Russell Broadbent (Monash, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Paid parental leave is an avenue for, in particular, women to participate further in their opportunities to work, their families to have better opportunities and, as has been described in the legislation, women to have greater opportunities for a better retirement than they would otherwise have had. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is to be supported and is laudable. It brings in fairness and justice, which the government and this parliament has promoted through whatever parliament there has been before it. When injustice festers in a community, it ripples outward, affecting us all. Injustice doesn't just harm those directly involved; it compromises the entire fabric of society. We can't stand idly by when faced with discrimination, especially when it targets the most vulnerable among us—our children, particularly our Indigenous children. We share the burden of this injustice, and it is our collective duty to call it out and demand change.

I don't claim to be an expert on the pros and cons of childhood vaccination. That's for those far more knowledgeable than I. However, what I do know and what has come to my attention through the voices of over 1,000 families is the deep harm caused by policies like no jab, no pay and no jab, no play. These measures, intended to protect public health, have instead punished families who choose not to vaccinate, by stripping them of essential support. Childcare subsidies, out-of-hours care, Centrelink payments and crucial family tax benefits have all been reduced or withheld entirely. Families, particularly single-parent households, are being driven to the brink, living hand to mouth, struggling under the weight of government policies that are, at best, indifferent; at worst, cruel.

Kirsten is one of many who have reached out to me whose story is emblematic of the challenges faced by countless others. When Kirsten welcomed her first child into the world, it was a moment of pure joy. Her baby girl, perfect in every way, brought immense happiness to the family. Following the standard vaccination schedule, Kirsten believed she was doing what was right, but that trust was shattered when her daughter, after receiving her first vaccine, turned blue, was unconscious and stopped breathing. This was later described as a SIDS episode. Imagine the terror of that moment when she was told to 'smack the baby hard to bring her back' by emergency responders. Kirsten's world was turned upside down. At her daughter's 12-month vaccine, the same nightmare played out. Her child required resuscitation. When her son was born, he too needed CPR after his vaccination.

Kirsten sought an exemption, understanding that vaccines were not safe for her children. Yet despite her harrowing experience, the exemption was denied. The system meant to protect her family failed her. She made the courageous decision to stop vaccinating, and her unvaccinated children have since thrived. There have been no more SIDS episodes and no health crises, and her premature child has been healthier than her vaccinated siblings. But Kirsten's decision came at a great cost. Her family benefits were cut, and her children are now excluded from educational and social opportunities essential for their development. This punishment prevents Kirsten from working, further exacerbating her family's struggles, and Kirsten is far from alone. Families who stand firm for their children's health are being pushed out of the workforce, penalised financially and denied the opportunity to fully participate in society. Of course, if you don't work, you don't get paid parental leave.

Then there is Elizabeth's story, which is a testament to the broader impact of these policies on communities. Elizabeth is a mother who, with support of her GP, made the informed decision to delay vaccinations for her children and found herself unfairly disadvantaged by this choice. As a capable, community minded woman, Elizabeth had built a promising career and was actively contributing to her local and broader community through her work and civil involvement. However, the restrictive vaccination policies forced her to change jobs, reduce her hours and accept a significant pay cut to care for her unvaccinated children, placing her family at a substantial financial disadvantage. And her children were denied access to early learning and socialisation opportunities. Elizabeth spoke of the emotional toll these policies have taken on her family and community, describing the state sanctioned discrimination that left her feeling ostracised. She pointed out how these policies are not just punitive but also counterproductive. By sidelining her, they deprive the community of the contribution she can no longer make.

Elizabeth's case is especially troubling because it highlights how these policies extend beyond individual families. They impact the broader community by preventing capable individuals like Elizabeth from fully participating in society. These policies rob communities of vital support and service. This exclusion has ripple effects that reach far beyond one family, undermining the collective good of the nation.

For Indigenous families, the impact of current vaccination policies is amplified by a long history of assimilation into Western medical systems. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap outlines clear goals to ensure that Indigenous children thrive in early years and reach their full potential and that their families are supported in meaningful economic participation. However, these goals are hindered by policies that inadvertently deny access to early learning and reduce essential financial benefits for families with unvaccinated children. Excluding unvaccinated children from early learning opportunities compromises the principles of fairness and equity that we in this parliament seeks to uphold. Education is fundamental to a child's development, and yet Indigenous children, already amongst the most vulnerable, are being restricted from these critical opportunities.

For single mothers, particularly Indigenous women, this creates difficult choices. They must either vaccinate their children against their cultural and spiritual beliefs or forfeit access to child care and their ability to work and provide for their families. The no jab, no pay policy deepens financial hardship, entrenches poverty and limits access to early education and employment for many First Nations women and their children. These policies risk isolating families from the very opportunities they need to thrive, contradicting the intentions of the National Agreement of Closing the Gap, which strives to provide equitable outcomes for all.

Furthermore, the no jab, no pay, no play policy stands in contradiction to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 43 of the declaration affirms that it 'constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of the indigenous peoples of the world'. Any reduction in these standards, particularly in the context of self-determined medical autonomy, challenges the core of these human rights protections. We, as a parliament, must respect these rights. We, as a nation, must respect these rights and work towards policies that support rather than diminish the dignity, survival and wellbeing of Indigenous families, ensuring they have access to the same opportunities for growth and success as all Australians.

Here's where the irony cuts deep. In some regions, wealthier families have found loopholes in these are very policies. If they can afford to pay full fees, their unvaccinated children are still able to attend child care and after-hours care. They are essentially buying their way out of the system. This blatant double standard defeats the very health argument these policies claim to uphold. How can it be that, for a price, unvaccinated children are allowed into the same social settings from which other unvaccinated children are excluded? What does this contradiction reveal about the true motivations behind these measures? Are they genuinely focused on public health or something else entirely?

It gets worse: while unvaccinated children are excluded, health workers and parents are not required to be vaccinated to enter the same childcare settings. What does it say about our priorities when children are the ones singled out? How can we justify penalising the most vulnerable for decisions made by their parents while overlooking the inconsistencies that exist within the system? What steps can we take to address these contradictions and create a more just and equitable approach to these health policies? This paradox only reinforces the deeper injustice at play: policies designed to protect public health are instead creating new layers of inequity and exclusion, all while allowing those with financial means to sidestep the very restrictions others are forced to endure. A simple yet effective solution lies in reinstating the option for conscientious objection for parents who choose not to vaccinate. By making this process as straightforward as filling out a form at Centrelink, we can ensure that families continue to receive the benefits they need without unnecessary restrictions. This change would balance public health with respect for individual choice and cultural diversity.

It is our collective responsibility, Deputy Speaker Freelander, yours and mine, to ensure that all families have the opportunity to protect, provide and prosper. This is more than just a slogan; it is a call to action to defend individual rights, provide access to essential services and ensure that every child, every family, can thrive no matter their personal medical decision. I commend this proposition to the House.

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

I thank the member for Monash. I would like to comment on some of his comments, but I can't. The question is that the amendments be agreed to, and I call the member for Blair.

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

I pay respect to the member for Monash and his long service to the parliament, but his comments don't relate to the bill in any way at all. This is a bill about paid parental leave and adding superannuation. It's not about vaccination or a family's choice with respect to health. It's about superannuation being added onto paid parental leave, and nearly all of the member's speech didn't relate to the bill in any way at all.

I am very honoured to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. Labor has a long and proud history of improving the lives of Australian families with critical nation-building reforms, and it's incredibly disappointing to hear that the opposition are trying to move amendments so that people can choose to receive a lump-sum payment rather than superannuation on their paid parental leave. This is the usual pointless negativity we hear those opposite, and we are seeing it more and more, in more and more pieces of legislation before the chamber. They said previously they were going to support superannuation being paid on paid parental leave, but they are now crab-walking away as fast as they can, according to media reports.

This is a very important measure to close the gap on women's retirement incomes and ensure that government paid parental leave is treated just like any other government workplace entitlement that attracts superannuation. We know women are the predominant beneficiaries of this and often retire with superannuation accounts much lower than men, resulting in some cases of older women becoming homeless or facing income and housing insecurity.

We know that on average women have 25.1 per cent less superannuation than men of the same age when approaching retirement. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave is really a very significant reform to ensure parents not only get the support they need at the time of their newborn baby but also don't miss out on their retirement savings in the form of superannuation. Those opposite need to do the right thing and stop standing in the way of paying superannuation on paid parental leave to help mums and dads across the country.

During the time I've been in this place, I barely remember at any stage the Liberal and National parties supporting superannuation. They are constantly talking it down, constantly criticising, constantly—in government—deferring increases in the superannuation guarantee, constantly saying that they are going to have a different schemes to raid superannuation and—in government—doing so during COVID. We on this side support superannuation.

