Dissenting Report from Government Senators and Greens Senators
1.1Retaining the integrity of the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave (PPL) Scheme is critical to the Australian Government's (Government's) complementary aims of supporting new parents, advancing gender equality and driving business productivity and economic gains.
1.2In the testimony provided to the committee, it was broadly accepted that the Government's PPL scheme delivers significant benefits to working parents, particularly women, and to employers through increased staff attraction, retention and workforce participation.
1.3The impetus behind the establishment of this inquiry were claims by a small number of employer representative groups that the employer role in processing PPL payments creates an undue administrative burden.
1.4It is worth noting at the outset that these claims have already been tested and disproven by the Paid Parental Leave Scheme evaluation, conducted for the Department of Social Services by the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland between 2010 and 2014, as will be detailed later in this report.
1.5It is telling that these findings, the only independent and academically rigorous analysis of the core claim underpinning this inquiry, were noted and dismissed within the confines of one sentence in the committee's report.
1.6Turning to the claims made in this inquiry, as the committee's report acknowledges:
there was no consensus on the extent and fairness of the alleged administrative burden; and
views differed on the potential impacts, particularly for women, of reducing the employer role. In fact, while witnesses representing the interests of workers, women and parents expressed serious concern about the consequences of reducing the employer role, many employer groups represented were largely dismissive of these concerns.
1.7As the committee's report also notes, it does not 'directly address employee perspectives'. The value of a report which acknowledges it ignores the views and lived experiences of those most impacted by the changes it proposes, is highly questionable.
1.8Given the clear deficiencies in the conduct of this inquiry, it would be irresponsible for Government and Greens Senators to accept the recommendation to dismantle a carefully designed feature of PPL. Evidence from a range of witnesses highlighted the importance of the employer role, reinforcing findings from the Productivity Commission's (PC's) 2009 report on the ideal model for a parental leave scheme.
1.9Government and Greens Senators share the view held by the PC, women's advocates, parents' advocates, economists and trade unions, that reducing the employer role would significantly undermine the structure of the PPL scheme and its key gender equality objectives. Namely, to:
… signal that taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child is a part of the usual course of life and work for both parents; … promote equality between men and women and balance between work and family life; … encourage women to continue to participate in the workforce; … complement and supplement existing entitlements to paid or unpaid leave.[1]
1.10The committee heard evidence about the appropriateness of the employer role given PPL is designed as a workplace entitlement, not a welfare payment.
1.11The committee also heard evidence about the importance of the employer role as a feature of Australia's hybrid parental leave system, where the Government provides a minimum entitlement intended to complement employer-provided leave.
1.12Additionally, the committee heard overwhelming support for the Government‑funded scheme and there was consensus about its role in increasing women's workforce participation, including in small businesses.
1.13Government and Greens Senators therefore share the view that requiring employers to administer the payment—a feature carefully designed to promote gender equality—is a reasonable contribution from employers, who benefit from the Government funding PPL for their employees.
1.14Over the past decade, both Labor and Coalition governments have delivered a scheme underpinned by the principle that PPL is a workplace entitlement intended to support and improve women's workforce participation.
1.15The employer role has been in place since the scheme commenced in 2011, and recent and proposed enhancements to the scheme do not change or increase the employer role.
1.16The design of the scheme, including the employer role, drew on a comprehensive inquiry report by the PC.
1.17The PC closely considered the employer role and concluded employers should make payments directly to employees because:
The more that parental leave arrangements mimic those that exist as part of routine employment contracts, the more they will be seen by employers and employees as standard employment arrangements, with the dual effect of:
promoting employment continuity and workplace retention … and reducing training costs for employers
signalling that a genuine capacity to take a reasonable period of leave from employment to look after children is just a normal part of working life.[2]
1.18The committee heard from family, gender, economic and union stakeholders whose evidence reinforced this position. Witnesses outlined how the employer role helps normalise parental leave as a workforce entitlement, which in turn helps creates more gender equitable workplaces.
1.19The Parenthood, a family advocacy organisation, representing over 80 000 parents and carers across Australia, summed up this view in their submission:
Ensuring that PPL policy is ambitious and deliberate in normalising both the sharing of care between men and women, and the continued connection between parents and employers after having children is fundamental [to gender equality].[3]
1.20Supporting gender equality and helping parents balance caring responsibilities has significant benefits to the economy and to individual businesses. However, Government alone can't address gender gaps in the workforce. Employers also have a role to play in supporting these objectives.
