Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and—by leave—I move government amendments on sheet PP105 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 54 (line 6), omit "1 April 2020", substitute "1 July 2020".

(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 54 (lines 10 to 14), omit subitem (1), substitute:

(1) The amendments of the PPL Act made by Schedule 1 to this Act do not apply in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child made before the commencement day.

(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 54 (line 16), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "the commencement day".

(5) Schedule 2, item 3, page 55 (lines 16 to 20), omit subitem (1), substitute:

(1) The PPL Act, as amended by Schedule 1 to this Act, applies in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child made on or after the commencement day.

(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 55 (lines 23 to 25), omit "1 July 2020, the amendments of the PPL Act made by the following items of Schedule 1 to this Act are taken, on and after the day on which the child is born,", substitute "the commencement day, the amendments of the PPL Act made by the following items of Schedule 1 to this Act are taken".

(7) Schedule 2, item 3, page 56 (line 5), omit "is born", substitute "was born".

Parents are able to make a claim for paid parental leave up to three months before the expected date of birth or adoption. The bill originally had a provision for prebirth claiming between 1 April 2020 and 1 July 2020 to ensure the claims could be made in the three months leading up to the commencement date. Due to COVID-19 and the change to the parliamentary sitting schedule, it was not possible to have this bill pass the parliament before 1 April. The start date of the changes has not moved from 1 July; however, prebirth claims will also only be possible from 1 July 2020 instead of the intended date of 1 April 2020.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition supports this amendment because we understand the need to change the start date in terms of those applications. However, we think it's unfortunate that the parliament was unable to sit earlier to deal with this legislation, as we called to have happen.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Are the amendments agreed to?

Question agreed to.