It was a Labor government that first introduced maternity allowance back in 1912. It was a Labor government that created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Superannuation Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Labor governments reform; coalition governments oppose. Labor governments supported delivering no-fault divorce, the single mother's benefit and the child support system. It was a Labor government, the Gillard government, that introduced paid parental leave in this country. They were all big, bold structural reforms.

When paid parental leave was introduced in 2011, it was a major milestone for Australian families. For many parents, the 18-week payment fully funded by the government was the first time they could access any form of parental leave. This was a material advancement in the workplace and in economic equality for women, whose disproportionate share of unpaid care has long-term consequences for their economic security or insecurity. Paid parental leave is critical for families, critical for women and critical for the economy. It ticked all the boxes in the so-called triple-P framework of population, participation and productivity and that is why it is not only good social policy but good economic reform as well. The Gillard government knew that; the Albanese government knows it as well.

From day one the Albanese government has been working hard to improve and modernise paid parental leave for working families, the centrepiece of our first budget. We announced important reforms to modernise the scheme to meet the needs of Australian families. First, we passed legislation so that from 1 July 2023 more families could access the payment with more generous family income tests, making it easier for parents to share care. They can take leave flexibly with periods of work in between to support their transition back to work.

Then earlier this year we passed legislation to increase the length of the scheme. From 1 July this year, we've added two more weeks of payment, expanding the scheme from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. The scheme will further expand by two weeks each year until it reaches 26 weeks or an equivalent of a full six months in 2026, the largest expansion of paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011. All of these changes combined mean that paid parental leave is now more accessible, more flexible and it encourages shared care. It supports parents to take a step back from paid work and it provides critical financial support at such an important time. Parents can now share over $20,000 to support them after the birth of a new baby.

The bill we are debating today, the Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, is the third significant reform that the Albanese government has made to paid parental leave. Through paid parental leave, the government supports parents to take time off work after the birth or adoption of their child and, through this bill, we're supporting retirement as well—birth and retirement.

This legislation builds on recent reforms that allow, I think, our policy in this country to be more flexible, accessible and gender equitable through an increase to the length of the scheme. It implements a budgetary measure this year which we first announced in March with the launch of Australia's national strategy for gender equality—Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality. Through this bill we are investing $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to pay superannuation and government funded paid parental leave from July 2025 by making an annual government funded superannuation contribution to a recipient's nominated superannuation fund.

Subject to the passage of this bill, eligible parents or caregivers with babies born or adopted on or after 1 July 2025 and who receive government paid parental leave will receive an additional payment, based on the superannuation guarantee, of 12 per cent of their paid parental leave payment. The Australian Taxation Office will make a lump sum payment, following the end of each year where a recipient received paid parental leave, directly to their superannuation account—not out of it, as the coalition proposes. As the payment will be made following the end of each financial year, nominal interest will be paid to compensate for the interest which would have otherwise accumulated had the contribution been made on a pay-as-you-go basis. Most parents won't need to do anything further to receive superannuation payment, and the claims process for paid parental leave will not change.

The bill makes some technical amendments allowing employees to access keeping-in-touch days after taking flexible leave. It rectifies an unintended outcome of the Fair Work legislation.

Paying superannuation on paid parental leave will improve the economic security in retirement of 180,000 families each year. In my own electorate, more than 2,600 families will receive paid parental leave and stand to benefit from adding superannuation to their payment. The Paid Parental Leave scheme provides financial support for eligible working families to take time off work after the birth or adoption of a child. Again, this legislation builds on recent reforms, including the expansion of the Paid Parental Leave scheme to 26 weeks. The maximum amount a family will receive in 2026 in superannuation contributions will be about $3,000 per birth of a child.

The reform has been subject to extensive consultation in recent times. Many stakeholders have called for superannuation to be added to government funded paid parental leave, including the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council of Australia and the superannuation sector—a broad range of stakeholders. It was a key recommendation of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and of a long campaign by women's groups, including trade unions and the women's movement generally, and I commend them for their advocacy. It is consistent with the findings of the report Working for women: a strategy for gender equality, which the government released on International Women's Day, 8 March, this year. As a result of these changes, which will be widely and warmly welcomed by stakeholders, women will achieve greater equality.

This significant reform will benefit Australian families, and it's an investment in economic security in the broader economy. Taking time out of work to care for children is a normal part of working life for both parents these days. Paying superannuation on government paid parental leave will help normalise paid leave as a workplace entitlement like annual and sick leave and will reduce the impact of paid parental leave on retirement incomes. It builds on our changes that commenced from July last year to give more families access to the payment, including through a more generous $350,000 family income test, and it makes it much easier for both parents to share care.

Labor committed to delivering for women and to driving gender equality before the last election. We are delivering on that in government, particularly with this commitment. This reform is in addition to significant investments we have made and actions we have taken to deliver for women since the May 2022 budget and election, demonstrating the Albanese government's deep commitment to working women. Alongside Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts and key investments in cheaper child care, women's safety and women's health, parenting payment single payments and workplace relations reform, the government continues to focus on women's economic security—a key feature of our economic plan.

What this shows is that we are serious about making sure women are supported when they are balancing caring and working responsibilities. It is absolutely clear that women are worse off without superannuation being paid on paid parental leave. It's a key step in prioritising gender equality, better valuing care work and improving women's workforce participation. It's normalising a workplace entitlement—it makes it normal in the workplace. It's key. It demonstrates the reality of the workplace situations for families and what we see in our workplaces each and every day.

It's critical that we do this. These reforms cement our Labor legacy yet again, with the scheme sitting largely untouched by the coalition for nearly a decade. We had nearly a decade of those opposite doing nothing to advance the cause of economic equality for women in this area. These reforms are part of our agenda to put greater economic inclusion for women at the centre of what we do as a government. They're about ensuring women earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more as well.

It was Labor that established our modern superannuation scheme, and, in the long term, we know this is an important change, a more dignified and secure retirement for more Australian women. We've made clear, for some time, this is our priority, and we're making it a reality today. We know paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children, where investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy as well. Businesses, unions and experts all understand this, and it beggars belief that those opposite cannot grasp this. We know it's the right thing to do.

Paying paid parental leave advances gender equality. For one, it would help to reduce the gender gaps we often see in the superannuation balances I referred to earlier. Research shows that fathers are more likely to use paid parental leave when it's well paid and flexible. Taking together all recent PPL reforms, including access, making it more flexible, introducing a 'use it or lose it' period, expanding it to 26 weeks, adding superannuation should encourage more fathers and partners to take time off work following the birth or adoption of a child, and that's important. This fosters more equality in caring roles and creates opportunities for women to participate more fully in paid employment.

In closing, on this side of the House, we know how important it is to invest in Australian women. Investing in paid parental leave, investing in superannuation is modern policy for a modern society for modern families. Those opposite seem antiquated in their attitude to the responsibilities of men and women. It's good for families and it's good for the economy, and we're proud to legislate it. And we'll wait to see what those opposite do. We know that women continue to face difficult decisions and financial penalties when choosing to raise a family. These are long-overdue changes which will help offset these penalties and lessen the impact on women's retirement savings. By investing in these reforms, we're ensuring that families can get the best out of the Paid Parental Leave scheme and exercise more choice and flexibility, and that's good for women, good for families, good for fathers and good for the economy.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 will add a superannuation contribution to the Commonwealth funded Paid Parental Leave scheme. It's a very welcome change. It's a change which is long overdue, and it's a change which has been called for repeatedly by peak bodies.

Until this bill is passed by both houses, paid parental leave will be the only form of paid leave in this country which does not come with superannuation. This has, for a long time, been an injustice and an anomaly. I'm very proud to have pushed the government on this issue, even before I was elected to this place, and I'm very happy to see it executed at this time.

At the last federal election, many Australians expressed their real frustration at the treatment of women in this country. They did that with their vote. I applaud and thank them for doing so. I ask them to continue to do so, and I assure them that, with this and with other similar legislation, I and my colleagues will continue to work towards greater gender equity in Australian workplaces and in Australian homes.

This amendment will see paid parental leave recipients receive the paid parental leave superannuation contribution for children born on or after 1 July 2025. It includes both a core and a nominal interest component. It also makes a minor change to the Fair Work Act to enable parents to have flexibility over their parental leave periods, with an option for days back in the office in which they can keep in touch with their workplace. The payment of superannuation on Commonwealth funded paid parental leave recognises the incredibly important contribution that all parents make to society. It will reduce the impact of career breaks to care for young children on the superannuation balances of the carers. It will help to improve equity in the superannuation system, both between men and women and between those in differing workplaces.

