House debates

Wednesday, 7 September 2022

Bills

Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022; Second Reading

10:01 am

Photo of Joanne RyanJoanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The legislation before us today is about paid family and domestic violence leave. It's a new piece of legislation. The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 is a really important piece of legislation, and it's something that this government is really proud to be introducing to Australia. The legislation is important for many, many reasons, but I want to put on record why I think that having the leave is critical. It is critical so that people who are suffering from the impacts of domestic violence have time, space, energy and support at a critical time in their lives to ensure that they can continue in their employment, continue to provide for their families, find the housing they might need and get the support that they might need.

The legislation is critical for other reasons as well. We measure what we care about. The domestic violence leave will mean that there will be data that will demonstrate for us the impact of domestic violence in our communities. That data will be incredibly important because it can then be used to make changes in response to what we find. There is nothing more true than that in modern Australia. Across everything in our communities—in education, in business, everywhere—we measure what's important to us. We need to be measuring this so that we can see the impacts of domestic violence not just in our community but also on business and on industry because then we'll be able to measure and be able to say what impact domestic violence is actually having on productivity and on our GDP. That will change the conversation about domestic violence and take it to a place that it hasn't been before because not only is it a scourge emotionally and physically but it is a life-changing experience for many that then impacts on their entire lives, which includes where they work. It's of critical importance that this legislation be passed and that people support this legislation because millions of workers in Australia still face that impossible situation of having to choose between their safety and their income.

On a personal note, we've all had moments in our lives when something happens that impacts in similar ways—perhaps a marriage breakdown. There may not be abuse or violence involved, but a marriage breakdown means that somebody is scrambling to ensure that the bank accounts are right, that whatever they've got to do at Centrelink is done, that they've got their child support arrangements in place. We've all had these kinds of impacts—for example, a death in the family. Domestic violence is no different. There are many reasons why this leave needs to be in place, but one of the things it does is ensures that the person involved has no impact on their income. That continues, but they've got time and space to do the things they need to do: to see a doctor if they need to see a doctor, to see a police officer if they need to see a police officer, or to attend a court hearing if they need to attend a court hearing.

All of these things at the moment, without this leave, ultimately come down to the relationship you have with your employer or your line manager. Are you confident to say to the person that you work most closely with and for, 'I need a few days off at this point,' and to make a personal explanation, if you like, about why you need that time? How much easier would that be if it were an accepted practice? How much easier would that be if it were a simple email to say, 'I need five days leave,' or 10 days leave, and you could tick a box? Then there is no inquisition. You don't have to sit and expose yourself to those things and feel like you're asking a favour. It's clear, it's in law and it will work. People will have the time to do the things they need to do.

It may ultimately mean that we lift the veil further on domestic violence. I'm really sad to say this, but I heard it argued in the chamber in the last sitting fortnight that sometimes these things are left for private conversations. That's the problem. The problem is, if we pull the blinds down and say, 'Let's not talk about this,' then we're not supporting a victim of domestic violence; we're supporting a perpetrator of domestic violence. If there is someone in our place of work who visibly shows the possible impacts of domestic violence, and we walk past them every day in the office or on the factory floor, then we become part of the people who don't talk about it rather than being the people we need to be, the people who do talk about it, the people who say, 'This is intolerable.' They say that by wrapping the supports around the people who need the support, and this is one way we can do that in law.

It will change lives. It will change the lives of people on their worst days, and that's always what comes back to me. In our role as members of parliament, as representatives of our electorates, our job is to come here and tell those stories and change the laws in this country so that those things change on the ground. In communities like mine, this is a really critical piece of legislation. It will change lives. We know that the victims of domestic violence are more likely to be women. I'm not going to say they are exclusively women. But it changes lives if they know they will be paid. What's most important about this legislation, in an electorate like mine, is that it's going to cover casual employees, which is extraordinary. So often we create legislation and we change legislation here, particularly around women's issues, and we leave out the bulk of the people who need it the most. In my patch, that would be casual employees, male or female, who are victims of domestic violence. That is a critical element of this piece of legislation and something that should be celebrated and welcomed across the country.

In my electorate, the rate of casualisation is really high. It has been growing annually across the last decade. We know that in areas like retail, child care and aged care—highly feminised workforces—the rate of casualisation is really high. This legislation will mean that a victim of domestic violence who needs time off will be able to have time off without losing their job and will have support while they do so. This is a critical element, because these points of disruption in our lives send us one way or another. They send us, with support, on a new journey, feeling supported in the process and able to pick up and move on—or they send us off the rails. These can be the points in people's lives when they end up living with six kids in the car. I can't put enough emphasis on this.

In my electorate, I was talking to a local principal about student attendance numbers, and I had this story shared with me—completely de-identified, for obvious reasons. This school had done terrific work in ensuring that families were supported and that at-risk families were contacted all the time. They're a very proactive school. They go out and find kids who've missed two days of school. They knock on the door to see if everything's okay. They lost a family. Overnight they lost a family. In the last two weeks of school, things get busy. You have a two-week window to see if everything's okay. When they got back after the Christmas holidays, they learned that a mum and six kids had slept in the car across the whole summer, cut off from the support that would have been provided by the school if they had known. The impetus of that is domestic violence. That's a life-changing experience, and a family is thrown into homelessness. This legislation could have meant that, as a casual worker, potentially that mum would have had support, time and income so that she wouldn't have been unable to pay the rent and wouldn't have found herself without the usual supports that our local community provides.

So I can't stress enough how important this piece of legislation is and how much I want to see it pass this parliament and be enacted in law, because it will change lives in the community I represent. It'll change lives around the country. I look forward to a day when we measure the impact of domestic violence through every corner of our society so that we have data and, better informed, we can create legislation to support the most vulnerable in our community at their most vulnerable time and ensure that fewer families fall into poverty and homelessness—because that's the reality that we're talking about here. Forget everything else. At this point in time, the impact of domestic violence may change lives forever. The legislation may also mean that, potentially, victims who may have had a history of suffering domestic violence suddenly access this leave, because it's there, to get support, and, because they've got the financial support and the support of the workplace and the Australian government to do so, they will connect more to services to support themselves and potentially their children. I can't think of a better outcome.

The fact that the legislation covers casuals is inspiring. It's a first, and we need to do more of it. We need to do more to ensure that we've got people working in more permanent jobs and paid well, but, even if we get to that place, this will help those people. People who choose to work in a casual environment or as casuals will see that under the law they're seen as equal to permanent employees, and I think that's absolutely critical.

So I support this legislation for the social reasons, for the economic reasons and because of the impact that this could potentially have in the long term by giving us information about productivity, but, more importantly, because it will inform us as a country, inform us as a government and inform us all as legislators. It potentially will create data that will see us create better and better legislation that may, sometime in a bright future, see us drive the scourge of domestic violence out of our communities and out of our homes—an end to domestic violence. This is a step towards an end to domestic violence. That's why I'm so pleased to be here today to support this legislation. I look forward to voting for it in the House, and I know that my colleagues do too.

Photo of Andrew WilkieAndrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

Before I give the call to the member for Mackellar, I just apologise to the mother for Lalor for the disruption caused by my folder falling off the table.

Photo of Joanne RyanJoanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Absolutely fine.

10:14 am

Photo of Sophie ScampsSophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

As a local GP, I understand how domestic violence is perpetrated and its devastating impacts on families and individuals. Domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness in my electorate of Mackellar in the Northern Beaches of Sydney. Of course, domestic violence does not only impact women, but it does impact them disproportionately.

