Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honourable senators, with the concurrence of the Senate, the statements of reasons accompanying the requests circulated for this bill will be incorporated in the Hansard immediately after the requests to which they relate. There being no objection, it is so ordered.

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

Before moving to the Greens committee stage amendments, I would like to ask the representing minister a handful of questions. We just saw the chamber vote against paying superannuation on paid parental leave entitlements. This used to be Labor policy, and the minister even quoted the relevant minister in his contribution, saying, 'When we can afford it, we'd like to do it.' This is a government crying poor, and women are missing out because of that poor judgement call.

My first question to the representing minister at the table is: super used to be your policy on PPL. Why did you just vote against it?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for her question. I can remember when superannuation was limited to a very small number of people, generally males, generally in white-collar occupations and, more specifically, in managerial roles. It was under the leadership of Paul Keating, particularly with Bill Kelty, as part of the development of the accord to deal with some of the economic problems this country faced in the eighties and nineties, that they developed the concept of universal superannuation. So, to be honest, Senator Waters, I won't be lectured by the Greens about the role the Labor Party has played in creating the current superannuation scheme, in developing that scheme, in protecting that scheme from all of the things the Liberals and Nationals would have done to it in government if they'd had the chance.

If we fast forward from the time when Keating and Kelty developed the concept of universal superannuation, it's now a scheme that's the envy of the entire world. There's no country that has a better superannuation scheme than Australia. That's because Labor governments have worked in conjunction with the union movement in this country to develop this world-class superannuation scheme.

Why are we here today? We're here today because that terrific minister, Minister Rishworth, has brought forward this bill to expand the availability of paid parental leave. That's what we are doing here today. Unfortunately, when we came to office we discovered what? I want to put this into some perspective. When the Gillard government lost in 2013 we had a national debt of around $300 billion. When Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister nearly 12 months ago—

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You asked the question, Senator Ciccone. We had a debt of $1 trillion. So in the nine years that the conservatives were running this country into the ground we trebled our debt from $300 billion to $1 trillion. That's the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. What has the government done? It took a policy to the last election in respect of paid parental leave. We told the Australian people what we would do in terms of paid parental leave. What was the first thing we did in our first budget to implement that policy? We did exactly what we said we were going to do, and that's what we're asking the Senate to do on this occasion. The bill has passed the House of Representatives, and we're now asking the Senate to say: 'Look, we accept that you went to the last election with this proposal. Here it is for you to vote on—no more and no less than what we said we would do. We're asking all of the people in this place to support what we took to the Australian people last year at the election.'

Of course there are a whole lot of things a Labor government would like to do. This proposal by the Greens is just one of the many things that Labor in government would like to do. Can I say, Senator Waters, we intend to be a long-term Labor government—not one term, not two terms, not three terms but four terms.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's arrogant.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no arrogance there, Senator Henderson. We intend to be a long-term Labor government, and that's the way long-term—

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, no.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two more years! Twenty-four months feels like forever!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not two more years. We intend to, over time, build on the terrific work that the Labor government has done in the past—

How many more years? I can't tell you. I can't forecast just how many years, but I know that under Anthony Albanese we intend to be a long-term Labor government.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many more broken promises, Senator Farrell?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No broken promises. We took our paid parental leave policy to the people at the last election. They're endorsing it. We've put it into our budget. We've now put it through the House of Representatives. Our job, as senators, is to say, 'We're doing the final step.'

If we could do everything we wanted to do—if we had an unlimited amount of money—then there are a whole lot of other things that an Anthony Albanese Labor government would like to do. At this point, we're doing what we said we would do. And, as I said in my summing-up speech, there are other things that we want to do and there will be other things that we will do in the future.

But, Senator Waters, we are the government. We were elected by the people to govern this country. We took a set of policies to the people and they endorsed those policies, so what we're here to do is to implement those policies. That's what we'd like this Senate to do, and we'd like you to be part of that.

