Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 9:30:25 to 9:35:57
Inquiry into the 'use it or lose it' partner leave provisions and the government's goal of encouraging shared caring responsibilities.
Topics: Social services, Employment
Speakers: Senator Matt O'Sullivan, Matt Flavel, Ben Peoples, Hon Katy Gallagher, Ellie Whiteaker, Michael Lye
Thank you, Senator Ollman Payne. Senator O'Sullivan, welcome to community affairs.
Thank you.
Over to you. We're doing 10 minutes blocks.
Oh, thanks for that advice. I've been next door in educational day. That's pretty much how we do it there too.
Great.
Okay. Uh I want to ask about the four weeks of paid parental leave for a partner on a use it or lose it basis. Can you tell me what's what's the purpose of that? Is it intended to encourage partners, including fathers to take leave and share caring responsibilities?
Yes, Senator, and that I think we had this exchange at budget estimates and made that point. But it is explicitly designed to encourage shared care.
Is the usual work test 10 months of work in the 13 months before the birth or adoption at least 330 hours and no gap of 12 weeks or more between work days subject to any uh exceptions?
There are some exceptions, but I might just need to take on notice how they um where they apply.
Okay. Looks like uh Mr. Peeple is coming to the Yeah.
Incidentally, men made up 36.3% of individuals who started receiving PPL in 25-26, the highest proportion of recipients that's the scheme commenced.
It's a good outcome.
Yeah, it is. I agree. It's an increase of 15.8%. Oh no, it was 15.8% the year before.
So uh are there any exceptions?
Uh yeah, so Ben Peoples' Group Manager participation and family payments. Um there are a number of exemptions, including relation to medical conditions, um health reasons if a person is made redundant at a certain period, but um that's kind of the general scope. If you want uh a complete list, we can take that on notice and provide it.
But the Minister, the the government uh, based on the advice from that I'm hearing from the department, uh the government's view is that this is important, that we need to encourage partners to take time to share the responsibilities so the burden's not just on uh the primary carer, but uh sure uh that it's it's it's good for the primary carer, but it's also good for the child and yeah, is the it's obviously a real benefit there. Is that is that the government's view?
Uh that's right. And um it reflects advice the government received from the women's economic equality task force and drew on international evidence about public funded schemes.
So for a birth mother's uh partner to claim parental leave pay, must both the partner and the birth mother meet the work test, even if the birth mother does not claim the payment.
Yes, the birth mother must meet the work test.
Yes. So if if the birth mother's uh if it's her second child and there hasn't been a returning to work in between uh in between children, the if the the partner wouldn't be eligible if they hadn't gone back to work?
Uh in circumstances where there's um two children in quick succession, um that the person would still be eligible for PPL, um or if there's even a short kind of return to work that is not the full um period that would typically be required for the work test.
Right. So is there a is there a difference in the view of the importance of partner parental leave for a second or subsequent child than there is for the first?
I'm not I'm not sure what you're referring to, Senator, but as Mr. Peoples said you don't need to effectively reset the clock and do another ten months before you can get it. So that does not bias against um situations where somebody might be out of the workforce and have a and then um not return to work and have a second child, you're not precluded PPL in that case. So in respect of that second child.
So in respect to the second child and you you that you don't meet the work test. Does the mother receive uh paid parental leave for a further six months?
Yes.
Or 20.
Yes.
Even if she didn't return to work.
That's right, yeah. That's the point I'm making. That's not a requirement to kind of go back to zero, so to speak, and to reset that test.
Um, I I've I've heard um different evidence from parents about this. What is there any sort of discrepancy? Is there any reason why someone wouldn't be eligible then?
No, so the the rules state that um parents can count um periods of paid parental leave um for a previous child as um work towards a claim for a subsequent child.
What's what's is there a period of time where like let's say the second child's four years later. They haven't gone back to work in that time. How do they claim paid parental leave four years later?
So in those circumstances they may not meet it, but it depends on the circumstances.
But if it's a continuity of work, it's about preserving people's contact with the workforce.
Sure. Yeah, so that that's for the mother.