As a result of our bill that has passed the Senate, from 1 July working families will have access to more paid parental leave, with the scheme expanding by two weeks each year until we reach 26 weeks—a full six months—in July 2026. When fully rolled out, that's over $5,000 more in the family budget for 180,000 families each year. This builds on important changes that we put in place from July 2023, including changes to give more families access to the payment and to make it easier for more parents to share care.
I'm very pleased to see the strong support for Labor's historic reform from a diverse range of family, employer and community groups, unions, gender experts and economists. The ACTU has said the increase to 26 weeks was a great step forward for Australian parents, particularly working women, and a stark contrast to the policies and attitudes to women that we saw under the previous government. The Business Council of Australia said the expansion doesn't just help make a fairer society but is also a major economic reform which will help raise workforce participation and boost productivity. The Parenthood said that this is a significant improvement after no meaningful change to policy over the last decade. Equality Rights Alliance called these changes 'equality enabling' and a significant advance in the promotion of Australian women's economic security.
While, importantly, the government is supporting parents to take time off after the birth or adoption of their child, we're also taking action to minimise the impact on their retirement income by recently announcing that we will pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from July 2025. Not only is our government ensuring that women earn more and keep more of what they earn, but, by paying super on paid parental leave, we are ensuring that women will retire with more as well.
I hope that those opposite will join us to help us secure a better retirement as well as supporting women to earn more and keep more of what they earn— (Time expired)
]]>I want to acknowledge that work has begun on the Hub Gymnastics complex. The Hub Gymnastics complex is a community club that is offering hundreds of young people, particularly girls and women, the opportunity to participate in their passion of gymnastics. The government has committed to partnering with both the state government and local council to see that facility really fit for purpose, to ensure that my community gets the best facility possible, so seeing that work start has been really important.
My electorate has many, many kilometres of beach. I have Surf Life Saving clubs that patrol the beach and make sure that people are safe, so I'm so pleased that work is beginning for the Southport Surf Life Saving Club's extra training and storage place in Waring Street. That facility will also support the Onkaparinga Canoe Club, which, once again, is a partnership with local council, with the Surf Life Saving Club and with the federal government—a really important good investment.
We have seen the opening of the Yellow Gate domestic and family violence prevention hub in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, a project that was campaigned for by the local community. We are really pleased to be partnering with the South Australian government to make sure resources are available. This is a really important facility. It is at the Noarlunga shopping centre so that people have easy access to go and get advice, early intervention and, hopefully, prevention of family and domestic violence.
On the weekend, we are going to have the first sod turning of the Witton Bluff pathway at Port Noarlunga, joining Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga communities together. This is an incredibly important project. I have been campaigning for this for years. The community has been campaigning for this for years. There have been some stops and starts, but we are going to see that sod turn, and nothing will keep me away from that sod turn. It is an exciting project for our community, and I look forward to when our two communities of Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga are finally connected.
]]>That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
]]>That this bill be now read a second time.
The Albanese Labor government is committed to a child support scheme that ensures adequate and fair financial support for all children of separated parents.
This bill is a technical amendment to ensure that the child support scheme operates as it is intended.
In the context of 2023 AAT proceedings, Services Australia identified concerns that 2018 amendments to child support and family assistance legislation were not operating as intended due to unclear drafting.
Instead of strengthening interim period provisions, the 2018 amendments unintentionally limited the circumstances where an interim period can apply. Under the legislation as currently enacted, an interim period can only apply at the start of a new child support assessment or family tax benefit claim where the breach of the care arrangement occurs at that point.
In February 2024, the Federal Court confirmed that the 2018 amendments did not operate as intended and observed there is an urgent need for legislative reform to simplify this.
Through this bill, the government is taking action to quickly resolve the legislative uncertainty and restore parliament's intent from the 2018 bill. Passage of this bill is essential to ensure child support legislation clearly outlines where interim periods can apply.
Interim periods are an important and longstanding feature of the child support scheme.
