Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Happy birthday to Senator Green's little one. This bill is a step in the right direction, but they are baby steps, if you'll pardon the pun. One of the strongest messages coming from last year's Jobs and Skills Summit was the economic and social benefits of stronger paid parental leave. It was a theme that was repeated in the landmark work and care inquiry chaired by my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock. That inquiry has been hearing for women, families, businesses and academics around the country about the critical role that paid parental leave plays in keeping women connected to the workforce and in allowing families to juggle work and care responsibilities.

A report released today from the Impact Economics and Policy group estimates that, since the introduction of paid parental leave just a little over 10 years ago, there has been an $8.5 billion rise in GDP due to the increased participation of parents, predominantly mothers. That report again confirms the importance of maintaining a link between parents and their workplaces during leave.

Economists, families, women's organisations, unions and the business sector all agree that fairer, gender-neutral, flexible paid parental leave will unlock women's workforce participation and help close the gender pay gap, which, sadly, has persisted for decades now. Fairer paid parental leave will break down traditional gender roles and encourage more equitable sharing of care between parents. It will improve maternal and infant health by allowing time to recover from birth and establish breastfeeding where that's possible. It will give kids the best possible start, and it will set up good parenting habits for life.

Yet, despite all of that, despite the clear benefits of a strong paid parental leave scheme, Australia's scheme is the second worst in the developed world. At just 18 weeks for birth parents and two weeks for partners—prior to this bill—it falls well behind the international best practice of 52 weeks, with structured 'use it or lose it' provisions for partners and higher rates of pay. After a decade of inaction, Australia is now playing catch up, and we're going too slow.

This Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill is a welcome recognition of the need for reform and a recognition that the way we design paid parental leave needs to be stronger. We do support, of course, removing a distinction between primary and secondary carers that has locked mothers into the primary caring role. It's 2023 now; we can have a broader view on that. Combining the existing primary-care and dad and partner leave entitlements into a single entitlement that can be shared between both parents acknowledges that both parents have a critical role and allows families to decide how they want to share that care.

We support the increased flexibility in how leave can be taken, and the introduction of a family income threshold to address the inequity of a family missing out because the woman is the higher income earner—a situation which does happen now because it is 2023 but which out laws had not countenanced prior to this bill. But it must be said, and it was said by almost all the submissions to the inquiry into this bill, in which I participated, that much more needs to be done.

This bill doesn't increase the amount of leave available to families. It does increase by two weeks for single parents—and, of course, those are predominantly women. The government has committed to a staggered increase in paid parental leave entitlements, but it's not until 2026 that those increased weeks, up 26 weeks, will flow. Parents who have been calling for fairer leave entitlements for a decade are being asked to wait for another three years to get the international minimum standard. There is no reason to delay the implementation of good policy. Australian parents should have immediate access to at least 26 weeks of paid parental leave, and I'll be moving a committee stage amendment to make that so. Further, the government should be providing a pathway to 52 weeks of paid parental leave by 2030, as the ACTU, The Parenthood and many others are calling for.

We welcome that this bill sets up the infrastructure for 'use it or lose it' provisions. Co-parents, especially fathers, need encouragement, sadly, to take up more responsibility for the direct care of young children. Currently only one in 20 fathers in Australia takes more than the two weeks of dad leave. The bulk of leave, and the bulk of care, still falls to mothers. The experience in other countries puts beyond doubt that 'use it or lose it' provisions do help increase men's in participation in caring, and they do so by reducing the stigma around shared care and flexible work arrangements. In Scandinavian countries, the number of fathers taking leave increased dramatically with the introduction of 'use it or lose it' provisions. Fairer sharing of care has now been sustained for more than a decade. When Canada introduced paid parental leave on a 'use it or lose it' basis, the percentage of partners taking leave in the first year doubled. We know that it works, we know that it creates a better system for all parents and children, so we support the introduction of the 'use it or lose it' component to paid parental leave under this bill. However, the two weeks 'use it or lose it' allocation in the bill, which effectively just replicates the existing provision for dads and partners, will not be enough to provoke that deep cultural shift towards shared care that we need, so we would like to see a significant expansion of the 'use it or lose it' allocation. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce is, I understand, looking at this issue at the minute, and we very much look forward to seeing its recommendations implemented sooner rather than later.

