Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is not my first speech. I rise to speak in favour of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill. What we've seen discussed in recent days with the release of the gender pay gap data is that a large contribution to the cause of the gender pay gap is the different amounts of time that women and men tend to spend out of the workforce. The workforce participation rates of women and men tend to match one another until people reach a child-bearing age, at which point women tend to fall behind, and that workforce participation rate gap remains. In Australia, that workforce participation rate gap is about eight percentage points. It's about 62 per cent for women and 70 per cent for men, which is high by OECD standards. One of the most meaningful economic reforms we can pursue is to improve the female workforce participation rate so it matches that of men in the economy. Closing this gap would address one of the three Ps that go to the heart of economic growth: participation, productivity and population. At the moment, most of our economic growth is dependent largely on population growth. We don't have a productivity agenda, but we could have a workforce participation agenda.

What this bill does is make the Paid Parental Leave scheme more generous, increasing it to 26 weeks, and it encourages both parents to take leave. It gives families the flexibility to make their own decisions about how they should share this leave. Around 171,000 parents or claimants accessed this scheme in the last financial year, 2022-23. This scheme is designed to complement—not supplant—employer-provided leave, and in Australia there are about 62 per cent of employers who offer some form of paid parental leave.

Under the present scheme, 20 weeks of paid parental leave is available—this bill will increase that to 26 weeks. Under the present scheme there are two weeks reserved for each partner—this bill will increase that to four weeks reserved for each partner, meaning 18 weeks could be used by either partner. What this bill does is encourage the more equitable sharing of parenting duties. It supports parents and particularly women to re-enter the workforce after having children by retaining a connection and retaining the option to return to work, and, to the extent it encourages fathers to share in the parenting duties, will over time encourage better fathers as well.

However, I do have one concern I shared with some of my colleagues in the coalition about elements of the bill—that is, largely, the administrative burden that will be imposed upon small business in particular. Under the bill as constructed, the secretary of Services Australia pays directly to the employers, and the employers then pass this on to the employees. For a large business or organisation with a human resources department and a payroll department, that probably adds little in terms of administrative burden, but for small businesses in particular—that is, businesses with fewer than 20 employees—who often would not have the systems and business processes to allow them to use or implement such a scheme up until this point, this could impose a significant administrative burden.

In the committee inquiry into the bill there were a number of industry bodies and peak bodies who raised this: the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, for instance, said that having the PPL scheme administered by small businesses or employers on behalf of Services Australia 'imposes a significant administrative burden on small businesses'. The Motor Trades Association of Australia argued that smaller businesses 'should not have responsibility for administering payments on behalf of Services Australia', and a survey of their own respondents—a small-business member survey respondents—said that 86.3 per cent of respondents favoured an opt-in model where small businesses could elect to do this, and in doing so retain a connection with that particular employee, but they would prefer the default option that Services Australia pays this directly to the employee. The Restaurant and Catering Industry Association said:

… the imposition on employees to administer parental leave payments places an additional regulatory burden on businesses to serve as the Commonwealth's 'financial intermediary'. This only provides additional confusion surrounding the role and level of responsibility businesses are accountable for when payments are paid late or incorrectly.

Finally, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman said:

For many small and family businesses, the costs associated with administering the scheme are magnified as they do not have the existing organisational capability or internal expertise to implement complex processes.

The coalition will be moving an amendment in the committee of the whole process, seeking to remove the requirement on small businesses—that is, businesses with fewer than 20 employees—to be compulsory opted into the scheme. We would like to give them the opportunity to opt out if necessary and allow Services Australia to pay that directly.

Overall, I do speak in support of this important social policy and to a degree and economic policy reform. It will help, over time, reduce the workforce participation rate gap, which should help, over time, reduce the gender pay gap, and which should help, over time, improve our economic performance as a nation.