Child support payments and family tax benefit entitlements are based on a parent's percentage of care for a child. Ordinarily, this is based on each parent's actual care of the child.
However, where a written care arrangement is in place for a child—such as a court order—a parent's percentage of care can be based on that written care arrangement for an interim period.
Interim periods are important because they encourage compliance with written care arrangements. Interim periods prevent a parent who is withholding care of a child from financially benefiting through higher child support and FTB payments. They also ensure the other parent is not financially worse off through higher child support obligations and lower FTB payments.
Interim periods encourage participation in family dispute resolution. For an interim period to apply, the person with reduced care must take reasonable steps to have the care arrangement complied with. For example, trying to work with the other parent to reinstate the care arrangement, seeking assistance from a dispute resolution service, starting legal proceedings or notifying the police that the child has been taken without consent.
It can be a lengthy and expensive process for parents to resolve parenting matters through the family law assistance system. Where they have done so, these orders made reflect the court's decision about what is in the best interests of a child. The orders should be followed unless special circumstances exist.
Importantly, existing rules will continue to apply to protect parents and children who are at risk of violence or where there are child welfare concerns. If a care arrangement has changed due to a fear of violence or neglect, Services Australia is able to ensure the child support and FTB payments are based on actual care and an interim period would not apply.
The bill clarifies provisions in child support and family assistance legislation to ensure interim periods are available in a broader range of circumstances, consistent with longstanding policy and practice. While not known as an 'interim period', child support assessments have been able to reflect the contravention of a court order or parenting plan since 1998. Interim periods in their current form have existed since 2010, when child support and family assistance legislation were aligned to have the same care determinations.
The bill includes retrospective provisions to ensure past decisions made since 2018 and in line with the intended policy are legally valid. This is important to minimise the impact on parents and carers who may otherwise be financially disadvantaged by having these decisions disrupted.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
]]>The Albanese Labor government is delivering a tax cut for every taxpayer, which will divide meaningful cost-of-living relief for middle Australia on 1 July this year. Under Labor's tax plan the average Australian worker will get more than double the tax cut they would have received under the previous government's plan. This means workers will have more money in their pocket on 1 July. Indeed, 84 per cent of taxpayers will now receive a bigger tax cut.
Some of the workers who will keep more of what they earn because of Labor's tax plan are our social and community service workers. These workers are often the first port of call providing support to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The support provided by these workers touches the lives of those experiencing poverty, disadvantage and hardship. These are the workers that are delivering our government's escaping violence program, working day in and out facilitating financial assistance and providing confidential support for people who have recently left a violent intimate partner. These caseworkers deserve to keep more of what they earn. These workers earn approximately $88,000 a year, and under Labor they will receive a tax cut of $1,879. That's $800 more than they would have otherwise received.
The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting our community sector workers. This has been evidenced not just by the bigger, better tax cuts but by our decision to increase indexation and supplementation payments to more than 700 community organisations. These payments are critical to ensure that community service workers get the wage increases they are entitled to. It is clear from our actions that our government want workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn.
Those opposite want people to work longer for less, and nothing demonstrates this more clearly than their vocal opposition to our bigger, better tax cuts. Of course, the opposition have called our tax cuts Marxist and an electoral scam. They have made their intention clear in the Senate.
]]>That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
]]>That this bill be now read a second time.
This is an important bill, to establish a clear legal basis for means testing of the income from military invalidity payments affected by the full Federal Court's 2020 'Douglas decision', when recipients of those payments also seek support through our income support system.
The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, to give these veterans certainty and to maintain equity in the way different income support recipients are means-tested.
This bill is necessary as a result of the Douglas decision determination that relevant veteran invalidity benefits paid from the Defence Force Retirements and Death Benefits Scheme and Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme should be taxed as superannuation lump sums rather than defined benefit superannuation income streams.
In our response to this decision, the Albanese government passed legislation, ensuring affected veterans could retain the tax benefits of the decision and the benefits that flowed from any resulting changes to their taxable income in areas such as family tax benefit and childcare subsidy.
