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

The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is an important bill that we are now looking at. I will be moving an amendment, which I'll outline in a moment, in relation to paid parental leave. I want to state at the outset that, whilst the coalition will be supporting the bill, I will be moving a second reading amendment calling on the government to provide choice to recipients of paid parental leave.

From the government's perspective, paid parental leave has been quite a torturous path, in that we see the government in here talking about their support for paid parental leave on a daily basis. Those of us with any history or background whatsoever wonder how they can say that with a straight face, particularly those of us who've faced the trenchant criticism of the then Labor opposition in relation to the former coalition government's generous Paid Parental Leave scheme, a scheme that the Australian people voted on and the Labor Party opposed vehemently. It was essentially wage replacement paid parental leave, as it then was.

Well, time has moved on, and, notwithstanding the very unprincipled position that Labor has adopted in relation to paid parental leave in the past, we have sought to be much more constructive in opposition. Where the government has put forward ideas that we have no objection to, we have supported them. Indeed, we've supported a range of measures in this House and in the other place in relation to paid parental leave changes, some that were amendments and changes that were, in a sense, waiting to be legislated when the government took power after the election in May of 2022; and other changes that have been of the volition of the government. This is in that second category, an amendment essentially seeking to extend superannuation contributions onto paid parental leave.

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Coalition's strong record supporting government funded paid parental leave in Australia;

(b) at the 2010 and 2013 federal elections, the Coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver 26 weeks paid parental leave based on actual wage and included superannuation; and

(c) both Labor and the Greens opposed the Coalition's paid parental leave policy; and

(2) calls on the Government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to provide choice to Australian families by giving eligible PPL recipients the option of:

(a) receiving superannuation on the government-funded paid parental leave payment; or

(b) receiving 26 weeks of paid parental leave from 1 July 2025, increasing to 28 weeks from 1 July 2026; or

(c) receiving a one-off payment equal to the value of the superannuation amount to help with costs associated with the arrival of a newborn or adopted child".

The amendment that I have moved seeks to do two things. It seeks to provide parents of a newborn or adopted child with an additional two options. They can choose to take the additional superannuation contributions on the PPL payments as outlined in this bill or they can choose one of two additional options. Firstly, they can elect to take an additional two weeks of PPL. So, at each stage, over the next two years, they can elect to take an additional two weeks more than they would otherwise be entitled to, which is almost identically equivalent in financial terms to taking the superannuation on those payments. Secondly, they can take a one-off payment. We think parents are in the best possible position to determine, in their own circumstances, what it is they need.

For many Australians, one of the primary purposes of paid parental leave is to provide them with the financial flexibility that they need at a really special and beautiful time in their lives: the arrival of a newborn or an adopted child. Providing them, through this amendment, with the option of taking those extra two weeks is something we think the government should absolutely support.

Finally, we know how difficult it is for families generally with this cost-of-living crisis. So, providing them with an additional option of being able to take an equivalent amount to the PPL in superannuation as a lump sum through existing payment mechanisms is a very worthwhile amendment, which is why I have moved it. We implore the government to accept this amendment to provide families, if they so choose, with an additional two weeks of leave, or to provide the additional lump sum amount of PPL because families and parents are in the best possible position to determine what is in their best interests at any given time. Anyone in this House and anyone watching this who's had a child—many people have never had the benefit of PPL, I suspect—knows that it is an extraordinarily difficult time financially, so providing these additional options to parents is treating them with the respect they deserve. On that, we hope the government will see a good idea and will seek to support it.

The key measures in the bill, which we don't object to in any way, are obviously to provide the entitlement as part of the scheme, provide the calculation mechanism and create mechanisms for the Commissioner of Taxation to deal with any underpayments or overpayments. Those are all rudimentary mechanical provisions of the bill which we have no concerns with. The bill provides an avenue for recipients to seek review of decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation, and it gives the commissioner compliance and enforcement powers. Those measures are all contained in schedule 1.

In schedule 2 there's an additional minor technical amendment to the unpaid parental leave provisions of the Fair Work Act to clarify the entitlement of the defined term 'keeping in touch' days and there are amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act that are consequential to the paid parental leave and super contribution related aspects of schedule 1. It's estimated that 180,000 families will benefit from the changes in the bill when the scheme reaches 26 weeks, in 2026. Under my amendment that I have just put forward, that will be 28 weeks if that parent, that family, chooses to take the extra two weeks as opposed to the additional entitlement. The maximum a family would receive in super contributions is around $3,000, based on a super guarantee rate of 12 per cent, and, for children born or adopted from 1 July, parents eligible for the PPL scheme will receive an additional 12 per cent paid into their complying superannuation fund.

These are all mechanical aspects of the bill that affect the intent. As I said earlier, for some people, giving them the optionality of an additional two weeks will mean much more than a financial benefit. For many people who adopt to take an additional two weeks, as opposed to the additional super on their PPL, it will mean an extra two weeks with their child, an extra two weeks potentially as the primary carer for their newborn baby or adopted baby that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. We think giving people that precious time, or the option of having that additional precious time, is worthy of this amendment.

I'm not sure how the government will be able to argue against providing people with that option of taking that additional precious time with their baby without any additional cost to the Commonwealth. This is all done within the same envelope of cost that the current bill puts in place. That would equally apply to a family or a parent who adopted to take a lump sum. Taking that lump sum in lieu of taking the additional PPL contributions into superannuation may mean for that individual and for that family that they can spend more time with that very newborn baby. We think that providing families with that option is extraordinarily important.

Again, just to summarise without being too repetitive, the amendment that I have moved will seek to provide optionality to families so they will be able to choose one of three options under our amendment: take the additional superannuation contributions on the PPL payments; take an additional two weeks of PPL leave, which is almost an identical amount to what they would be receiving as additional contributions; or take that exact amount as an additional lump sum at the time when they're bearing all of the costs associated with a new baby—and I could rattle off the long list. Providing those options, we think, treats Australians, mothers and families with respect. In the end, they know what's in their best interests and they know what is going to work best for them. You get the best of all worlds in that they can choose which option they take.

I commend the amendment to the government. I hope that, where the government see a good idea, they are willing to adopt it in the best interests of families and, importantly, in the best interests of children in Australia.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Deakin has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Debate adjourned.