|
senate vote 2020-06-11#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-07-03 11:54:16
|
Title
Bills — Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020; in Committee- Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Paid parental leave & COVID-19
Description
<p class="speaker">Zed Seselja</p><p>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and—by leave—I move government amendments on sheet PP105 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:</p>- Because the same number of senators voted for and against the [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-06-11.58.5) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), the amendments failed.
- ### What did the amendments do?
- Senator Waters [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-06-11.58.1):
- > *if you lost your job because of COVID, but you weren't eligible for JobKeeper, for whatever reason, now you're also not eligible for paid parental leave. We think that's unfair and it's very easily fixed. Amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8927, which I will move provide that, if through no fault of your own you've lost your job because of COVID-19 but you had expected to otherwise remain in employment and be eligible for PPL, then you should still be eligible for PPL.*
<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 54 (line 6), omit "1 April 2020", substitute "1 July 2020".</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 54 (lines 10 to 14), omit subitem (1), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(1) The amendments of the PPL Act made by Schedule 1 to this Act do not apply in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child made before the commencement day.</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 54 (line 16), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "the commencement day".</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 2, item 3, page 55 (lines 16 to 20), omit subitem (1), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(1) The PPL Act, as amended by Schedule 1 to this Act, applies in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child made on or after the commencement day.</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 55 (lines 23 to 25), omit "1 July 2020, the amendments of the PPL Act made by the following items of Schedule 1 to this Act are taken, on and after the day on which the child is born,", substitute "the commencement day, the amendments of the PPL Act made by the following items of Schedule 1 to this Act are taken".</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 2, item 3, page 56 (line 5), omit "is born", substitute "was born".</p><p>Parents are able to make a claim for paid parental leave up to three months before the expected date of birth or adoption. The bill originally had a provision for prebirth claiming between 1 April 2020 and 1 July 2020 to ensure the claims could be made in the three months leading up to the commencement date. Due to COVID-19 and the change to the parliamentary sitting schedule, it was not possible to have this bill pass the parliament before 1 April. The start date of the changes has not moved from 1 July; however, prebirth claims will also only be possible from 1 July 2020 instead of the intended date of 1 April 2020.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>The opposition supports this amendment because we understand the need to change the start date in terms of those applications. However, we think it's unfortunate that the parliament was unable to sit earlier to deal with this legislation, as we called to have happen.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Are the amendments agreed to?</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>I have a question for the government. I note this is relevant to our own second reading amendment as well as the amendments to be moved by the Australian Greens. How many people are not going to get paid parental leave because they no longer meet the income and work participation tests because of coronavirus?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Thank you, Senator Pratt, for the question. I'm advised that that figure is not available at this point in time as there is a lag effect.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Are you able to advise the chamber how you will go about calculating that number of people?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that the lag effect itself is in approximately 12 months time, so the calculation won't actually happen until then.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>How do you calculate the number of people that will get it under the existing circumstances? How do you forecast it using the usual formula? At which point does that lag effect come into account? Just tell me how you work it out.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that it is based on population trend.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>When do you expect the impact of that eligibility to first start impacting? Clearly people had COVID job losses as early as March, and they could have become pregnant before then or at any time into the future. They might have a child in nine months time from now but have had that period of time impacted by coronavirus in terms of their employment. Can you just give me an overview of how you intend to calculate that noting that lag effect?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that from 12 March we would be able to have an understanding based on the employment data in terms of the proposition that you have put forward.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>In that context, if you've got employment data from 12 March and you'll have employment data for every month after and your usual method of calculating how many people are going to claim paid parental leave is based on population statistics, why is it that you're saying in that lag effect you can't calculate that until next year? That doesn't really make sense to me.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I am advised that the time period that we are looking at is from 12 March. This is an unprecedented event. It has not occurred before. We would hate to see it happen again. As such, that is the reason.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>So because of the unprecedented nature you don't know, as at this point in time yet, how many people are not going to meet the work test in relation to their eligibility for PPL. Do you have any estimate of what that might be currently?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm again advised that because it is an unprecedented event they don't yet have an estimate.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Is this the case for all kinds of workforce participation issues in terms of estimates of who's working and how much work people are currently doing that you don't know or is there something intrinsic to—I don't know—being an expectant parent and families that make this particularly difficult?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I am advised that it is slightly different for PPL, because at this point in time we don't yet know how many people will actually be qualifying for the work test.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Are you truly trying to tell me that you are unable to project what the existing impact of coronavirus has been on people's employment participation and therefore have a look at how many people are likely to have their work test impacted for the purposes of PPL eligibility?