We also prevented adverse impacts, including on veterans with child support obligations—or their ex-partners—by recognising the Douglas decision as a special circumstance and proactively remediating any child support debts caused by changes to taxable income through an act-of-grace strategy.
The bill I am introducing today has no impact on the government's existing response to the Douglas decision; however it is now clear the court's findings have had additional consequences for the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Analysis of these consequences has now identified there is no clear, legal basis for means-testing these payments when recipients also seek support through Australia's income support system.
One of the key features of our social security system is that it is means-tested, to ensure that this taxpayer-funded support is targeted to people who need it most, based on their need and circumstances. These means-testing arrangements—which are generally applied to all applicants in the system—include an income test and an asset test.
Veterans who receive a relevant military invalidity payment from the DFRDB and MSB schemes can be assessed on whether they can get further support from the social security system, and the level of that support. To do this, historically we have always treated them as asset-test exempt defined benefit income streams in the means test.
This is the same way we treat other veteran retirement benefit payments from the same DFRDB and MSB schemes.
But because of the Douglas decision, it is now understood that this means-testing treatment for social security purposes—as an asset-test exempt defined benefit income stream—can no longer apply to the invalidity benefit payments.
When we apply the framework used to assess income types in the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act, it is apparent there is no explicit, alternative means-testing treatment for these payments that we can use instead.
The only alternative identified is clearly not intended for statutory superannuation benefits of this type. Analysis shows the only other way these income streams could implicitly be treated under existing legislation has significant legal risk and uncertainty, is unclear, and creates inequities in the system, including among veterans themselves.
This is why we need a clear way forward.
To this end, the bill introduces a new classification of 'military invalidity pension income stream' in the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act, to include the military invalidity payments affected by the Douglas decision.
The assessment of a military invalidity pension income stream within the means test is designed to produce the same result as the historical assessments of the affected invalidity payments.
In addition, the bill will provide for military invalidity pension income streams to be considered 'asset-test exempt income streams' under the acts, ensuring the payments remain exempt from the assets test for income support.
Together, these provisions are intended to ensure veterans with income from a military invalidity pension income stream receive income support at the same rate they were always intended to receive, and consistent with the outcomes for other veterans.
Importantly, in almost every case these amendments will result in no changes to payment rates for the approximately 850 veterans (or their partners) who receive one of these invalidity benefit payments and also an income support payment from the social security system.
An alternative option the government could have taken would be to make amendments to classify these invalidity benefit payments as 'lump sums' for the purposes of income support legislation. This would adopt the same nomenclature as the definition the Douglas decision assigned in tax law.
But the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act are not bound by the way different types of payments are classified in the tax system. And, in fact, if the lump sum treatment was applied to these payments in the social security means test, because of the way that treatment works, these veterans would actually be worse off. This is because it would have the effect of reducing recipients' rates of support from the social security system, leaving them with less money in their pockets.
That is why, with this bill, I am introducing means-testing arrangements that are designed to mirror the assessments obtained from the previous treatment before the Douglas decision. These amendments will ensure that the relevant invalidity payments can be means tested for income support in a way that delivers the same outcomes for these veterans as the pre-Douglas arrangements.
This will mean veterans and their partners continue to receive income support at a rate that is consistent with entitlements for other income support recipients, including the other DFRDB and MSB veterans who receive retirement defined benefit income streams, under existing arrangements.
These provisions will apply in determining income support payment rates for existing social security recipients who have income from amilitary invalidity pension income stream, as well as new applicants, from the day after the bill receives royal assent.
The bill also includes a provision to validate past assessments of the affected invalidity payments under the means test for income support, as these may have become invalid due to the payments being treated as asset-test exempt defined benefit income streams, which the Douglas decision now precludes.
Importantly, this provision confirms past means-test assessments without removing people's rights of review or appeal in cases where decisions may have been invalid for other reasons.