It is worth remembering that this bill applies only to Commonwealth workplaces, which have until now lagged significantly behind public industry. In 2022-23, according to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, 86 per cent of employers offered paid parental leave and also paid superannuation to parents while on paid leave. That included 13 per cent who continued to pay super even on unpaid leave. In contrast, more than 99 per cent of parents accessing the government's paid parental leave scheme are women, and they have not previously received the same level of support as that available to those in the private sector. Industry Super has reported that 1.5 million women have missed out on $1.6 billion in super over the last 10 years because super has not previously been included in the Commonwealth's paid parental leave scheme.

Time out of the workforce to care for children, and gender pay gaps, cause cumulative inequity over adults' working lives. Women retire with about one-third less super—on average, $60,000 less—than men. They're overrepresented on the pension, and those aged over 55 represent the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in this country. In 2021-22, in Australia, the gap in superannuation balances between men and women approaching retirement was 25.2 per cent. KPMG found that the gendered impacts of years not working due to career interruptions, part-time employment, unpaid care and work together amounted to about 33 per cent of that gap. Hence, the Australian Public Service Commission made the recommendation that the employer component of superannuation be paid on all forms of paid and unpaid pregnancy and parental leave, regardless of superannuation scheme type or contribution method.

The Workplace Gender Equality Agency recently reported on the many indirect forms of discrimination that limit women's earning capacity. These include conscious and unconscious discrimination and bias in hiring, pay decisions, career progression and promotion. Women in female dominated industries tend to have jobs attracting lower wages and a lack of workplace flexibility to accommodate caring and other responsibilities and also jobs associated with a higher rate of part-time work, which, together with the greater time out of the workplace for caring responsibilities, tends to impact career progression and opportunities.

About 180,000 Australian families access paid parental leave every year, but our paid parental leave allowances are amongst the least generous in the world. The average length of paid parental leave in the OECD countries is 55 weeks. In Australia it's currently just 26 weeks. The WEET report recommended that PPL entitlements in this country be increased to 52 weeks, and the AIST noted that our leave entitlements are very limited compared to those in other OECD countries.

Women remain at a significant disadvantage, as families will always restructure their work and household duties to favour the partner with the higher income, which is typically a man. Our current tax and childcare policies disincentivise full workforce participation. Australian women just want the same opportunities as Australian men. We want to be able to better utilise our education and our skills, and we don't want to be held back by having to take the burden of care, which is often unpaid or underpaid. We want the persistent barriers that hold women back removed such that we can get on with the job of building a fairer economy for all.

I'd really like to acknowledge the important steps and the recent work in this direction undertaken by both this government and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. The WEET has recognised that we have to recognise the economic importance and value of the care sector in Australia. We have to help families to better share their caring responsibilities. Australian research has shown that increasing shared paid parental leave allowances won't just increase mothers' earnings across their lifetimes; it will also boost national productivity.

This is a catch-up measure. It's not a groundbreaker, but it's an important indication of real commitment to an important cause, both by this government and by the crossbench, to address gender inequity. I have to say that this is a commitment which stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the opposition. As recently as June 2024, Senator Hume, the shadow minister for finance, who was, in the Morrison government, Australia's first minister for women's economic security, called measures like this one—measures which are, after all, designed to right a historical wrong—welfare policies. She further labelled them 'patronising in the extreme.' That sort of sentiment has been rejected by electorates like Kooyong, in which women and men have asked me repeatedly to advocate on their behalf for gender equity and to work towards a society in which our small boys and small girls see their parents as being equally able to look after them, physically, socially and financially.

The financial impact of this bill will be $1.1 billion over the forward estimates. That's a very small price to pay. As the WEET Taskforce report said in 2023, if we completely eliminate negative gender bias from our economy we could unlock $128 billion lost annually to that gender inequity. We face many key economic challenges in the coming decade. These include the decarbonisation of our industries, adjustment to the economic impact of climate change, the challenge of managing an ageing workforce and an increase in intergenerational inequity. There are geopolitical challenges, the rise of AI and other technological advances. This is the absolutely ideal time to unlock the value of women's full economic participation and to work together towards a fairer and more equal Australia. So I commend this bill to the House and look forward to further similar progress in this really important area.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to be speaking on this important legislation and I commend the comments that were made by the previous speaker, the member for Kooyong, while I was in the chamber. Can I just say this: there's a 25 per cent gap in the retirement savings of women and men. Because of superannuation, Australians are now retiring with around $200,000 in retirement savings. That's real money. I know when my parents retired they never had anything anywhere near that, but today, as a result of over 30 years of superannuation, retirement experiences are being transformed. On average a male is retiring with about $200,000 in retirement savings in superannuation. The situation has improved for women, but there is still a 25 per cent gap in the superannuation savings. As women approach retirement they have around $150,000 in superannuation.

If you lift up and look under the bonnet at what's driving this gap between a woman's experience of retirement and a male's experience of retirement, you'll see that the superannuation gap is driven by two things: a wages gap and a career gap. We need to take action on both of these things to ensure that we close that gap, and we are. In the area of the wages gap, we've taken decisive action as a government, making pay equality an objective of our workplace relations laws. More than that, we're ensuring that in our own area of employment, but also where we are the significant funder of services, we are taking heed of those equity principles.

Take an area like aged care, which has a workforce where women are engaged in doing the majority of the work. If you look at their wages they are significantly below the wages that would be paid for equivalent work being performed in male-dominated industries outside the aged-care sector. There was a problem there to be solved, and we solved it. In fact, the biggest line item in our first budget was funding for the aged-care sector so that they could pay their workers a decent wage. The workers benefited I think about $6 billion from that first budget. The workers benefited, the aged-care providers benefited, and so did all Australians, not just because inequity was dealt with but because people were attracted back into the sector because they could afford to live and work in an industry they cared about.

We haven't stopped at aged care. We're currently looking at child care, which, again, has an overwhelmingly feminised workforce. There are significant gaps between what somebody can earn as a childcare worker and what somebody with equivalent skills and competence can earn working in a male dominated industry, which is why the government has taken action and we're funding 15 per cent wage increases.

I just spent a bit of time talking about that because the superannuation gap that I've talked about is factored off a wage gap. Why is that? It's because, under our system, superannuation is paid as a percentage of wages. If there's a wage gap then there's going to be a superannuation gap because, if a woman is earning less in wages than a man, she's going to be taking home less and putting away less in her superannuation than an equivalent man. So an important lever in addressing that gap is dealing with wages.

The second gap that the government has identified is the career gap. That is because overwhelmingly women will take time out of work not only to have the child but to care for the child, particularly in its first six months. This is something towards which concerted action has been taken across excessive Labor governments. I've got to say it was the Whitlam Labor government that first introduced paid maternity leave in 1974 for Commonwealth government employees, with the hope of extending that throughout the workforce. It did extend into the financial services industry over the next decade, but it stalled, and it took the Gillard Labor government and the Rudd Labor government to reinitiate that program back in 2007 through to 2012. I do remember a former leader of the opposition saying that he would introduce paid maternity leave as a universal condition over his dead body. Some unkind people said that that would be a win-win, but I was very pleased to see that it had become a bipartisan position, in part, over the next decade.

Paid maternity leave, commenced by the Rudd government and introduced by the Gillard government and made a part of Australian law, was a great reform, again helping to close that career gap. So too was the provision of child care because, if families don't have access to child care, then they're not able to make decisions based on all of the economic factors available to them to return to work or not to return to work. If they're able to access child care, it makes returning to the workforce an option. I'm sure there will be other members in this place who have been talking to families in their electorates, and one of the concerns they'll have heard is getting access to a childcare place, which is stopping people returning to work. It's all the more reason why we need to put emphasis on that childcare wage increase, bringing more workers into that sector and ensuring there are more places available to Australians who want to return to work after a period of parental leave.

So, in terms of the wage gap, we're working on it. There were changes to the law in the last Labor government and changes to the law in this Labor government. In terms of the career gap, we're working on it through extending paid parental leave. There were historic changes extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks under this government, which we're very proud to be a part of, making a meaningful difference. But, if you look at the way leave is treated as a workplace entitlement in this country and you look at the payments that are made in respect of leave, you'll notice that, if you're on long service leave, you get superannuation. If you're on annual leave, you get superannuation. If you're on sick leave or carers leave, you get superannuation. It strikes us as a huge anomaly that the only form of leave that is freely and lawfully available to every Australian worker as a right that does not accrue superannuation is paid parental leave, more commonly known outside of this place as paid maternity leave—and for a reason. So this is an equity issue. There is one form of leave overwhelmingly taken by women that doesn't attract superannuation, and that is maternity leave or parental leave.