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that as the work test period goes for 13 months, the answer to the question is: yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>So it's okay to rely on data for the purposes of population growth statistics, but you're unable to translate the impact of that work test because it goes over 13 months. Do you have an indication of how many people who might be about to commence paid parental leave in the next couple of months would already have been impacted in terms of not meeting that work test? I've certainly been contacted by constituents. That is not a 13-month period which is contingent on how much the economy picks up or doesn't pick up and therefore impacts on how much of the work test impacts on your work test modelling. What is the current impact, as of now, in terms of those who would otherwise have been receiving PPL, if they were commencing their PPL now or in the next couple of months?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Again, at this point in time they are unable to tell why a person currently does not work, hence the previous answers I have given you in relation to when the calculations may be done and when the data may be there.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>With respect, Minister Cash, I don't understand the reference to 13 months. We do understand that eligibility is forecast over a 13-month period, but we certainly know of families that are looking ahead now to a couple of months time, where they know they have lost their eligibility because they have lost work recently and therefore they don't meet the 10 out of 13 months eligibility, I think it is, for that work test. I really don't understand why you don't have any indication of the data that might give you an indication of the number of people affected. You've said that the data hasn't come in. But is that data calculated on general unemployment data and extrapolated? How do you usually calculate how many people you expect to be receiving it? Are you really saying that you don't calculate that for another 13 months time in the past? If, as you said, you can't calculate it for another year, that's not an estimate of how many people are about to receive it, which clearly the government needs to be able to do.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In the normal course of events the estimate would be undertaken on the basis of previous data. However, because this is an unprecedented event, any such estimate may not be a correct estimate, so at this point in time it is unable to be undertaken, because the reason for not working is not yet known. So, in the normal course of events—you are right—it would be based on previous data. But because of the nature of the unprecedented event, this has not yet been able to be done.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>In that case, for all your workforce participation issues—clearly we know that coronavirus has had an unprecedented impact on workforce participation. We know it's had an unprecedented impact in particular on women's workforce participation, and even the government has been able to acknowledge to some extent that that's an issue. Have you not made any attempt yet to quantify what that impact actually looks like and to translate it into, frankly, all the various eligibility thresholds, whether it's for jobseeker payments or situations where people change their family tax benefit status because they have lost work and therefore they've lost income? Clearly the government has to be grappling with these issues now to be able to look at the debt and the impact of the policy decisions and the current economic crisis on households and the Australian economy?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>We're currently dealing with a bill in relation to paid parental leave, so I can only provide you the response that has been given to me by the department in relation to that aspect of your question. Again, it goes to the information I have already provided—that in terms of paid parental leave we're only at the very early stages of the impact. As I've said to you, in the normal course of events the estimation would be able to be done, but because of the unprecedented nature of the event and the fact that we're only in the early stages of it, this has not yet been undertaken.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>So the government could work it out, and you need to work out what these early-stage impacts are, clearly, for the whole economy and for those impacted. Will you work it out or will you just tell us as you go how many people have missed out who would otherwise have been eligible?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Again, Senator Pratt, I go to my previous answers. This is not a normal course of events; this is an unprecedented event. As such, I am advised that there will be continual monitoring of this situation, and, when there is a clearer picture as to the information that you are seeking to elicit that is due to the impact of COVID-19, that information will be provided. But this is an unprecedented event.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>With respect, Minister Cash, you're glossing over the fact that families and expecting parents will be missing out on payments that they otherwise were planning to receive because they no longer meet that eligibility test. That is happening to them here and now, and you are trying to tell me that this government has no idea how many of these families are being impacted by the loss of employment because of COVID-19, in terms of their eligibility for paid parental leave?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In response to the general premise of your question, the answer is no. In terms of the detailed response to your question, the government, as you would be aware, has made amendments to the JobKeeper payment so that it would count for the purposes of the work test for paid parental leave.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>How many people will get paid parental leave because the rule has been changed to allow JobKeeper to satisfy the work test for paid parental leave?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that that figure is not available at this point in time, and we won't have that information until people actually formally submit the paperwork and claim.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Is that because you don't know how many people are claiming JobKeeper or—</p><p class="italic">Senator Cash interjecting—</p><p>Okay. Is there a reason that you haven't yet calculated how much of that cohort might be a likely draw on paid parental leave?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Again, the answer is: yes, we know how many people are claiming JobKeeper, and Treasury is able to work out that estimate, but, in relation to the specifics of your question, the department will not have that information until people formally lodge that claim.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Why did the government include JobKeeper as a means to acquitting the requirements of the work test, noting that many of those people on JobKeeper might be doing a little bit of work or might be doing no work? Why is it that the government won't extend the same right to acquit the paid parental leave workforce participation requirements for people who now find themselves on the jobseeker payment or who find themselves dependent on their partner because they don't meet the income thresholds to be eligible for jobseeker payments?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Senator Pratt, I'm advised that the rationale behind it was that JobKeeper is all about maintaining that important connection with employment, and that is what paid parental leave is. That is the rationale for utilising JobKeeper.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|