The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, or the Repatriation Commission, to specify additional income stream payments as military invalidity pension income streams by means of a disallowable instrument. This will allow for other incapacity payments from legacy superannuation schemes that may also be found to no longer meet the requirements for being treated as an asset-test exempt defined benefit income stream for reasons independent of Douglas to be included down the track.
In summary, this bill:
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
]]>We've also targeted cost-of-living relief to families on the lowest incomes. We've listed the base rate for working age and student payments, and we've expanded the eligibility of the single parent payment until their youngest child turns 14, up from eight. The latest data shows that this has already helped 77,000 single parents. At the same time, we are delivering the biggest boost to rent assistance in more than 30 years, which is also helping to moderate rent rises. For families, this complements the government's extra support in delivering electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and investments in bulk-billing.
When it comes to tackling the cost of living, we on the side of the House take it seriously. It is clear that those opposite have given up. They have given up when it comes to cost of living. They have abandoned the territory. They never wanted the tax cuts for middle- and low-income Australians. They never wanted electricity relief. They never wanted income support. We will get on with the job. (Time expired).
]]>The Albanese government's No. 1 priority is supporting Australians faced with cost-of-living pressures. We know many working families are feeling the pressure, and we, as a government, are working hard to deliver meaningful relief. On 1 July, Labor will deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. These tax cuts will make a real difference to the 13.6 million Australians right up and down the income ladder. This is good news for Australian workers and families, allowing them to keep more of what they earn.
Take a dual-income family: one parent works full-time earning $80,000 and the other works part-time earning $45,000. Under Labor's plan this family will get a tax cut of $2,483. That is more than twice the amount they would have received under the Morrison plan. More money in their pocket from Labor's tax cuts—
]]>In response to the second-year review of the scheme, and with the agreement of all states and territories, this bill seeks to remove this restriction. The measure will give survivors a choice to apply for redress while in jail or wait to apply upon release from the jail, making the scheme more trauma informed and survivor focused. The Australian government and all states and territory governments as partners in the scheme have agreed to this change. People in jail continue to indicate they are better supported to apply from jail because they're in a more stable environment and have access to supports, often comparing this favourably to their life outside of jail.
The measure also removes inequalities across those survivors who can have their applications progressed while being in jail and those that cannot apply. This change will apply equally to all survivors in jail. It is separate from the changes that will see fewer survivors go through the special assessment process for people with serious criminal convictions. I need to make that very clear: these are two separate measures. That is another reason we will not be supporting the amendments.
]]>The effect of removing schedule 1, part 2, of the bill and retaining the current provisions in the act is that this group of survivors with a criminal conviction, or in jail, will be required to undergo a special assessment process or seek exemption where it may not be necessary. As the data shows, 91 per cent of applicants requiring a special assessment have not been prevented from being able to apply for redress. Likewise, 92 per cent of applicants applying from jail have been granted exceptional circumstances. In particular, I note that the restrictions on applying from jail disproportionately impact First Nations survivors in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and are not trauma informed, as they restrict a survivor's ability to choose when they apply for redress.
I will turn to the second-year review and the specific portions of the bill. The review recommended the eligibility of the scheme be extended to all applicants with a criminal conviction, including those with the most serious convictions, without safeguards. This government, and all states or territories, did not accept this proposal in full. Previously, all applicants with any conviction over five years were required to go through the special assessment process to ensure that applicants could not bring the scheme into disrepute or affect public confidence in the scheme. However, there are not any changes to the process currently in place for those with serious offences. The government has decided to maintain the current special assessment processes for serious offences—namely, homicide, terrorism and sexual offences. These applicants will have to apply through the special assessment and receive approval from the scheme's operation.
Going directly to the member for Deakin's comments: to suggest that this scheme should just be 'set and forget' from the outset is incorrect. That is why the previous government embarked on a second-year review and why we have considered these changes very carefully.