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

Just sticking with superannuation briefly, before we move to our other detailed amendments, the former government commissioned a retirement income review, which costed paying superannuation on paid parental leave at a mere $200 million. That was for 179,000 recipients. I understand that we're up to about 181,000 recipients now, so it's possible that that $200 million cost might have increased by one or two million. My question, representing minister, given that you say you'd like to do it when you can afford to do it, did you re-cost how much it would cost the budget to pay superannuation on paid parental leave?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for her question. We don't have an updated cost.

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

From that, I can infer that you're relying on the $200 million cost and you're making the active decision that the women of Australia are not worth the $200 million to pay for superannuation on their paid parental leave despite the fact that that was a 2019 election promise by the then Labor opposition.

I'm going to move some committee stage amendments now. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1819 together.

Leave granted.

I, also on behalf of Senator Barbara Pocock, move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 13), omit "100", substitute "130".

(2) Schedule 1, item 38, page 13 (line 6), omit "100", substitute "130".

(3) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (line 19), omit "90", substitute "120".

(4) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (line 31), omit "100", substitute "130".

(5) Schedule 1, item 66, page 26 (line 12), omit "100", substitute "130".

————

St atement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (3), (4) and (5)

Amendments (3), (4) and (5) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to increase the maximum number of days for which paid parental leave can be paid in relation to a child from 100 days to 130 days.

As this will increase the total amount of paid parental leave that can be paid, the amendments will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010.

Amendments (1) and (2)

Amendments (1) and (2) are consequential to amendments (3), (4) and (5).

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

Amendments (3), (4) and (5)

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

Amendments (1) and (2)

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

I will make some very brief remarks before asking a handful of questions. Australia is the second-worst country in the OECD for paid parental leave equity. That is an embarrassment. Today is an opportunity to redress that. The international best practice for paid parental leave is 52 weeks. It's not a measly 20 weeks. It's not a three-year wait to get to 26 weeks. It's 52 weeks. Also, it has structured 'use it or lose it' provisions and higher rates of pay. That's international best practice. If this government were to axe the unaffordable and unnecessary stage 3 tax cuts for the very wealthy, it could afford to fund a decent Paid Parental Leave scheme that might put Australia towards the front of the pack of the OECD rather than being the second worst of comparable developed nations.

I still don't understand why they're making the decision not to prioritise women. As my colleague said, in another instance, they're robbing Peter to pay Peter, but, in this case, they're just giving yet more money to Peter, and it's Peter who's benefitting because it's men who will mostly be in favour and benefitting from the stage 3 tax cuts. Rather than sticking with that, you could give some money to women and lift the minimum wage; you could pay super on PPL; you could increase the number of weeks that paid parental leave is given to new parents; and, ideally, you could do it at replacement wage or at least look at different models that get it close to replacement wage.

None of that is happening, so the amendments I'm moving today on sheet 1819 will bring forward this promise of 26 weeks. In his closing speech, the minister said that they will legislate that next year, 2024, and it will kick in in 2026. Why are you making women wait? This is good policy. It is a step along the way to, I hope, a 52-week paid parental leave policy, which the ACTU and many other women's groups have been pushing for for years and a move that the Greens would support. Why are you making women wait three more years? Are you crying poor again? It's just not plausible to cry poor when you're handing out those stage 3 tax cuts. People see right through that. They know you are making an active decision to make women wait for three more years. They're not going to like that, I can tell you! Our amendments will ensure that new parents and women, in particular, can benefit from that increase to 26 weeks right away, from 1 July this year, not in three years. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for her contribution. I totally reject the proposition that the Labor Party doesn't think women are worth $200 million. In fact, this proposal we're bringing forward is significantly more than that amount of money. The government has committed half a billion dollars in the October 2022-23 budget to expand the Paid Parental Leave scheme to 26 weeks by July 2026. This is the largest investment in the scheme since Labor established it in 2011.