So I'm proud to be part of a government which is addressing that issue, including through the legislation before the House today. It has a cost—$1.1 billion over the forward estimates to introduce the entitlement by 1 July next year. We hope that it is augmented by private sector employers who agree to it as a staff attraction or retention element and who top up from the government funded PPL component with a privately funded PPL component so that we can extend and improve that benefit. Again, what is the objective here? The objective is to ensure that women retire with access to the same quantum of retirement income that men do.

I thought that this was an issue that would, without controversy, obtain bipartisan support, and there were early indications that I was right. Can you imagine my surprise when I read overnight that the opposition has adopted a different policy? It's a policy which is aimed at undermining the very objective of the scheme, which is to close the superannuation retirement gap. It has been their objective, over many decades now, to undermine the role of superannuation in our economy and in our workplace. There is no doubt about it. There are many frontbench coalition MPs and senators who, from their first speech to their last in this place, have said that superannuation should not be a universal entitlement. We should not be surprised.

But I have to say, when I first saw this reported on last night, I had to quickly grab the news report to see whether it was an announcement by Senator Bridget McKenzie and therefore one that would have the shelf life of an ice cream in the sun. It wasn't. It appeared to come out in the name of the official spokesperson. We hope they recant because they will face the same community backlash in relation to this thought bubble as they faced when Senator Jane Hume, when she was the government minister responsible for superannuation, proposed that women suffering and afflicted by the scourge and crime of domestic violence should pay for domestic violence services and relief from their own superannuation. Anyone who thought about that for about three seconds would understand what a diabolical proposition that is.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was never our policy.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the shadow minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, say, 'It was never our policy.'

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

. They make up stuff. You've misinterpreted, as usual.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was announced by the minister responsible for superannuation and had the same duration as the shadow minister for transport's policy pronouncement on the aviation industry. So we are entitled to have some doubt about what the shelf life of this policy will be as well.

I make the point that this is advanced as a policy to deal with a problem, and the problem is the superannuation pay gap. If we in this place try and make superannuation the solution to every public policy failure that we are confronted with, it will become the answer to nothing. Every time we have a public policy challenge in this country, it seems that some people say, 'Why don't we make superannuation pay for that?' It is as daft on this proposition as it is when it has been rolled out for every other policy challenge that we confront as a nation. This is not to say that there is not an issue that has been identified. Families who have got a newborn baby coming into the world are confronted with additional expenses. They are—having brought a few into the world myself, we acknowledge that families are confronted with additional expenses. There are other public policy challenges.

We were speaking about the proposition to make women pay for domestic violence services through their own superannuation. We have made a historic investment in domestic violence services, which was announced in the last week. That is the proper way you deal with these issues. You don't try to make one policy and one solution—particularly superannuation—the answer to every other public policy failure that you are confronted with. If you treat superannuation like an ATM that you draw down on whenever you have a problem in any other area of public policy, you get the same sort of investment returns that you get at an ATM. You'll be getting one or two per cent on your superannuation balance per annum instead of the eight or 10 per cent in superannuation funds that you get at the moment. There's a basic structural region for that: if you invest over the long term, you get long-term returns and healthier returns over the long-term; but if you've got something in a cash-on-demand account, you get cash-on-demand sorts of returns. The policy is a bad one and it should be rejected.

I congratulate the Minister for Women and the Minister for Social Services and the Treasurer for all the work they've done, and all those—women in particular, but not just those—in our party who have advanced this. In the 30 seconds I have available, I pay tribute to my dear friend and now deceased senator Linda White, who campaigned for this initiative for well over a decade. Were she in the Senate as this legislation is being passed, it would be one of the proudest days of her career. I commend her for the tremendous work that she did in advancing this great cause.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a real privilege to rise today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. I do so as a mother, as someone who has raised a family, as someone who faced the difficulties of running a family business, and as someone who was a mature-age student.

I want to start today by sharing a story about one experience I had as a mother, why that moment mattered for where I am today, and how that shapes my thinking on this bill. Our family farm was struggling to stay afloat, so I decided to go to university as a mature-age student. I did this so I could help my money and make ends meet. I still remember the first day I walked in to enrol in a Bachelor of Economics at La Trobe University in Wodonga. I kept thinking, 'Can I really do this?' I had a baby in a baby capsule, and I felt so out of place. I had different clothes to everyone else, I was older—I felt like an outsider. I remember being suffocated by self-doubt. There I stood, the mature-age student with a baby in a capsule, knowing I didn't really fit in. I thought, 'This really isn't for me,' so I picked up the capsule and I went to leave. But then, as I was about to leave, Dr Julie Jackson, vice-chancellor, popped out of her office, looked at me, picked up the capsule and said: 'Do you need help with that? Come on in.' That gave me the confidence to stay on that path, and that path set me to where I am today.

It is a story of women supporting women, yes, but it's also a story of barriers that stand in front of parents with young kids. If I didn't have that car or that capsule, I might never have even considered going back to university. To many Australians, these basic barriers stand in the way of important choices today—right here, right now. If you go into Baby Bunting today, you will see baby capsules that cost anywhere upwards of $500 or even $700. That's just one item. It's an important item, too; it gives mums and dads the capacity to travel safely with their little one. For many, that item means time with grandparents, but for others it's the difference between studying or working and finding needed support. For me, having that capsule meant that I was able to walk into that lecture theatre with Dr Julie Jackson. I use this example because, when we talk about supporting women, we have to face up to the fact that small barriers today can have big consequences for their futures. In the same way that those in big super like to argue, 'Super invested today will set you up for your retirement,' helping parents with their immediate cost-of-living pressures today helps them get set up for their lives. If I did not have the ability to travel with my baby to study as a working mum, I might've made different decisions.

Today, under the cost-of-living crisis that we are seeing, Australian parents are confronting difficult decisions every day. The fact is it has never been more expensive to raise a baby than today. That is before you get into the broader cost-of-living pain that is all too present. Australian families are making decisions about what sorts of items they can afford to help them with their newborn. They're having to buy a cheaper pram or a cheaper car capsule. They're second-guessing medical options or they're paying for things on credit. It's really tough for too many parents out there. When we were presented with this bill, we saw an opportunity to give parents a choice. We saw an opportunity to help set them up today or save for tomorrow.

The coalition supports the economic security of women and families, and we support this bill. But we call on the government and the crossbench to provide greater choice to families during this cost-of-living crisis. In line with that, we want families to have the choice to receive super on their government funded paid parental leave as this bill proposes, receive two-weeks additional paid parental leave of up to 26 weeks next financial year and 28 weeks the following financial year or receive a direct payment to eligible families to the value of the government's superannuation proposal to better help with the cost associated with their newborn child. In recognition of the fact that it has never been more expensive to raise a family than right now and in line with our commitment to support the choices of Australians, we are seeking to amend this bill to introduce more flexibility for paid parental leave. These are sound amendments that are good for parents and good for families.

So I say to Labor and the teals: our amendments are a test for you. Will you trust Australian parents to make choices for their own families or will you make the decisions for them? Will you deny Australian parents access to cost-of-living relief when they need it most? Will you choose ideology over pragmatism? I cannot speak for the teals' own personal lives, as they may or may not have had the experience I had when I was a young mum facing barriers to my own aspirations. But I say to the teals: today Australian mums are facing those barriers, and we should help them if we can. This is about giving women choices, and, if the teals truly back women, they will back our amendments and give women and parents choice and agency on this policy. So this is a litmus test for the teals. Are they going to back Australians to make choices about their own money or are they going to back the government and the Greens? I hope the litmus test comes up blue, not green.

Today, we remind the government that superannuation is not their money and it is not the superannuation industry's money; it is money that belongs to Australians. For young Australian families, they may need this money now more than ever. The coalition believes Australians should have that choice to use their superannuation entitlements to help them live their lives. Under the coalition's plan, should parents wish to direct their entitlements to super, they will be able to do so. Should they need immediate support with the costs of caring for their newborn baby, they have that choice too. Families are facing additional financial burdens due to this government's cost-of-living crisis, and the coalition will better support them to spend time with their newborns by providing choice.

The opposition will support this bill. But we know that young families are struggling with rising costs and need more money in their pockets now, and we will support them in this endeavour. I ask everyone in this place, in fact, to support our amendments and help Australian parents get ahead. I thank the House.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has a proud history of enacting visionary reform that leaves a lasting legacy, a legacy that changes lives and strengthens our economic future. Labor introduced our country's first maternity allowance back in 1912. Labor created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and it was a Labor government, the Gillard government, that introduced paid parental leave in this country. The introduction of paid parental leave in 2011 was an absolute game changer for Australian families, who had waited decades for a national parental leave scheme, and, for many parents, the 18-week payment, fully funded by government, was the first time they could access any paid parental leave. This was a major milestone, and, after a decade of coalition indifference to the challenges faced by working families, Labor is once again doing the heavy lifting.

