Paid Parental Leave

Ryan commended the government for expanding leave to 26 weeks and introducing superannuation contributions. Ryan proposed a further reform to provide additional paid leave for parents of premature babies who stay in hospital past a set limit, with a maximum of 14 extra weeks. Ryan argued that current fertility rates are low due to financial pressures and that supporting families is an economic investment. Ryan criticised One Nation for opposing parental leave and highlighted that most businesses voluntarily provide additional leave entitlements.

Teesdale supported the expansion to 26 weeks of paid parental leave, noting that hundreds of families in her electorate would benefit. Teesdale argued that the increased payment rate and superannuation contributions help offset the financial penalty women often face for taking time out of the workforce. Teesdale highlighted that four weeks of leave are reserved for the other parent to encourage shared caring responsibilities. Teesdale linked the parental leave reforms to broader increases in family tax benefits and social security payments.

Violi acknowledged the importance of paid parental leave but criticised the government's economic management, citing rising inflation. Violi argued that the Coalition had previously proposed giving families the choice between receiving superannuation, extending leave to 28 weeks, or taking a lump sum payment. Violi contended that locking funds into superannuation reduces immediate financial flexibility for families facing high living costs. Violi stated that sustainable economic growth and lower inflation are necessary to ensure parental leave payments retain their value.

France praised the government for bringing Australia's parental leave entitlements in line with other OECD countries, specifically comparing it to the UK system. France argued that the reforms provide essential financial security and help close the gender superannuation gap. France highlighted that the income caps were raised to include more families and that the scheme had already benefited over 460,000 children since 2023. France criticised previous governments for failing to expand the scheme and dismissed opposition to parental leave as outdated.

Kennedy argued that the Coalition supports paid parental leave but believes families should have greater flexibility in how it is used. Kennedy criticised the 'use it or lose it' structure where four weeks are reserved for each parent, stating this could reduce the primary carer's leave to 22 weeks if the secondary carer cannot take their portion. Kennedy contended that a one-size-fits-all approach does not account for diverse family circumstances, such as self-employment or shift work. Kennedy asserted that parents, not politicians, should decide how to organise care in their households.

Coker supported the motion, emphasising that the first months of a child's life are critical for bonding and development. Coker argued that paying superannuation on parental leave recognises the economic value of caring work and helps address the gender retirement gap. Coker noted that tens of thousands of Victorian families would benefit from the expanded scheme and linked it to broader government investments in childcare and early education. Coker rejected the notion that caring is not economically valuable, stating it is a significant contribution to society.

Venning argued that the Coalition supports paid parental leave but prioritises flexibility and choice for families. Venning criticised the reserved weeks structure, stating that many families, particularly in regional areas, may lose access to the full 26 weeks if they cannot utilise the secondary carer's portion. Venning highlighted the lack of childcare options in regional communities as a barrier to workforce participation. Venning asserted that the government's rigid approach fails to account for the unique challenges faced by rural and regional families.