Mehreen Faruqi

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1838 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 10), after subsection 42-1(1), insert:

(1A) The strategy must not be inconsistent with *Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (after line 15), after the definition of Australia's Economic Accelerator program information, insert:

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets means:

(a) if:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution was communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement in June 2022; and

(ii) that nationally determined contribution has not been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement;

the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in paragraphs 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Climate Change Act 2022; or

(b) in any other case—the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or

(ii) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time.

Paris Agreement means the Paris Agreement, done at Paris on 12 December 2015, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time.

Note: The Agreement is in Australian Treaty Series 2016 No. 24 ([2016] ATS 24) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

As I flagged in my second reading speech, these amendments are to ensure that the accelerator advisory board's research commercialisation strategy cannot be inconsistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. These are important to ensure that this significant new funding program cannot be used to fund research that could put our emissions reduction targets at risk, and to make sure that the strategy remains consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions targets. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Anthony Chisholm

I want to indicate that the government is committed to its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. We believe the proposed amendment is sensible and highlights that commitment from the government, so we will be supporting it.

Sarah Henderson

The coalition will not be supporting it.

James McGrath

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1838 moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

Sarah Henderson

As I was saying earlier on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022, we outlined the mechanisms to drive these reforms through five key strategic and targeted investments, including our $243 million Trailblazer Universities program to boost research and development, and drive commercialisation outcomes of industry partners; a $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence Ventures program, which backs startup companies and helps create commercial opportunities; $296 million for 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 in new fellowships; the creation of a new IP framework for universities to support greater university-industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs; and, of course, $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new stage-gated competitive funding program to help university projects bridge the so-called 'valley of death' on the road to commercialisation—the subject of this bill.

In relation to the first element of the package, the Trailblazer Program, this research component was aligned with delivering research that would support our national manufacturing priorities. These priority areas were those we had identified as areas where Australia has significant comparative advantage and a strategic national interest. The areas at the time were medical products, food and beverage, recycling and clean energy, resources technology and critical minerals processing, defence industry and space. We ran an expression of interest to determine what potential projects were out there, to identify where there could be partnerships with industry and where these ideas could be supported through to commercial application. This process garnered significant interest from researchers, and the types of projects proposed were impressive. The proposals were reviewed by a panel comprised of leaders in the research field as well as industry and business leaders.

We announced the successful trailblazer universities in early 2022. They included Curtin University for the resources technology for critical minerals trailblazer, to establish our competitive advantage in the critical mineral sector and to look at ways to shield Australia supply-chain disruptions; the University of Southern Queensland for a space project dubbed 'iLAuNCH' that will look at automation, novel materials, communications and hypersonics; the University of Queensland for a food and beverage project that would support doubling the value of Australia's food and beverage sector by 2030; the University of New South Wales to lead a recycling and clean energy initiative to innovate our technologies from the lab to industry, from communities and homes; the University of Adelaide for a defence trailblazer aptly named 'concept to sovereign capability', which is focused on developing new technologies and defence projects; and to Deakin University—in my hometown of Geelong—for a recycling and clean energy commercialisation hub, also known as 'REACH', which will spearhead our recycling and clean energy advanced manufacturing ecosystem in Australia.

The REACH project at Deakin, on its own, is expected to generate more than $1.4 billion in revenue and create around 2½ thousand direct jobs over the next decade. With further investment and partnerships, Deakin estimates it could create as many as 7,000 additional jobs—all driven by the coalition's trailblazer program. Deakin will partner with other universities and education institutes including Federation University, RMIT, Swinburne and the University of Southern Queensland. Deakin also has vocational education partners, which are essential for enhancing the skills and knowledge of the workforce. These partners include the Gordon in Geelong, Bendigo Kangan Institute, South West TAFE, Holmesglen Institute of TAFE, Wodonga TAFE and Swinburne TAFE. There is a long list of industry partners for this project. I'll just raise and mention a few, including Scale Facilitation and Recharge Industries—which are headquartered in Geelong—BMNT Technology, Calix Limited, Oztron Energy, Gen 2 Carbon, Carbon Revolution—another great advanced manufacturer based in Geelong—White Graphene, Quickstep, Viva Energy, JET Technology and HighQ. As I say, the list goes on and on.