Senator Waters, it's all very well to grandstand and accept everything that the Labor Party does and say, 'But that's not enough; you've got to go further.' We took a policy to the last election. I accept that that was different from the policy we took at the previous election, but we all know what happened at the previous election to a range of our policies. We've taken this policy, and you want to grandstand. You want to say, 'Look, I'm going to accept everything that the Labor Party is putting forward here, but to embarrass the Labor Party we're going to say that we need to go further than that.' That's easy for you to do, with respect, Senator Waters, but you aren't responsible for managing the budget, and this government is. This government will be a responsible, long-term Labor government.

Through this bill we are making immediate improvements to the current scheme by increasing flexibility and fairness from 1 July 2023. We will legislate a staged expansion, with the scheme increasing by two weeks each year from July 2024, reaching 26 weeks in July 2026. Our approach allows us to make important structural reform in a difficult fiscal situation. I reported earlier the economic mess we were left by the people over that side—they trebled our national debt. But we are making responsible economic decisions, as we always will.

Our approach allows us to make important structural reforms in this difficult situation. Expanding the scheme to 26 weeks from 1 July 2023 would obviously have a significant impact on the budget and would cost more than $1 billion over the forward estimates, on top of half a billion dollars we are already investing. We are responsible economic managers, and we need to address the inflationary pressures in the economy that require us to be prudent about any expenditure. The government has asked the Women's Economic Equality Task Force for advice on the optimal model of a 26-week scheme. The task force, made up of independent experts and chaired by Sam Mostyn, is considering the right mix of 'use it or lose it' weeks and flexible weeks to maximise women's economic equality. They will provide advice to the government by midyear. Following consideration of the task force's advice, the government will bring forward legislation to expand the scheme to 26 weeks by 2026.

I'd urge all senators, including Greens senators, to focus on the bill in front of them and the benefits to 180,000 families each year. As I said before, it's critical that this bill passes both houses by 9 March to ensure that parents who are expecting to give birth or adopt on or after 1 July 2023 have the option of pre-claiming parental leave three months in advance.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that requests (1) to (5) on sheet 1819 moved together by leave by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 1828 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 10), after "paid workforce", insert "or from eligible postgraduate work".

(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 1), after item 13, insert:

13A Section 6

Insert:

eligible postgraduate work: see section 35AA.

(3) Schedule 1, item 58, page 23 (line 23), omit "or taken enough paid leave", substitute ", taken enough paid leave or performed enough eligible postgraduate work".

(4) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 19), after item 61, insert:

61A After paragraph 31AA(2)(c)

Insert:

(ca) on that day the person is performing no more than one hour of eligible postgraduate work; and

(5) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 9), after item 75, insert:

75A Section 32 (at the end of paragraph (b) of note 1)

Add "or eligible postgraduate work".

(6) Schedule 1, item 86, page 28 (lines 19 to 21), omit the item, substitute:

86 Paragraphs 33(2A)(a) and (b)

Omit "primary claimant", substitute "PPL claimant or special PPL claimant".

86A Paragraph 33(2A)(b)

After "paid work", insert ", or eligible postgraduate work,".

86B Paragraph 33(2A)(c)

Omit "primary claimant", substitute "PPL claimant or special PPL claimant".

(7) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 2), after item 90, insert:

90A After paragraph 34(1)(a)

Insert:

(aa) the person performs at least one hour of eligible postgraduate work;

(8) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 4), after item 91, insert:

91A After section 35

Insert:

35AA When a person performs eligible postgraduate work

A person performs eligible postgraduate work on a day if, on that day:

(a) the person is enrolled in a course of study or research for a doctoral degree; and

(b) the person performs study or research for the purposes of that course;

whether the enrolment is with an institution, or the study or research is performed, within or outside Australia.

(9) Schedule 1, page 30 (after line 4), after item 100, insert:

100A Subparagraph 36A(b)(ii)

After "paid work", insert "or eligible postgraduate work".