Across Australia, one in four women will experience violence from their partner. This includes coercive control to overt control and violence, which can result in injury and death. Domestic violence is insidious, and it must not remain so. The flow on effects on victims, their children and the community are devastating and enduring. Unfortunately, the pandemic has exacerbated such harrowing circumstances for many. In this parliament we must implement policies that protect victims and save lives, which is why I support this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022.

In a domestic violence situation, victims are often in an impossible bind, often having to choose between financial security and employment or potentially ending up homeless, as we heard earlier, and unpaid leave will not support them. As Professor Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Director of the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, describes:

… it takes seven to eight attempts to leave a relationship; it costs around $18,000; and it takes 141 hours to safely extricate oneself from an abuser.

Victims are in financial handcuffs. Often their only hope is to maintain financial security while quietly planning their escape. Emergency leave is their lifeline. We must provide this lifeline. Under this bill, employees can access 10 days of paid leave, up from five, to help deal with the immediate situation or for the required appointments when planning to leave. Importantly, casuals will be included, and all workers will receive financial support to access counselling and doctors appointments. This bill enables people to leave violent relationships without sacrificing their money and their safety.

In my electorate, amazing organisations are working to support victims of domestic violence. Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, for example, is a haven, supporting homeless women so that they can rebuild their lives, reclaim independence and re-join society. Organisations like this welcome this legislation and describe the benefit that it will have, particularly for women leaving relationships. Importantly, they have described how important it is to include existing casual workers.

This is necessary and critical legislation, which many in the business community accept. I am heartened to see that nearly all submissions from businesses and organisations to the committee inquiry into this bill recognised the need to support victims of domestic violence through leave from the workplace. To the businesses in my community: you are the backbone of Mackellar. I am proud of the response I have received from those I have consulted with. Businesses in my electorate are throwing their support behind this legislation.

I would also point out research by the Centre for Future Work, at the Australia Institute, which shows that only 1.5 per cent of women and 0.5 per cent of men are likely to access this leave. Therefore, the cost to the employers would be modest, and any price would be outweighed by the benefits such as improved productivity and decreased turnover. In fact, some states and businesses already offer 10 days of paid domestic leave and have found the impact on business to be very limited, which is promising. Even so, I welcome that the government will provide small businesses with an extra six-month grace period and consult with them now. I also call on the government to consider how they can reduce administration of this measure, keeping it as simple as possible.

As MPs we must all work with our communities to educate them about this critical legislation, so that those impacted by domestic violence know their entitlements and businesses have clarity and simplicity in applying it. Supporting this bill is the least we can do to help the thousands of Australians who find themselves in this awful situation.

10:19 am

Photo of Louise Miller-FrostLouise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

On average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia. We hear this statistic all the time, and I fear it has lost its ability to shock. But we should be shocked. On average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia. We should be shocked, we should be appalled, we should be marching in the streets. One woman is murdered every 10 days. These women are not just statistics. They are human beings with feelings and potential. They have families and friends. They have hopes and dreams—all ended by violence.

Sitting behind that statistic are even more shocking statistics. Over the age of 15, approximately one in four, or 25 per cent of all women, have experienced at least one incident of violence by an intimate partner. For women with disability, 40 per cent have experienced violence by an intimate partner. Indigenous women are 35 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family and domestic violence as non-Indigenous women. This is a national shame and something which there can be no justification.

As the former CEO of the women's homelessness service Catherine House, I did a lot of speaking on the subject of family and domestic violence. Without fail, at the end of every speech, there would be a woman who would hang back—sometimes more. Once everyone had left, they'd come up to me and share their personal experience. Women in community groups, business women, women in corporate settings, women in professional networking groups, women at fundraising events, women at sporting events—every single place. Everyone in this place would know someone affected by family and domestic violence, whether they know it or not. Statistically, there are women working here who are also subject to family and domestic violence—25 per cent on average. It can and does happen to everyone.

This bill represents a crucial step in the fight against family and domestic violence. This bill will provide Australians experiencing family and domestic violence—women and men, no matter where they work or what industry they are in—access to 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave. By amending the Fair Work Act, it enshrines in our key industrial relations framework a minimum standard that will help Australia avoid the choice between poverty and the safety of themselves and their children. It will ensure no one has to choose between losing their job and escaping a violent situation. While we know that family and domestic violence occurs against both men and women, women are overwhelmingly the victims.

In my previous work as CEO of Catherine House, a support service for South Australian women experiencing homelessness, I learned that there are two very clear overarching principles when it comes to the issue—safety and poverty. We always hear, 'But why didn't she leave?' The most dangerous time for women and children is when they leave. Victim-survivors need time to plan, time to leave safely, time to arrange the support of friends, family and broader support networks, time to figure out where to stay and time to attend appointments with services or lawyers. Beyond time, they need resources, which is where avoiding poverty is so important. Fifty per cent of the women coming to Catherine House experiencing homelessness listed family and domestic violence as a contributing factor, and this will help avoid more women falling into poverty by helping them to take action safely, with the added protection of knowing they will not lose their job.

For many women, this bill and the opportunity provided by 10 days of paid leave in instances of family and domestic violence will be the difference between staying and leaving. And, as we know, for too many that can mean life or death. It will give women greater flexibility, options and time to plan without losing income—or worse, losing their job. For many women it is simply impossible to leave safely without this kind of protection. I also know that this bill will go some way towards helping women avoid falling into absolute crisis when they decide to leave. When I asked those who work in the sector what this legislation would mean for them, they told me that the financial security it will deliver will empower women to better plan and avoid so much chaos, and will ultimately deliver safer outcomes for women and children.

This form of leave already exists in some workplaces, successfully implemented in businesses big and small. It's not a new thing. It’s not untried. By enabling their workers to maintain an income and maintain their employment while they navigate this difficult and dangerous time, employers are ensuring that they retain their skilled workers through supporting them. They are also literally saving lives. It's time when they can tell their partner that they're off work but can, for example, look for housing or attend appointments with support services and legal support—all without diminishing their escape fund, which is so important to enable somebody to leave an abusive relationship.

This amendment to provide for 10 days of leave is fundamentally a recognition of the complexities and the impacts of violence on women and children. It's recognition that it is not as simple as up and leaving a violent relationship. Paid domestic violence leave is a necessary precondition, a bare minimum, for us to thrive as a community and as a society. If we are going to do something about those terrible statistics—one woman killed every 10 days—then we need to enable them to escape violent situations.

A report authored by feminist trailblazer and researcher Dr Anne Summers, titled concisely The choice: violence or poverty, provides some stark statistics. Of the 275,000 women who suffered physical or sexual violence from their current partner each year, 81,700 had returned. On average, it takes a woman seven goes before she successfully leaves. Financial insecurity is an enormous factor constraining women's choices, forcing them to remain in or return to dangerous relationships. Indeed, in Dr Summers's report, she writes that 25 per cent of the further 90,000 women who wanted to leave but didn't stated explicitly that lack of financial support and independence was the primary reason they were unable to leave.

We know that staying in an abusive situation, not by choice in any meaningful sense of the word but out of necessity, can have very real and horrifying consequences. Violence often escalates over time. Women who do not leave also face a social stigma that can further isolate them from family, friends and other supports. According to a 2017 survey of community attitudes towards violence against women that is included in Dr Summers's report, 32 per cent of respondents believe that a woman who does not leave her partner is partly responsible for the abuse. That is horrifying—that the victim would be held responsible for their own abuse. That is why legislation and policy initiatives like this are so important: to give women choices—real choices. The financial support provided through the passing of this legislation is one step towards supporting people to safely leave abusive relationships while enabling them to retain some sense of financial stability.