I have a question for the government. I note this is relevant to our own second reading amendment as well as the amendments to be moved by the Australian Greens. How many people are not going to get paid parental leave because they no longer meet the income and work participation tests because of coronavirus?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Pratt, for the question. I'm advised that that figure is not available at this point in time as there is a lag effect.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you able to advise the chamber how you will go about calculating that number of people?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the lag effect itself is in approximately 12 months time, so the calculation won't actually happen until then.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How do you calculate the number of people that will get it under the existing circumstances? How do you forecast it using the usual formula? At which point does that lag effect come into account? Just tell me how you work it out.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that it is based on population trend.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When do you expect the impact of that eligibility to first start impacting? Clearly people had COVID job losses as early as March, and they could have become pregnant before then or at any time into the future. They might have a child in nine months time from now but have had that period of time impacted by coronavirus in terms of their employment. Can you just give me an overview of how you intend to calculate that noting that lag effect?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that from 12 March we would be able to have an understanding based on the employment data in terms of the proposition that you have put forward.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that context, if you've got employment data from 12 March and you'll have employment data for every month after and your usual method of calculating how many people are going to claim paid parental leave is based on population statistics, why is it that you're saying in that lag effect you can't calculate that until next year? That doesn't really make sense to me.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the time period that we are looking at is from 12 March. This is an unprecedented event. It has not occurred before. We would hate to see it happen again. As such, that is the reason.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So because of the unprecedented nature you don't know, as at this point in time yet, how many people are not going to meet the work test in relation to their eligibility for PPL. Do you have any estimate of what that might be currently?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm again advised that because it is an unprecedented event they don't yet have an estimate.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this the case for all kinds of workforce participation issues in terms of estimates of who's working and how much work people are currently doing that you don't know or is there something intrinsic to—I don't know—being an expectant parent and families that make this particularly difficult?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that it is slightly different for PPL, because at this point in time we don't yet know how many people will actually be qualifying for the work test.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you truly trying to tell me that you are unable to project what the existing impact of coronavirus has been on people's employment participation and therefore have a look at how many people are likely to have their work test impacted for the purposes of PPL eligibility?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that as the work test period goes for 13 months, the answer to the question is: yes.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it's okay to rely on data for the purposes of population growth statistics, but you're unable to translate the impact of that work test because it goes over 13 months. Do you have an indication of how many people who might be about to commence paid parental leave in the next couple of months would already have been impacted in terms of not meeting that work test? I've certainly been contacted by constituents. That is not a 13-month period which is contingent on how much the economy picks up or doesn't pick up and therefore impacts on how much of the work test impacts on your work test modelling. What is the current impact, as of now, in terms of those who would otherwise have been receiving PPL, if they were commencing their PPL now or in the next couple of months?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, at this point in time they are unable to tell why a person currently does not work, hence the previous answers I have given you in relation to when the calculations may be done and when the data may be there.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Minister Cash, I don't understand the reference to 13 months. We do understand that eligibility is forecast over a 13-month period, but we certainly know of families that are looking ahead now to a couple of months time, where they know they have lost their eligibility because they have lost work recently and therefore they don't meet the 10 out of 13 months eligibility, I think it is, for that work test. I really don't understand why you don't have any indication of the data that might give you an indication of the number of people affected. You've said that the data hasn't come in. But is that data calculated on general unemployment data and extrapolated? How do you usually calculate how many people you expect to be receiving it? Are you really saying that you don't calculate that for another 13 months time in the past? If, as you said, you can't calculate it for another year, that's not an estimate of how many people are about to receive it, which clearly the government needs to be able to do.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the normal course of events the estimate would be undertaken on the basis of previous data. However, because this is an unprecedented event, any such estimate may not be a correct estimate, so at this point in time it is unable to be undertaken, because the reason for not working is not yet known. So, in the normal course of events—you are right—it would be based on previous data. But because of the nature of the unprecedented event, this has not yet been able to be done.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, for all your workforce participation issues—clearly we know that coronavirus has had an unprecedented impact on workforce participation. We know it's had an unprecedented impact in particular on women's workforce participation, and even the government has been able to acknowledge to some extent that that's an issue. Have you not made any attempt yet to quantify what that impact actually looks like and to translate it into, frankly, all the various eligibility thresholds, whether it's for jobseeker payments or situations where people change their family tax benefit status because they have lost work and therefore they've lost income? Clearly the government has to be grappling with these issues now to be able to look at the debt and the impact of the policy decisions and the current economic crisis on households and the Australian economy?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're currently dealing with a bill in relation to paid parental leave, so I can only provide you the response that has been given to me by the department in relation to that aspect of your question. Again, it goes to the information I have already provided—that in terms of paid parental leave we're only at the very early stages of the impact. As I've said to you, in the normal course of events the estimation would be able to be done, but because of the unprecedented nature of the event and the fact that we're only in the early stages of it, this has not yet been undertaken.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the government could work it out, and you need to work out what these early-stage impacts are, clearly, for the whole economy and for those impacted. Will you work it out or will you just tell us as you go how many people have missed out who would otherwise have been eligible?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, Senator Pratt, I go to my previous answers. This is not a normal course of events; this is an unprecedented event. As such, I am advised that there will be continual monitoring of this situation, and, when there is a clearer picture as to the information that you are seeking to elicit that is due to the impact of COVID-19, that information will be provided. But this is an unprecedented event.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Minister Cash, you're glossing over the fact that families and expecting parents will be missing out on payments that they otherwise were planning to receive because they no longer meet that eligibility test. That is happening to them here and now, and you are trying to tell me that this government has no idea how many of these families are being impacted by the loss of employment because of COVID-19, in terms of their eligibility for paid parental leave?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the general premise of your question, the answer is no. In terms of the detailed response to your question, the government, as you would be aware, has made amendments to the JobKeeper payment so that it would count for the purposes of the work test for paid parental leave.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many people will get paid parental leave because the rule has been changed to allow JobKeeper to satisfy the work test for paid parental leave?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that that figure is not available at this point in time, and we won't have that information until people actually formally submit the paperwork and claim.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that because you don't know how many people are claiming JobKeeper or—