'Use it or lose it' provisions must be supported by campaigns to educate families about the benefits of shared care, incentives for employers to encourage both parents to take leave, flexible working initiatives to support juggling care responsibilities, and more affordable and accessible early childhood education and care. When I say more affordable and accessible, I mean free early childhood education, no matter where you live. That's the kind of revolution that we need to have equality in the workforce. Critically, Services Australia also needs to ensure that its staff are trauma informed and able to identify and respond to coercive behaviour, where abusive partners attempt to use the increased PPL flexibility as yet another weapon of control.

We also support measures in the bill allowing partners to take leave, even where the birth parent does not meet the income or residency tests. This is a welcome extension of eligibility. However, the inflexible work and residency tests remain a barrier. The bar is too high and too rigid, and too many people are missing out. It's important that all families are supported to take leave in the early years of parenthood, regardless of their circumstances. My colleague Senator Faruqi will be moving an amendment to close a gap that prevents postgrad students from accessing PPL.

I want to talk briefly about the rate of paid parental leave—sadly, yet another area where Australia has fallen behind other countries. It's currently set at the woefully inadequate minimum wage—a rate which we believe should be raised for everyone, and of which, I might add, women are disproportionately the recipients. It's set at that woefully inadequate minimum wage, and, as no surprise, it is now one of the lowest rates of paid parental leave in the OECD. Parents taking leave to care for kids marks a significant break in their career and their earning capacity. Women who take leave often return at reduced hours, defer promotions and reduce their overall retirement income. Replacement wages ensure that parents are not financially punished for taking time to care for their children. Higher rates of pay would also encourage shared care. Leave paid at well below normal wages forces families to make difficult decisions about how long they can afford to take leave for and who takes it. Without a change in the payment rates, parental leave will continue to be taken by the partner earning the lower wage, and, more often than not, sadly, this is still the woman. The Greens will continue to call for the rate of PPL to be increased to replacement wages, capped up to $100,000 per year, but we also note alternative models proposed by witnesses to the inquiry into this bill, including lifting the rate to the average wage, applying a livable wage or encouraging employers to top up government payments. The Greens urge the government to invite the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to review the options for a PPL payment rate that will incentivise parents to take their leave entitlements.

Finally, we know that periods of parental leave and part-time work on return from leave have been a contributor to the superannuation pay gap. A gap in super earnings for parents taking leave compounds over time and can result in that parent—mostly women—being around $20,000 worse off in retirement. We do have a retirement income gender gap, and this is part of the reason why. It has been a longstanding policy of the Greens, of unions and of women's economic security advocates to pay superannuation on paid parental leave. This has also previously been a policy of the Labor Party. As far as gender equality measures go, it's a no-brainer, yet it's not part of this bill. I will move a second reading amendment calling on the government to urgently reconsider that decision and include superannuation contributions on paid parental leave. I move the Greens amendment on sheet 1827:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) acknowledges:

(i) the persistent gender superannuation gap that sees women retire with significantly less in retirement funds than men, and

(ii) that superannuation is paid on leave entitlements other than parental leave; and

(b) calls on the Government to address this inequity and apply the superannuation guarantee to paid parental leave entitlements".

Overall, this bill is a positive step towards fairer paid parental leave, but, as I said, it's a baby step. There are equitable measures which could be taken to align Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme with world' s best practice now, rather than waiting for later. As one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, we should be able to give all working parents and their children the quality care and early childhood education that they need. The families of Australia deserve it.

In closing, I'll make this point: Why are we making women wait three more years for 26 weeks when, internationally, many other comparable nations already have 52 weeks? Why are we again making women wait for their slice of the pie when this government has $246 billion in revenue that it is choosing to give to the very wealthy in the form of those stage 3 tax cuts that former Prime Minister Morrison proposed. You can't cry poor and yet dish out $246 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy. If you axe those tax cuts, not only would you have more than enough money to address the housing crisis, the cost-of-living crisis and the climate crisis but you could afford to pay paid parental leave in the amount that women deserve and that parents deserve at a proper rate for a proper amount of time—not off in the never-never, but now.