It's an absolute core Labor value that all Australians have the right to be safe at work, and this bill is a recognition that that crucial notion does not go far enough. We must ensure that a worker never has to choose between their safety and their income, and it's truly unacceptable that millions of workers in Australia, from all sorts of industries and all walks of life, still face this cruel choice. We must be absolutely clear about this. Protection of only some workers is not enough; we must protect all.

Some opposite have argued that this bill should exclude casual workers—and keep in mind that casual and part-time workers are already by definition in insecure, piecemeal or unstable work, and they are more likely to already be in a financially precarious situation. We know that the casualisation of the workforce affects women more than men. Women are also often working in the lower-paid caring professions. Dr Summers's report states that 30 per cent of those women who experienced domestic or family violence were in part-time or casual work, so they already face enormous challenges in building up the kind of financial independence they need to leave abusive partners. Excluding casuals altogether would leave 2.6 million employees, 22.8 per cent of all employees, without this vital protection. Those most financially vulnerable would be left without this option. Do those opposite really not think that these women deserve or require paid domestic leave? We know that they exist.

The government has consulted widely on this bill. The new entitlement for 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave will start on 1 February 2023 for businesses other than small businesses. Small businesses, those with fewer than 15 employees, will have an extra six months, until 1 August, in recognition of the limited HR capabilities in some small businesses.

I look forward to the day when that statistic of one woman murdered every 10 days is a distant memory. I look forward to the day when girls growing up in Australia don't face the possibility that they might become one of the 25 per cent of all women assaulted by an intimate partner, and when this is not the lived experience of so many of our sisters, mothers, daughters, friends, work colleagues and, indeed, ourselves. This bill is a step towards ending domestic and family violence.

I'd also like to knowledge that we've had the murder of a woman in Boothby in the last week, 51-year-old Louise Hughes. She was a mother of two and, I believe, a grandmother, who worked in real estate in a local area. A neighbour has been arrested. I'd like to offer my condolences to her family, friends and work colleagues for this absolutely shocking event in their lives, and my deep sorrow about the death of this woman.

10:31 am

Photo of Pat ConaghanPat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | | Hansard source

I'd like to start by thanking the member for Boothby for her contribution in this place and also for the work that you've done outside of this place before coming here.

I was born lucky; I was born into a stable, loving family. But I recognise that many are not, and that's why I support the principle and the intention of the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family And Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. Family and domestic violence are an unacceptable scourge on our society, and I spoke about it during my maiden speech. I did so because of my background as a police officer and a police prosecutor for some 12 years, where I personally witnessed the impact of family and domestic violence on many, many people, particularly in our regional and rural communities. And I've seen the devastating and long-lasting impacts that domestic violence carries, not just on the victims but also on the wider families and communities.

Only recently, in my role as shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence, I spoke with a police officer in one of my local towns. I won't mention the town. He said the No. 1 crime issue—and it's a reasonably large town—is domestic violence. It's not graffiti. It's not theft. It's domestic violence. That in 2022 we're still facing those statistics is disappointing and a reflection of the failures of not just one government but successive governments over many, many years. To that point, this very bill and this very issue should be above politics. We should all be working together to rid our communities of this. And that's exactly why I do support this bill. I support the 10 days of leave. I will talk about the impact on business communities, but in no way—and I want to be very, very clear—do I wish to exclude any workers, including casuals. I do suggest that further work needs to be done, perhaps by a committee, referred through the Senate. But, again, I want to be clear that I support this legislation completely.

Every person in Australia deserves to feel safe within their home. Every man, woman and child deserves to feel protected and supported, should an incident of violence unfortunately be thrust upon them. With that support comes the continued ability for those victimised to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head. I don't believe that anyone in this room or anyone in this parliament would not share in that very fundamental belief.

We should consider not just the impact on those families but also the impact on the communities, the cost to the communities, the pressure on our health system, the pressure on our hospital systems and the impact on our economy. So, if not just to get rid of this scourge and get it out of our community because it is the right thing to do for our victims, we should also consider the impact on productivity in our economy. So the provision of 10 days leave to those experiencing violence at home isn't a lot to ask to protect our vulnerable, particularly women and children—and with that I absolutely agree.

The potential side effect of incidents of family violence being reported in higher numbers as a result of this initiative, of the work that has been done over the past years, is important and a huge step in the right direction, because we need to know the true figures. We need to know the true figures to be able to effectively address them. Fortunately, inroads have been made over recent years, where we are talking about domestic violence and bringing it to the forefront. I heard a speaker earlier refer to a comment by somebody that these conversations should be held behind closed doors. Absolutely not. They should be held out in the public, open, for three reasons: one, to raise awareness; two, to recognise and shame those perpetrators into accepting their conduct; and, three, to break that cycle. Whether it starts with education in schools, education in sporting clubs or education at university, we have to break that cycle. But, until we do, legislation such as this is paramount because we have to protect people.

We have heard all of the comments from the members who have contributed about giving security to workers during that stressful time. I can't imagine it. As I said, I was born lucky. I owned a business for 16 years and employed many people and found some of my employees in this very position. I think all small-business owners, treat their employees like family and, in circumstances where you see someone suffering from domestic violence, you want to help. It is ingrained in most people that they want to help. Under the circumstances that I faced, it was a no-brainer: 'Don't worry about putting leave in; take some time and get the help you need.' But at times employers, including myself, feel helpless because they can't do enough. Through this legislation, we can give the person the time to be able to go and seek that help. Employers are not experts in support services, but providing that financial support through this is a step in the right direction.

I have raised the concerns of some small businesses. I'm not talking about big business. Big business can afford to pay for this. Some small businesses have raised with me the cost and the impact to them. I note that the Fair Work Commission made certain recommendations. This bill has taken it further—in particular, to casual employees. As I have said, I'm not saying, 'Don't give this leave to casual employees.' I have no answers. I'm not pretending that I have the answer for this. But I think further consideration should be given to casual employees. That's the first issue.

The second issue is the rate of pay. The original set of Fair Work Commission recommendations took these concerns into account. The Fair Work Commission originally recommended the base rate of pay, in order to remain consistent with the NES paid leave entitlements as they currently stand, in order to remove a layer of complexities for the employer. Essentially the recommendation was that the leave be paid at the same rate as personal or carers leave is currently paid at. I haven't had one small-business owner or employer say, 'I'm not happy to pay this out.' They're all there to support it. This is coming at a time when the cost of living and the pressures of business are at a peak, for many reasons. Employers are just concerned about their financial circumstances, as they are about those of the person facing a very serious domestic violence situation. Again, I fully support this. I want to see it passed. What I don't want to see is small businesses—mums, dads, young people trying to get ahead in business—fail because of a cost implication because of the legislation.

I go back to my maiden speech, where I talked about the ugliness of domestic violence. This is a step in the right direction. I will work with my colleagues—and I say 'colleagues'—Labor and the crossbench and anyone else who is willing to work towards eradicating this from our society. It starts with leadership, both at a government level and in the community. I think, once the community see the leadership, see that government are making that real, concerted effort, then they will join us. They will not say: 'It's just lip-service from government. We haven't seen anything over the years.' I think, once they see that, once they see the honesty behind it, and the bipartisanship, then we will be on the road to recovery.

10:43 am

Photo of Peta MurphyPeta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I am very pleased to follow that incredibly thoughtful and honest contribution from the member for Cowper. He and I share some similarities in our pre-parliamentary careers. With a long history of working in the criminal justice system as a solicitor and a barrister, particularly as a legal aid barrister, I've represented victims, perpetrators, men, women and children. It is impossible to have had that job and to have been involved with the people who have suffered domestic violence or perhaps have committed it because they were brought up in a family or a community where that was the attitude and the behaviours that they were taught, and to have met children who have been exposed to domestic violence, and not understand that this is a complex, difficult but fundamentally crucial issue that we all have to work together to solve. So thank you for that contribution.