In terms of the special assessment process for people with a serious criminal conviction, it was of course implemented. The scheme has passed the halfway mark, and the experience to date has been that the vast majority, 91 per cent, of people who go through the process are not prevented from accessing redress. This suggests that the policy settings can be improved so as not to unnecessarily delay survivors' outcomes. The bill does not remove the special assessment process. It simply refines the process based on the years of practical experience to date. The Australian government and all states and territories have agreed to these changes. The bill streamlines the process to only require people with the most serious offences to undergo the special assessment process, as committed in the final response to the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. Those applicants who have been prevented from accessing redress to date under the existing provisions will still be prevented from doing so.
Critically, the bill also includes the ability for the operator to require a person to undergo a special assessment process where there are exceptional circumstances of those listed offences if the operator believes providing redress may affect the integrity of the scheme. This is an important safeguard and it means that, where there is a criminal conviction of five years or more, the operator can require the person to undergo a special assessment process, even if the person's offence is not in the prescribed list. The current special assessment process itself will not change. The operator will still need to determine whether providing redress to the person with a serious criminal conviction for a single offence would negatively affect public confidence in the scheme. This process involves the operator asking for written advice from the Attorney-General or special adviser of the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and where the person was sentenced. Ultimately, this change will see people who have committed the most serious offences continue to be prevented from accessing redress, where the reputation of the scheme is at risk. But it will not delay access to the scheme for most others, as they will no longer be required to undergo the special assessment process. These changes will not provide swifter access compared to other survivors. They will mean less delay for people who are not and should not be required to go through the special assessment process.
I'll sit down and rise again later. I believe my time has finished.
]]>Importantly, the measures in this bill make genuine change that will have real and direct impact on survivors' experience in accessing redress through the scheme. In line with the scheme's governance arrangements, all states and territories have agreed to the amendments in this bill. The legislation currently before the parliament is part of the final response to the second-year review, which commenced in 2020 and was received by those opposite in 2021, before being finalised by this government.
I note the comments from the member for Deakin, who will move a consequential amendment that will delete provisions of the bill that narrow the scope of the serious criminal convictions special assessment process and remove the restriction on applying from jail. We will be going into consideration in detail on this amendment, but I want to make a few remarks here. This amendment will not be supported by the government, as what is contained in the bill is a measured, proportionate response and in the interests of victims-survivors. In November, when responding to the Prime Minister's acknowledgement of the fifth anniversary of the apology, the Leader of the Opposition said:
I note too that the government has released its final response to the Final report of the second year review of the National Redress Scheme. The opposition thanks and supports the government's commitment to improving the scheme for survivors …
Any survivors listening to this would have assumed that, because these amendments directly go to the second-year review and the government's response, this would mean that those opposite would support these amendments. It is therefore very disappointing that, despite that commitment being made on the stage when we were discussing how important the apology was but also the royal commission and indeed the response, we have now seen the opposition backtrack on that public commitment to try to interfere with the government's response.
I want to make a couple of comments. First, I note the member for Deakin's remarks on the bill's amendments regarding serious criminal convictions and applying from jail and the impact they would have on the scheme's demand, leading to longer wait times for other survivors. Any applicant who applies from jail or who otherwise would have been impacted by the special assessment is not given more swift access to the scheme. The assertion by the member for Deakin is incorrect. These applicants, once determined to be eligible to apply, are given the same access to the scheme as other applicants. I further note remarks made by the member for Deakin that allowing this cohort of survivors who are eligible for the scheme to have easier access to the scheme will increase the wait times for other survivors. It's a pretty novel approach, and I'm pretty disappointed that the member for Deakin has suggested that restricting access to the scheme for one group will ensure that there is a faster processing time. In fact, the answer to this is to put more resources into the scheme, which is exactly what this government has done. We have recognised the increases in the scheme's demand and have allocated $148.1 million in the 2023-24 budget to ensure that there is smooth implementation and processing.