Senator Cash interjecting—

Okay. Is there a reason that you haven't yet calculated how much of that cohort might be a likely draw on paid parental leave?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, the answer is: yes, we know how many people are claiming JobKeeper, and Treasury is able to work out that estimate, but, in relation to the specifics of your question, the department will not have that information until people formally lodge that claim.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did the government include JobKeeper as a means to acquitting the requirements of the work test, noting that many of those people on JobKeeper might be doing a little bit of work or might be doing no work? Why is it that the government won't extend the same right to acquit the paid parental leave workforce participation requirements for people who now find themselves on the jobseeker payment or who find themselves dependent on their partner because they don't meet the income thresholds to be eligible for jobseeker payments?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, I'm advised that the rationale behind it was that JobKeeper is all about maintaining that important connection with employment, and that is what paid parental leave is. That is the rationale for utilising JobKeeper.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. So JobKeeper is relevant in the sense that you want to maintain that workforce participation connection using JobKeeper. But these are women who are about to take a pause from their work, or dads who are about to take a pause from their work, because they're accessing paid parental leave. It is of course an objective to keep parents who have children connected to their employers. Is that not also an important objective for people who have also been dislocated from the workforce but who might be in casual roles?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the question: again, you asked for the rationale in your previous question. The answer to that question was that the rationale was based on the premise of maintaining that connection to employment. In terms of casuals, you'd be aware that casuals who have been in a continuous period of employment with their employer for 12 months or more, based on the definition of the Fair Work Act, are entitled to JobKeeper. As such, there will be some casuals who are afforded the benefit of this rationale.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you confirm, Minister, that the government could indeed change the work test rules for PPL by regulation at any time, to make sure that families don't miss out in meeting their workforce participation requirements to get PPL because of coronavirus?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the answer to your question is no, it cannot be changed by regulation, because it is in the actual Paid Parental Leave Act.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that's the case, how is it that JobKeeper keeps those requirements? Surely all you need to do is to capture those people within a JobKeeper payment so that they do have workforce participation which would enable them to do that?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I'm advised that the JobKeeper legislation amended the Paid Parental Leave Act.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister Cash. What advice would you give to the families who had otherwise banked on having this income because they were going to meet the work test? They've lost their jobs recently, they're about to have a baby and many of these families are now looking at needing to draw down on superannuation because they've lost employment. What advice would you give these families who are now managing an insecure economic future at the same time as expecting a baby?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that they may be able to test their eligibility for other types of payments, including jobseeker or family tax benefits.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just confirm this: would a working woman who has lost her job and is pregnant but who has a partner who is working full-time and earns $100,000 a year—and they have a very large mortgage—be eligible for a jobseeker payment?

She's going to be assessed as dependent on her spouse and she won't meet the income test requirements to be eligible for a jobseeker payment, will she?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to your previous question, the advice I was given, which I reiterate, is that they are able to test their eligibility for other forms of payment, including the jobseeker payment or family tax benefit.

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

The Greens amendment goes to this very issue. In fact, our amendment would fix the problem that we've been discussing. As has been articulated, if you lost your job because of COVID, but you weren't eligible for JobKeeper, for whatever reason, now you're also not eligible for paid parental leave. We think that's unfair and it's very easily fixed. Amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8927, which I will move provide that, if through no fault of your own you've lost your job because of COVID-19 but you had expected to otherwise remain in employment and be eligible for PPL, then you should still be eligible for PPL.

Importantly for the number-crunchers over there, that won't increase the budget draw because those people were projected to be eligible for PPL anyway. The whole lengthy discussion we've just had actually boils down to the fact that those projections won't have changed. You're basing it on population projections, so those projections will be the same. The same people who would have been entitled to PPL when their employer existed but who, unfortunately, because of coronavirus now have no work will miss out. It's an easy fix, and it won't have any budget implications, so I am interested in knowing why the government isn't supporting this amendment, since it won't cost you any more than it otherwise would. Could you answer that, Minister, before we deal with the amendments?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, are you seeking leave to move both of those amendments together?

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

Yes.

Leave granted.

I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8927 together:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 53 (after line 9), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A—Work test for claimants impacted by an emergency circumstances event

Paid Parental Leave Act 2010

1 Section 6

Insert:

emergency circumstances event declaration means a declaration made by a Minister under subsection 33(2AC).

