Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Scullin and apologise for not being here at the beginning of his speech because I should have been here on my pins, so thank you. I acknowledge the member for Batman whilst she's in the chamber. She lightens this place up in every possible way. I'm sure that those people for whom she has worked so diligently and hard over many, many years in the trade union movement are happy she's here representing their interests, but her legacy as an advocate for women in the workplace is particularly important and really well understood. Advocacy around domestic violence leave was a significant part of her job as a leader of the trade union movement, so thank you to the member for Batman. You bring insights into this place which we need. I say that because you're a special person.

But, really, when we look at those people opposite, I don't think there's a lot of understanding about what the workplace really means and what it is. Whilst it's nice to be the CEO of a big company, and I'm pleased to see, as others have said, some of the decisions which have been taken in this space by some big companies, the truth of it is, unless we're in the shoes of those people who are being affected by family violence, it's very difficult for us to understand what it really means. I recall in a previous life—I did have one—many years ago in a workplace that I was involved in, a young woman who was working with us who was subject to consistent violence at home. I remember her distress. It was unusual in the sense that exposing your work mates to the idea that you are subject to family violence would have, for many, been seen as an embarrassment. But we could see the impacts of the family violence, so it was easy for us to have that communication. I remember vividly, and I can almost walk you down the street and to the house, when she said, 'I've got to leave but I'm afraid.' A couple of other people and I escorted her to her home to provide her with the security to be able to leave that environment. That's something which I would expect a lot of people would do. But when you contemplate the impact on her life, both before and after, it's really, really difficult to accept the proposition that, somehow or another, it's inappropriate to provide this sort of leave to employees in the community—whether they're women or men, but principally women. In my own community, I see—I don't have the data—the impact of violence in the community on an ongoing basis. We know that in a lot of cases, at least in my community, alcohol is a driver of that violence, in part. It certainly plays a significant role.

The people who suffer the consequences of this violence are women and children. We, as sympathetic employers, need to understand what that impact really means for those individuals and their families, instead of seeing it, really, as being around the bottom line. This is about caring, this is about respect, this is about understanding and this is about acknowledging we all have a role in not only stopping the perpetration of violence but also providing a safety net, safeguards and wraparound services, if you like, to those people who suffer from the indignity of being abused and violated at home. Whether it's by a partner or someone else close to them, it's simply not acceptable, and I know that there's no-one in this parliament who would see it as being acceptable.

What I find difficult is: if you accept that it's unacceptable—if you accept and see what the impact is on the individual, their families and, ultimately, their community and the costs that are involved—how could you not say, 'The best thing we could do is provide paid support for these people who suffer from the abuse'? Why can't we do this? I've seen the objections from some in the business community. I note, in particular, the expressions of the National Farmers' Federation, and I'm indebted here to the Bills Digest. There is a piece in the Bills Digest about unpaid or paid leave. It says:

The arguments in favour of providing unpaid … leave focus on the cost to employers, particularly small business …

It then quotes the National Farmers' Federation, which said:

… the NFF cannot support changes which would require employers to provide paid leave. The NFF is unwilling to support such changes primarily due to the increases in operating costs (without demonstrated productivity gains) which it could impose on farmers. … These are small businesses, 'price takers' who operate on very tight margins with minimum cash flow and limited capacity to find replacement workers on short notice.

Well, there's an argument in itself for providing support for these workers. The NFF went on to say:

They cannot afford any additional operational expenses, and the cost of paid leave cannot be absorbed or easily managed. For that reason an entitlement to a new form of paid leave must be resisted.

Those are strong words—strong, pitiful words. I would have thought the person who said those words would be ashamed, because the evidence that's been brought out in this debate has shown the productivity gains to be garnered as a result of actually providing the support which we're advocating here. So let's not gloss over this. This sort of resistance, this sort of perverse advocacy, is against our community and individual interests as well as the national interest.

We need to be stronger than that. The NFF have admitted, in this advocacy of the NFF, the fact that they've got a problem finding workers. Well, treat the workers you've got with respect and that might help you. It's not a benign place this. This is not contested space in the sense that you don't need to provide the support. I think that advocacy is disgraceful. We know from the evidence—which, as I say, has been demonstrated before—what this means.

I go again to the Bills Digest and use their evidence:

Proponents of paid FDV leave also reject the argument that paid FDV leave would be an unreasonable burden on employers …

They refer to a study by the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute which:

… conducted research into the economic impacts of introducing an entitlement to ten days of paid FDV leave. It used data on the incidence of FDV and its impact on work attendance …

The analysis concluded that around 1.5 per cent of female and 0.3 per cent of male employees—this is very important—would be likely to access this leave each year. Really? This is some outrageous cost burden? The findings continue:

It further estimated that, assuming an entitlement of ten days of paid FDV leave, the cost to employers of wage pay outs would be modest, and likely to be almost completely offset by benefits such as improved productivity and decreased turnover.

That in itself refutes the accusations and the assertions which were made in that absurd statement from the NFF—something which I think we should all reject.

Others have spoken about flagship companies, such as Carlton & United Breweries, IKEA, NAB, Qantas, Telstra and Virgin Australia, who have done significant work in this space. The member for Scullin spoke about his union and the role of the trade unions, and I've referred already to the member for Batman. We need to understand that there's a community movement here that's heading inexorably to 10 days paid leave. Why the government's not in this cart is absolutely beyond me. Work undertaken by the ABS estimated that around two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. There can be no doubt that a comprehensive response to domestic violence involves a workplace response.

Again, I go to the Bills Digest:

In 2011 researchers from the Centre for Gender Related Violence Studies at the University of New South Wales, funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, conducted a national survey of union members investigating the impact of FDV in the workplace. Around thirty per cent of respondents indicated that they had experienced FDV, and around half of those reported that the violence impacted their ability to attend work.

This is not wearing our hearts on our sleeves here. This is, in part, a practical economic response to what is a tragic issue. We absolutely need to address the cause of domestic violence. Any violence, whether domestic or otherwise, is unacceptable, but if you accept, as I do, that people who are subject to domestic violence have difficulty in the workplace, that it affects their output at work and that it affects their mental health, then why can't we see this 10 days paid leave as an investment in future productivity? Because that's what it is. And why can't we see this 10 days paid leave as an indication of our loyalty to our workforce and compassion for and understanding of the circumstances in which they live and the suffering they have endured as a result of violence?

Of course, it's legitimate, absolutely legitimate. All sorts of activities need to take place if, for example, people are trying to extricate themselves from a relationship. They need time off. They might need to see a lawyer, they might have medical needs, they might have children to care for—all sorts of things which are impossible to do outside of work hours, which need to be done during normal work hours.

It is possible for us to do this. I accept that we've come some way in at least acknowledging the importance of domestic violence leave. That's what this bill does, and we'll be supporting it, but we'd like to see it go a damn sight further and provide people with the paid domestic leave that they are entitled to.

See this speech in context