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

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Australian women are retiring with significantly less superannuation savings than men. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave was a 2019 Labor election policy. It would cost $200 million each year, which is less than 10 per cent of the revenue expected to be raised from the government's proposed changes to superannuation tax. You say you're waiting until budget circumstances permit to pay superannuation on PPL, but your proposed super tax changes are a revenue measure that would raise 10 times what is needed to pay super on PPL. Why are you making women wait when you have a proposed revenue source that could fund paying superannuation on paid parental leave?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for the question and acknowledge her long interest in improving women's economic equality in this country. It's a priority that she and I share. I think you've seen in the last two budgets how seriously the government are taking or making that priority, and we're addressing it through the payment system, where we've made some significant changes. We are also doing it through the work we're doing in women's policy more generally, through our National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality and through our work on the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. To begin with, I just wanted to put it in that context.

We have been clear—in fact, I heard the Treasurer on the radio this morning reconfirming our commitment to doing super on PPL when the budget allows for that to happen. I acknowledge that the Greens' position is that we link the PRRT or the high-balance super accounts to that change. That's not how the government works. We're not hypothecating, in a sense, where we're making revenue changes to expenditure decisions. These are all matters that come back through government in the normal way, which is that we take a range of decisions on one side of the budget and we take a range of decisions on the other.

But it remains a priority for us. That's part of the reason why we are trying to get the budget back into better shape—so that we can make these investments. I think it's probably a little bit more than $200 million—I haven't seen the updated costings for it—but we are trying to make room in the budget for sensible investments like these that will provide a boost to women's economic security, as we know that is good for the economy as well.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

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

Minister, in the last financial year, your government gave $9.8 billion worth of subsidies to fossil fuel industries. You're also spending half a trillion dollars on nuclear submarines. Meanwhile, paying superannuation on PPL, which would cost a modest $200 million each year, is subject to budget constraints. Why is spending on fossil fuels and nuclear subs immediate when women have to keep waiting?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

r GALLAGHER (—) (): I would argue that we're not waiting when it comes to women. Some of those changes that we've done include aged-care wage increases, where the vast majority of those employees are women; funding and indexation for community organisations, many of whom work in the women's sector; and the skills guarantee, where we are making targeted commitments about women and access to women's skills and training.

But, aside from that, I guess the answer is that the government has to do a range of things at the same time, and defence and national security is part of that. I think the fossil fuel issue you raised is the diesel fuel rebate. Again, that's important for many industries in this country. The budget is a series of balanced up decisions, but I do not accept that we are asking women to wait. We are making investments. We are getting the budget in better shape. And, when room allows, we will deliver on that commitment that has been a longstanding one for this government.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

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

The Jobs and Skills Summit, almost a year ago, said that paying super on PPL was a good idea. Three months ago the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommended it. Your own national conference said this was a priority reform. On the radio this morning the Treasurer said you do intend to act on this in the future. Can you please give women a date for when you will act on this?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a range of those areas, the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce came up with a range of priorities, many of which we have delivered on—not all of them, but many we have—so we are remaining true to those processes and the advice that they have given.

No, I can't provide you with a date. These are decisions that the government hasn't taken at this point in time. But it remains a priority. Senator McAllister led the work on this some time ago, in a previous parliament. She led the work on this, and she put it on the national agenda, along with a lot of other advocacy organisations. It is in our platform because of that work, and we intend to deliver on it. No, I can't give you a date, but we remain committed to it, and we can remain committed to gender equality in this country and, as part of that, seeing a significant improvement in women's economic security.