1.21 Government and Greens Senators are gravely concerned that reducing the employer role would undermine years of progress to recognise the value of parental leave as a lever to advance gender equality and an attraction and retention tool.
1.22For example, on the retention benefits of administering PPL, Mr Kent Johns, Head of Government Relations and Policy at the National Electrical Communications Association (NECA), said 'our members will do it for retention'.[4]
1.23Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade. In 2021–22, 62 per cent of reporting employers offered employer‑funded paid parental leave, up from 48 per cent in 2013–14.[5]
1.24This positive trend demonstrates employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside the Government in providing paid parental leave.
1.25The Committee heard evidence from the Department of Social Services about how the Government scheme is intended to complement and supplement employer-provided entitlements. Mr Matt Flavel, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Social Services, told the committee:
There can be two types of hybrid arrangements. The employer provides their own paid parental leave and then the government scheme supports that or, alternatively, it may be that the employer doesn’t have any separate paid parental leave but seeks to top up the government payment – in other words, to have a replacement wage for that employee during a period of 18weeks.[6]
1.26The committee heard from several employer groups, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) and the Australian Hairdressing Council, about how some of their members 'top up' their employees' PPL.[7]
1.27The committee heard concern from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) that removing the employer role for small business risks reducing the likelihood that employers provide 'top ups':
An additional intention of the scheme is that it acts as a minimum entitlement. Employer administered payments have the potential to encourage employers to top up those payments with top-up pay. So any change that might reduce the occasion that employers administer those payments would hamper the ability of employers to do those additional things and provide those incentives.[8]
1.28Government and Greens Senators are concerned that removing the mandatory employer role for small businesses risks undermining years of progress by signalling it is solely the Government's responsibility to provide paid parental leave.
1.29Ms Sasha Peldova-McClelland from the ACTU told the Committee:
… if there were any change to this system, this would have several serious negative consequences … That would shift parental leave away from being an industrial entitlement and towards being a welfare entitlement, and in doing so, undermine the legal framework of the National Employment Standards and the original intention of the scheme as recommended by the Productivity Commission.[9]
1.30In addition, the committee heard evidence from unions about how the employer's role in administering PPL complements the broader parental leave legislative framework, which provides return to work rights. For example, employers have obligations to provide unpaid parental leave, keeping-in-touch days and a return-to-work guarantee.[10]
1.31It is clear the employer's role in PPL and the broader legislative framework work together to help maintain the employment relationship. Government and Greens Senators are concerned that reducing the employer role in PPL may also weaken an employer's sense of responsibility to provide other important entitlements to employees with caring responsibilities. This concern was expressed by the United Workers Union who said:
It is unfortunately the case that discrimination towards parents returning from work still exists at high rates and thus no action should be taken that could further increase the likelihood of this occurring.[11]
1.32Furthermore, Government and Greens Senators are concerned that moves to exempt large cohort of employers from administering the scheme may be the thin end of the wedge in completely removing the employer role. Government and Greens Senators note that Recommendation 3 in the committee's report indicates an appetite from other parties to re-examine and erode the fundamental responsibilities employers have in delivering workplace entitlements.
1.33As outlined in the majority report, there was widespread recognition of the benefits of PPL for employees and employers.
1.34Dr Angela Jackson, Lead Economist at Impact Economics and Policy, spoke about the significant workforce participation gains resulting from the introduction of Government PPL in Australia:
The reason for that lift was the very careful design of that policy, that created, as Jessica alluded to, the link between employer and employee … in the history of public policy in this country, this is one of the most successful in terms of lifting participation. It is a key driver of economic growth, and to undermine it would really hamper small business.[12]
1.35Dr Jackson also referenced research showing that for women employed in small businesses, the introduction of the Government scheme increased retention by about six per cent.[13]
1.36From the evidence presented to the committee, it is clear small businesses significantly benefit from the Government's provision of PPL to their employees.
1.37The Government's investment is significant. The Department of Social Services estimated that in 2022–23, the Government spent around $460 million to provide Parental Leave Pay to employees in small businesses.[14]
1.38The introduction of PPL was an acknowledgement by Government that working families should have access to a minimum standard of paid parental leave. The committee heard evidence about how prior to the introduction of the Government scheme, small businesses were less likely to offer parental leave entitlements. Dr Jackson said:
It was really disadvantaging small businesses in terms of that retention, compared to big businesses that could see the benefit and could cover the cost. So in many ways this Paid Parental Leave scheme has put small business on that level playing field with big business, in terms of being able to retain those staff and services.[15]
1.39It remains the case that without the Government-funded scheme, many employees of small business would be left with no paid parental leave entitlement, and that many small businesses would be left with a competitive disadvantage when competing with larger employers to attract and retain employees.