These six projects alone, supported by close to $250 million in coalition funding, will create hundreds of partnerships across the higher education sector and, most importantly, with industry. They will inject billions of dollars into the economy and create thousands of jobs right across our nation. It is certainly a very exciting time for research in Australia.

The key element of our University Research Commercialisation Package, as I mentioned, is our $1.6 billion investment in Australia's Economic Accelerator, the subject of the bill before the Senate today. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to make the appropriate provisions in schedule 1 to deliver this program and provide increased support to our universities to commercialise their world-leading research. This component of our package provides a 10-year investment for a competitive grant funding program. Again, our investment was to be aligned to areas that we identified as national priorities outlined in our Modern Manufacturing Strategy, a strategy which was focused on expanding and modernising Australia's sovereign manufacturing capability, securing the supply chains and investing in the skills and world-class research needed by our manufacturing businesses.

The Albanese government has since scrapped this strategy and is attempting to replace it with its National Reconstruction Fund, which is really just a big bucket to fund their election commitments. Labor keep saying this will rebuild Australia's industrial capability and that they want Australia to be a country that makes things again, but they simply aren't listening to the sector. These businesses are essential to our economy and yet they are being crippled by skyrocketing energy prices and are struggling to get the workers they need to keep their doors open. And of course they are facing great concerns with Labor's IR changes, including its introduction of multiemployer bargaining. Economic mismanagement and skyrocketing inflation will only mean businesses will pay more under this Albanese government.

I can tell you that these concerns are ricocheting through many businesses across this country. I was at the Geelong Manufacturing Council's 25th anniversary dinner last week, and there was deep concern about Labor's mismanagement of energy policy as well as its IR changes, including multiemployer bargaining. So there is deep concern across our country about what Labor is doing to small businesses and medium businesses and large businesses, including in manufacturing.

I do want to say that we designed our competitive grant for Australia's Economic Accelerator program around three stage gates. The first is the initial proof of concept, the idea and the testing stage, to establish if the project is viable. The second is to support the idea through what, in research terms, is known as the valley of death. This is typically the development phase where significant investment is required and where the greatest risk of projects not proceeding lies. The final stage is supporting the project through to commercial realisation. This is all about getting the product through the development process where it is ready to be sold in the marketplace.

At each stage of the process, projects will be evaluated for their probability of success, with larger funding for each stage and greater industry contribution. This will ensure we are supporting projects with the greatest likelihood of success. The commercialisation component, effectively stage 3, or the final stage, would be further supported through the $150 million commitment to CSIRO's main sequence venture. The program will work to attract projects with high-commercialisation potential at the proof-of-concept or proof-of-scale level of commercial readiness.

To support this new grant opportunity and ensure its success, the bill also establishes a governance framework, including a new advisory board. The board will have up to eight expert representatives from government, industry, business and the research sectors. The advisory board will oversee the program, drawing upon their collective experience, to drive the translation and commercialisation of research.

The next and final element of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to allow for grants to be made under part 2 and part 3 of the act to support the new industry-led study and postgraduate research grants. This will enable the creation of industry-led programs that pave the way for clear and structured career pathways. It will also imbed researchers in industry settings, build research careers within industry and, more importantly, create cohesion between academia and industry. Industry will benefit from the opportunities to host PhD students, which will open pathways for them to recruit high-calibre graduates.

This is a very exciting bill. It has attracted enormous support. I am pleased to see that the government has carried this through and is attracting support of the government. Let me reiterate the support from the Group of Eight universities, who said in February:

The commercialisation of Australia's world class university research is key to the nation's growth and prosperity, meeting the challenges ahead and enhancing the lives of future generations.

The Business Council of Australia said:

The government's $2.2 billion package will significantly improve Australia's ability to commercialise our best ideas and innovations, scaling them up to create exciting new industries, new exports and new highly skilled jobs for Australians.