The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022, as many people have said, is an important step forward in trying to deal with the consequences of domestic violence, particularly for women. It is the culmination of a 10-year campaign. The first time an enterprise agreement included 10 days paid domestic violence leave was in my state, Victoria, on the Surf Coast, with the agreement between the council and the Australian Services Union, when the current member for Corangamite was the mayor of that council. That was 10 years ago. This is an important reform, and it should be a proud moment for the government and for those who aren't in the government but support this legislation in this House and in the upper house. But it should also be a time for all of us to reflect on the fact that it's taken 10 years, and in those 10 years the need for paid domestic violence leave has grown, not diminished.

Despite genuine effort from state and federal governments, Labor and Liberal, over many years, we have not been able to address violence in relationships and violence in the community—violence predominantly perpetrated by men against the women and the children that they purport to, and in many cases do, love. It's just a fact that this is an issue that continues to cause devastation across communities and we haven't been able to address it, despite genuine efforts. I agree with the member for Cowper that the community want to know that more is happening than words. I don't think that any of the words of any of us in this place, no matter what our political party or Independent status is, are simply platitudes. I genuinely believe they come from deeply held beliefs and a deeply held desire to address this issue. But we can't keep talking about it and not find solutions.

In my opinion, informed significantly by my decade and a half of experience working in the criminal justice system, we can't continue to focus on assisting people only once they're in the position of having experienced domestic violence, and we can't continue to focus only on punishing people who have perpetrated domestic violence, if we want to actually crack this cycle. Both of those measures are very important, and this legislation is very important to that first measure of assisting people who have experienced and been subjected to domestic violence to be able to do what they need to do to secure their and their children's safety without also having to lose work and income. They are both incredibly important things to do, but we also have to do more to prevent it happening in the first place. We have to change the culture that exists, which allows the continuation of attitudes in this country that are based on outdated gender stereotypes, perpetuate gender inequality and somehow turn a blind eye to violence. The experts tell us, and have been telling us for a long time, that the driving factor causing this ongoing scourge of domestic violence is gender inequality and outdated, entrenched gender stereotypes.

So, whilst we must do everything we can to assist people to get out of situations of domestic violence—which includes non-physical violence such as financial or other coercion—and make sure that people who engage in those unacceptable behaviours are punished for them and held to account, we also have to do more to do more to make sure that the perpetrators can break their personal cycle of perpetrating and get out of the cycle of reoffending, or that it doesn't start in the first place.

Nothing I'm saying is particularly surprising or innovative—it's what we have known for some time. People who work across the system—social workers, counsellors, police officers, lawyers—tell us this. We can't keep treating the symptoms and the consequences; we also have to address the causes. Many state governments, particularly my state government in Victoria, have acknowledged the link between gender inequality and outdated gender stereotypes and domestic and family violence. In Victoria there is a Gender Equality Strategy to address it. We know that we need to invest more in prevention, as the member for Cowper and other people have said, through education—respectful relationship education, starting with really young children.

We need gender equality, starting with very young children, making sure that the way we used to see ourselves perhaps a generation ago in Australia, where men were tough and played footy and drank beer while women were pretty and wore bikinis and were good at cooking, is not what young people see as the role of men and women only. Young people in our communities and families know that to be a man you can be sensitive, vulnerable, supportive and kind. To be a woman you can be strong, assertive and successful in whatever endeavour one takes on—or vice versa. The old gender stereotypes where the man is the head of the house and the woman is subservient—believe it or not—still exist in too many parts of our society, and we have to do more to make sure that children aren't shackled by those stereotypes, that they are free to be who they want to be and to be equal.

We also have to keep on the path that this government has started—and there was some work done by the previous government—for economic security and equality for women. One of the reasons it's so important to have paid domestic violence leave is because of the fact that so many women say they don't leave because of the financial consequences of leaving. That's because they often work in highly feminised industries, which are the lowest-paid industries in the country. They often have significant periods out of the workforce, so their superannuation balances are significantly lower than men's. They may not have equity in a home. They have responsibilities, particularly if they take the children with them, for child care. That's another gender stereotype that we can do more about in a public policy sense to help with the culture in this country; give men more opportunities to be carers for their children and women the more opportunities to go to work. Again, that goes towards gender equality.

We have to keep working in that field. We also have to continue to invest in services for perpetrators to prevent reoffending. For most people there's an instinctive thought of: 'What? Why would we support perpetrators?' I absolutely understand that, but unless we have programs that we know will work, that are evaluated and that are successful in helping men learn how not to reoffend, to change their behaviours and to change their attitudes, then we aren't going to stop those individual cycles of offending, and it's going to be much harder to stop the macro-cycle of offending. Until we are able to do that, and move towards a society where, for example, if the local hero of the footy team is also up before the courts for domestic violence, the club says: 'We don't support you. We actually hold you accountable for that behaviour,' and until things like that are commonplace, we have to keep supporting victims.

In my community in Dunkley, in Frankston, we have higher than average instances of domestic violence, so we do need to keep supporting the people who are the victims. One of the things I am very pleased about, as a result of the election of the Albanese Labor government, is that there will be seven new support workers for domestic violence victims provided to my community. That will be very important. I'm also keen to make sure that children who have experienced or witnessed domestic violence are given the supports and counselling they need to ensure that the experience doesn't predispose them to falling into the cycle of being either a victim or a perpetrator when they are an adult, because we know there is that cycle. So support for children is incredibly important alongside that education.

I am very much looking forward to the next three years in government, to being a part of working on gender equality in sport, in work and at home, because it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for men and for women. It opens up opportunities that are either legally or—in many cases still—culturally not available to both men and women. It's good for productivity, it's good for the economy and it's also a really important plank in dealing with things like domestic violence, which so many people have said for so long is intolerable and we must address. I look forward to the day that we don't have to say that anymore because we have been successful in changing culture, behaviour and attitudes in this country. I commend this bill as a very important step in that direction.

10:56 am

Photo of Adam BandtAdam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 is an important bill from the government, and the Greens support it. The Greens have long advocated for paid family and domestic violence leave to help victims-survivors, who are predominantly women, to escape abusive relationships, to protect themselves and their children and to rebuild their lives. We've previously brought legislation before this parliament to give effect to paid family and domestic violence leave, and, as long-time advocates for this position, we support the government's bill today.

I want to offer a few brief remarks and note that we'll be making further contributions in the Senate. Our leader in the Senate, Senator Larissa Waters, who has long fought for this reform, will not only give a more extensive contribution but will suggest ways in which this bill could be improved, consistent with the intent of the bill but to make it available more broadly and more effective. We hope, when it comes to the Senate, the government will consider the changes that the Greens think would help improve this very important bill so that it can be passed and improved.

Financial stability and stable employment are critical: critical to a victim-survivor's capacity to escape, to stay safe and to recover. There has been an inquiry into this important bill, and one thing that came through very clearly, from many people who submitted to the inquiry, is that the practicalities of leaving have to be understood and have to be understood by this parliament—finding a new home, moving, meetings with police and lawyers, court appearances, dealing with Centrelink, attending medical appointments, talking to your children's school about new arrangements, installing security devices, closing joint accounts. All of these are very practical and critical things that a victim-survivor will have to deal with. They not only take time; they need a secure income. These are things that require a level of stability, which includes financial stability, otherwise they are very real barriers to victims-survivors leaving abusive relationships and protecting themselves and often their children as well.