1.40The Government-funded scheme, which provides a payment of up to $17 655 to workers in small businesses, helps alleviate recruitment and retention challenges for small business whose workers may otherwise miss out on any PPL.
1.41The inquiry heard evidence from parent advocacy organisation, the Parenthood, that PPL as currently structured helps maintain the connection between a new parent and their employer:
What we know is that, when parents—and in my role I represent around 80000 parents—feel like they are continuing to connect with their employer then they know that they have a place to go back to in the workforce, and this makes a huge difference when PPL is delivered by the employer because what happens is they then receive it from their employer and they feel that continued connection. It is about binding a person to their employer in a way that reassures them going forward.[16]
1.42This was echoed by Dr Jackson, who said:
Having this ongoing payment strengthens those bonds, and we can see it increases the chances of women both returning to work and also, importantly, returning to the same employer. That was the other interesting thing we've seen from other ABS data—a 13 per cent increase. Of those who return to work, women are more likely to now return to the same employer, so there's a clear behavioural impact here that we do want to maintain that does benefit the business that processes this payment.[17]
1.43Government and Greens Senators acknowledge the testimony of business lobby groups as outlined in the committee's report. Government and Greens Senators also acknowledge evidence from the PC inquiry. In recommending that employers should make payments directly to employees, the PC considered the expected impact on small businesses. The PC estimated that:
…the average small business with less than 20 staff would have a 4 per cent chance of having one or more employee pregnancies in a given year. As a result, many small business would not have face increases in compliance or financial costs for the majority of the time.[18]
1.44Following the introduction of PPL, the Department of Social Services commissioned the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland to conduct an evaluation (PPL Evaluation) of the impact of the scheme, and the extent to which the scheme is likely to achieve its longer-term objectives. The PPL Evaluation was conducted over a four-year period and is the most detailed review of PPL to-date.[19]
1.45The PPL Evaluation made the following findings:
Most employers have not found it necessary to make any changes to their policies and practices in response to the introduction of PPL.[20]
Employers generally experienced few difficulties in registering for PPL and providing PLP [Parental Leave Payments] to their employees, and they have become more likely to say the process is easy.[21]
The costs to employers of implementing PPL were generally very minimal, both in terms of time and money.[22]
Similar to registering, the majority of employers found it easy to organise PLP. More than four-fifths of organisations (81 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement 'it was easy to organise payments for the PPL scheme'. There was no significant differences across organisational size or sector.[23]
Most employers felt there were minimal costs involved in implementing the scheme. Just over one fourth (26 per cent) of employers stated additional costs were involved in implementing PPL. There were no significant differences across organisational size or sector.[24]
There has been a significant decrease in the perceived costs involved in implementing PPL in terms of staff hours between 2011 and 2012 … employers were twice as likely to report no staff hours needed to implement PPL in 2012.[25]
Employers in 2012 were more likely to agree that organisation payments for PPL had been easy … This change in attitude is further confirmed by the significant increase in employers likely to disagree that payments had been time consuming.[26]
1.46The overwhelming feedback from the PPL Evaluation was that employers reported administering PPL payments was easy and required minimal time and money, that this rang true regardless of business size or sector, and that employers in 2012 were already reporting it far easier than in 2011, is further supported by the qualitative evidence the PPL Evaluation collated from small business employers, including:
I suppose the cost would be the initial setup of getting everything in, and once that's done – look maybe that was an hour, an hour and a half, that's it. But when you do wages and you're doing a group of wages, one other person is nothing. [… small private sector employer, construction].[27]
So both the admin of it – everything seemed pretty straight forward. There were a couple of glitches early on just in terms of knowing at what point to get in and physically take the linking of their application in the company – but once you knew what you were doing, it's actually really straight forward. [… small private sector employer, character suits and sports mascots].[28]
Well the scheme itself was implemented very well. Bearing in mind that we are only small so it's quite easy to deal with somebody one-to-one. … [… small private sector employer, accounting].[29]
1.47Indeed, the PPL Evaluation itself summarised the qualitative evidence it received by saying 'the qualitative data confirm that overall, employers did not experience significant difficulties in implementing PPL'.[30]
1.48The PPL Evaluation was criticised by some employer representatives and Opposition Senators for being a number of years old. However, other employers acknowledged that in fact, advances in technology, policy and payroll processes have made the PPL system even easier to navigate than when 81 per cent of employers said that it was easy in 2012. Mr Matthew Addison, Chair of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA) said:
There's technology. We have website interaction and we have the possibility of doing it digitally. No longer is it queues outside Services Australia or Centrelink offices to do any interaction with government support systems; you can do a lot of that online.[31] …
…
Our digitisation journey over the 10 years is improving that.[32]
1.49This view was shared by Mr Johns of NECA, who said '10 years ago, it was a lot more complicated than it is today, and that's due to digitisation'.[33]
1.50This view was also shared by Ms Pauline Vamos, Chair of Chief Executive Women Chair, who said:
With single touch payroll and many of the other changes that have been done to the payment system, it's not as manual as it was before. With some of the HR systems around now—particularly Xero, MYOB and Flare HR—there are much greater efficiencies in making any payments. I really think PPL can be included in those gains and efficiencies that we've had over the last few years. Whilst some small businesses still do it all manually, more and more do not. You've got to be online to deal with Centrelink, and you've got to be online to deal with the tax office.[34]
1.51Noting that some employers acknowledged technological advances have made the system even more simple now than it was when 81 per cent of employees said it was easy in 2012, some employers went a step further and acknowledged there is hardly any real administrative burden at all.