2 Section 30 (paragraph beginning " Division 3 " )

Omit:

Special rules apply in the case of premature birth or complications or illness related to the pregnancy (see section 36A) or if the person is already eligible for dad and partner pay (see section 36B).

substitute:

Special rules apply in the case of premature birth or complications or illness related to the pregnancy (see section 36A), if the person is already eligible for dad and partner pay (see section 36B) or in circumstances when the Minister has made an emergency circumstances event declaration (see section 36C).

3 After paragraph 33(1)(a)

Insert:

  (aa) if:

     (i) subsection (2AA) applies in relation to the primary claimant; and

     (ii) the primary claimant would not satisfy the work test if the claimant's work test period were the work test period under paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection;

     the claimant's emergency-related reduction in work day; or

4 After subsection 33(2A)

Insert:

(2AA) This subsection applies in relation to a primary claimant if:

  (a) the primary claimant:

     (i) will cease or ceased performing work on a particular day; or

     (ii) will perform or performed less hours of paid work commencing from a particular day;

     because of an emergency circumstances event; and

  (b) any conditions prescribed by the PPL rules are satisfied.

(2AB) The particular day referred to in subparagraph (2AA)(a)(i) or (ii) is the claimant's emergency-related reduction in work day.

(2AC) The Minister may declare, by legislative instrument, that an event is an emergency circumstances event if the Minister is satisfied that:

  (a) the event is an emergency that has a significant impact on one or more industries; and

  (b) the event is likely to have a significant impact on employment or the number of hours ordinarily worked by workers; and

  (c) the occurrence of the event was unpredictable and outside of the control of employers and employees.

Note: The declaration is an emergency circumstances event declaration (see section 6).

(2AD) Without limiting the matters to which the Minister may have regard for the purposes of subsection (2AC), the Minister must have regard to:

  (a) the extent to which the nature or extent of the event is unusual; and

  (b) the number of workplaces that are disrupted.

5 At the end of Division 3 of Part 2 -3

Add:

36C If an emergency circumstances event declaration has been made

  A person also satisfies the work test, on the day the person's child was born, if:

  (a) the Minister has made an emergency circumstances event declaration under subsection 33(2AC); and

  (b) the person:

     (i) ceased performing work on a particular day; or

     (ii) performed less hours of paid work commencing from a particular day;

     because of the emergency circumstances event; and

  (c) any conditions prescribed by the PPL rules are satisfied; and

  (d) the Secretary is satisfied that the person would have satisfied the work test on the day the person's child was born if, during the period commencing on the particular day referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) and ending on the day the person's child was born, the person had continued to:

     (i) perform work; and

     (ii) perform the person's ordinary hours of paid work.

6 Coronavirus known as COVID -19—Emergency circumstances event declaration

(1) For the purposes of subsection 33(2AC) of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, as inserted by this Schedule, the economic downturn arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and government initiatives to slow the transmission of COVID-19 is declared to be an emergency circumstances event.

(2) The declaration in subitem (1) is taken to be an emergency circumstances event declaration made by the Minister for the purposes of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill in a way that is intended to increase the number of persons eligible for parental leave pay.

The amendment adjusts the work test period that is used to determine eligibility for parental leave pay in the situation of an emergency circumstances event, for those who have lost their employment or had their hours reduced because of the event. The amendment declares the economic impacts of COVID-19 to be such an event, and also enables the Minister to declare other such events in the future.

As this will increase the number of persons eligible to receive parental leave pay, the amendment will cause an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of thePaid Parental Leave Act 2010.

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is consequential on amendment (2).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of thePaid Parental Leave Act 2010 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendment (1)

This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments that are consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as requests.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, I will respond to the amendments that you've moved. You would be aware that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government moved quickly to introduce amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act to allow the time that people spend on the JobKeeper payment to count towards the paid parental leave work test, as I have described in responding to questions from Senator Pratt. The proposed amendment that you have moved has the potential to allow people with a non-genuine claim to be eligible for paid parental leave—for example, people who may have already been planning to leave work irrespective of the impact of COVID-19. The proposed amendment that you have moved would also increase the evidence required for submitting a claim for paid parental leave, adding to the administrative burden including for employers who may be called on to speculate about the work intention of claimants and what amount of work they would have asked claimants to do, but for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. There would be no way for Services Australia to independently verify these claims.