I'll go to the interjections by the member, because, once again, what the Leader of the Opposition signalled was a bipartisan approach, and we now have the politics played by the member for Deakin. The review recommended that the eligibility to the scheme be extended for all applicants with a criminal conviction, including the most serious, and without any safeguards. This government, together with the states and territories, did not accept this recommendation. All Australian governments agreed to maintain the current special assessment process for particularly serious offences, namely unlawful killing, terrorism and sexual offences, and the operator's discretion to refer applicants to the special assessment process. These applicants will still be required to apply for special assessment and receive approval from the scheme's operator consistent with the current practice in order to apply for redress. This process has not changed from that established when those opposite were in government.
The special assessment process requires a scheme operator to seek the advice of a state or territory Attorney-General or a nominated senior official in the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and give greater weight to their advice and other factors. This is a time-consuming process, and, as the data shows, 91 per cent of applicants with a criminal conviction carrying a custodial sentence over five years are not prevented from applying for redress. This is under those opposite's operating procedures. This change will support scheme efficiencies and contribute to faster processing times for all survivors applying for redress.
I note the member for Deakin listed a number of offences that, in his view, were sufficiently serious and would be excluded from the requirement to undergo the special assessment process. I'm not going to read all of them, but I would suggest that arson causing death is an unlawful killing, and so I think there is some sobriety that needs to be taken to this to make sure that we are considering this in a dispassionate way and in a way that is about putting survivors at the scheme. With references to other offences listed by members, it's the operator's discretion to refer an applicant who has received a custodial sentence of over five years for any offence. As I said, 91 per cent of those applicants currently going through that process are approved. They are not prevented from applying for redress.
As of 26 January 2024, the scheme had received 1,768 applications from people who had indicated a serious criminal conviction of five years or more. Of the applications that have had the special assessment process completed, as I've said, 91 per cent of applicants have not been prevented from applying for redress. As of 26 January 2024, the scheme had received about 905 applications from people who had indicated they were applying from jail under the exceptional circumstances. Of the applications that have had the special assessment process completed, 92 per cent of applicants have been granted exceptional circumstances to apply from jail.
I also note the member's remarks regarding the changes in the bill for applicants in jail, seeking an explanation from the government as to why these applicants should be given unrestricted access to the scheme. Currently all applicants who are in jail must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to apply. Exceptional circumstances usually include that they will still be in jail at the scheme's sunset. The restriction on applying from jail disproportionally impacts First Nations applicants in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Importantly, the changes will provide immediate access to these survivors.
The changes this government has brought to parliament are measured and in recognition of the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse. I'm disappointed that the member for Deakin is laughing at these things. This is an absolutely serious issue that we have listened to victims-survivors and the bipartisanship nature of this. The rank politics on display right now is just so disappointing. We should be working in this place together for victims-survivors, and they should see that we all have their interests at heart. I would like to acknowledge those members that have spoken in this debate from all sides that have indicated the bipartisan approach that they would like to take to this. I would like to thank the member for Wannon, the former Minister for Social Services, for trying to reiterate the bipartisan support for redress. I thank those who have played a very constructive role. It is important that we all work together to improve this scheme. This scheme is so important to victims-survivors. It doesn't make up for what happened to them, but it goes some way to ensuring that victims-survivors do get the acknowledgement that they deserve. This is about listening to victims-survivors. This is about careful consultation with victims-survivors, states and territories about how we make this scheme better. I hope that all of us in this place can work together to enact that and ensure that we are doing all we can to acknowledge what has happened.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
]]>That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
]]>Starting on 1 July 2024, the scheme will increase by two weeks each year until reaching 26 weeks in 2026. This will benefit over 180,000 families each year and represents the biggest expansion of the scheme since Labor introduced it in 2011. The bill adopts advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce on the optimal model of the 26-weeks scheme, where four weeks are reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and parents can take up to four weeks of PPL at the same time. As a result of these reforms, from 2026-27, the government's total investment in PPL will be around $4.4 billion a year.
