Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for Australian women and families? What are the risks to this?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank our whip, the member for Lalor, for her fantastic question. In her electorate, more than 2,600 parents benefited from paid parental leave just last year. On this side, we've always been for women being paid more when they're working and caring for their families and paid more in superannuation when they retire too. Of course, those opposite share a very different position. On this side, we back higher wages—we've got the lowest gender pay gap in Australian history—and we back women's retirement incomes.

On retirement, we back the low-income super tax offset, we back payday super for earlier, more frequent employer contributions and, in the last year, we have been paying superannuation on paid parental leave. That has made an absolutely huge difference to women's retirement incomes.

In the first year of paying super on paid parental leave, around 200,000 people have benefited. There's an estimated $285½ million extra in their superannuation because of that. A woman with a median superannuation balance will be around $5,400 better off in retirement because of this. A lot of people have more than one child. Let's take an example; let's call her Charlee-Sue. She has two children, when she's 30 and 33. Because of our changes to paid parental leave, when she retires, she will have an estimated $10,400 more in her superannuation. That's because of that change that we have made. On this side, we want people, mums in particular, to have more in their super. On that side, they're determined that people will get less superannuation.

Those opposite say that workers are lazy, that they should be paid less, that they should be easier to sack—

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will pause. The member for Goldstein has interjected nine times during this answer alone. This continual, non-stop interjecting during every answer is unacceptable. You'll leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). Don't act surprised if you're going to continually interject all throughout question time.

The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.

I give people a fair go, but you cannot just continue to interject non-stop. It's not fair to the person answering the question, to the person asking the question or to anyone else in the chamber. The minister in continuation.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite keep saying people should be able to take more out of their super. Well, if someone aged 30 takes 20 grand out of their super, they're $93,000 worse off in retirement. That's their plan. Don't forget that, when they were last in government, the now deputy leader of the Liberal Party—whatever her title is—said people should take money out of their super to escape domestic violence. That was their proposal when they were last in government. We've made the leaving violence payment permanent and legislated 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. That's what we've done to help people who are leaving a violent situation. Those opposite say they should be using their superannuation to leave domestic violence. We back higher super; they're for cutting it. (Time expired)