(10) Schedule 3, item 3, page 59 (line 28), before "Sections", insert "(1)".

(11) Schedule 3, item 3, page 59 (after line 30), at the end of the item, add:

(2) However, paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the PPL Act, as inserted by Schedule 1 to this Act, applies in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child born on or after 1 July 2023.

1828-EM

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022

(Requests for amendments to be moved by Senator Faruqi, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole)

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

Amendments (2) to (11)

Amendments (2) to (11) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to expand the class of people who can claim paid parental leave to include certain postgraduate doctoral students.

As this will increase the number of people eligible for paid parental leave, the amendments will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010.

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is consequential to amendments (2) to (11).

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

Amendments (2) to (11)

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

Amendment (1)

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

As I said earlier in my second reading speech, a key shortcoming of this bill is that PhD students are not included in the Paid Parental Leave scheme. They, despite often conducting research on a fulltime basis, cannot access the same parental leave entitlement as other working parents. Currently the PhD students don't qualify for the scheme because their activities are counted as study through a scholarship or other award or financial aid and that blocks them out of this act as it stands currently. There is no good reason for this, and this has to change.

The Greens' amendments actually go towards changing this by including a new entitlement to paid parental leave for someone doing eligible postgraduate work. That is, a person who performs postgraduate work and is enrolled in a course of study or research for a doctoral degree and performs study or research for the purposes of that course, whether the enrolment is within an institution or the study or research is performed with or outside Australia. The amendments also expand the work test in the Paid Parental Leave Act to include eligible postgraduate work.

If we are actually serious about achieving gender equity and promoting the health and wellbeing of all parents and children in Australia, then the scheme must extend to PhD students because anything less will be a gaping oversight by the government. I commend the amendments.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Faruqi for her contribution but indicate that the government continues to oppose this amendment. Can I say this: I don't think there's ever been a government in the history of this country that's so committed to achieving gender equity. I just look at my colleague here, Senator Gallagher, and the wonderful work that she's been doing in every aspect of this government's decision-making process.

I start by reiterating my earlier comments. We went to the election with a proposal, that proposal was endorsed by the Australian people, and we're here today to implement that proposal. The work test supports the intent of the scheme and provides financial support to working parents who have an attachment to the workforce. Therefore, PhD students who are not also engaged in paid employment are not eligible.

The current work test is flexible enough to encompass workers in both full-time and part-time employment and workers on casual, temporary or fixed-term contracts. To meet the work test, a person must have performed qualifying work for 10 out of the 13 months prior to the birth or the adoption of their child and worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period with no more than a 12-week gap between consecutive working days. The hours worked requirement equates to just over one day a week. The person is also considered to be performing qualifying work on a day if they have taken a period of paid leave of at least one hour. Should a PhD student undertake paid work in addition to their studies, such as tutoring at university, this could count towards the work test. Just from my knowledge of this area, I'd say that there are a lot of PhD students who would fit into that category. PhD students who are employed at the university may also be eligible for the university's Paid Parental Leave scheme for employees. Many PhD scholarship programs offer paid parental leave to eligible students who have held their scholarship for at least 12 months. Of Australia's top 20 universities, 16 provide paid parental leave to students on PhD scholarships at an average of 12 weeks. A PhD student who is not eligible for paid parental leave may be eligible to receive the newborn supplement and the newborn upfront payment. The government also provides significant funding and support to students. In the October 2022-23 budget there is costed expenditure on higher education at $44.63 billion over four years, including $485.5 million over four years for 20,000 additional Commonwealth supported places at universities and other higher education providers.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that requests (1) to (11) on sheet 1828, moved by leave together by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At this stage, I will not be moving my amendments, after some discussions with the government. I have raised the concerns around the burden that this is going to place on small businesses. I accept that there is an argument for medium and large businesses to maintain the interaction and the connection between the employer and the employee in administering PPL. In my discussions with small businesses, small tweaks to payroll can result in not insignificant time. Even a half hour, an hour or two extra hours to do payroll adds up if you are a small business. In 2010, this was raised by small business groups and small businesses. In 2014, there was a Senate committee hearing on this, and it was raised again.