From day one, the Albanese government has been working hard to build on the Labor legacy. We are modernising the scheme to meet the needs of Australian families who, right now, need greater support when it comes to getting the work-life balance right and, most importantly, giving children the best start in life. First, we passed legislation giving more families access to the paid parental payment with a more generous family income test so it's easier for parents to share care and making the scheme more flexible so that both parents can balance care for children and work. Then, earlier this year, we passed legislation to increase the length of the scheme, and, from 1 July, we have added two more weeks of payment, expanding the scheme from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. It's a significant increase that will see the scheme expand by two weeks every year until it reaches 26 weeks in 2026. All these changes mean paid parental leave is now more accessible and more flexible and better encourages shared care. It will support parents to take a step back from paid work, if necessary, and it provides critical financial support at such a crucial time. Parents can now share over $20,000 in support after the birth of a new baby.

The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill is the third significant improvement the Albanese government has made to paid parental leave. It will bring significant benefits for families. More paid leave will ease the cost-of-living pressures for young families and, importantly, create greater capacity for parents to share parenting, build careers and earn pay packets.

For my electorate of Corangamite, with its rapid population growth—among the fastest in the nation—this will be life changing. In the latest census, the largest change in population in Greater Geelong was in the 30- to 39-year-old age group, with an almost 30 per cent population increase. The urban growth area of Armstrong Creek, where my electorate office is located, is now the youngest locality in Greater Geelong, with a median age of 30 years. There are similar growth areas in my electorate, with young families in Bannockburn, Ocean Grove and Torquay. These young families in my community and other communities across the nation will benefit directly from this bill's reforms. By adding super to paid parental leave payments, we're not just easing the cost-of-living pressures now but creating a framework to advance gender equality. Adding super to paid parental leave payments is such an important step.

We know that women are often retiring with less super than men. Data shows the gap between men's and women's super at retirement is more than $50,000. That's a huge gap, and it's not acceptable that, as a result, women often do it harder in retirement. For some women, it means sleeping in their car, couch surfing or being exposed to family and domestic violence with few prospects for the future. It is time this changes, and that's what this bill and our range of reforms to strengthen paid parental leave are all about.

The bill reflects the Albanese government's commitment to improve the lives of working families, support better outcomes for children and advance women's economic equality. We've listened to calls from the union movement, the women's movement, economists and employers: paying super on paid parental leave is a positive investment in the future of working women and the broader economy. For babies born or adopted from 1 July next year, this bill delivers all eligible parents with an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave as a contribution directly to their super fund. This super contribution will match the superannuation guarantee rate as at 1 July of the financial year the PPL is taken. It will rise with any future increases to the legislated superannuation guarantee. The contribution will be made annually by the Australian tax office after the end of each financial year. It will include an additional interest component to address any foregone superannuation fund earnings as a result of a payment not being made more regularly. More parents won't need to do anything further to receive their superannuation payment, and the claim process for paid parental leave will not change.

Around 180,000 families will benefit from the changes, and once the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026, the maximum amount a family will receive in superannuation contributions is around $3,000. This bill and our two other paid parental leave laws before it send a clear message that the Albanese government is committed to a stronger parental leave system, and we want to see this reinforced throughout workplaces.

To be clear, the government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer provided leave. We know that some employers are already paying super on paid parental leave, which is a great thing. Data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade, so businesses know this is the right thing to do. In 2023-24, 63 per cent of reported employers offered employer funded paid parental leave. This is up from 48 per cent in 2013-14. This positive trend demonstrates employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside government in providing paid parental leave. The government and employers should be working together to ensure that our Paid Parental Leave scheme is a strong and inclusive one. We know that, when businesses offer their employee funded paid parental leave entitlements, it's a major way to attract and retrain staff. While we encourage employees to do this, this bill is about strengthening the government scheme.

All in all, this bill will make sure that we have an even playing field, and that's a great outcome for parents, particularly women, right across the nation. In addition to adding super to the government payment, this bill will ensure the parental leave framework in the Fair Work Act complements the Paid Parental Leave scheme.

Unpaid parental leave in the Fair Work Act is an entitlement that supports parents to remain connected to paid employment while they care for their child. This bill includes a minor technical amendments to clarify drafting to ensure that parents can access keeping in touch days during a period of continuous unpaid parental leave to remain in contact with their workplace and help facilitate their return to work. This bill and our raft of reforms to strengthen paid parental leave will change lives.

The reforms are recognition that families cannot always afford to access formal caregiving—child care, elder care or home care. For those families, women are often the ones to step up, and, when women step up, they usually reduce their working hours, leave the workforce or juggle multiple jobs both paid and unpaid. We know that women are less likely to be employed compared to men from young adult hood, reflecting that women are more likely than men to adjust their work to balance a career with caring responsibilities, particularly when children are young. That's why we've added super to paid parental leave. It is groundbreaking. Expanding the scheme to 26 weeks and boosting wages for feminised workforces is essential. As I said earlier in this speech, we know that women who do not have a level of super in retirement are vulnerable, and we should not accept the fact that women retire with far less super than men. This is one way to tackle this issue.

In closing, I would like to recognise the amazing local advocates in my electorate of Corangamite who, for many years, have advocated for better outcomes for women in the workforce. They've called on government to lift wages for feminised workforces, for more funding to support women's health support and for paid parental leave to be stronger and more robust. The Albanese government hears their calls for reform, and we are acting in so many ways. It's not just about paid parental leave and super; it's about things like looking at women's health, the hidden things like endometriosis, which for years has not been considered as a disease—it is something that many women have to cope with—and miscarriage. These are things that women need support on, and we are delivering. We are acting.

In relation to paid parental leave, we are making the scheme stronger to ensure that young families have more access to cost-of-living support today and to tackle the huge gender pay gap in retirement savings. Our government understands that, to build an economy that truly works for everyone, we must ensure it works for women today and into the future. Paid parental leave is at the centre of delivering that commitment. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and we will always work to strengthen it. It's good for parents, it's good for children, it's good for employers, and it is good for our economy.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of this amendment to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, and I hope that the government are deeply reflecting on the sensible proposal that we are putting forward to provide greater flexibility and greater choice to young parents with regard to how they structure their finances at a time that has got quite significant renewed financial pressures on them. We absolutely support superannuation being paid on paid parental leave, and that has been made abundantly clear by our lead speaker in the coalition and others that are contributing on this debate from our side of the chamber. It is an important reform and one that is very logical, makes a lot of sense and is overdue, as others have commented. As a parliament, we look forward to seeing this legislated. But we've obviously taken the opportunity to provide a very constructive and sensible suggestion to make this even better for young parents.

It comes back to our fundamental position when it comes to superannuation. In the Liberal Party, in the coalition, we strongly support superannuation. In fact, we defend superannuation in this very parliament when certain policy positions are brought forward to punitively tax people's superannuation against what they believed and understood to be the policy settings when they were provisioning for their retirement and what they expected to be a reliable, consistent policy from all sides of politics.

In my first campaign for this parliament in 2019, we again had to fight very passionately to defend superannuation from the greedy policy positions of the then Labor opposition to try and use superannuation as some kind of piggy bank to prop up exorbitant Labor government expenditure—taking the hard-saved retirement provisions from hardworking Australians to pump into recurrent government expenditure. That's not what superannuation is about. Superannuation is about people providing for their retirement and people being incentivised to put money away for when they reach retirement age, getting preferential tax treatment, which is absolutely appropriate for those retirement savings, as opposed to being taxed in the income year in which they've earned.

It's obviously an extremely significant service to the Commonwealth government because everyone that provisions for their own retirement is taking an enormous burden off the taxpayer. Every time I speak on superannuation legislation, I say thank you to every self-funded superannuant out there who has saved for their retirement, who is self-funding, because we believe in a safety net. It's vitally important. There are people that need government support in their retirement, and they're entitled to it—absolutely entitled to it—but to every person that through their own savings does not therefore require the extent of support that others do in their retirement we are very grateful. We need to stop policy positions coming through this parliament—this isn't one of them, but we're talking about superannuation—changing the rules and moving the goalposts on people when it comes to superannuation.

The other thing that's really important when it comes to superannuation is something that on this side of the House we understand instinctively but doesn't always seem to be something that's as appreciated by others: superannuation belongs to the people that have saved it. It's their money. It doesn't belong to the super funds or the lobby groups that think they've got these trillions of dollars that they can move around these battlefields and play games with. It belongs to each and every individual Australian that has a superannuation account, and they should get to decide what happens with their own money.