The amendments that you have moved also add a new provision that would allow the secretary to determine that a person would have met the paid parental leave work test if it were not for the impact of an emergency services event. The amendment also allows the minister to declare an event to be such an event and to declare the coronavirus outbreak an emergency circumstances event. In these situations, a person would be deemed to be working the hours they would have been working pre the COVID-19 impacts. The approach is similar to that currently applied to people who do not meet the work test due to a pregnancy related complication or illness, or a premature birth. However, these events are relatively rare and easily verified. The amendments that you have proposed would also require assessments on a significantly greater scale, creating additional administrative burden, including for employers. On that basis, the government will not be supporting the amendments that have now been formally moved by the Australian Greens.

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

Minister, I want to take you up on a few of those points. Firstly, the claim that there would be non-genuine claims sounds to me a lot like you were just saying women are going to lie. We do hear that from your side of the chamber quite a bit. It's still not okay and it's also not right. I ask you to reconsider whether you really want to assert that women are going to make up the fact that either they are pregnant or they were otherwise going to leave the job or stay on the job, because that's just playing a trope that's very unhelpful and is actually quite dangerous, as I would hope you know.

You then talked about speculation on work intention. These people have a contract, so there's no need for speculation on their intention. They are employed. Were it not for COVID, they would be entitled to receive paid parental leave because they are employed. I genuinely don't understand how you think there's some speculation required as to their employment situation or their intention.

Lastly, on the point that this would somehow require additional paperwork: these are the same people who otherwise would have been eligible for PPL. They might now have to put in a different form. It's not like there are going to be additional people. The only thing that has changed is the pandemic. The number of people has not changed. Just their eligibility to get any support from this government is what has changed.

You noted that you have made JobKeeper count for the purposes of PPL eligibility. I'm aware of that, and we welcome that. But there is actually no real reason for you not to also extend PPL eligibility to people who would have been eligible were it not for the pandemic. It gets a bit confusing, but I think people understand the point. It's not their fault that their business has either gone bust or chosen not to offer JobKeeper, or they are not eligible because your government won't extend JobKeeper to the number of people that it should; namely, casuals, people on temporary visas, students—the works.

In a sense you are hoisted on your own petard. You are trying to use that as an excuse to say they don't deserve help. They do deserve help. I don't accept your premise that women are going to lie about their employment situation or their reproductive health status. I'd like a further response on why you're not simply going to do the right thing here and give people the money they would have otherwise been entitled to.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, in relation to everything you have just said, your analysis of the response that I gave in terms of the government not supporting the amendments put forward by the Australian Greens was completely incorrect. In fact, you verballed me. I would like the Hansard to formally reflect that that is what has just occurred in your summation.

In the first instance though I thank you for acknowledging that the government did move quickly to introduce amendments to the Paid Parental Leave scheme to allow the time that people spend on the JobKeeper payment to count towards the Paid Parental Leave work test. Thank you for acknowledging that.

In relation to the verballing of me in my response in terms of your proposed amendment that it has the potential to allow people with a non-genuine claim to be eligible for PPL, the example given was people who may have already been planning to leave work regardless of the impact of COVID-19. This is about ensuring the accuracy of the system.

You also responded in terms of the significantly greater scale of the assessments and the additional administrative burden, including for employers. In response to that, while the approach is similar to that currently applied for people who do not meet the work test due to a pregnancy-related complication or illness or a premature birth, these events are relatively rare and easily verified. The amendment you have put forward would require assessments on a significantly greater scale, as such creating additional administrative burden, including for employers.