1.52Mr Johns gave evidence on the absence of administrative burden, stating:
…the additional workload is a perception, not a reality, and I agree with you that while impacts on small businesses are not substantial, it is the perception of having that additional bureaucratic burden.[35]
1.53While Mr Addison also acknowledged that small businesses only interact with the scheme on a very infrequent basis:
Small businesses touch this once in a blue moon. … Small business owners will only touch it when their few employees need this support.[36]
1.54Other employers acknowledged that any administrative burden associated with administering PPL payments is not a priority issue for them. Mrs Emmalene Mahar from the Australian Hairdressing Council said:
I would say that the number one challenge is finding and retaining team members, particularly in a service profession. The next one, I would say, would be administrative and making sure that you are always on top of new and relevant legislation and changes that may impact your team and your business. One that's become far more prevalent in the last couple of years is cash flow, but I would say that at the top of the list would be attracting and retaining team members.[37]
1.55The fact that this is not a priority was also stated by Ms Reika Roberts from the Aesthetic Beauty Industry Council, who said:
In our industry, if you ask any clinic owner their No. 1 issue is people for the same reason: skills shortage; people often exiting the industry to find more stable administrative jobs during COVID; high employment of millennials and Gen Z having different ethics and business contribution ideas; and, overall, the cost of doing business.[38]
1.56The thorough, independent and credible nature of the PPL Evaluation conducted by the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland can be starkly contrasted with some of the survey data presented to the committee by employer lobby groups.
1.57For instance, NECA's submission called for an opt-in or opt-out model for small businesses based on survey feedback from its members.[39] However, the sample survey responses attached to NECA's submission comprised five responses, all of which included the admission that the employer respondent had never actually administered a PPL payment.[40]
1.58In another example, the ACCI, which described itself at the hearing as representing 'more small businesses than any other employer organisation',[41] also submitted that small employers should be exempted by default from administering paid parental leave payments, on the basis of survey data. However, the survey data in its submission reveals that it received responses from just 43 small businesses who had ever administered a PPL payment.[42]
1.59When the self-described biggest representative of small business in Australia can only muster 43 responses from small businesses who had administered a PPL payment, it raises significant questions as to whether this is a real priority for ACCI members, and certainly raises substantial questions as to whether this is sufficient to justify ACCI's demand for major legislative changes to PPL.
1.60Government and Greens Senators acknowledge there is room for a productive and outcomes-focused discussion about ways that engaging with Services Australia can be made more simple and efficient for employers.
1.61Through funding received in the 2023–24 Budget, Services Australia is currently undertaking a 12-month discovery and design project, focusing on third party online channels including Provider Digital Access (PRODA). The project will undertake analysis of known pain points of users of PRODA and develop a strategy to improve the user experience, including individual registration, organisation registration and ongoing management and authentication.
1.62While the inquiry heard extensively from business groups, many of which as detailed above had mixed views about the existence and extent of any administrative burden associated with PPL payments, the inquiry did not hear from a single employee recipient of PPL payments.