This bill to support Australia's Economic Accelerator program and all of the supporting elements of the coalition's university research commercialisation package ensures that government investment into research is targeted and supports areas of national priority.

Our investment supports the economy, industries, businesses and our local communities by creating the jobs for our future generations. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Long debate text truncated.

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on 9 February 2023, all modelling by the Department of the Treasury in relation to:

(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022;

(b) the draft Competition and Consumer Amendment (Gas Market) Bill 2022; and

(c) the impact of the war in Ukraine on the price of coal and gas.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, No. 125, be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 124 before asking that it be taken as a formal motion. The amendment changes the return date from 9 February to 9 March.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 5 pm on 9 March 2023, the total cost in relation to the recalling of Parliament for the unscheduled sitting on 15 December 2022, including a breakdown of the costs in relation to the following categories:

(a) parliamentarian travel allowance;

(b) parliamentarian airfares;

(c) parliamentarian Commonwealth car, cabcharge and rideshare expenses;

(d) staff travel allowance;

(e) staff airfares;

(f) staff cabcharge and rideshare expenses;

(g) any additional staffing requirements (including, but not limited to, security services, attendants, restaurants and catering staff); and

(h) any other costs in relation to the recalling of Parliament.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will be opposing this motion. The costs described in Senator Roberts's motion will be disclosed in the normal process through public expenditure reporting when PEMS functionality resumes. As Senator Roberts would know, during routine public expenditure reporting, parliamentarians and their officers have an opportunity to examine their expenditure to ensure all costs are true and correct. Officers have not yet had a chance to properly examine this expenditure. Accurate reporting of parliamentary expenses is a key pillar of our transparent democratic system and is essential to ensure the proper use of Commonwealth funds.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the chamber is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, No. 124, be agreed to.

David Pocock

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

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

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

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

Senator Henderson, the senator should be heard in silence.

Don Farrell

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

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

Long debate text truncated.

Mehreen Faruqi

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

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

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

Andrew McLachlan

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

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

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

How much?

Don Farrell

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

That's arrogant.

Don Farrell

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

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

Don Farrell

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

How many more broken promises, Senator Farrell?

Don Farrell

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

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

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

Larissa Waters

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.

Long debate text truncated.

Anne Ruston

I'm very pleased to stand today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. The opposition will be supporting this bill for a number of reasons, and we are glad to see the government has chosen the implement the former coalition government's reforms to paid parental leave which we announced as part of our March 2022 budget. The bill will provide increased flexibility, improve choice and ensure the Paid Parental Leave scheme is fit for purpose for modern families.

The bill increases the total number of weeks of available paid parental leave from 18 to 20 and removes some of the constraints around the two-week period of dad and partner pay and the 12-week/six-week paid parental leave period breakdowns currently in place. We understand the importance of these changes because we know parents make household decisions around caring arrangements to reflect their own personal circumstances, so increasing the number of weeks from 18 to 20, with enhanced flexibility on how those weeks can be shared, reflects this need for choice and flexibility in modern households. It is also important both parents are able to spend the time they choose to spend with their new child, and the increased flexibility encourages both parents to have a period of leave.

The bill removes the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants, taking away some of the rigidity that exists—about who takes the leave, when and how—between the two parents. This bill also expands access to the scheme by introducing a $350,000 income test, which will ensure household income is considered when determining eligibility for PPL, rather than just the individual income of one of the two parents. We strongly support the increased flexibility this bill achieves, which allows parents to use the leave over a two-year period in a way they choose. This allows parents to take leave in one block, in multiple blocks or in whatever way works best for them and their particular family circumstances.