The member for Dunkley made this point very eloquently. We have a gender pay gap in our society and the industries that tend to be lower paid and also tend to be women dominated industries, where many women are working, and we are seeing that in our renewed focus on that, which is very welcome, but understanding that many of the care professions are the lower paid industries and they are the areas you tend to find women more than men. Women are often starting from a lower base anyway, with lower incomes, lower savings and, often, lower retirement savings. If one compounds that with an understanding that in many abusive relationships there may well also be an element of financial control, which may form part of the abuse, we start to understand as a parliament and a society why it is so critical to ensure women, victims-survivors, can flee abusive relationships and protect themselves and their children and have the financial security and stability to do so.

No-one should have to choose between their safety and their job. In one of the hearings during the inquiry into this bill, Professor Kate Fitzgibbon quoted from a participant in Monash's 2021 research into paid family and domestic violence leave. One participant said: 'If I didn't have access to paid leave, I would have lost my job. I would have lost everything. I don't know if I would have survived. It was my lifeline.' So it's not only critical to support that process of leaving an abusive relationship, it is also critical in maintaining that ongoing connection with employment. It's absolutely vital for everyone, but it's especially vital for victims-survivors of abuse. It is, in many respects, as that person recounting their experience said, it is a lifeline, in a literal sense—an economic lifeline but also a very real lifeline.

Another thing that became clear during the committee inquiry is that, when a victim-survivor is forced to use unpaid leave to do the things that are needed to prepare for escape, that change in income could be a flag to an abuser. It could put a victim-survivor at further risk. As was made clear in the inquiry, payslips showing a lower income over a fortnight not only could be a flag but could have further flow-on consequences. When you seek assistance or seek to do a new thing in your life, something that is often asked of you is to show your payslips from the last period of time to show that you've got some security of income. If you've got a payslip showing a lower income over a fortnight because you've had to take unpaid leave, that could jeopardise applications for housing and eligibility for government support programs or even change the basis of an assessment for Centrelink support. That's another reason why this reform is critical. It adds to the stability and the foundation that allows victims-survivors to prepare for and take the next step. Not having it could be a barrier to being able to take that next step.

While the exact needs of victims-survivors will differ between situations, those needs will not be determined by the nature of their work or how long they've been with an employer. Therefore, the Greens strongly support ensuring that all employees, whether full time, part time or casual, can access the full 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave when needed rather than have the entitlement accrue over time. As Ms Lang of the Australian Services Union told the committee inquiring into the bill:

… we have never seen a circumstance where a perpetrator of violence has pro-rataed the amount of violence they inflict on their partner based on how many hours she works.

Any employee dealing with family and domestic violence needs to be able to access paid leave when the need, or opportunity, to escape arises. Experience in jurisdictions and businesses that have introduced paid family and domestic violence leave indicates that the uptake of leave is minimal, but knowing it's available makes a huge difference to employees weighing up the decision to escape violence. Access to this leave could save their life.

For that reason, the Greens support this important reform from the government. It is one that we have long advocated for. As I said at the start of my submissions, when this bill, hopefully, passes this House—and passes this House soon—and reaches the Senate, the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Greens spokesperson for women, Senator Larissa Waters, will not only be supporting this bill but suggesting to the government ways in which the bill could be strengthened. We hope the government will look at those in the spirit in which they're offered.

11:06 am

Photo of Sharon ClaydonSharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

ON (—) (): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. I am incredibly proud to be supporting this bill in the Australian parliament. This bill will deliver on Labor's election commitment to provide employees with access to 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave per 12-month period under the Fair Work Act 2009. This important measure will start on 1 February 2023, providing critical support to those in need. Importantly, there will be a period of additional time to allow for small businesses to put in place processes. But from August 2023 all employees—regardless of whether they are employed in small, medium or big business and regardless of whether they're employed on a full-time, part-time or casual basis—will be able to access paid family and domestic violence leave. This will mean that more than 11 million Australians will now be eligible for this entitlement. We should all stand proud of this moment in the Australian parliament.

I sincerely hope, of course, that very few people have to actually take up this leave. But the introduction of this new law will make a profound difference for those who need to access family and domestic violence leave. It will help them, whether that is to escape violence, to relocate, to enrol kids in new schools, to make appointments with real estate agents to find new and safe modes of housing, to make police reports or to seek counsel. There are so many issues that need to be attended to as a result of leaving a violent relationship. This is an important entitlement. It will be embedded in our National Employment Standards. While we hope that the take-up rate is low, it is important that Australians can access paid family and domestic violence leave when they need it. Whether it's to escape violence or to deal with the fact that you have a violent partner continuing to live in your household, everybody needs to be able to access this important safety net.

It is disappointing to hear some on the opposite benches raise concerns about the application of these new leave entitlements to casual workers, as if this is somehow a problem. As I said, there is nothing about family and domestic violence that suggests a business-as-usual approach is going to suffice. These are not ordinary circumstances, and shame on us the day that we ever think violence against women and children is an ordinary circumstance that we simply have to continue with contend with. Nobody on this side of the House—in fact, I suspect nobody in this parliament—would agree with such a statement.

Domestic and family violence doesn't discriminate who it affects. Whether you are a casual worker, a part-time worker or a full-time worker, escaping family and domestic violence shouldn't leave you having to choose between paid employment and safety for you and your children. According to the results of the 2016 ABS Personal Safety Survey, women are more likely to take time off after experiencing violence by their current or previous partner. The cumulative impact on those experiencing family and domestic violence meant that they often quickly exhaust their leave entitlements, such as their annual or personal leave. This is especially so for casual employees, who already experience insecure work and, typically, do not have other leave entitlements to draw on.

The community, of course, has been calling for paid family and domestic violence leave for many years. The Business Council of Australia supports this work, as do women's legal services and other family and domestic violence support services. Those working on the frontline know the difference it can make. The Australian Council of Trade Unions have been campaigning for this measure for more than a decade.

Last July, I joined a rally of incredible women's safety advocates on the front lawns of Parliament House to remember those women we have lost, who have been killed by acts of violence, and those who are still trapped in violent homes. We joined together not just to commemorate and pay tribute to those women but also to mark the introduction of this historic piece of legislation. As Michele O'Neil, the president of the ACTU, said at that rally: 'It isn't something that began yesterday; this is a decade of struggle, a decade of campaigning, workplace by workplace.'

As we walked back to this House from that rally with my dear friend and colleague the Member for Sydney, we reminisced about those first meetings that we took with union delegates and officials, survivors and researchers, all of whom knew the impact this policy would have. While we met with constant opposition from the former coalition government on these laws, I am so very heartened that it was during the very first parliamentary sitting week of the Albanese Labor government that this bill was introduced.

Report after report revealed the devastating and endemic nature of domestic violence in our nation. Just last month, a report from the Paul Ramsay Foundation, authored by Anne Summers, revealed that 60 per cent of single mothers have experienced domestic violence. The same report also set out the immense financial challenges that women face when leaving violent homes. This reflected what I hear in my electorate of Newcastle from our women's groups and from the women who have survived violent relationships, those who were brave and courageous to take the step to leave and have gone on to lead safe lives for themselves and their children now. A few years ago I a met with a single mom who really highlighted this fact to me as her local federal member. She shared with me her experience as a mother of young kids escaping a horrific and violent relationship. She wanted a new and safe life for her and her children. She shared her story to demonstrate to me just how incredibly difficult it is to navigate all of the processes that are required to be followed if you want to secure a safe life for your children. What became most apparent was that, throughout that process, she needed to maintain economic security in her life. She needed to know that she had a steady income coming in to support herself and her children when making this brave move, and I say 'brave' because we know that, when you make that choice to leave a violent relationship, it is your most dangerous time. That is when you are most at risk.