1.63However, the groups representing women, parents and workers who appeared in this inquiry had very clear opinions on the risks of excluding small businesses from administering payments. Mrs Rudd, who represents 80 000 parents and carers at The Parenthood, said:
Continued connection to the employer through employer administered PPL means you feel like you're still there at work, and you have that constant link, an umbilical link, between you and your employer. It also eases the burden of access to entitlement at a time when the mental load is huge. You're trying to, at that point, book all the vaccine and immunisation appointments, the health appointments, for your little child, and you're trying to make sure your own physiotherapy needs are met as you recover from the birth of your child. You're trying to get birth certificates and add to the Medicare card. The very last thing you need to do as a parent is to have to suddenly try and apply for paid parental leave which was designed as an entitlement from work and not as a form of welfare.[43]
1.64Ms Vamos, who at Chief Executive Women has over 1100 members and oversees 1.3 million employees, added:
We are concerned that, if there is an opt-in or opt-out model, it would push the entirety of the administrative burden on new parents, which could lead to a reduced uptake of PPL and impact the ability of small businesses to attract and retain female employees who really value this benefit.[44]
1.65Ms Peldova-McClelland, who as a representative from the ACTU spoke for the peak employee representative body in Australia, concurred with the concerns of The Parenthood and Chief Executive Women, saying:
The ACTU and its affiliates are concerned that if there were any change to this system, this would have several serious negative consequences. First, it would sever the important ongoing employment connection through the taking away of that mechanism by which the relationship is maintained …
Second, the severing of that ongoing connection would have real impacts on the employment relationship.
Third, an opt-in or opt-out model for small business could introduce unnecessary complexity to the administration of PPL
Any change to how PPL payments are made will disproportionately impact women given they bear the burden of caring responsibilities. Given the very high prevalence of discrimination, any change that may make it more likely for that discrimination to occur should be avoided.[45]
1.66In response to a question on notice, the inquiry heard evidence from the Department of Social Services about some potential risks with legislative change to exempt small businesses from administering PPL:
Removing the requirement for employers to maintain a connection with their employees through delivering Paid Parental Leave has the potential to undermine the payment as a work-related entitlement. This feature of connection and retention was key to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations for designing the Scheme at the outset. A legislative change could have negative consequences for workforce retention rates and broader workforce participation objectives, particularly for women.
There would also be costs to the Budget for any changes to the administration of the Paid Parental Leave scheme, including for Services Australia.
As the size of a business can change over time, a legislative definition could also increase complexity, and cause businesses to be eligible for different arrangements based on fluctuations in the number of employees over time.[46]
1.67It is the view of Government and Greens Senators that the committee's report is a disappointing outcome in light of the gender equality gains made over the last decade, which risk being undermined by reducing the role of employers in PPL.
1.68It is extraordinary that the committee is recommending changes to the PPL scheme in direct contradiction to the evidence provided by every single advocate of women's interests, parents' interests and workers' interests that provided evidence to the inquiry.
1.69The evidence relied on by the committee to justify these changes to the PPL scheme comprises survey data self-supplied by employer representative groups, in which a majority of respondents had never themselves administered a PPL payment. The methodology of many of these surveys remains unclear.
1.70The so-called data in these surveys is directly contradicted by the only academic, independent and credible review of employer perceptions of administering the scheme, conducted by the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland (the PPL Evaluation), which found the vast majority (81 per cent) of employers including small businesses find administering PPL payments 'easy'.
1.71Even some of the employer groups lobbying for change at this inquiry acknowledged administering PPL payments is not a priority issue for them, and that technological improvements have made the system even easier since the Evaluation was conducted in 2012.
1.72 Government and Greens Senators hold the strong view that evidence presented to the committee does not justify a change to the carefully designed employer role that has been an important feature of the scheme since its inception. Undermining the principle of PPL as workplace entitlement risks undermining the PPL Scheme's impact.
1.73Many arguments provided through this inquiry that businesses should be able to sever ties with working parents while they are on leave, have had very limited regard for how it may hurt workforce participation and retention, particularly for working women.
1.74Given this evidence, coupled with evidence on how rarely small businesses are impacted in terms of number of times they have to administer the PPL Scheme relative to their workforce numbers, Government and Greens Senators maintain that the current legislative exemptions present in the PPL Scheme provide sufficient consideration of administrative burden.
1.75The risks of legislating additional exemptions will be felt by both employees and employers and far outweighs any potential benefits. The negative impacts on employees would be primarily felt by women, for whom this PPL Scheme was purposefully designed to advance equality in the workplace.