The amendment that we've moved on the second reading, and the proposition that we're putting forward on this, is exactly in line with that fundamental value we have in the coalition, which is that superannuation should be available to support people in the best way possible for their retirement. That can include having access to it earlier to, for example, help buy a home or help offset costs when taking parental leave, because the costs that are offset at that stage in life put people in a position to be much more financially advanced when they reach retirement age. We've got this nonsensical insanity going on now where people are reaching retirement age and having to use a big chunk of their super to pay off the mortgage that they haven't finished paying off because they couldn't get into the housing market until they were their 40s.

By allowing people more flexibility over their super, which is what we're proposing here, and letting people make their own decisions about their own money—which you wouldn't think was very controversial, but apparently some believe it is—we're empowering people to make their own decisions about their own economic circumstances and future economic security and also to make decisions that are specific to their particular circumstances. There should be nothing controversial about that, because we trust Australians to make their own decisions about their own financial futures in their best financial interests. That is human nature.

Other than at a time when people are starting or expanding their family, they are never at such a heightened point of thinking about their family's future and the responsibility they've got to their family in raising their children and provisioning for their children's future and their own future as well. That's what parents think when they have children: 'I've got this additional responsibility, having had a child. As a parent I have to make sure I've got a plan to provide for them.' That is the most basic human instinct. What we're proposing is to let those parents, who we think know what's in the best interests of their family, their children and themselves, to have more flexibility about what to do and how to expend their own money.

I implore the government to think very genuinely about this proposition. I think it's fair to say that it's a new idea that they would not have necessarily considered. There's an opportunity for us all to work together here, to come together and say, 'At its best, the point of this parliament—and the 151 people in this chamber from every corner of the nation, with different ideological hues, genders, ages, perspectives—is to, through debate, find a way to improve a piece of legislation.' That is in the greatest traditions of the Westminster system. What we're doing, by virtue of the amendment that the member for Deakin has put forward, is provide that great opportunity for this House to do exactly what we're here to do and improve legislation—a principle that we already support—enhance it and make it better for all the people that we represent.

There's no harm in the government saying, 'Good idea—we hadn't thought of that.' That's the whole point of having these debates. That's why we have a legislature. The executive aren't the exclusive repository of the entirety of wisdom when it comes to public policy—neither is any one particular ideology or any one particular side of politics. There's no harm in them saying, 'We like your suggestion; let's work together on it, and let's make a decision that's in the best interests of the families that this policy position is designed to assist.'

We absolutely support this bill. We would absolutely like to see sensible, enhanced flexibility around decisions people make about their own money. Do you know what? If this isn't a good idea, 100 per cent of people eligible for it will simply follow the path of having it paid into their super account. So, if it's not a good idea, it has no consequence whatsoever, because, if it's not a good idea, every single Australian that's given the option to make the choice will say, 'No, I want that exclusively going into my super fund'—no worries at all, and, in success, people have made a decision about their own money.

My superannuation belongs to me. Everyone else's in this chamber belongs to them. Every Australian's super belongs to them, and it is their money. We've got to start remembering that. There's some pretty loose talk that comes from some members of the government about what they want to do with super and how they want to ratchet taxes up on it, referring to it as a 'honeypot'. That really frightens the average person that is perfectly entitled to think to themselves: 'My superannuation belongs to me. The tax treatment of it will not change. The goalposts won't be shifted. The rules won't be adjusted on me.' When you're talking about provisioning for your retirement, you're making decisions for decades ahead, not months or years ahead. When you leave the workforce and the government changes the policy settings on you and you don't have as much money as you thought you would because they ratcheted the taxes up on you, you can't really just re-enter the workforce a couple years later. It is not easy to do that. All the Australian people, particularly those approaching retirement age, want to know is that there is going to be consistency in and no change to the way in which their superannuation is treated by the government.

On this side of the chamber, we will always defend that. We'll always stand up for self-funded retirees. We welcome the opportunity to support the principles of this bill before us, and we've got a very sensible suggestion to improve flexibility and empower individual Australians to make decisions about their own money. We implore the government to support us in that.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. I often reflect, in this place, on my experiences working with women in the homelessness sector. It was an absolute honour and privilege to be a small part of their lives at a time of great distress, to hear their stories and to provide support and assistance to help them rebuild their lives. But, as with all issues, prevention is better than cure, and so it's important to understand how women come to be homeless, not just to pick up the pieces afterwards.

It's cheaper, more effective and better for the humans involved to prevent crisis rather than to have to rebuild after the damage is done. When I spoke to women experiencing homelessness, it was clear that their current circumstances were the result of perfect storms of gender disadvantage throughout up our lives. They were often in low-paid jobs in casualised part-time employment, as is so common in the feminised industries. Recent pay rises in aged care and child care and the rise in the minimum wage, along with a groundbreaking IR legislation aimed at same job, same pay and closing loopholes to improve the rights of casual and gig economy workers, have made huge strides towards closing the gender pay gap, as can be seen by the record low gender pay gap of 11.5 per cent achieved by this government's deliberate policies and legislative agenda.

These women also often had time off work for parenting, and these gaps in their employment—sometimes leading to the loss of a job—had huge financial impacts on their financial positions. When I had my children in 1999, there was only unpaid parental leave available. Women make up the majority of primary caregivers in this country, leading to what has been referred to as 'the motherhood penalty', where they face greater economic insecurity because of time out of the workforce to care for children.

Women with children face an average 55 per cent drop in earnings in the first five years of parenthood. The effect of lower income compounds over time, increasing the gap between men's and women's superannuation balances at retirement. The data is clear: women retire with around 25 per cent less super than men, and we want to change this. We know inequality serves no-one. As adults, sometimes as older adults, these women are knocking on the doors of homelessness shelters, sleeping on the couches of friends and family or bouncing from one housesitting job to another, sleeping in their car in between. They're homeless, and, when you ask them about their financial resources, they have no savings and next to no superannuation. A $4,000 super balance was a pretty good balance in the homelessness sector. That's not going to help you in retirement.

The campaign for paid parental leave and superannuation on paid parental leave has been a long one but an important one, and it takes a Labor government to undertake the groundbreaking reforms that make lives better for Australians. Labor has a long and proud history of improving the lives of Australian families with critical nation-building reforms. It was a Labor government who introduced our country's first maternity allowance back in 1912. It was a Labor government who created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It was Labor governments who delivered no-fault divorce, the single mothers' benefit and child support system, and it was a Labor government that introduced compulsory superannuation. It was a Labor government, the Gillard government, that introduced paid parental leave in this country.

When paid parental leave was introduced, in 2011, it was a major milestone for Australian families. As the then minister for families, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, said in parliament at the time:

This historic reform is a major win for working families who have been waiting decades for a national paid parental leave scheme.

For many parents, the 18-week payment fully funded by the government was the first time they could access any paid parental leave, and this was a material advancement in workplace and economic equality for women, whose disproportionate share of unpaid care has long-term consequences for their economic security. Paid parental leave is critical for families, critical for women and critical for the economy. The Gillard government knew this, and the Albanese government knows it too.

From day one, the Albanese government has been working hard to improve paid parental leave for working families. As a centrepiece of our first budget, we announced important reforms to modernise the scheme to meet the needs of Australian families. First we passed legislation so that, from 1 July 2023, more families have access to the payment with a more generous family income test, it's easier for parents to share care and they can take leave flexibly, with periods of work in between, to support them in the transition back to work. Then, earlier this year, we passed legislation to increase the length of the scheme. On 1 July 2024, we added two more weeks of payment, expanding the scheme from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. The scheme will further expand by two weeks each year, until it reaches 26 weeks in 2026. All these changes combined mean paid parental leave is now more accessible and flexible, and it encourages shared care. It supports parents to take a step back from paid work, and it provides critical financial support at such an important time.

The Liberal and National parties have some weird ideological fixation against superannuation, against Australians being able to fund a comfortable retirement through superannuation. It's really short-term thinking to try and solve current societal problems by raiding the retirement savings of people in the future. It's a false choice, trading off your future against your present. Those opposite say they value superannuation and they value those who can provide for their own retirement, but they keep finding ways to encourage people to raid their super early in their career. Money that doesn't go into superannuation now or gets taken out of superannuation misses out on potentially decades of compound interest. People retire with tens of thousands of dollars less, and that is the story of women retiring with 25 per cent less superannuation. We need to have social policies that support people to have a better now and a better future.