This woman took that courageous step and shared with me her story of the challenges of navigating through multiple agencies and bureaucracies to establish a new life and the fact that she needed to maintain a steady job whilst doing so. She had used all of her personal and annual leave and found it almost impossible to get to all of the appointments that, as I said, are necessary to try and find new housing, to get your kids into a new school, to make appointments with the police to do those reports and to get access to good legal counsel—all of which she needed to do without risking her job and her economic security. She is not alone, and that is why it is crucial that Labor introduce this bill to cover all workers. Women escaping violence with their children should not be even further disadvantaged simply because they are a casual worker. That would be an appalling situation to leave our nation in, and we know that women are far more likely to be in casual work than men. This bill gives all workers the time, support and job security they will need to escape and rebuild their lives after leaving an abusive relationship.

The mood at the family and domestic violence rally last July that I referred to differed vastly from when I was on those same lawns in front of Parliament House last March alongside thousands of Australian women calling for an end to violence against women and children, demanding safety, and demanding justice and equality from the previous government. Unfortunately, that message fell on deaf ears, and we all know how demoralised those women felt when the Prime Minister refused to meet with them. But, as I said, the mood on those front lawns was vastly different. To begin with, our new Prime Minister actually attended the rally in person. He addressed the vigil. He paid tribute to the women and the union movement who helped shape this policy and ensured that these laws became a lived reality in Australia. It's a fight that is more than a decade old in this nation now.

There was a very powerful sense of hope at that rally and an understanding that, finally, after what has been a very long decade, we have a government that genuinely cares about women's economic security when they are trying to escape family and domestic violence. We will make use of all the levers that are available to government to curb domestic violence. We are a government for whom this is a first priority issue. We know that making provisions to ensure 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave is just the first step towards an Australia that is safer for women in their homes, in their workplaces and in their lives.

Leaving a violent relationship will, of course, still be very hard, and I pay tribute to every woman who has been able to make that decision. This bill will ensure that making that decision to leave a violent relationship is less likely to leave you jobless or without economic security, and this bill shows that family and domestic violence is not just a criminal and social justice issue; it is also a workplace and economic issue. It is important for the productivity of this nation for these matters to be addressed. Ten days paid family and domestic violence leave will save women's lives. That is a big statement but one that should embolden us all to ensure the carriage of this legislation.

This win, of course, would not have happened without the decade-long struggle of many unions, many union members and devoted campaigners. I pay tribute to Natalie Lang of the Australian Services Union, who has long led the charge. For the last decade she has brought delegates and her members with lived experience here to talk to politicians on all sides of the fence about these issues. I recall those stories. Those stories have always sat very closely with me and remained in my heart, with the hope that one day I would be able to stand in this parliament and deliver some good news: that we as a nation are finally mature enough to ensure that we will never, ever put women and kids in a situation where they have to choose between staying with a violent perpetrator in their home or having a job and economic security.

This bill will not in itself solve the problem of family and domestic violence, but it does mean that no-one will ever again be forced to make that decision between earning a wage and protecting the safety of themselves and their children. This is a proud moment for the Australian parliament, and I ask all members to support this bill.

11:21 am

Photo of David GillespieDavid Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 is really a seminal event in the process of legislation in this parliament. It will be a marker point. There is no doubt about that. I rise in general support of this initiative. But there are some things that people are not brave enough to say, including that it's not going to be the same for everyone. There are some glaring things that need to be fixed up with this bill. At the risk of being accused of trying to kill Bambi, I would just like to point out a few inequities in what is proposed. There are inequities in the situation for small businesses and microbusinesses and for women who are facing domestic violence who aren't in full-time or casual employment. They don't get the same sort of help because of their situation. Many of them would like to work, but they're not covered. There are 700,000 people running a small business or a microbusiness. If they are a sole trader, are they going to pay themselves their own family and domestic violence leave?

Some small businesses have told me they support the concept that people facing family and domestic violence, whether they're female—most of the time—or male, should have some way of being financially supported to get their life and their kids and everything sorted out. No-one's arguing against that, but why is it on the employer, particularly small businesses? If you're BHP, a big corporate firm or a government employer, sure, you have hundreds or thousands of employees, and this is just a blip. But, for a lot of my small businesses, where they have one, two or three people, it's a big ask on the business, and they are all under pressure. As for the microbusinesses, as I said, if the person is a one-woman or one-man business, and they have to pay themselves, there's no real advancement. So I am proposing that this should be approached like parental leave. The Commonwealth pays the parental leave if someone is in a situation where they're employed and they can't go to work and they can't be paid. In the last parliament, we did introduce five days unpaid leave into the National Employment Standards.

The other thing is that, with this bill, a lot of employers are very worried that, if they are approving and paying 10 days leave for one of their employees because of family and domestic violence but they haven't reported it to the police, they will be dragged into some liability if something really bad happens. There are processes where, if you have concerns for the wellbeing and welfare of individuals you don't know or if, say, your neighbour's having domestic violence, you can ring the police and let them know that you have concerns for the safety and welfare of your neighbour. If an employer is now awarding leave to an employee facing domestic violence but that employee doesn't report it to the police or get an apprehended violence order put against the person or have them charged with criminal behaviour, and the employer hasn't done a co-notification, where are they left?

All these questions are being asked by lots of my small businesses. Paradoxically, it might make some potential employees have a silent counterinitiative that will make them less likely to be employed by some employers. All these things need to be thought through. If we rush through things in this House too quickly and we haven't thought through all the consequences, we may not be getting the outcome we want.

So that is my call to support this bill. We need to look at who's paying for it all the time. There are 700,000 sole traders alone. In my area, I have about 10,000 small businesses with one, two or three people in them, and this will be another impost on businesses which are already struggling. Really I think this should be like Medicare or unemployment benefits if it's a societal thing. The Deputy Speaker just said, 'The nation is now caring for you,' but hang on. It's not the nation; it's employers caring for you and helping you in the situation of domestic violence. We can't keep piling more and more obligations on employers. Those are my thoughts on this bill. I commend the intent of it to the House.

11:27 am

Photo of Justine ElliotJustine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. I am very proud to be able to speak of what is indeed a very historic bill, because this bill, very importantly, sets out 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave as a minimum employment standard. In fact, the government values this initiative so much that we introduced this in the first week of this new parliament. This bill also sends a very strong message that women's safety and gender equity are a national priority and that these issues are at the forefront of the Albanese Labor government's agenda.

Of course, the fact is that no woman should live in fear of abuse and in fear of her current or former partner. When we look at those statistics, we know one woman is killed by a current or former partner every 10 days. That figure is devastatingly high. Of course, every life lost due to family and domestic violence is a heartbreaking reminder to everyone of the reality that confronts us all. As a former frontline police officer, I have seen firsthand the horror, the tragedy and the reality of family and domestic violence. I have stood in the middle of the night in the kitchens or lounge rooms of many homes, in the middle of domestic violence situations, and I have seen the trauma and terror of those victims—those women and children—and the complexities involved and the difficulties they have in leaving.

Each and every woman has a right to be safe—to be safe at home, to be safe on the street and to be safe at work. The fact is, we cannot fail to act. That's why our government's commitment to enshrine 10 days of family and domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards is so incredibly important. We know this entitlement will save lives.

This bill sets out the 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave as a minimum employment standard for all. The reason that it's for all is that when we look at the situation with many casual employees they typically do not have access to paid leave. The fact is, women who are experiencing or who have experienced family and domestic violence often have a more disrupted work history and are therefore more likely to be employed in casual work. That's why this bill, vitally, will cover the 2.6 million casual workers throughout the nation. This bill also captures the evolving living styles of Australian households by covering abuse in intimate relationships whether or not those partners may cohabitate. In addition, these 10 days will provided upfront, meaning that, regardless of where you are in your employment, you will be given full access to the entitlement should you need it. Safety should not depend on someone's employer or the place that they work. This bill ensures that no one is forced to choose between staying safe and getting by and being employed.

