DAPP, forming a single payment of 20 weeks that can be shared between parents to give maximum flexibility. The notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants was also removed, and it allowed fathers and partners to claim parental leave pay without requiring birth mothers to make a claim. It's increased flexibility and it has led families into a better situation. They were changes that the coalition supported, and it's an example of how, yes, there is a robust nature in this House, but there are many policies that we agree on, and this was another one that the coalition supported and agreed on. I'm proud to be part of a team that did support that to allow flexibility to those that needed it.

The coalition also have a strong record in this space. In March of 2022, as part of the women's budget statement, the coalition underlined its commitment to paid parental leave by announcing enhanced paid parental leave. The enhanced leave was an investment of $346.1 million over five years to expand paid parental leave, giving working families full choice and control over how they use their 20 weeks. As I said, that's why the coalition is supporting this bill, because, on the face of it, it's very similar to our longstanding paid parental leave policy.

The amendments in this bill are the second tranche of PPL reforms by the government and are extending the scheme by two weeks each year to reach 26 weeks by 2026. However, we will be moving a second reading amendment calling on the government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to require the secretary, as defined by the act, to pay paid parental leave instalments directly to employees of small businesses, except in cases where a small business opts to pay PLP instalments directly to the employee. This is a really important amendment and something that is going to benefit the employees who receive the payments, making sure they get paid the right amount on time, as well as employers who have to make these payments.

The reason we need this to happen through Services Australia is we need to recognise the reality of many small businesses in our country. I want to share one story from my career. I worked at a fantastic company called Yarra Valley Snack Foods. I was there for seven or eight years, and we grew from 7-11 employees when I started to more than 130 when I left the company—it was rapid growth. But the reality was the owners, Andrew and Christine, ran that business themselves at the start and as it grew. Christine was looking after payroll and many of the administrative roles that were required. She had no expertise or training in payroll, in HR, in finance or in making sure that these rules that came through from this House to small businesses were applied correctly. She was using her wit and her intelligence; she was reading and she was doing everything she could to make sure that she was getting the changes right. No doubt there was times she might not have understood the legislation or might have inadvertently made a mistake. That's the reality for small-business owners—they're the managers, they're the owners, they're the HR department and they're the finance department. In our organisation, the owner was also the warehouse manager on the forklift. They're juggling multiple hats and multiple responsibilities, so if we can make it easier for small businesses to apply these rules and changes and laws, it will be easier and it will ensure employees get what they need and get the money they need in a timely manner.

Now, the Paid Parental Leave scheme includes a mandatory employer role which requires employers to pay the government-funded parental leave pay to eligible long-term employees. Employers are required to provide only the PLP taken by their employees in a continuous block at the beginning of their entitlement, and Services Australia provides any PLP days taken outside of this block. The purpose of the employer role is to maintain the connection between employees on parental leave and their employers, which is crucial. But Services Australia provides the PLP payments to employers in advance of them providing the payments to their employee in accordance with the employee's normal pay cycle.

These changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme disproportionately adversely impact small businesses, as I have explained previously regarding my time at Yarra Valley Snack Foods. They impose an additional red-tape burden on small businesses by making them the pay clerk for the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. The government has long claimed that the purpose of the employer role is to maintain the connection between the employees on parental leave and their employers. The government has provided little evidence to support these claims in practice where the small business needs to pay this money, and not Services Australia. In 2021-22, there were 31,377 employers that provided PLP to their employees—38 per cent were small businesses, defined as having fewer than 20 employees. Small businesses with no human resource department to rely on and drowning in red tape are ill-equipped to administer these payments.

As noted by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman:

… in addition to their usual record-keeping requirements, employers that have employees receiving the Australian Government-funded parental leave pay must keep the following records:

These are seven requirements on husbands and wives and many small business owners with no experience in HR or finance. Records must be kept for seven years, with records readily accessible by a person exercising powers under part 4-2 of the act, with the employer providing the employee prescribed information under part 4 section 32 of the rules.

A survey conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has found 88.02 per cent of small businesses overwhelmingly believe that PPL should be administered by Services Australia, with small businesses that have previously administered the payments nearly unanimous in their view that, if given the choice, they would prefer the payments to be administered by Services Australia rather than by the employer. ACCI's research also found that 90.7 per cent of small businesses who administered the payments reported an increased administrative burden and an increase to their payroll processing time. ACCI also found many small business employers administering leave payments reported no benefit to their relationships with their employees, because doing so does not actually involve or require proper communication.

As I said, this is not just about small business and trying to take red tape away from them, which is crucial and provides efficiency for them. It's also about making sure that the employees who need the money at that time receive it. I would hate for a small business to inadvertently not pay their employee and create a situation where young parents are put under more stress and more financial stress because of an inadvertent mistake by someone that doesn't have HR or finance training and is just trying to do their best.

Perversely, it creates the situation where the relationship between the employer and the employee could actually be severed, because, in a time of high stress as a new parent, that employee could take out an innocent mistake on their employer, and we all know, as new parents with not much sleep, that any little thing can add to your stress. So that's why it's important that we have Services Australia as an organisation supporting small businesses and supporting new mothers and fathers to receive their paid parental leave. I hope that the government will look at the amendment calling on these changes, as I said, to avoid some of these potential consequences.