An example of this ideological fixation against superannuation is the coalition's much-disparaged plan to allow young people to fund a housing deposit through raiding their superannuation balance, which flies in the face of logic. Few young people have sufficient balance to be able to make any sort of significant difference to a housing deposit, but also adding additional money into the purchasing only increases demand and does nothing for supply and will, therefore, lead to higher housing prices, in addition to setting them up for a poorer retirement. Economists say it's bad policy and housing experts say it's bad policy, but those opposite still back it.

Now I read in the media this morning, and I've just heard from a couple of speakers, that the Liberal and National parties think that parents should be able to take additional superannuation on paid parental leave as a cash lump sum rather than putting it into their super. This completely flies in the face of the actual purpose of superannuation on paid parental leave, which is about gender equity for women and addressing structural gender inequality. I was quite shocked by the words of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party a little earlier and of the previous speaker, the member for Sturt, daring this House to trade off the safe, secure retirement of Australian women. Their plan won't help women facing homelessness and poverty in the future, won't close the gender pay gap and won't change that superannuation difference between men and women retiring.

The reason why the Albanese Labor government has achieved a record low gender pay gap is that we've addressed the actual structural issues that caused it. This bill is about resolving the issue of women retiring with 25 per cent less superannuation than men and of women retiring into poverty and homelessness. It's not okay. Paying super on paid parental leave is a positive investment in the future of working women and the broader economy. So I'm very disappointed at the words that I've heard from those opposite. This bill will mean so much for Australian families, for Australian women and for the economy. Women are 51 per cent of the community, and gender inequity is still an issue.

Going back to the bill, how will it work? For babies born or adopted from 1 July 2025, this bill delivers all eligible parents with an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave as a contribution directly into their super fund. This super contribution will match the superannuation guarantee rate as at 1 July of the financial year that paid parental leave is taken. It will rise with any future increases to the legislated superannuation guarantee. The contribution will be made annually by the Australian Taxation Office after the end of each financial year. It will include an additional interest component to address any forgone superannuation fund earnings as a result of the payment not being made more regularly. Most parents won't need to do anything further to receive their superannuation payment, and the claim process for paid parental leave will not change. Around 180,000 Australian families will benefit from these changes.

Once the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026 and based on a superannuation guarantee of 12 per cent, the maximum amount a family would receive in superannuation contributions is around $3,000. Having $3,000 in your hand now is a fair bit, but imagine what it will be with compound interest over the next three or four decades until your retirement. This bill and our two other paid parental leave laws before it send a clear message that the government is committed to a stronger parental leave system, and we want to see this reinforced through workplaces. The government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer provided leave. Paying super on government funded paid parental leave will continue to normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement like annual and sick leave. On this side of the House, we know investing in paid parental leave is an investment in families, in women's economic security and in the broader economy. The Albanese government's historic reforms cement paid parental leave as a Labor legacy.

I mentioned earlier that I didn't get paid parental leave when I had my boys in 1999. One of the things that has driven me in my preparliamentary career working for the community, when I ran for parliament and in my work here in this place and in my electorate of Boothby is that I want better for those who follow behind me. I didn't get paid parental leave. I had that income gap and I have that gap in my superannuation. But I want better for those having families now and in the future. I want gender equity for the women who follow behind me, and superannuation on paid parental leave is an important part of that. It is not okay that women retire with 25 per cent less superannuation than men. Women are retiring into poverty. They're turning up in the homelessness sectors. The amendments being offered by those opposite do nothing to address this—nothing at all.

It was Labor that first introduced paid parental leave in 2011. It's Labor that invests in a better future for Australian families. In our first term, we've made the most significant reforms to paid parental leave since it was introduced over a decade ago. Paid parental leave has changed the lives of millions of Australians. Our reforms make the scheme stronger and more suitable for the needs of modern families. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and we will always work to strengthen it.

Super on paid parental leave is good for women, good for families, good for employees, good for business and good for the economy. We need to start getting those numbers of women ending up in homelessness down. This is a part of it. This helps with their superannuation balances. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise today in full support of this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, as a critical gender equity measure that is desperately needed. There are long-term structural reasons why women who are over the age of 50 are the largest group now facing homelessness. This bill implements a straightforward and commonsense reform, paying superannuation at the usual rate of 12 per cent on top of Commonwealth government parental leave payments. Giving birth or adopting children and the months afterwards are among the most precious moments in our lives, moments that I think most people later look back on with rose tinted glasses, forgetting what it's like to be in the trenches in those early months and early years. But it is precisely because that time in people's lives really can feel like being in the trenches that they need all the support they can get. Paid parental leave is a critical part of that, and the additional payment of superannuation will be something that gives parents peace of mind about their future financial stability.

I personally know women who went back to work earlier—sometimes far earlier—than they would have liked after having children because they were worried about the impact that so much time away from the workforce would have on their financial security, both at that time and in retirement. It's very clear that when it comes to having children it's generally women who still shoulder the majority of the burden, with 88 per cent of primary parental leave taken by women. It is a very significant disruption to a woman's career. The time away from work is long, It's often taken repeatedly and usually at a critical time in the development of a career.

I've also spoken previously in this place of the multiple repeated and lifelong reasons women are often forced to take time out of the workforce. Many of the causes of women taking these breaks are unique to women—in other words, women are taking career breaks that men will never need to take. They include pregnancy and childbirth, maternity leave, and gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis, heavy menstrual bleeding and menopause. That last one, menopause—a condition which afflicts 51 per cent of our population and has done since the dawn of time—is only now starting to be recognised and managed as the serious condition it can be for women. On average, women retire 7.4 years earlier than men at an age that often coincides with the onset of menopause. Leaving aside the significant impact this has on the economy and productivity, the hit to a woman's superannuation balance is also often immense.

Other reasons women take breaks from the workforce more often and for longer periods than men include caring for children or caring for elderly, injured, unwell or disabled relatives. This time away from the workforce adds up. It leads to lower lifetime earnings; this is before taking into account the gender pay gap. It also leads to lower superannuation balances at retirement. In fact, in 2021-22, the gap between the median male and female superannuation balance approaching retirement was 25.2 per cent. It is this last issue that the government is addressing with this bill.

This bill comes on top of other initiatives that I have supported to help women get back into and remain in the workforce. These initiatives and bills have included increasing the length of paid parental leave, making child care cheaper, introducing paid domestic violence leave, the establishment of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, ending pay secrecy clauses and requiring big businesses to publish their gender pay gaps.

It is beyond time for the role that women play in all aspects of our society, as paid and unpaid workers, as paid and unpaid carers and, yes, as child bearers, to be properly recognised and properly compensated. The gap is big, but with measures like the payment of superannuation on paid parental leave it is incrementally decreasing. I commend the bill to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of this legislation, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, which commits to superannuation being paid on government paid parental leave for children born or adopted after July 2025. I also commend the very sensible suggestions put forward by the member for Deakin, which provide those eligible women with choice as to how they take that financial contribution. I have been advocating for the government to commit to including superannuation on paid parental leave payments for the two-and-a-bit years that I have been privileged to be in this place. I am very glad that the government has now so committed.

Having a baby, becoming a mum, is one of the most wonderful and precious experiences for women. However, it has traditionally come at a huge financial and professional cost. That financial cost can be in the short term and also in the longer term where superannuation has not been paid on parental leave payments.

New babies are very lovable, but, especially for first-time parents, they can also be extremely stressful, and alleviating financial strain will remove some of that stress. In this place, we need to do as much as we can to improve the lives of Australian families and to make it far easier for Australians to have children. Paid parental leave, in that vein, changes lives.

I was not able to get parental leave, back when Michael and I had our boys in 2006. I was very glad when the Paid Parental Leave scheme did come in in 2011, because, while we may all have differences in this place—we have come here from different backgrounds and with different ideologies and philosophies—and, as much as I disagree with some on the other side, I think that everybody I have met in this place is here genuinely to see that those who come after us have a better time of it than we did. This is certainly one area on which I am very committed, because numerous studies have shown that Paid Parental Leave schemes provide invaluable assistance to Australians—Australian parents, Australian workers, Australian employers and the Australian economy. Without doubt, paid parental leave is one of the most important economic measures that governments can adopt to support women, including Australian women. And when Australian women do well, their families do well, their communities do well, our economy does well and our country does well.

Parental leave is currently the only income upon which superannuation is not paid. This legislation will correct that anomaly. While this will make life a little bit easier for Australian mums, particularly first-time mums, it is also important to note that this will provide invaluable assistance to dads as well, to enable them to spend some time, particularly in those early months, bonding with their new baby.