We know that access to reliable income has been proven to be one of the most significant determining factors in the decision to leave a violent relationship. Financial stress is a significant barrier to the safety of a woman experiencing family and domestic violence. Employment is an important pathway because these women cannot risk joblessness, homelessness and poverty, which we all know are some of the many barriers in terms of getting out of these violent relationships. We also know that when it comes to systems of abuse, such as coercive control, the abuser may restrict a person's economic and financial resources. A measure such as the 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave will help to break down those barriers to getting out.

The fact is also that women, when looking to leave an abusive situation, incur a huge amount of cost. They need access to those funds and there's so much they have to arrange in order for that to occur, such as seeking safe emergency housing, securing a long-term place to live for themselves and their children, being able to travel to safe locations, being able to attend medical appointments, accessing legal advice, accessing police, attending court hearings, and providing for their dependants. A lot of time is spent organising alternative child care or alternative education arrangements, and re-engaging with those very important support networks that they may not have been able to engage with before. There's a vast array of issues that women have to pursue in terms of being able to leave those relationships.

In addition, the 10 days are an important tool to enable victim-survivors to access those key services that are primarily open during business hours. Without the ability to take the appropriate leave, we can have a situation where women may be faced with the choice between accessing the support services and trying to maintain their employment. By having the certainty of the pay, we're able to lessen the disruption, particularly on the lives of dependants, on income and on that woman's employment status.

Family and domestic violence is an issue on a number of fronts—criminal, social, and economic—and it is an industrial issue in the workplace. This is for a number of reasons. Family and domestic violence is a workplace issue because it is brought into the workplace and impacts significantly a woman's ability to attend or participate at work. The economic impact of family and domestic violence in the workplace is significant, with workplace productivity substantially reduced due to absenteeism, the need for subsequent retraining and the cost of recruitment to replace departed staff. In fact, family and domestic violence is estimated to cost the economy between $12.6 billion and $22 billion per year.

Family and domestic violence is a workplace issue because financial stability and employment are absolutely crucial both to enabling a woman to actually leave the violent relationship and, importantly, enabling her to recover and rebuild. The Fair Work Commission's 2021 review into family and domestic violence leave reveals just how much family and domestic violence leave affects a woman's access to work, her prospects of career progression and the ability to maintain, or gain, financial independence. This bill means that victims-survivors are better placed to continue their employment and not have those major gaps.

Family and domestic violence is also a workplace issue because of the role the workplace has in shaping society's response to gendered violence. If businesses have an obligation to provide the 10 days paid leave, what comes with that obligation is enabling and supporting policies. These policies start conversations in the workplace that help to change behaviour. Conversations make employees more cognisant of the issue and make our community more cognisant of the issue and also more cognisant of the telltale signs that somebody might actually need help. I also want to assure the business community that we're introducing this legislation with consideration of the system changes that businesses will have to administer. Most businesses will have around six months to implement the new entitlements, and small businesses will be afforded a further six months. The phasing-in ensures that the entitlements are understood by everyone in the workplace, and that's vitally important. I do want to thank and acknowledge the businesses and employers who are already providing the support and who have worked hard to support their employees who are experiencing family and domestic violence.

This bill to amend the Fair Work Act in terms of the 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave is another really clear commitment by our government. It sends a very strong message that this is a national priority. Proper industrial relations laws like this bill help to reduce the overall gender pay gap and increase women's economic security and their safety. We know that this bill must work in conjunction with other reforms to bring about real structural change. We have a mandate to ensure that supports are in place for those who need help to flee those situations and to bring about long-term transformation. That's why we're making a record $3 billion investment to end violence against women and children. In order to reduce violence against women and children, we need to have more national conversations around respect. We also need to make sure that those conversations are started early with young people, so our government is investing $77 million in consent and respectful relationships education for school students. We know that early intervention and primary prevention will help to change some entrenched attitudes and behaviours. All of this then leads to breaking the cycle of violence. It's so important that we engage with young people.

The Albanese Labor government will also deliver $1.3 billion to implement the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This plan will deliver a strong and evidence based approach to meet the needs of anyone who is experiencing gender based violence. This implementation of the plan will be overseen by our new Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Commissioner, who will be working with the states and territories in terms of coordinating their responses. Very importantly, the commissioner's role is really to amplify the voices of victims-survivors. Having the commission and the commissioner in place again shows the commitment that this government has in terms of its proactive actions to end violence against women and children and shows how vitally important that is.

We know, of course, that housing is a major issue for women fleeing domestic violence, so, in addition to the measures I have outlined, our government will make a major investment of $1.6 billion to build more social housing properties for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence. Very importantly, the government will invest $100 million towards crisis and transitional accommodation. Both of these aspects are vitally important. Accessing emergency accommodation—having somewhere to go—is so important, but the long-term arrangements in terms of the housing situation are also important.

We know that the pandemic and the rising cost of living means that the fight to end violence against women has never been more important. That's why we're also investing $157 million to fund 500 additional community sector workers to support women in crisis. This is a commitment we made prior to the election and we will be delivering, and are delivering, on that commitment. And I would like to acknowledge and thank all of those community sector workers who do an outstanding job dealing with the complexities and challenges of those women who are fleeing domestic violence. That's why we are committing to 500 more, because we know these services are needed right across the country in so many areas. A large proportion of that commitment is in rural and regional areas, where it is often a lot more difficult to access those services. What it will mean is more case managers, more financial counsellors and more children-support workers nationwide. We're making sure that full suite of support is there for both women and children.

We know that family and domestic violence continues to present a huge challenge right across the nation. It means, sadly, that home often becomes one of the most dangerous places for women. These issues—women's safety, women's economic security and gender equity—concern us all, as individuals, as communities and as governments. We need to keep building on the work that we're doing, and this bill really does that by enshrining those 10 days of paid and family domestic violence leave. It is a response to a decade of action, where we've heard from so many people: the victims-survivors, the frontline workers—particularly the union movement, who've been advocating for so long—the various other community advocates and, of course, many, many of my parliamentary colleagues who have been fighting hard for this issue. The member for Newcastle, in her contribution, referred to the rally that we had in July on the front lawns of parliament, where we made it clear we would introduce this legislation and really acknowledged the people who had fought so hard for this.

Labor listens and Labor acts. That's why we're delivering on this. I'm very pleased to be supporting this bill, from a number of perspectives—of course as the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence but also as a former frontline police officer, having spent many years attending literally hundreds of domestic violence situations and hearing firsthand from many women about what was needed for them in terms of being able to flee those relationships. So it's been an area that I've always had a strong interest in. I commend this bill, as a very proud member of the Albanese Labor government, because we are a government that is committed to ending violence against women and children. We were very proud that this bill was introduced in the first week of this new government. It shows that this is a national priority, and we will build upon that work. I commend the bill to the House.

11:42 am

Photo of Zali SteggallZali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise today with a hopeful optimism that one of Australia's most pressing social issues may see the implementation of strengthened support mechanisms. I commend the government for its bill to legislate 10 days of paid domestic violence leave, the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. This will be a clear step in improving the systems of support for women and families escaping violent situations. It's a good first step that will help survivors of violence undertake the immense change and recalibration that is endured when leaving an abusive partner.