But, as we talk about paid parental leave, I also want to talk about the Multiple Birth Association, which is a significant organisation. Many parents have multiple births, and I recently met with Sarah Lavis, the president of the Eastern Area Multiple Birth Association, along with several local parents, to discuss paid parental leave for multiple-birth families. Multiple births can put significant financial pressure on families, due to the additional costs associated with multiples and the challenges of incurring many child-specific costs concurrently. Studies have shown that the cost of having twins is nearly five times higher than the cost of having a singleton, and the cost of triplets is around 13 times higher than for a singleton.

The most recent reforms to PPL treat individuals the same way, regardless of whether families have multiples or singletons and regardless of prematurity. The parents of a singleton receive the same term of PPL as the parents of twins or triplets, who are also often born prematurely. Premature babies are frequently in NICU for an extended period of time, and many weeks of PPL can be used up during that time, with much less leave remaining, once babies are at home, for parents to be able to care for their newborns. Further consideration of the specific needs of families with multiples is necessary, to give parents of multiples the time needed to invest in the care that is vital during these crucial early stages.

Now, I wrote to the Minister for Finance about this issue almost six months ago and I'm still waiting for a response, but I hope that the minister does look at this, because it is an opportunity to further enhance the paid parental leave system. I'm very lucky to have, in my office, a parent of twins, so I see and hear from her about some of the challenges, but also the wonderful joy, of having twins. We should be looking to support these parents who are going through a very busy and stressful time financially and emotionally to make sure that they have every opportunity to bond with their children.

As I said, there is much in this bill that is good. It reflects the coalition policy and that is why we will support it. But I urge the government to look to support small businesses to keep that connection between employees and employers strong and to look at what else could be done to support parents with multiple births.

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government knows that Australians are doing it tough and we are laser-focused on delivering cost-of-living relief to support working families. Since coming to government, we have implemented a raft of measures to help Australians make ends meet including cheaper child care, electricity bill relief, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines and, of course, our $11.3 billion investment in a wage rise for aged-care workers.

We have also made important reforms to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to improve and expand the scheme to make it more equitable for parents and to encourage shared care. Under the previous coalition government, birth mothers who earned more than $151,351 per year did not qualify for 18 weeks of paid parental leave. However, if their partner earned more than $150,000 threshold and the birth mother earned less than that, they did qualify for the payment. The policy reinforced outdated gender roles and reflected an outdated view of the world where the man was the breadwinner and the woman's income was secondary to any household budget.

A Lilley constituent, Emma, from Geebung, wrote to me prior to the election about her family's situation and how unfair the coalition policy was for working mothers who were the main income earner. Emma said that she was the primary income earner in her family, bringing home approximately $160,000 per year, and her husband earned about $70,000 per year. Under the old regime, Emma would not have qualified for paid parental leave due to her income exceeding the $150,000 cap. But if Emma and her husband's salaries were reversed and she was the lower income earner then she would have qualified for the payment—same family income but, because the woman earned more, the family did not qualify for paid parental leave. Emma said, 'I think this policy is outdated and unfairly impacts families where the mother is the breadwinner for the family. I am appreciative of having a paid parental leave scheme in our country; however, I think we could improve on it in the name of equality.'

Well I heard you, Emma, and the Albanese Labor government heard you as well. We know that paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children. We know investing in paid parental leave benefits our entire economy and we know that, done right, paid parental leave can balance gender equality. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand 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. That is why paid parental leave reform was the centrepiece of our first budget, where we invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This is the largest investment in paid parental leave since Labor established the scheme in 2011, benefiting over 180,000 families per year. Some 2,030 of those families live in my electorate of Lilley and have taken advantage of the paid parental leave improvements so far. It reflects the Albanese government's commitment to improve the lives of working families, support better outcomes for children and advance women's economic equality.

This bill implements the second tranche of the government's paid parental leave reform announced in our 2022-23 October budget. It follows the first tranche we legislated at the start of the year to modernise the scheme to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed over the last decade. These changes, which commenced on 1 July, give more families access to the payment, give parents more flexibility in how they take leave and they encourage parents to share care. Already these changes are making a big impact on Lilley constituents, like Melissa and Matthew of Taigum. Melissa is a doctor who returned to work earlier than she had planned and was able to transfer the remaining paid parental leave to her husband, Matthew. The family has been able to choose how they care for their new baby in a way that suits their needs, thanks to a policy that allows dads to play an active role in infant care.

These previous changes have laid a strong foundation for our expansion of paid parental leave to 26 weeks, which is the focus of this bill. This bill expands paid parental leave by increasing the length of the payment, from 20 to 26 weeks; increasing the period reserved for each parent, from two to four weeks; and doubling the period where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time, from two to four weeks. Starting on 1 July 2024, two additional weeks of leave will be added each year, until reaching 26 weeks in 2026. Currently, up to 18 weeks are available for one parent, which is usually taken by the mother, with two weeks reserved for the dad or partner. The increase to 26 weeks means mums can access up to 22 weeks of PPL—an additional month, compared to the current scheme—and it also doubles the period reserved for the dad or partner from two to four weeks. Crucially, this expansion provides additional support to mums after childbirth, supporting their wellbeing and their child's wellbeing while also encouraging dads and partners to take more leave.