Women should not be financially punished in retirement with lower superannuation because of their intrinsic role in childbearing. Despite many recent paid parental leave reforms, women primarily remain in the caregiving role and are faced with economic insecurity due to taking time away from the workforce to care for children. Women with children experience an average 55 per cent drop in their earnings in the first five years of being a parent. Having been a lawyer—I'm now a 'recovering lawyer', having been elected to this place—I know that many of my professional friends did have to make difficult choices as to whether, for example, they had additional children or whether they had a child in the first place. Often, they felt compelled to return to work to ensure their career progression and often at a time when they would have preferred to have had the choice to stay home looking after their children for a little bit longer.

It is estimated approximately 180,000 families will benefit from the changes to this legislation when the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026. The legislation also has support from key stakeholders. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has recognised that addressing the superannuation gap is an important step in bridging the financial retirement gap many women face.

It is important to note as well that this does only apply to women employed by the Commonwealth government, and, in that regard, the government sector has lagged behind the private sector. It's currently estimated that about 86 per cent of employers offer an employer funded paid parental leave scheme on the additional PPL. So employers overall in our country are to be congratulated for supporting their employees and Australian women and Australian families.

I, and the coalition, support the economic security of women and families. However, at a time when the cost of living is so high, the member for Deakin has moved an amendment so that Australian parents who are eligible to get government funded paid parental leave will also have a choice as to how the proposed superannuation contribution is to be received. I'll just detail briefly the nature of that amendment. It is proposed that Australians entitled to this leave will have the choice to take that superannuation in one of three ways. It can be taken as a superannuation contribution and paid into their superannuation fund, or it can be taken as an additional two weeks of government funded parental leave, or it can be a one-off payment equal to the total value of the superannuation entitlement. In this way, women will have a choice as to how that financial contribution is paid.

This reflects the overall philosophy of the coalition towards superannuation and towards people having the ability to have choice around the superannuation. Superannuation does not belong to the government. It does not belong to the superannuation funds. It belongs to the Australian who has earnt that superannuation. Therefore, they should have some choice as to how that superannuation is to be used.

One of the major crises addressing our country at the moment is housing affordability, and that is why the coalition has proposed the very sensible policy that an element of superannuation can be withdrawn to enable first home buyers and also women who may need to start their lives again after a divorce or some other major life impact can utilise superannuation to purchase a home. We've put very careful caveats around the use of that to ensure that superannuation balances will be replenished. I think that's a very sensible alternative.

I've been particularly interested to hear some of the comments from those on the other side in relation to the coalition's proposal, particularly the member for Canberra, who spoke passionately about people on low incomes—that they should really be compelled so that they in no way have any choice over the way this superannuation contribution is to be paid to them. She spoke about people on low incomes struggling to pay rent and to pay for food. I would say that is precisely the reason why the coalition have proposed this amendment. It may be now, at this time in a woman's life, that she may need the extra leave or she may need that extra financial payment, which will mean a lot more to her in the short term than invested in a super fund down the track. That does not mean that we do not support the underlying philosophy of superannuation and of ensuring that Australians can, as far as possible, be self-funded into retirement. What it does do is reflect the coalition's underlying philosophy that Australian adults are more than capable of making their own choices. I would say to the member for Canberra that Australian women on low incomes are very capable of making a choice around whether or not they want to put the money into superannuation, whether they need the leave, or whether they need the financial contribution now.

For all of these reasons, I commend the philosophy and the underlying principles of this legislation. Superannuation should be paid on paid parental leave. I commend the fact that the government is now stepping up in line with a lot of the private sector employers; however, I do also commenced the very sensible amendments that have been put forward by the member for Deakin, in light of the fact that this will provide recipients with choice and flexibility. Choice and flexibility have been the two keywords we have heard over and over again from those on the other side about the importance of paid parental leave. This amendment will provide choice and flexibility to Australian women as to how the utilise that payment. For all those reasons, I do commend the bill with the amendment to the House.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Improving paid parental leave is a crucial reform for this country. It's crucial for families, for women and for our economy. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 introduces a budget measure announced by the Treasurer earlier this year with the launch of the government's national strategy for gender equality, Working for Women. This bill introduces superannuation on government-funded paid parental leave for children born or adopted from 1 July 2025. We all know how vital paid parental leave is for the health and wellbeing of children and their parents. This legislation is supported by businesses, unions and economists who understand the importance of this reform for our economy and for gender equality. When gender equality is embedded within policy, Australia is the winner. Better systems of paid parental leave are essential for boosting productivity and participation. The Albanese Labor government understand that providing more choice and support for families—particularly women—is vital to our economy and our country.

The legislation also builds on the reforms may last year by the Albanese Labor government. On 1 July 2023 the Albanese Labor government legislated changes to give more families access paid parental leave, made it more flexible to support parents in their transition back to work, and made it much easier for parents to share care by creating a single payment that both parents could access. This is in addition to the reform we are introducing from 1 July this year, which is the largest expansion to paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011.

These reforms will make a big difference to the lives of constituents in my electorate of Wills. I was recently contacted by a young family in Hadfield in my electorate. The cost-of-living crisis has really been hurting people in this suburb, and right across my electorate. They told me about their struggles in juggling caring for their newborn son and trying to keep working at the same time. Ali works as a tradie while Nadia, his wife, works as a local small-business owner. Finding time off between those two jobs is incredibly difficult, as both work long hours in jobs that give them very little time off. Balancing this while caring for their newborn son is an immense obstacle to their livelihoods as well as the wellbeing of their family. Thankfully, on occasion Nadia's mother has been able to provide some assistance—we all know what a blessing it is when the grandparents step in. They have been able to provide some assistance so the pair can go to work to support the family. However, this is not always the case. This is not always possible. The result is an increased strain on the family and losing income because one parent has no option but to stay home and look after their young baby. I'm sure many in this place know stories that are similar. The Albanese Labor government recognises this, and that is why the reforms we are putting in place are targeted to ensuring that people in similar positions don't have to risk their livelihoods in order to care for their children. That should never be a choice.

When people are left out of pocket because of the difficulties in finding carers or care for their children and having to take time off work, thanks to these reforms, families like these will be better off. It's going to make a huge difference to Ali and Nadia and many, many other parents. By expanding access so more families can access an extra six weeks of paid leave, the government is also ensuring that it doesn't affect people's retirements. Through this bill, the Albanese Labor government is investing $1.1 billion over the next four years to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from July next year.

Taking time out of paid work to care for children is a normal part of working life for both parents. Paying super on government paid parental leave will help normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement and reduce the impact of parental leave on retirement incomes. The data is clear: when women take time out of the workforce to raise children, it impacts their retirement incomes. Women retire with, on average, about 25 per cent less super than men. Paying super on government parental leave is an important investment to help close the super gap and make decisions about balancing care and work easier for women.

The Albanese government has made some historic reforms here. They cement paid parental leave as part of Labor's legacy in government. It was Labor that first introduced paid parental leave, and it's the Albanese Labor government that knows that paid parental leave is an investment in the future of our country. It's an investment in families and an investment in gender equality.

Most of us know how difficult it is in that part of life, when you're having to raise young children while working full time. Both parents are working, trying to make ends meet, possibly trying to save for a home, trying to pay the rent, trying to put food on the table and trying to pay all the bills—the grocery bills as well as the utility bills and the energy bills. It's a difficult time in life. It's also a stressful time in life.

Fundamentally, what we're doing here, with this bill and the bills like it, is providing cost-of-living relief. We talk about that. But, fundamentally, it's also about being in their corner and being there for the people that we represent in a way that actually makes a positive difference to their lives. We know how hard it is, and we know what the challenges are. Many of us have experienced them as well. We know what kind of support they need. Paid parental leave, super on paid parental leave and extending paid parental leave are going to be such a boon for those parents going through that period of life. I think it gives them another aspect to celebrate, which is more time with the baby. That emotional connection is so important for the emotional wellbeing of that family—our mental health and connecting with our kids and our families.

You could say this social policy and these changes are, on one level, economic. Paid parental leave lifts the pressure on cost of living and doesn't force a parent to have to choose between staying at home to look after their child and going to work to put food on the table. That's certainly a big part of it. But the other part of it is deeply emotional, and that is the ability or the capacity and the opportunity for these young people, these parents, to spend that absolutely critical time with a young child, a baby. That's why this policy is so important. It's economic relief and it's cost-of-living relief, but it also goes to that fundamentally important part of life: the experience of being a new parent, bringing up the bub and spending that time with them, without the stress of having to choose—'Oh, gee, I've got to go to work; I can't spend that time, otherwise we won't be able to put food on the table.'

This is the kind of policy that the Albanese Labor government is putting in place through this bill. It makes a difference to people's lives on multiple levels. That's why it is so important for us to support this bill in this place, to make that difference to those young parents going through these challenges and to send the message clearly to all of them that this government stands with them in their corner supporting them.

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.