I don't understand why we can't address this. What I'm proposing to government is 12 months to set up a system where small businesses can opt in or opt out of this requirement, to give them the flexibility. Should they be topping up PPL, as some small businesses are, and they want to administer it then they should be able to do that. They shouldn't be forced into a situation where they have to take on this extra administrative burden, particularly as we begin to increase paid parental leave in Australia, which I'm fully supportive of. The evidence is so clear that this a good thing for children, for parents, for families and for our community. This is something that I really would like dealt with by the government. I would like small businesses to be heard. And I would really like to know from the government and the department, in coming up with these changes, which small businesses and small business peak bodies were consulted.

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

I will just make a brief contribution. I'm pleased to hear that Senator D Pocock will not be moving his amendments. We had some concerns that the effect of those amendments—whilst well-intentioned to try to relieve the administrative burden on small business, which we're conscious of as well—would be to further sever the connection between the work place and a new parent.

This is a work place entitlement, and our concern is that we seek to strengthen that relationship. The whole point of having paid parental leave is to make sure that the connection to the work place is maintained and women's economic participation after the birth of a child can continue, and that they are supported and encouraged to go back into the work force when they so choose. So, I'm just placing on record that we would not have supported those amendments, and we're pleased that they're not being moved today.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1832 together:

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

(2) Schedule 3, heading, page 57 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "relating to Schedules 1 and 2".

(3) Schedule 3, item 2, page 57 (line 19), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(4) Schedule 3, item 2, page 57 (line 26), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(5) Schedule 3, item 2, page 58 (line 7), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(6) Schedule 3, item 2, page 58 (line 14), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(7) Schedule 3, item 2, page 59 (line 13), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(8) Schedule 3, item 7, page 61 (line 4), after "amendments or repeals made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(9) Schedule 3, item 7, page 61 (line 9), before "this Act", insert "Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to".

(10) Page 61 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Payment of instalments

Pai d Parental Leave Act 2010

1 Section 4 (paragraph beginning "Part 3-5")

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

Part 3-5 is about employer determinations. If an employer determination is in force for an employer and a person, the employer must pay instalments to the person, unless the employer employs less than 50 employees. In that case, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person. The Secretary must be satisfied that certain conditions have been met before the Secretary can make an employer determination.

2 Section 6 (definition of acceptance notice )

Omit "section 103", substitute "paragraphs 103(1)(a) and (2)(a)".

3 Section 6 (definition of employer determination )

Omit "section 101", substitute "subsections 101(1) and (1A)".

4 Section 6

Insert:

non-acceptance notice: see paragraph 103(2)(b).

5 Section 100 (paragraph beginning "This Part")

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

This Part is about employer determinations. If an employer determination is in force for an employer and a person, the employer must pay instalments to the person, unless the employer employs less than 50 employees. In that case, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person.

6 Section 100 (paragraph beginning "If the Secretary makes")

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

If the Secretary makes an employer determination for a person and the person's employer and the employer employs 50 employees or more, the employer must:

(a) give the Secretary certain information to enable the Secretary to pay the employer PPL funding amounts for the person; or

(b) apply for review of the employer determination under Part 5-1 or 5-2.

If the Secretary makes an employer determination for a person and the person's employer and the employer employs fewer than 50 employees, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person. If the employer does not make an election, the Secretary must pay instalments to the person.

7 Subsection 101(1)

Omit "under this section", substitute "under this subsection".

8 After paragraph 101(1)(a)

Insert:

(aa) the employer employs 50 or more employees; and

9 After subsection 101(1)

Insert:

(1A) The Secretary must make a determination under this section (the employer determination) that a person's employer is to pay the person instalments if the Secretary is satisfied, when making the determination, that:

(a) either:

(i) a payability determination under section 13 or 14 that parental leave pay is payable to the person for a child is in force; or

(ii) an initial eligibility determination under section 26A for the person in relation to a child is in force; and

(b) the employer employs fewer than 50 employees; and

(c) the employer has made an election under section 109 to pay instalments and that election applies to the person; and

(d) the person has consented in the claim to the employer paying instalments to the person; and

(e) the person has a continuous flexible period for the child and is likely to be an Australian-based employee of the employer during that period; and

(f) there are no other flexible PPL days prior to the person's continuous flexible period in respect of which:

(i) parental leave pay is payable to the person for the child; or

(ii) the person is initially eligible for parental leave pay for the child; and

(g) the employer has an ABN.

10 Paragraph 101(3)(a)

After "subsection (1)", insert "or (1A)".

11 Paragraph 101(3)(b)

After "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or (1A)(a)".

12 Subsection 101(4)

Omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)".

13 At the end of section 101

Insert:

Calculating number of employees

(7) For the purpose of calculating the number of employees employed by an employer at a particular time for the purposes of this section:

(a) subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), all employees employed by the employer at that time are to be counted; and

(b) seasonal workers and other irregular casual employees are not to be counted.

14 Section 103

Repeal the section, substitute:

103 Employer response to notice of employer determination

(1) If an employer is given a notice under section 102 that an employer determination has been made under subsection 101(1), the employer must, within 14 days after the date of the notice, do one of the following:

(a) give the Secretary a written notice (the acceptance notice) that complies with section 104;

(b) apply for a review of the employer determination under Part 5-1 or 5-2.

Note: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 146).

(2) If an employer is given a notice under section 102 that an employer determination has been made under subsection 101(1A), the employer may, within the period referred to in subsection (3):

(a) give the Secretary a written notice (the acceptance notice) that complies with section 104; or

(b) give the Secretary notice (the non-acceptance notice), orally or in writing, declaring that the employer does not accept the employer's obligations to pay instalments to the person.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the period is 14 days, or such longer period allowed by the Secretary, after the date of the notice given under section 102.

15 Paragraph 106(c)

After "subsection 101(1)", insert "or (1A)".

16 Subsection 108(1) (after table item 1)

Insert:

17 Subsection 108(1) (table item 2, column 1)

Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)".

18 Subsection 108(1) (after table item 2)

Insert:

19 Section 146 (cell at table item 10, column 1)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

Subsection 103(1)

20 Paragraphs 157(1)(b) and 159(1)(b)

Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)".

21 Subsections 203(2) and 207(1)

Omit "section 101", substitute "subsection 101(1)".

22 Subsection 207(5)

Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)".

23 Subsection 207(5) (note)

Omit "Section 103", substitute "Subsection 103(1)".

24 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to an employer determination that is made on or after the commencement of this Schedule in relation to a claim for parental leave pay that is made before, on or after that commencement.

I thank Senator Pocock for raising this really important issue in relation to the administrative burden on small businesses. This pay clerk function of the PPL scheme is something we have long supported so as to remove the unnecessary red tape that's associated with the administration of this really important initiative that has got the bipartisan, or the multipartisan, support of this place. We certainly believe that small businesses and stakeholders and industry groups generally don't support the employer role in the administration of PPL payments because it adds a burden to what is already a very onerous life as a small business operator in this country.