When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, it benefits mums, dads and their kids. The changes in this bill send a clear message that treating parents as an equal partnership supports greater equality. The government values men as carers, too, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and in communities. Single parents will have access to the full 26 weeks. The bill also provides flexibility by increasing the number of weeks where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time. When we announced our paid parental leave reform in the 2022-23 October budget, we tasked the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce with providing advice on the best model for 26 weeks to advance women's economic equality. The taskforce recommended reserving four weeks for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and allowing parents to take up to four weeks leave at the same time, and we have adopted that advice in our bill.

The Scandinavians have led the way in promoting shared parental leave. In 1995 Sweden introduced a 'daddy quota', which is a part of the parental leave period exclusively reserved for fathers. If the father doesn't take his allotted period of leave, the family loses it. Thanks to the daddy quota, nine out of 10 Swedish fathers now take the leave. Norway has seen similar success, with about three-quarters of fathers taking the amount stipulated in the quota, while one in five take a few weeks more than the quota. It promotes gender equality, it reduces the impact that a period of extended leave can have on the mother's career, and it enables fathers to play a more prominent role in the early parts of their child's life. Together, our changes strike an important balance: increasing support to mums, encouraging dads to take leave, and providing families with flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements.

It is critical that our Paid Parental Leave scheme supports modern Australian families. We need a scheme that is flexible and fair and drives positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children, and this bill does just that. Crucially, it gives families access to more paid parental leave, provides parents with flexibility in how they can take that leave, and encourages them to share care to support gender equality. This bill is good for parents, good for kids, good for employers and good for our economy. I thank the House.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the government's amendments to our nation's Paid Parental Leave scheme through the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill. I fully support and thank the government for their commitment to improving the lives of working families, providing Australian children a good start in life and advancing gender equality.

This bill is to be applauded as it is another step towards a more equitable future. Not only does it increase the number of parental leave weeks a primary carer is able to take but it also increases the number of weeks their partner can take and the number of weeks that can be taken together. This not only is a good outcome for the baby and parents but also will go some way to diminishing the persistent stigma associated with men taking parental leave.

In 2021, women took 88 per cent of primary parental leave. In other words, 88 per cent of the time it was the woman who stayed at home after the birth of a child, and, while parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of mum and baby, it is nevertheless a very significant disruption to a woman's career and, therefore, can impact her lifelong financial security. The time away from work is long, is usually taken more than once and is usually at a critical time in the development of a woman's career. Such a disruption leaves women more vulnerable to financial stress or homelessness in later life.

I think it is important to use this opportunity to talk about other significant disruptions that women face throughout their careers. Most of these disruptions are unique to women and have ongoing and compounding effects on their careers, their participation in the workforce and their stability and independence in retirement. Some of the issues I'm going to mention are issues which are not talked about often in this place or, for that matter, anywhere, but they should not be taboo as they are issues which, to one degree or another, affect the lives, health and financial stability of 51 per cent of the population at some stage in their lives and, indeed, also impact the productivity of our nation. If we don't talk about these issues, the management of them will not improve and the outcomes for women will not improve.

We've discussed the disruption to women's careers that having children entails, but let's not forget the nine months of pregnancy prior to giving birth and all the difficulties that that can often entail. Inevitably, pregnancy involves time away from work at the very least for medical appointments and often to deal with debilitating pregnancy related conditions such as hyperemesis—which is otherwise known as terrible, severe morning sickness, with dehydration—gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, anaemia or prenatal depression. That's not to mention the more frequent and mundane impacts like simple tiredness or exhaustion. The tiredness of early pregnancy is like nothing I have ever experienced before or since. Then comes childbirth and parental leave, which, as described, is likely to involve the biggest disruption to a woman's career.

There are also many other medical conditions that can impact women's daily lives for decades. One such example is the descriptively named heavy menstrual bleeding. Around one-quarter of women aged between 30 and 50 suffer from heavy menstrual bleeding. This is bleeding that lasts around seven days or more—quite often more—and results in heavy blood loss of as much as 400 millimetres every month. Let's be clear about what this means. Twenty-five per cent of women suffer from significant blood loss seven days out of every 28, sometimes for decades. That's a quarter of women for a quarter of every month. The blood loss can be so significant that they become severely iron deficient, developing symptoms of fatigue, irritability, dizziness, confusion, depression, headaches and brain fog.

Then there are the 10 per cent of women who suffer from endometriosis, a disease in which tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus. Endometriosis can cause severe pelvic pain and heavy bleeding and can make it difficult to conceive. These symptoms can start as early as a woman's very first period and last until menopause. The average length of time it takes to diagnose endometriosis is seven years and sometimes significantly longer. As you can imagine, this disease can result in the need to take large amounts of time off work, and, concerningly, a recent study undertaken by Western Sydney University found that one in six women who suffer from endometriosis have lost their jobs as a result of the symptoms they experience.

And then women move into the next phase of their lives: menopause. The menopause transition can begin in a woman's early 40s, or even earlier, so not long after the child-bearing years. It usually lasts about seven years, but can last as long as 14 years. Most people associate menopause with hot flushes, but hot flushes are only one of 34 uncomfortable or even distressing physical and psychological symptoms. The severity of symptoms varies, obviously, but 25 per cent of all women suffer severe symptoms. This can compound things at the time of life when women are experiencing the double whammy of caring duties for both children and parents. It all compounds.

The culture of silence on the issue of menopause is causing women to retire prematurely. In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, the CEO of Menopause Friendly Australia, Grace Molloy, wrote:

Women retire 7.4 years earlier than men, often at the height of their careers and often when menopause hits. Women intend to retire at 64, but on average leave work at 52.