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

You did say that already; I did hear it the first time—thanks, I guess. Just in relation to the savings that you will now make, you're making savings off the back of pregnant women. When did that become okay? You're not going to let people that otherwise would have been eligible for PPL, were it not for the pandemic, that are now not eligible have the PPL, because you think they might have been intending to leave work anyway. Sounds an awful lot like making savings off the back of pregnant women. Can I get an explanation on how much money you're expecting to save by denying those people the payment they would have otherwise been entitled to?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, again, I don't agree with the propositions that you have put forward. People who do not meet the work test are not eligible for the PPL payment.

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

Yes, that's why we're suggesting the work test be changed: because it's not their fault that the global pandemic happened. I think we're going nowhere. I'll leave it there.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This discussion has highlighted for me another significant issue in relation to pregnant women meeting the work test. Pregnancy discrimination is, of course, known to happen in Australia. Clearly, if you have a permanent contract and you're employed then you have some protections. However, if you're a casual employee your shifts can suddenly drop off because of that pregnancy discrimination. Has the government done any assessment of the issues around someone meeting the work test when they otherwise would have met it—they're not leaving a job or dropping shifts of their own accord by choice but rather are experiencing pregnancy discrimination and insecure work rights and therefore do not meet the work test?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the answer to your question is no, but Senator Pratt, you also did, in the statement that you made, acknowledge that pregnancy discrimination is unlawful. In the event that someone was experiencing pregnancy discrimination, they would be able to take action under the relevant legislation in relation to that alleged discrimination.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, indeed, Senator Cash, that is the case; however, the extent to which those rights are exercisable are much more limited in the case of people who are casualised. Because you might simply stop getting shifts rather than—we know that this commonly happens when people are discriminated against at work. I've seen many examples of it, and it's very difficult to mount a discrimination case under those circumstances.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, if you're looking for a response, my response is: I refer to my previous answer, which is, if someone believes that they are experiencing discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, it is unlawful. It's made unlawful by legislation, and they are able to take action under that relevant legislation.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, are you able to recognise that the casualised nature of women's work relative to men in our economy makes women more vulnerable to this kind of discrimination because it's harder for them to exercise those rights?

The CHAIR: The question is that the request moved by Senator Waters for amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8927 be agreed to.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Centre Alliance request (1) on sheet 8959:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 26), after item 111, insert:

111A After paragraph 54(1)(a)

Insert:

  (aa) if the child's birth mother is unlikely to satisfy the income test on the child's expected date of birth, or did not satisfy the income test on the day the child was born:

     (i) the biological father of the child; or

     (ii) the partner of the child's birth mother;

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill in a way that is intended to increase the classes of persons who can claim parental leave pay.

The amendment would allow the biological father of a child or the partner of the child's birth mother to make a primary claim for parental leave pay for a child, if the child's birth mother does not, or is not likely to, satisfy the income test at the relevant time.

As this will increase the number of persons who would be eligible to receive parental leave pay, the amendment will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of thePaid Parental Leave Act 2010.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of thePaid Parental Leave Act 2010 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

This request is framed to increase the classes of persons who can claim parental leave pay. It is fully costed, and it would allow the biological father of a child or the partner of a child's birth mother to make a primary claim for parental leave pay for a child if the child's birth mother does not or is not likely to satisfy the income test at the relevant time.

As I noted in my speech, there is inequity between two families on the same combined income: they would be eligible if the man were the higher income earner but not eligible if the woman were the higher income earner, which is just unfair. The current rules just don't reflect the realities of modern parenting, with more dads staying at home to care for children. The number of stay-at-home fathers has grown to 80,000 in 2016, based on the latest census data. It is time to move away from models that assume children will be cared for by a primary carer who is the mother. Modern parents don't define themselves in this way, and it's time the legislation doesn't either. Minister, do you concede that the rule which unfairly penalises high-income earning mums and stay-at-home dads by tying eligibility to the birth mother is a discriminatory and sexist rule?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to the amendment that you have moved in total. The time-critical nature of this bill, which, as you are aware, provides critical flexibility in paid parental leave, precludes the government from considering other changes to the scheme at this time. Any changes to the means-testing arrangements would require consultation and investigation to ensure we strike the right balance.