I note the Community Affairs Legislation Committee has examined the bill ahead of the Senate consideration. Delivering their report on 5 February, the committee recommended the Senate pass the bill. I thank the Senate committee's secretariat staff for their work and, particularly, the work of Senator Marielle Smith as chair. I would like to thank all of those who made written submissions and contributed to the public hearing. I was very pleased to see strong support for the bill from a diverse range of family, employer and community groups; unions; gender experts; and economists, including the Business Council of Australia, the Parenthood, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Brotherhood of St. Laurence, the Australian Council of Social Service, Equality Rights Alliance, Diversity Council Australia and Impact Economics. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:
Under this legislation businesses are set to benefit by ensuring that fewer productive employees end up leaving workplaces permanently and more women remain in the labour market.
Equality Rights Alliance, Australia's largest network of organisations advocating for gender equality, called the changes 'equality enabling' and 'significant advances in the promotion of Australian women's economic security'. Dr Leonora Risse, an economist specialising in gender equality, said:
The amendments in this Bill are an undisputable and significant improvement from previous policy settings and are strongly welcomed. The expansion of entitlements to 26 weeks, with the inclusion of a reserved allocation for fathers and partners, is a historic milestone for women's rights and economic standing, and for gender equality in our country.
And I couldn't agree more. Dr Risse and Diversity Council Australia both noted that the bill's changes were well informed by evidence and best practice.
I acknowledge, in the committee report, and this second reading debate, some of the crossbench have called for the government to further invest in paid parental leave. I am proud of the strides our government has made since coming to office. We know that there's always more to do. We've been clear. We intend to pay super and paid parental leave when the budget has the space to do so. We also know that gender pay gaps at retirement are driven by gender pay gaps in working life. Investing in paid parental leave is one part of the government's multibillion-dollar and long-term agenda to support women's economic opportunity.
It is worth remembering that the government payment is a minimum entitlement, designed to complement leave provided by employers, who also have a key role to play. Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows that the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade. Nearly two-thirds of employers offer their own entitlement; that's up from less than half, a decade ago. This positive trend demonstrates that employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside government in providing paid parental leave, recognising that it is a workplace entitlement rather than an income support payment. We want to see this trend keep growing. We want paid parental leave to continue to be recognised as not only a great social policy but also a valuable workplace incentive that returns benefits for parents, employers and the economy.
Now, the second reading amendment from the opposition risks undermining recent progress by weakening the employer role. If the coalition strongly believed that small business shouldn't administer this workplace entitlement, then they should have acted in the nine years for which they held office. Instead, they focused their energy on calling mothers 'double-dippers' and trying to find budget savings from paid parental leave.
I want to be clear. This bill does not make any change to the employer role, which has been in place since the scheme's inception. Giving mind to administrative impacts, the act already provides reasonable circumstances where Services Australia steps in and delivers the payment—for instance, if the employee has been with the business for less than 12 months, or they're taking leave in blocks of less than eight weeks.
As the member for Deakin well knows, the Productivity Commission recommended the employer role to promote workplace retention and gender equality. In considering potential administrative impacts, the Productivity Commission found that, in any given year, only four per cent of small businesses would need to administer PPL for an employee. Subsequently, an independent evaluation of the Paid Parental Leave scheme conducted by the University of Queensland over a four-year period found employers generally experienced few difficulties in administering the payment, and costs were very minimal, both in terms of time and money.
Administering the payment is a reasonable contribution for employers, who significantly benefit from the government providing PPL to their employees. Each year the government spends around $460 million to provide paid parental leave to employees in small businesses. Moreover, the member for Deakin is wilfully ignoring the fact that two recent Senate committee hearings heard compelling evidence from women's groups, family groups, economists and unions about how the employer role in administering paid parental leave is important in promoting gender equality. These groups have expressed significant concern with the idea that small businesses shouldn't have to administer the payment. The ACTU said this 'would be a huge backward step for gender equality', and paid parental leave:
should be perceived as a normal feature of employment arrangements, rather than as welfare …
… … …
we are concerned that the already shocking rates of discrimination against women … would just worsen.