This reform goes to the heart of what the former coalition government sought to achieve in enhancing PPL, which is why we're pleased that our announcements from the March 2022 budget are included in this bill. The coalition has a strong record of supporting government funded paid parental leave, and through my former role as minister for social services I was very proud to be part of a government that made important amendments to strengthen paid parental leave during the last term of parliament. Our PPL scheme gave families flexibility in choosing how they accessed their payments, giving either parent the option, depending on individual households' circumstances, with the last six weeks being able to be shared or taken any time. Importantly, we introduced special circumstances, allowing a parent to meet the work test if they'd been impacted by family and domestic violence, by a natural disaster or by a severe medical condition. We allowed JobKeeper and the COVID-19 disaster payments to count towards the work test for PPL to prove a genuine connection to the workplace, and we introduced indexation on the income threshold for the first time since the scheme was introduced.

As this legislation implements, in the Women's Budget Statement in March 2022 we again underlined our strong commitment to the social and economic benefits of paid parental leave by announcing enhanced paid parental leave. Our enhanced paid parental leave represented an investment of $346.1 million over five years to expand PPL, giving working families full choice and control over how they used their 20 weeks of taxpayer-funded paid parental leave.

So, once again, the coalition will support this bill, given the vast majority of changes reflect the important reforms that we announced as part of our last budget to enhance the scheme and ensure parents are able to make their own caring arrangements based on their individual circumstances. We will support the government in any sensible measures that seek to support Australian families, particularly where those measures reflect the former coalition government's policies. I'm proud the coalition was a real steward of paid parental leave in government, and our enhancements to the scheme saw it become a mainstay in every Australian life. But, where there are enhancements and improvements that can be made, we will absolutely make sure that we stand with those improvements if they are to the benefit of Australian families.

At its heart, paid parental leave should make it easier for parents to make decisions that work for their particular families, that give them the opportunity to spend important time with their new child, unencumbered by the pressures of work where they choose to do so. The changes in this bill that provide greater flexibility for families to determine how they use those 20 weeks of leave reflect the changes in modern families, but this legislation also maintains what is a timeless aspect of paid parental leave, and that is the need to give parents time with their child. We absolutely understand the importance of paid parental leave in alleviating some of the additional pressures felt by families with the birth of a child, and we know that those pressures are particularly strongly felt at the moment, with cost-of-living pressures only rising under this government.

Of course, we'll support good and sensible reforms to paid parental leave, to ensure families are supported through the scheme to take off some of these significant pressures. We'll happily support this bill, acknowledging that a huge number of the changes and a significant proportion of the increased flexibility that this bill delivers were adopted from the policies of the coalition, who announced these important reforms in 2022. I commend the bill.

Nita Green

I rise to speak on this important bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I do so as part of a government filled with so many incredible women. In the week of International Women's Day, it's a pleasure to speak on such an important bill for Australian women and for Australian families. I think back to last International Women's Day and, especially, the one before that, and I think how much things have changed for Australian women—not only for women across Australia but also for women in this place.

Our government took to the election very real commitments that had positive impacts on Australian women, from improving access to child care and making child care cheaper to closing the gender pay gap. Since the election, we've also made commitments to ensure that we end gendered violence within a decade. I know that some of these reforms are ambitious, but our government is committed to delivering them and to bettering the lives of Australian women.

It starts with bills like this one today—bills that level the playing field and make things fairer and more equal for all families. The Albanese-Labor government is getting on with the job of delivering for Australians. The bill is just the start of the largest reform to paid parental leave since Labor introduced it back in 2011. It is really good economic policy to deliver these types of reforms. It will see fairness and equality in the way parents take leave. It will also see more flexibility in how leave is taken and will ease transitioning back to work for parents.

I thought I would share a personal point of view for this bill. It's almost exactly a year ago that my wife and I welcomed our first child into the world. We celebrated her first birthday a few days ago. We had a really beautiful christening and family celebration. It's been a really busy year. It is really a time when you look back and think about those first couple of weeks, those first couple of months, and how important that time is together. When you have a new, little baby, it is an incredibly stressful time, and you want to spend all of your time with this new, perfect human. You don't really want to have to worry about going back to work.

I'm incredibly lucky, and my family is incredibly lucky, that my wife works in a heavily unionised industry with a very good enterprise agreement which already allowed for flexible parental leave arrangements, meaning that she could take maternity leave while also having days that she could return to work. I think it's that open employer-employee relationship that allowed her to stay connected to her colleagues and her role that really made transitioning back to work easier. This transition option helped ease both my, and my wife's, mind in such a new and vulnerable position. I'm so grateful. Some families don't get that opportunity.