Senator Tony Sheldon Senator Fatima Payman
Deputy Chair Labor Senator for Western Australia
Labor Senator for New South Wales
Senator Larissa Waters Senator Barbara Pocock
Greens Senator for Queensland Greens Senator for South Australia
Footnotes
[1]Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, ss. 3A(2).
[2]Productivity Commission, Paid Parental Leave: Support for Parents with Newborn Children, February2009, p.xxxiii.
[3]The Parenthood, Submission 12, pp. 4–5.
[4]Mr Kent Johns, Head of Government Relations and Policy, National Electrical Communications Association (NECA), Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p.39.
[5]Workplace Gender Equality Agency, Submission 2, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, p. 2.
[6]Mr Matt Flavel, Deputy Secretary, Social Security, Department of Social Services (DSS), Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 50.
[7]Mr Jack Morrish, Senior Policy Adviser, Workplace Relations, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 39 and Mrs Emmalene Mahar, Association Member, Australian Hairdressing Council, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p.18.
[8]Ms Sascha Peldova-McClelland, Senior Legal and Industrial Officer, Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 29.
[9]Ms Sascha Peldova-McClelland, Senior Legal and Industrial Officer, ACTU, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 28.
[10]United Workers Union (UWU), Submission 17, p. 2 and ACTU, Submission 11, pp. 6 and 12.
[11]UWU, Submission 17, p. 2.
[12]Dr Angela Jackson, Lead Economist, Impact Economics and Policy Proof Committee Hansard, 14August 2023, p. 2.
[13]Dr Angela Jackson, Lead Economist, Impact Economics and Policy Proof Committee Hansard, 14August 2023, p. 2.
[14]Ms Agnieszka Nelson, Branch Manager, Families and Payment Support, DSS, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 50. The Proof Committee Hansard incorrectly refers to this figure as $160million. The correct figure of $460 million will be reflected in the Official Committee Hansard.
[15]Dr Angela Jackson, Lead Economist, Impact Economics and Policy Proof Committee Hansard, 14August 2023, p. 3.
[16]Ms Jessica Rudd, Chief Executive Officer, The Parenthood, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p.6.
[17]Dr Angela Jackson, Lead Economist, Impact Economics and Policy Proof Committee Hansard, 14August 2023, p. 5.
[18]Productivity Commission, Paid Parental Leave: Support for Parents with Newborn Children, February2009, p. xxxv.
[19]DSS, Paid Parental Leave evaluation, www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programmes-services/paid-parental-leave-scheme/paid-parental-leave-evaluation (accessed 30 August 2023).
[20]DSS, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 3.
[21]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 3.
[22]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 4.
[23]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 35.
[24]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 38.
[25]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 42.
[26]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 38.
[27]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 41.
[28]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), pp. 43–44.
[29]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 44.
[30]DSS, DEWR and Services Australia, Submission 1, Attachment B (Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 3 Report), p. 43.
[31]Mr Matthew Addison, Chair, Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA), Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 37.
[32]Mr Matthew Addison, Chair, COSBOA, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 40.
[33]Mr Kent Johns, Head of Government Relations and Policy, NECA, Proof Committee Hansard, 14August 2023, p.40.
[34]Ms Pauline Vamos, Board Member and Chair, Policy and Engagement Committee, Chief Executive Women, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 4.
[35]Mr Kent Johns, Head of Government Relations and Policy, NECA, Proof Committee Hansard, 14August 2023, p.40.
[36]Mr Matthew Addison, Chair, COSBOA, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p. 37.
[37]Mrs Emmalene Mahar, Association Member, Australian Hairdressing Council, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, p.19.
[38]Ms Reika Roberts, Chair, Aesthetic Beauty Industry Council, Proof Committee Hansard, 14August2023, p.20.
[39]NECA, Submission 13, [p. 2].
[40]NECA, Submission 13, [pp. 3–7].
[41]Ms Jessica Tinsley, Director, Workplace Relations and General Counsel, ACCI, Proof Committee Hansard, 14August2023, p. 35.
[42]ACCI, Submission 7, p. 6.
[43]Ms Jessica Rudd, Chief Executive Officer, The Parenthood, Proof Committee Hansard, 14August2023, p.2.
[44]Ms Pauline Vamos, Board Member and Chair, Policy and Engagement Committee, Chief Executive Women, Proof Committee Hansard, 14August2023, p. 3.
[45]Ms Sascha Peldova-McClelland, Senior Legal and Industrial Officer, ACTU, Proof Committee Hansard, 14 August 2023, pp. 28–29.
[46]DSS, answer to written question on notice, 21 August 2023 (received 25 August 2023).
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments