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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today regarding superannuation on paid parental leave.

We know that Australian women are retiring with significantly less superannuation than men. We know there's a gender pay gap, but we know there's a significant retirement income gap as well. I was very pleased in 2019 when the Labor Party took to the election a policy of paying superannuation on paid parental leave. That is a good policy. However, it is now 2023. That party is now in government, and yet we still don't have superannuation on paid parental leave.

So I asked the minister: 'What is the hold-up? Why are you making women wait for something that you say is your policy; that your own national party just recommitted to in your policy conference just two weeks ago; that was recommended by the Jobs and Skills Summit, a year ago now, which was a business and industry forum as well; and that the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce also said was a good measure for gender equality? What are you waiting for? All of the experts are saying, "Get this done." You claim this is your policy. What are you waiting for?'

I'm afraid the minister responded with the same response that the Treasurer and other Labor spokespeople have responded with—namely, it's budget constraints. Women are having to wait because the budget is in strife. Well, I put this to the finance minister: you're spending almost $10 billion every year on cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation for fossil fuel companies through fossil fuel subsidies. You're spending almost half a trillion dollars on nuclear submarines. Those things aren't waiting because of budget constraints. Why are women waiting because of so-called budget constraints? I didn't feel like I really got a good answer to that. There is no good answer to that. Women should not be waiting when those other things are being prioritised. We don't support those other things, but this government is making an active decision to prioritise them ahead of women.

I also put this to the minister: if there genuinely are budget constraints and you need a new revenue measure to fund this, your upcoming superannuation tax proposals would raise 10 times the amount that paying PPL on super would cost. There's your revenue source—problem solved! Again, I didn't feel like I got a good response to that. There was a suggestion of: 'There's no notion of hypothecation here. That's just not how budgets roll.' I just think, if you're going to say that you've got a budget constraint and yet there's a proposed revenue measure that's in the same bucket of policy that could adequately address it and more, you can't really contend that you've got a budget constraint. You should actually just own up and say: 'We're not prioritising this. We said we would, but actually we're not. We might in future, but we're not yet.' So I think that's very disappointing.

Australian women are sick of waiting. We had 10 years of the extremely conservative Liberal government, most recently led by the deeply conservative former prime minister Morrison, where we were waiting and waiting and waiting for any semblance of equality or recognition or absence of discrimination. Women are tired of waiting. You've said that you've committed to this policy. We've given you a revenue option to fund this policy. Women are sick of waiting. We want this policy funded.

I issue that invitation again to the government. You've got these proposed superannuation tax reforms coming up. They would raise $2.3 billion at a minimum. Less than 10 per cent of that would fund superannuation on paid parental leave each year. It's a $200 million commitment, which is actually a small commitment for government but would make a big difference for women. We know that that retirement income gap is huge. After a lifetime of care, women are retiring into poverty. That could be eased and partially fixed by simply paying superannuation on paid parental leave for the cheap price of $200 million a year, which is a pittance to government but deeply meaningful to women and young parents. Obviously, most primary care givers are still women, so this is fundamentally a gendered issue.

The government have contended that they're committed to this, but it's like their extension of paid parental leave—increasing it to 26 weeks, which is a welcome change—which is not an immediate change either. Women are having to wait for that as well. That's being drip-fed over the next two years. I fundamentally object to women always being asked to wait for reforms, when we have been discriminated against, when gender inequality has been harming us economically and in myriad other ways for so long now, and when this government proclaims to know better, and should know better, and says it want to fix things. We will help you fix them. Please put a deadline on this.

I ask the minister: if you say you're committed, what is the date for when you're going to do this? Unfortunately, the minister was not able to give us a date. We will back these reforms if you put superannuation on paid parental leave. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.