The government is committed to delivering on measures that were announced in 2018 as part of the Women's Economic Security Statement that improve the flexibility of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The proposed amendment that you have moved on behalf of Centre Alliance seeks to enable biological fathers or the partner of the birth mother to claim paid parental leave where the mother does not satisfy the paid parental leave income test. This would have the effect of enabling partners of high-income mothers—that is, above $150,000—to access paid parental leave, subject to the partner meeting the income and work tests. Whilst the proposal would address, as you've said, perceived gender bias in the PPL scheme, it would come at a cost to government and be providing increased support to higher-income families.

Women who are on a higher income and are primary carers are generally in a stronger position to obtain family-friendly benefits as part of their conditions of employment. Further, the requirement in the PPL scheme for a mother to have primary eligibility for parental leave pay reflects that the payment is primarily designed to assist mothers to take time out of the workforce to care for their newborn or recently adopted child, to enhance the health and development of the child and to allow time for the mother to recover from the birth. Whilst we remain open to discussion about further opportunities for improvement, our critical and immediate concern is delivering on the commitment for increased flexibility that has been widely supported.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, your statement confirms that government does not have an issue with a sexist and discriminatory rule. Whilst I appreciate, as you said, that it may take time to consult with others, this change is very minor and, in fact, is fully costed by the PBO. It's around $27 million in the forward estimates. This has a very minor cost impact on your budget, but it just sets everything straight—it sets everything right. It removes this sexist rule. Given that part of your statement also said that it's something that perhaps should be looked at—but then it slightly contradicts itself as well a bit further on—can you advise whether government is looking at options that will actually take into account either combined family income or looking at this very issue in the reasonable future?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Griff. In relation to the costings, I am advised that it is $27 million per year as opposed to just $27 million. In relation to the comments you made about sexist discrimination, that is not what I said. I am being verballed in that regard. I will again outline the statement that I made: the requirement in the PPL scheme for a mother to have primary eligibility for paid parental leave reflects that the payment is primarily designed to assist mothers to take time out of the workforce to care for their newborn or recently adopted child, to enhance the health and development of the child and to allow time for the mother to recover from the birth.

In the opening statement that I provided in response to your first questions, I stated that the time-critical nature of this bill, which provides critical flexibility in the Paid Parental Leave scheme, precludes the government from considering other changes to the scheme at this time. Any changes to the means-testing arrangements would require consultation and investigation to ensure we strike the right balance. I also stated that whilst we remain open to discussion about further opportunities for improvement—in answer to the question that you have just put—our immediate concern is delivering on the commitment for increased flexibility that has been widely supported.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question that follows on from Senator Griff's questions. How many men have taken paid parental leave each year since the scheme commenced? If you don't have that data then perhaps you can find a way of giving me an overview of it. And do you have an indication of how many families or men would not have been eligible for PPL if they had been subject to the same income test as women?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, in terms of the information that the department have been able to provide me with right now, the information that they have to hand is details in relation to the number of dads and partners, under dad and partner pay, who received the payment last year. The figure, I am instructed, is 91,762; that's the figure that I've been provided with by the department.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, my previous question was: are you considering looking at any other form of legislation to incorporate combined family income or fix this particular issue that I've referred to? That's my first question. My second question relates to the statement you made that the cost was $27 million a year. That is incorrect. The PBO costing out to 2022-23 totals $27.3 million, but, in each individual year, it's around $7 million to $9 million. I can table this PBO document, if that is appropriate, Chair; but it is not $27 million a year.

The CHAIR: Is leave granted? Are you able to circulate it, Senator Griff?

We can circulate it, but it was actually provided to government. It was provided to the opposition and—

The CHAIR: It may well be that the minister hasn't seen it. If you circulate it, the minister can have a look at it now.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Griff, in terms of the information that you are seeking to table, I am advised that we can take it on notice and give you a formal response in relation to the costings, but the information I was provided with, in response to your question, was as I provided.

The CHAIR: The question is that request (1) on sheet 8959, as moved by Senator Griff, be agreed to.