I also commend Senator Pocock for allowing the 12-month period to enable a lead-in, which should provide time for Services Australia to be able to arrange the necessary back-of-house processes necessary to implement this change. The coalition want to put on the record that we will always support anything that reduces compliance burden placed on the engine room of our economy, which is small businesses and, accordingly, we will be supporting this amendment and thank Senator Pocock for moving it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator David Pocock for the constructive discussions that have gone on in the last hour or so, and we will continue those discussions and ensure that the basis of those discussions will be implemented. It is remarkable that Senator Ruston now jumps up to move Senator Pocock's amendments. If this was such an important issue and the opposition were so concerned about small business, why didn't they move these amendments themselves in the first instance? I think that is the $64 question. I think I do have an answer to that. Although Senator Ruston and her colleagues in the coalition talk the talk on small business, they never ever walk the walk. We've only had to see what has happened with the Bellarine Peninsula. What happened to small businesses in the tourism industry during the pandemic? You didn't care an iota.

You never cared one iota about those small businesses. Suddenly—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, the senator should be heard in silence.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that protection, Temporary Chair. I make the point that you can't believe the coalition when they say they are remotely interested in helping small business. There's only one party in this country that's going to help small business, and that is the Australian Labor Party. We're the only party that is interested in helping small business—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Geelong Manufacturing Council says that you are destroying manufacturing businesses.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take this interjection. I talk to businesses every single day, day and night, every weekday and every weekend. The message they're giving me, Senator Henderson, is that they like what they see with the Anthony Albanese Labor government. They like what they see because they know that not only are we a pro-worker government but also we are a pro-business government. You can do both. You can help workers in this country, as we are doing with this legislation; and you can help businesses. Of course, what we've done with this piece of legislation is do exactly that: help workers and help businesses.

The role of employers in the Paid Parental Leave scheme is not changing under this bill. Employers play an important role in maintaining a connection to work for parents and, particularly, women time off to care for children. Roughly five million Australians work in small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. In designing the changes, the government carefully considered impacts on business. The government has made sure that with this bill employers don't face any new regulatory burdens when paying paid parental leave.

Evidence to the Senate committee inquiry on this bill demonstrated that our changes, particularly the increased flexibility, will benefit employers and employees, without any additional administrative burden on businesses. Did you hear that, Senator Ruston? I'll repeat it for you because I know you weren't listening: evidence to the Senate inquiry on this bill demonstrated that our changes, particularly the increased flexibility, will benefit employers and employees, without any additional administrative burden on business. Throughout the Senate inquiry on the bill no submissions or witnesses raised the mandatory employer role as an area of significant concern, not even the peak body representing small businesses, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia.

We know that nearly 40 per cent of businesses who administer paid parental leave pay to their employees choose to do so. They opt in even though they were not required to under the legislation. Businesses administer paid parental leave because it's a workforce entitlement not a welfare payment. It was the Productivity Commission that recommended businesses administer PPL payments so that mothers maintain a connection with their employer while on leave. Taking this approach means that women are more likely to return to work and employee turnover falls, which is obviously good for business, particularly small business.

Clearly, concern about the employer role is not a unanimous viewpoint. The Minister for Social Services—who is doing a terrific job, I have to say—has offered to work with Senator David Pocock to investigate the issue and see if there is a need to find solutions. Today we've committed to support a reference to a committee and agree that we consult with Senator Pocock on the terms of reference for that reference.

We're bringing forward another bill on PPL, prior to July 2024, to implement the expansion of the 26 weeks. This provides an opportunity to consider findings from the consultation process. We are very willing to consider what improvements can be made but we don't agree to a change that may have unintended negative consequences, including for mothers' connection to work. We need a clear understanding of the issue and implications of any change before it's enshrined in legislation, and our reference will do this. The Australian people and prospective parents deserve nothing less.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Could you briefly outline who the department consulted with from the small business community in drafting this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Pocock, for this question. Small businesses and, in particular, COSBOA were made aware of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. COSBOA did not—

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Made aware!

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Made aware? There was no consultation. That's the way Don—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senators! Can I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly. Senator Farrell should be respected and heard in silence. Senator Farrell, please continue.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair, for that protection. COSBOA did not, but we are happy to understand their concerns and work with Senator David Pocock to understand their issues.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1832, moved by Senator Ruston, be agreed to.