People will tell you, time and time again, that babies are only little once and that time spent with these little, tiny humans is so important. It's so important for mums. It's so important for dads. It's so important for every type of family. Most of the time, though, it is mothers who are left without that work connection, deepening the economic gap between men and women in our country. That's why this reform is so important.

We have also heard this, time and time again, across the country, particularly at the jobs and skills roundtables I held in Far North Queensland last year. We held forums in Mareeba, Cairns and Townsville. The No. 1 thing that was coming up was women returning to work—how difficult it was to get childcare places but also how difficult it was to manage the transition between paid parental leave and returning to work. I had women tell me that, even though they were the larger income earner, the system worked against them, making them take leave instead of their partner. We heard it again in the successful national Jobs and Skills Summit our government held last year. We listened and we are acting.

Right now, the current scheme does not do enough to provide access to all parents, whether they're mothers or whether they're partners. It limits flexibility for families to choose how they take leave and transition back to work. The eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. Our bill fixes these issues. It gives more families access to government payments, it gives parents more flexibility in how they take leave and it encourages parents to share care to improve gender equality.

From 1 July 2023, the bill delivers six key changes. It will combine the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme. It will reserve a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off after the birth or adoption. We will make it easier for both parents to access the payment, by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers—which, I have to say, in a same-sex relationship is something that's quite interesting. But it's a really helpful idea that not one parent is the primary carer because we know both parents play an incredibly important role. We're expanding access by introducing a $350,000 family income test, which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test. We are increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take leave days. We are also allowing eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements.

This bill goes a long way for Australian families. Around 181,000 will benefit from the changes in this bill. That's including more than 4,000 people who are eligible under the scheme. While the former government had an attitude of 'let's make some announcements just before the election', the Albanese Labor government are listening to Australians, and we're delivering this change in our first term of government.

We are listening to businesses who are also crying out for these changes to support their employees, including the women in their workplaces. We are fixing and improving our systems that just aren't functioning the best way they can. We want Australians and their families to get ahead and not be left behind. We want parents, especially mums, to have good, secure jobs and families, and not to have to choose between work and taking care of their kids. That's what this bill will achieve.

The changes in this bill send a clear message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. Our government value the care that men do as well, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and our communities. When fathers take a greater role from the start, it benefits mums, dads and their kids. We know this and we know that there are so many fathers out there that will really welcome the introduction of this scheme. The government's Paid Parental Leave reform is good for parents, it's good for kids, it's good for employers and it's good for the economy.

I couldn't be prouder to be part of an Albanese Labor government, with its ambitious yet practical reforms that will change the lives of Australians for the better. It will particularly change the lives of Australian women for the better. It's always Labor governments that bring the country forward. It was a Labor government that introduced Paid Parental Leave back in 2011, and it's a Labor government that is today delivering a fairer and more flexible scheme.

I commend this bill and I thank all senators who will be supporting this bill today. Parents will be better off. Women will be better off. Men will be better off. Employers will be better off. And this is just the beginning of delivering for Australian women.

Long debate text truncated.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means it failed.

The motion was to disallow the legislative instruments listed below. Because it failed, these instruments will remain in force. Though note that, despite this vote, all three of these instruments are listed as no longer in force as of 8 February 2023. Perhaps the Government subsequently had a change of heart?

Motion text

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 and the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed:

(a) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage Projects) Rule 2021 [F2021L01378];

(b) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Carbon Capture and Storage) Methodology Determination 2021 [F2021L01379]; and

(c) Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Hubs and Technologies Program) Instrument 2021 [F2021L01593].

The majority voted against a motion introduced by South Australian Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That in order to meet the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework agreed to at COP15 in December 2022, including conserving 30% of land and sea and halting extinction by 2030, the Government must put an immediate end to native forest logging and the destruction of habitat for new coal and gas projects.