Jess Rudd from The Parenthood, an organisation representing more than 80,000 parents and carers across Australia, said: 'Parents will lose the umbilical link to their employer and have to go through Centrelink. I've run a small business. I'm all for cutting red tape, but this is just bad policy'. Equality Rights Alliance, Australia's largest network advocating for gender equality, said: 'If we start to tell small business, "This isn't your job, you don't need to worry about women's work," then that sends a signal that could have ramification across the country'. Dr Angela Jackson, a leading economist said, it would be 'a retrograde step', and:
while it might be a small time administrative gain for small businesses, the long-term competitive disadvantages will hurt them as a sector. It'll certainly hurt the women that are working for them, and it will hurt the broader economy.
The government shares the views of the Productivity Commission, women's groups, family advocates, economists and trade unions—paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement and should be administered by employers. Government, business and unions should be working together to ensure paid parental leave entitlements are as strong as inclusive as they can be.
I also acknowledge the second reading amendment put forward by the member for Wentworth and the importance that it expresses of encouraging shared care for the social and economic benefits it brings, particularly for women. While we agree with the sentiment, we don't agree with the detail and we will not be supporting this amendment. Encouraging greater uptake by men has been a key consideration in the design of our paid parental leave reform. When fathers take a great greater caring role from the start, evidence shows that there is a more even distribution of household responsibilities, which persists through a child's life. However, the amendment does call for locking the government into proposals for any future paid parental leave, and the government reserves its right to consult widely on any future tranches of paid parental leave, as we have done with this bill, and make sure we have the settings right.
This bill does adopt the advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, and includes four weeks reserve for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. This will encourage men's uptake, working in tandem with the changes we legislated earlier this year to make the scheme more accessible, flexible and gender-equitable. From 1 July this year, we've significantly expanded access for many fathers and partners by: creating a single payment that both parents can claim; allowing paid parental leave days to be taken flexibly in blocks as small as one day at a time, with periods of work in between; allowing partners to be eligible regardless of their mother's income or residency status; and allowing partners to take government-paid leave at the same time as any employer-paid leave. As part of our reform, the government has committed to undertake a multiyear evaluation to track the impact of the changes, including uptake by gender, which will help us identify where refinements might be needed.
In summary, the bill's careful design changes all work together to strike an important balance of increasing support to families, encouraging both parents to take leave, and providing flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. The bill gives Australian families more paid parental leave than ever before and will support participation and productivity over the longer term, providing a dividend for the economy. I commend the bill to the House.
]]>Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill now be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
]]>The member for Macarthur might be interested to know that there are 90,000 taxpayers in his electorate that will get a tax cut under Labor's plan. In my portfolio of social services, the government could not deliver the programs we do without the dedication of social and community service workers. They touch many lives every day, including of those doing it tough. I met some of these workers with the member for Macarthur last year when we visited BaptistCare in Campbelltown and saw the difference that these workers make in the lives of people they support. I am pleased that, under our government's plan, our tax cuts mean these workers, along with every Australian taxpayer, will be able to take home more of what they earn.
Our tax cuts mean that a part-time disability support worker earning $40,000 will receive a tax cut of $654, keeping more money in their pocket. This worker would have got nothing under the previous government's plan. A full-time social and community services worker earning $75,000 in the member for Macarthur's electorate will receive a tax cut of $1,554 under Labor's tax cut plan. This is double the tax cut that they would have got under the previous government.
Our tax cuts for community services workers build on the substantial support the Albanese government is providing to community sector organisations to help them deliver wage increases for their workers. Our tax cuts complement other cost-of-living relief that we've delivered through increased rent assistance, electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and our boost to income support payments.
We know the opposition never wanted these tax cuts for low and middle Australia, just as they never wanted to boost income support payments and never wanted to provide energy relief. While this Leader of the Opposition, full of negativity, has no positive plans for Australia, our government will get on with the job of helping Australians with cost-of-living relief.
]]>