That's my age. She continued:

That's one year after the average age of menopause.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't look that old!

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ha! She went on:

Almost half of women who retire before 55 cite their health as the reason they stopped work. Ignoring menopause in the workplace is not working.

Research and modelling done by the Australia Institute on superannuation trustees in 2022 estimated that even if just 10 per cent of women retired early because of menopausal symptoms, it would equate to a loss of earnings and super of more than $17 billion. If that figure jumped to 20 per cent, the economic loss would grow to more than $35 billion.

And then there are the caring responsibilities in addition to child care, which are often taken on by women—more by women than men. There's the unpaid work associated with caring for disabled, injured, unwell or elderly relatives. Currently, 12.3 per cent of all women in Australia identify as a carer, and women represent 72 per cent of all primary carers. These medical issues, both separately and together, have a huge impact on women's financial stability over the course of their lives. The poor level of paid parental leave to date has been at the core of financial instability and inequality for women. The superannuation gender gap is also well documented. It's a result not only of the gender pay gap but also, as has been described, because women are more likely to have breaks in employment and are more likely to have work in casual and part-time roles. Disturbingly, the average superannuation payout for women is one-third the payout for men. On average, it's $37,00 for women, compared with men on $110,000. The result of all these factors is that many women are living their final years in poverty. A report in February this year by Anglicare described older women as the 'invisible homeless'.

The next policy step, if we're serious about equality in this country, must be for superannuation to be paid on paid parental leave as well. The disruptions to women's lives and careers are numerous and lengthy. Apart from emotional and wellbeing impacts, these disruptions, either separately or compounded, can be devastating for a woman's financial, job and housing security. The 2016 census showed that older women were the fastest-growing group to experience homelessness in Australia, and that was an increase of 31 per cent on the 2011 numbers.

All of these disruptions in women's lives matter; all of these disruptions to women's lives entrench disadvantage; and all of these disruptions to women's lives can be ameliorated with policies such as this one. So I commend these amendments and this bill to the House.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes in this place, there's a beautiful synchronicity. I was looking back at the last tranche of paid parental leave that I spoke on, which happens to have been a year ago—on the same day that we marked International Women's Day with the UN in this place. Here we are, 12 months on, doing exactly what we said we'd do: introducing and debating our next tranche of paid parental leave improvements with this Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023.

These improvements are about a lot of different things, like modernising this scheme so that it really meets the needs of 21st century families. It's doing something that empowers women and provides them with more support than they've ever had in caring for a newborn, but it supports both parents, whether they are a mum and a dad or they're any other combination. Whether a child is their natural child or a child is adopted, we're recognising that these are the sorts of families who have been overlooked as changes have been made but not to this particular policy area until we came along. So I'm very proud to be here, 12 months on, to talk about our next tranche.

I think it's worth remembering what the first changes were that we made under the paid parental leave amendment, which were to expand the maximum entitlement of parental leave pay from 18 weeks to 20 weeks by absorbing the dad and partner pay which had previously provided up to two weeks of pay to eligible working fathers or partners. That first tranche also replaced the requirement for the birth parent to claim parental leave pay first with gender-neutral claiming to make it easier for the partner to claim and both parents to share the entitlement. We also removed the requirement for 12 weeks of parental leave pay to be taken in one continuous block, to increase the flexibility of how claimants receive parental leave pay. As someone who spent all the early years of my children's life running a small business, I know that flexibility is absolutely essential for mums who are small-business operators to be able to go in and out of work so they can keep their business going, in a lot of cases, and not have to walk away from the primary care that they might want to provide. There have been a whole lot of people who've benefited enormously from that.

A year ago we also introduced the reserve 'use it or lose it' period of two weeks of parental leave pay for each parent, and we allowed eligible claimants to take up to two weeks of parental leave pay concurrently in relation to the same child so both parents could be together, with genuinely shared parenting able to happen, at a time when both parents can, if it's their first child, get used to a very different and new situation. Importantly, we expanded the scheme eligibility by introducing the family income limit, which can apply if a person doesn't meet the individual income limit. I think that recognises that you can't always assume that, perhaps in a male-female relationship, the mum is going to be the lower income earner. All those things start to recognise the realities of life and the things that we as a government should be looking to support.

This next tranche of changes is really important. It was emphasised to me, just this week, after an email from a constituent where we assisted in getting some of the leave entitlements sorted, and she summed it up beautifully by saying, 'I just want to spend my whole maternity leave enjoying and witnessing the milestones of my son before I go back to work.' This next tranche of changes is going to make that even more possible. So let's talk about this latest round of changes. They are absolutely critical for families. They're critical for women, and that means they're critical for the economy. We know this, and I think that's worth saying to people who may not be in their child-bearing years, may not have their own children or might about to be grandparents and who might go, 'What's in it for me?' But this is good for the whole economy. We also know that, when it's done right, paid parental leave can really advance gender equality. That's something that has been on people's minds in this place for many years, and this is tangible stuff. It's one of many things we have done to assist with gender equality.

It is worth saying that business, unions, experts of all sorts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation in the workforce is to provide more choice and support for families and more opportunity for women. That's why this has been a central part of our policy agenda since our very first budget, where there was that half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This is the largest investment in paid parental leave since Labor established the Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2011, and it will benefit around 180 families each year. In Macquarie, when I look at the figures, the number of people who will benefit from this and from our changes for cheaper child care runs into the thousands. I think it's around 6,000-plus who will be supported by this.

This change to paid parental leave is the natural successor to our first tranche of changes, and it lays a strong pathway forward. The length of the payment will increase over time from 20 to 26 weeks. There's an increase in the period reserved for each parent, from two weeks to four weeks, and there's a doubling of the period where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time, from two weeks to four weeks. So, starting on 1 July 2024, two extra weeks of leave will be added every year until we reach 26 weeks of paid parental leave in 2026.

Right now, up to 18 weeks are available for one parent. It's usually taken by the mother, with two weeks reserved for the dad or the partner. The increase to 26 weeks means that mums can access up to 22 weeks of paid parental leave, so that's an additional month compared to the current scheme. My recollection of the very first year of a child is that every week makes a difference. It might not always make a difference for the better in the way you are sleeping, but your ability to think and understand how to coexist with this new child changes and evolves. Probably, in reality, every day makes a difference. So that extra month that we're going to achieve is really significant.

It also doubles that period reserved for the dad or the partner from two weeks to four weeks, and I encourage dads and non-birth partners to make the most of that opportunity. It might not be fun. It might have its own elements. Sometimes there's something to be said for being able to escape to work. But it is such a crucial time, and that extra support can make all the difference for the whole family. Crucially this expansion provides additional support to mums after childbirth—that is really what it comes down to—and it allows the partner to do that as well. It supports them, and it supports their child's wellbeing.

The changes in this bill send a very clear message that when you treat partners as equals, where each has a role and an equally important one, it supports gender equality. We really value men as carers and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and throughout our communities. I also want to stress that single parents will have access to the full 26 weeks, and that's one of the key parts of this tranche of changes.

When we announced our paid parental leave reform back in the 2022-23 October budget—so this is going back to not last year but the year before—we tasked the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce with providing some advice on the best model for 26 weeks that would advance women's economic equality. That's where the recommendation of four weeks for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and allowing parents to take the four weeks at the same time came from. That advice is adopted in this bill.

I think we've got a really powerful package here. I come from a time when I wasn't entitled to a single day of paid parental leave. I hadn't been back in the country very long after working overseas for several years, so I didn't have any employer entitlement, which was the only option. That was all you had if you were lucky and you had the right employer. By the time I had my second child, I had my own business, and in theory I paid myself, but actually I needed to keep working to keep paying the mortgage and put food on the table. And, of course, my husband had no entitlement because the dads just didn't get that. I look at this and think, 'Wow, what a different environment we've created for this next generation.' I'm always distressed when I hear some women of my generation saying, 'Oh, we did without it, and I don't think anyone really needs it,' because, my goodness, it is so needed when we think about how we're trying to support families with this very early start.

We also know we need to support families as mum goes back into the workforce. That remains a continuing challenge, in spite of our cheaper child care. We know that it is still very challenging to find child care that suits families' working needs and is available when parents need it. I look at this scheme and think, 'This is a giant leap that we have made,' but there is much more to do. Back in 2011, when we introduced this, it was an absolute joy to see it. Now, I can see we've got this to an incredible point, but we will continue working on the issues that not only inhibit women's economic involvement but, more than that, inhibit their ability to be the best parents that they can be. We recognise that there is a lot more to do in this place.

I have never seen us as a government who say, 'Do you know what? Job done—we don't have to worry anymore.' There's a desire to say, 'We made that better, but what else can we make better?' I know my constituents will certainly keep telling me the areas where we need to do better. I certainly recognise that we need to ensure there are suitable childcare places and to look at what we can do to have a role in that. A lot of it is, quite frankly, where the market and the private sector are failing, but we really need to keep working on that.

But I hope that anyone who's due to have a child from 1 July onwards, when this legislation comes into force, assuming that it passes—

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

Hold tight!

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, hang on till the 1st. I'm lucky because my children were always very overdue.

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

You could have another one.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For some of you due in June, you might just make it.

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

The Deputy Speaker could deliver it for you!

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that this is life changing for some families, and I am very pleased and very proud to be part of a government who are putting women and families at the heart of our thinking, not just because it's the right thing to do from a social perspective but because we know this will help drive our economy.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the eternally young member for Macquarie, but I do suspect having another child is off the agenda!

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of a critical Labor reform—paid parental leave—and namely the second phase of the Albanese Labor government's reforms in this space—the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. Last year, the Albanese Labor government passed the first phase of our paid parental leave reforms with the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. Upon its implementation, it was not just foreshadowed; it formed part of a key commitment made by this government as part of the 2022-23 budget.

Policies like this, big reforms, are in Labor's DNA. They echo through our history with initiatives like Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme and with, most notably, the introduction of paid parental leave in 2011 under the Gillard Labor government. In 2011, the introduction of Australia's first paid parental leave scheme marked a significant milestone in our history, demonstrating our dedication to supporting working families. Prior to this, many families were unable to access any form of paid parental leave whatsoever. However, as societal needs develop and evolve, even some of the great reforms must adapt and keep pace with them.

This bill doesn't just expand on the Albanese Labor government's recent reforms of paid parental leave; it continues to build on the legacy of the Gillard government's initial vision. The current paid parental leave framework, groundbreaking at its introduction, now faces the challenge of meeting complex demands of modern family life.

I commend the work of my South Australian colleague the Minister for Social Services in building upon the policy legacy of her predecessor, Jenny Macklin, the former member for Jagajaga and the minister who introduced the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 in this place.

The bill's inclusive design recognises the diversity of modern Australian families, ensuring that all structures can be afforded the same level of support. As it was at the inception of paid parental leave, it is imperative that a mechanism exists to support working families across Australia as they grapple with the difficult choices in trying to balance careers and parenthood. This policy has benefited many parents and their children since 2011, with real and lasting positive impacts. In the past financial year alone, in my electorate of Spence nearly 1,200 people accessed paid parental leave and, roughly, another 800 accessed dad and partner pay. Just in 2022 alone, Spence had the joyous occasions of welcoming roughly 3,700 newborns into the electorate. The new measures in this bill would have made a material difference to the parents of Spence's newest arrivals in 2022, but I'm sure many of them share the same outlook as myself and the member for Boothby—we are thankful that Labor governments have come along to make paid parental leave more accessible and equitable, despite not being able to enjoy those benefits ourselves.

We are, like all members on this side of the House, proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, that is putting families first, putting babies first and, by both circumstance and design, improving outcomes in gender equality and productivity whilst doing so. Unlike many in the opposition and the wider commentariat, we don't just throw the word 'productivity' around as a clarion call to slow or curtail any measures that come close to improving conditions for workers. We listen to the experts from all sides of the political spectrum and from all professional backgrounds. This was certainly the case with PPL, with our government working in recommendations by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, a taskforce brought into existence, as with many good things, from our government's Jobs and Skills Summit. This is taskforce which contains those who would ordinarily disagree with our side of politics. Many on the taskforce are extremely eminent women across their fields who would ordinarily disagree with each other on many subjects, but not this one. They know the difference that access to paid parental leave can make for women and for our economy. It's policy that makes a tangible difference to the lives of many young families who are experiencing the joys of introducing their newborns to the world and forming that close bond that only parents know all too well.

These reforms soon became so ingrained in our consciousness, it's difficult to remember a time prior to their introduction and implementation. But many parents can remember the days before paid parental leave, especially when they weren't fortunate enough to work for an employer with a scheme of their own in place. Being the parent of a newborn without access to either a government or employer based scheme is a lived experience that I had to share as a young parent of a newborn back in 2004. Back then, choices were fairly limited, unless somehow you had the financial capacity to take a period of unpaid leave. That's a luxury not many Australians had back then. I know that I sure didn't and, listening to a couple of the contributions made by other members earlier in this debate, it wasn't a luxury they were able to access either. Not having that luxury back then robbed many parents of time with their infants and, in many instances, of the opportunity for caring responsibilities to be shared more evenly. That's not to mention that it allows for those first weeks to include ones that are shared together as a family. These are precious formative experiences, not just for newborns but for parents, too. These are experiences that no parent should be forced to put a price tag on and a price that no society should force parents to have to factor in—whether they will be able to spend time with their child during some of their first moments on this earth.

Prior to the inception of paid parental leave, society indeed did put a price tag on these tender experiences for many parents, causing parents to contemplate the opportunity cost between their ability to earn a wage during the time they would otherwise spend with their newborn baby. Parents are stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place, caught between sharing moments together, sharing parental caring responsibilities as a young family, and having the ability to put food on the table. It's thanks to Labor governments past for introducing such a reform so that parents needn't face such an impossible choice in the future.

Today, we are building on this great Labor reform with this paid parental leave amendment bill. This bill is a step forward in supporting Australian families. It extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks—a considerable increase from where it stands currently. This change is methodically planned, adding two weeks each year from 2024 and reaching 26 weeks by July 2026. This bill is more than just legislative reform. It represents the Albanese Labor government's commitment to improve outcomes for working families across Australia, recognising that strong families form the bedrock of a prosperous society in whatever shape they might take. The extension of paid parental leave and the increase in reserved weeks for each parent are steps towards a more supportive and inclusive society. The bill will also increase the period of time reserved for each parent from two to four weeks on a 'use it or lose it' basis. It doubles the period where parents can access paid parental leave concurrently from two to four weeks.

This bill is about more than extending time off. It's about nurturing the Australian family unit. By increasing parental leave from 20 to 26 weeks, we're providing a stronger foundation for parents and newborns. This additional financial support allows families to focus on their children's early development without additional stresses and financial constraints. Importantly, this bill is a deliberate and strategic move towards improving on gender equality. By extending reserved periods and increasing concurrent leave, we are fostering an environment where both parents are actively involved in their children's upbringing. Investing in paid parental leave is about boosting the overall health and wellbeing of society. It recognises that strong, healthy families are essential to our nation's prosperity. The Albanese Labor government recognises the important contributions families make to our country at home and in the workforce. This is evidenced by the paid parental leave reforms that formed a key part of our first budget. Through this bill, our government will deliver a $1.2 billion investment across five years. This represents the largest investment into paid parental leave since the Gillard government introduced the scheme back in 2011.

In speaking of the history of paid parental leave, I would also like to touch on some remarks made on this bill by the member for Deakin last year and earlier in this debate. I hope that I can be forgiven for not having the historical context of this matter as I, unlike the member for Deakin, was not a member of this place when the Liberal Party was apparently the champion of women's rights. I may have missed that lesson in contemporary history. He talked about the coalition's paid parental leave policy that they took to the 2013 election which, as we all know, brought them into government and into this parliament, in the case of the member for Deakin. It marked the start of almost a decade of Liberal-National government. They were successful at not just the 2013 election but the 2016 election and the 2019 election—nearly an entire decade. The member for Deakin claims their policy on paid parental leave was intrinsically tied to their mandate to govern, yet here we are. It must be the fact that I wasn't here, but I am feeling a logical disconnect here amongst all of the whining, passive aggression and self-aggrandisement that oozed out of the member for Deakin's speech that day. He even called what we are doing now a 'huge hypocrisy'. How is it that the Liberal and National Party government across nine years and two elections put a policy up which never eventuated? They were after all in government. I don't think it was due to their sudden realisation that they needed to appear to be the trademarked responsible economic managers. No, I don't think so at all. It couldn't be down to the practical realities of passing legislation. That is, after all, what governments are meant to do even though they were a government that lost floor votes in this place in majority government. They couldn't put it past them.

This was a government that wore its priorities on its sleeves. They even went to a double dissolution election to fight for them. They did it over the antiworker, union-busting Registered Organisations Commission and the ABCC. Why wouldn't they have done the same over this policy? How can a majority government over three whole terms in office not manage to accomplish a legislative outcome that they paid good money to print pamphlets about? It's frankly a bit rich to hear those words coming from someone who was there at the coalface as it was happening. We know where the priorities of the former government were, and it sure wasn't on furthering the status of women, though the former government's first minister for women, Tony Abbott, may strongly disagree with me there. Quite possibly, that government's first Treasurer, Joe Hockey, might disagree with me there too—the very same Treasurer who, on Mothers Day, said it was 'basically fraud' for women to utilise both their employer's and the government's paid parental leave schemes. What a stellar record they had! I'm surprised the member for Deakin felt that those things should be omitted from his second reading amendment.

Nevertheless, despite the passive-aggressive road the member for Deakin has travelled on behalf of the opposition by way of his contribution to this debate, thankfully he reached a Damascene moment of clarity by the end of his contribution and announced that the opposition would be supporting this legislation. For that much I am glad. I'm glad that both sides of this place can reach a consensus that paid parental leave and the measures introduced in this bill are good policy with wideranging benefits for families and for our economy. I'm glad because we can join together with businesses, unions, economists and stakeholder groups alongside a vast array of academics who broadly agree that the measures being introduced by this bill will boost productivity whilst encouraging and increasing workforce participation. This policy has received support from stakeholders ranging from the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group all the way through to the ACTU.

This level of concurrence is no mean feat to accomplish at the best of times, but it speaks to the Albanese government's approach to consensus building and to the foundational good behind paid parental leave, which this bill builds upon. By coming together to pass the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill, we can start seeing the benefits as soon as 1 July this year and all the way through to 2026, when all periodic increases are to have been implemented. We can continue to build upon a great Labor reform, one that is already being utilised by over 180,000 families across Australia each year. This is legislation that shifts the dial towards assisting families whilst they spend the formative weeks with their newborns. Improving gender equality and workforce productivity isn't just a fair representation of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to supporting working families and bringing about a fairer, more equitable, more prosperous and more productive Australia; it is also the reason why this bill deserves our support. I commend the bill to the House.

Tracey Roberts (Pearce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twelve years ago marked a pivotal moment in our nation's history, a moment that brought about transformative change for countless working families. It was the introduction of paid parental leave, an historic reform that has undeniably reshaped lives across our nation. For many parents, this initiative represented a significant milestone, offering them the opportunity to access paid parental leave for the very first time, with a generous 18-week payment fully funded by the government. It wasn't just a monetary provision; it was a fundamental shift in the landscape of workplace and economic equality, especially for women, who for too long bore the brunt of unpaid care responsibilities and faced long-term consequences to their economic security. I was one of those women. I feel quite emotional about that. With a very sick husband who was battling cancer, I had to work full time to financially support and look after our new baby in the early nineties and help my husband. Fortunately my parents travelled from England to help look after the baby when I was at work.

Primarily this reform is about balancing gender equality, breaking down barriers that have hindered women's progress in the workforce. However, the importance of this initiative extends far beyond gender concerns. It is about supporting families, promoting the health and wellbeing of parents and their children, and contributing to the broader economic fabric of our society. In 2009, the Women and Work Research Group from the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Sydney released a report entitled, Paid maternity, paternity and parental leave for Australia. It described the three generations of parental leave policies, broadly identified as follows. The first generation dates back to the 1970s, when the focus was maternity leave and job protection, in response to increases in female workplace participation.

The second generation of policies provided specific paternity leave periods and extended parental leave in order to address the gendered nature of leave-taking and to encourage the role of fathers in parenting. The third, and most recent, generation of parental leave has incorporated flexibility and return-to-work arrangements as a further way of easing work-family tensions and facilitating both women's and men's workforce transitions. The research indicated very clearly that public policies are very influential in affecting the labour market, the parenting behaviours of employees and the attitudes of employers. For example: mothers respond directly to either the shortening or lengthening of periods of paid maternity leave by taking commensurately shorter or longer periods of leave. In terms of breastfeeding, there's a clear and established link between the length of paid leave and the length of time a mother breastfeeds. Employment and breastfeeding are in competition, and when a woman returns to work, either breastfeeding rates drop off—if women are unable to return to part-time rather than full-time—or it continues no longer. I also was that mother; I had to take some trips to the ladies to express milk for my baby so that my mother could feed the baby when I was at work on the next day, and the next day and the next day during the days that I was at work.

The designation of paid paternity leave for fathers on a 'use it or lose it' basis has seen fathers in other countries take longer periods of paternity leave and participate in the rearing of their children. Employers who were initially reluctant found that these policies had a positive effect, and that they assisted in better planning work and improving employee relationships. Investing in paid parental leave is a strategic, critical move for our economy. This was evident in the outcomes of the very successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September 2022, when increasing paid parental leave emerged as a frequent and essential proposal.

The extension of Australia's paid parental leave program signifies more than just an increase in financial support; it's about providing every family with a new baby with the gift of choice, enhancing security and support. The extension of paid parental leave will help to boost productivity, bolster the economy and afford parents the precious time they need to bond with their newborn babies. Think back to the days when you first brought your newborn home: a mix of joy and anxiety, and definitely some sleepless nights! For many it was a lonely experience, however, especially for women who were dealing with hormonal changes, lack of sleep, feeling out of control and with a lack of support. Paid parental leave injects flexibility and peace of mind into those delicate periods, allowing parents to plan their leave, manage their financial commitments and alleviate the financial stress associated with staying at home with a baby. The parent-child relationship is unique, and research tells us that early paternal involvement benefits relationships with both the parents and the baby. Being a parent is immensely rewarding, as we all know, but it is also one of life's most challenging roles. Paid parental leave provides the flexibility to navigate the challenges of parenthood while ensuring that much-needed support is in place.

The bill before us is a continuation of our commitment to family values and the wellbeing of our citizens. It helps to ensure that female employment, careers and businesses are secure, and that productivity is enhanced, leading to better outcomes for families across the nation. It proposes amendments to the paid parental leave program from 2010, extending the scheme by increasing the maximum number of flexible leave days each year by two weeks from 1 July 2024 until it reaches 26 weeks by 1 July 2026. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires legislative bodies to consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. This principle applies to all actions concerning children, and requires active measures to promote their survival, growth and wellbeing, as well as measures to support and assist parents and others who have day-to-day responsibilities for ensuring recognition of those rights. By reducing the constraints faced by both men and women as they juggle their professional and family responsibilities, this bill helps to create a fairer society, enhances workforce participation and boosts productivity. It goes beyond gender equality. It is about fostering a community where families can thrive.

During my time as Mayor of the City of Wanneroo, we had an average of eight babies born each day. So it is no surprise that, in my electorate of Pearce and across the nation, families will welcome the benefits of the amended bill and this more generous scheme.

This is a monumental step forward, not only supporting maternal health and wellbeing, but also encouraging both parents to take leave and giving families the flexibility to choose how they share care responsibilities. I said at the very outset that, for me, this spoke volumes in terms of gender equity, but it's not just about that—it's about helping to make a fairer society and to boost workforce participation and productivity.

By 1 July 2026, the scheme will be for a 26-week period, with four weeks reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis, leaving 18 weeks that parents can choose to share however they wish. Single parents will have access to the full 26-week entitlement, and coupled parents will also be able to take up to four weeks of paid parental leave at the same time, instead of the two weeks currently allowed. Extending the reserved period for couples will complement the increase to the maximum parental leave pay entitlement. It will continue to encourage fathers and partners to take a greater share of caring responsibilities, by increasing the time fathers and partners can take off work around the time of a child's birth or adoption.

Increasing the number of days that may be taken concurrently by parents and carers will continue to assist parents to share caring responsibilities and will provide fathers and partners an opportunity to also care for birth parents, to support their health, while ensuring parents are encouraged to return to work. Limits on the number of days that may be taken concurrently will prompt fathers and partners to take on independent care of the child, which, research has demonstrated, helps to develop patterns of care that persist throughout a child's life. By supporting and encouraging families to share caring responsibilities more equally, we believe it will help women's workforce participation, help to close the gender pay gap, and help to address the economic penalty faced by so many women in the past.

This amendment will help women who are self-employed or who run small businesses who cannot afford to be off work for an extended period of time. They will be able to tailor their leave to fit their personal circumstances. The flexible leave arrangements will also help support women with a more gradual return to work.

I have also noted that the government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer-provided leave. The minister advised that data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade. In 2021-22, 62 per cent of reporting employers offered employer-funded paid parental leave, up from 48 per cent in 2013-14. This indicates a change in social policy and indicates the value placed on this as an investment that returns benefits for parents, employers and the economy.

The bill is a step forward towards a more inclusive and compassionate society, one where every parent, regardless of gender, can experience the joys and challenges of parenthood—and there are many. The bill helps support women so that they do not have to choose between a family and a career. I agree with the minister, who stated that this bill is good for parents, good for children, good for employers and good for the economy.

Coming from the electorate of Pearce, which is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia, with a median age of 32 and a significant increase in young families, I welcome this bill and amendment. I know it will help parents during a very special and important time in their lives, especially when nearly 42 per cent of the Pearce community is from overseas, so many don't have family or close connections here. They are absolutely reliant upon the paid parental leave, in which they can form their relationship with and look after and nurture their baby. They deserve that support, they need that support and that support will be provided by this bill. I am very proud to commend the bill to the House.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.