I feel compelled, though, to illustrate how much more is needed to combat this epidemic. While 10 days of paid domestic violence leave is a good systemic improvement, we simply cannot stop there. We must be prepared to adequately tackle the issue of family and domestic violence at a national level. It means taking steps that we have not yet taken. This means adequately investing in prevention and solutions. This means we must keep working until we see meaningful change. This issue is too important. It is an absolute scourge on our society.

In consultation with survivors and stakeholders in my community, the consensus is clear: the bill is good, but it is ultimately a drop in the ocean for what we need to do to eradicate domestic violence. Leaving a violent situation at home is a mammoth endeavour that extends so much further than merely walking out the door. Those I have spoken with detail horrific experiences of continued adaptable abuse that often takes many years and extensive legal proceedings to separate from. Having spent many years in the family law courts as a family law barrister, I can attest to those experiences. Relationships that are physically abusive can continue after a survivor has left, in the forms of coercive control, character assassination, financial and legal abuse. We need stronger national definitions of these forms of violence. We need to ensure that the Australian public is educated and aware of the many forms that violence and abuse can take. We need to ensure that existing support systems are better resourced and we need to improve ease of access to these frontline support services. Leaving a violent relationship can be a terrifying and dangerous time for survivors. The onus is on us, as elected representatives, to implement change to improve holistic safety and to bring our communities with us.

The economic impact is often overlooked when it comes to family and domestic violence. But, according to the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, family and domestic violence will cost the Australian economy an estimated $13.6 billion this year alone. This cost has increased from previous years. It needs to be reversed, and the cost of inaction is far too great to ignore. The report finds that vulnerable groups are likely to be disproportionately financially impacted due to circumstantial challenges. It finds that, without intervention, violence against immigrant and refugee women is estimated to cost the economy just over $4 billion; against women with disabilities, $3.9 billion; and against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, some $2.2 billion—and, in relation to children who witness violence, it is some $1.5 billion. These figures are astronomical, and to see how severely these impacts are felt by some of the most vulnerable in our community is truly gut-wrenching. So I implore the government to maintain a high standard of transparency with regard to the economic impacts of domestic violence. We need to ensure these figures are subject to profound change and improvement.

The Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report on this bill clearly outlines that a whole-of-community response to family and domestic violence is needed. This should be led by our parliament, with an acknowledgement of existing needs and a swift implementation of thoughtful improvements. When reviewing this legislation, I was pleased to see a thoughtful, considered approach to ensuring this leave is available to all employees, no matter their full-time, part-time or casual employment status. I'm also pleased to see that the full rate of pay entitlement of 10 days will be available upfront when needed, with this option extended to workers upon the commencement of new employment. Further extensions are also good to see. With the passing of the bill, the definition of 'family and domestic violence' will be extended to include conduct of a current or former intimate partner of an employee, or a member of an employee's household. This widened definition considers the diverse contexts and unique circumstances that deserve our acknowledgement.

The emotional impacts of leaving a violent situation are severe. People fleeing domestic violence must undertake a profound recalibration of personal safety, e-safety, accommodation, financial security, property, custody of children—and the mental health implications. Ten days is not a lot of time to investigate and come to terms with all of those intense changes. The bill indicates a solid start to improving the systems designed to support those afflicted by family and domestic violence, but I am concerned it doesn't go far enough. In consultation with one of my constituents, I learnt that her corporate employer already extends 20 days of paid domestic violence leave to its employees. This is double the proposed allocation in this bill. Yet I was told every single one of those 20 days was necessary, in her circumstances, to undertake the immense task of leaving. The committee recommends that the Senate pass this bill, and I concur with that. However, when the recommended independent review takes place following the implementation of the first schedule, I will firmly implore the government to seriously consider whether 10 days is adequate and whether this needs to be extended further.

My constituents also want to see more guidance from the government, and systems put in place to streamline access to support services, therapy and education. Ideally, employers will be equipped to help workers instigate access to services during the paid leave period. It's feared that much of the allocated paid domestic violence leave days will be wasted due to the complexity of navigating the system on their own by the people who need to use it.

There is a need for national definitions and public awareness. In 2020, the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs conducted an inquiry on family, domestic and sexual violence. From its report, the need for nationally recognised and consistent definitions of non-physical and complex types of abuse was clear. In the report, the Australian Women Against Violence Alliance explained that 'coercive control' is an umbrella term that refers to an ongoing pattern of controlling and coercive behaviours that are not exclusively physical but can pervade an individual's daily life, with a devastating impact. Coercive control is insidious and covert. Its proposed criminalisation in states across Australia will be aided by heightened awareness and clear, consistent definitions that consider the complex nature of this abuse.

The issue of family and domestic violence is prevalent in every area of Australia, in every community. There is no economic or geographic area that is exempt. Similarly, in my electorate of Warringah, from April 2021 to March 2022, 427 recorded domestic violence assaults were recorded across Warringah's three local government areas. In the same period, 451 domestic AVOs were issued. We know that these figures got a lot worse during COVID. We know that it was an incredibly difficult and stressful time. Shockingly, when we look at those 451 domestic AVOs, some 229 of those were breached, indicating the system of protecting victims is not enough to prevent further threats and harassments. This has all occurred across three local council areas over one year, and these are just the instances that were reported to authorities. We know that many more occur.

I've met with several local women who bravely shared their stories with me. I have heard of the extreme adversity they have faced within their abusive relationships, but also of the continued abuse they have experienced through the legal system. The prohibitive expense of leaving is keeping people trapped in violent situations, and that's unacceptable. For a person to leave violence, they also have to be prepared for lengthy legal processes with extremely high legal fees, contributing to the longer-term financial crippling of women.

I've also heard about alarming experiences due to the uncoupling of the family law and the criminal law courts. For obvious privacy reasons, I won't share with the parliament the details of these experiences women have shared with me, but I do need to be clear that the extent of continued non-physical abuse was shocking, debilitating and terrifying for these women to experience over the course of many years. Even as a legal practitioner, having practised in that area, I know firsthand how incredibly frustrating and difficult it was at times to be able to assist clients through that system. Much of this continued fear was associated with the family law system. It's being under-resourced. The delays and time lines are incredibly difficult.

I strongly opposed the last government's move to end the Family Court of Australia; a specialised jurisdiction that was incredibly important. It's clear that there is still much to be done to ensure that that system is sufficiently resourced to deal promptly with issues and disputes. Perpetrators still have too many options and abilities within that system to tarnish the character or deplete the finances of victims.

I would say there have been inadequate authority responses. This is a common thread of some of the tragedies that hit our front pages in Australia. A common pattern expressed in some of the consultations that I've had was that the systems designed to adequately protect victims and children have been inadequate, with some still living in debilitating fear of their former intimate partners, despite having left them several years ago, and now receiving other forms of abuse. It was highlighted in the report Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence, which thoroughly explored instances of sustained financial, legal and technological abuse. The report read:

The Committee received evidence that, in many cases, authorities did not appear to understand the problem and were thus taking ineffective or even counterproductive action.

This affirms why Australians need clearer definitions and consequences for non-physical forms of domestic violence. We need our authorities to clearly understand complex abuse. We need heightened public awareness so insidious, oftentimes covert forms of abuse can be more easily identified and prevented.

Further to the passing of this bill, the parliament must address the adaptability of abuse and legislate meaningful change to define and prevent complex violence. We know there is a disproportionate impact on women, and so we have to talk of this in gender equity terms as well. Domestic and family violence is a social issue that disproportionately affects women. I have spoken with constituents whose professional development suffered due to the lack of gender equity in their workplaces. So we also need robust mechanisms in place to prevent financial penalty for women who must take time out from work to deal with the immense challenges of leaving violence.

It is so important that, when we talk of this, we recognise and acknowledge the incredible work done by local supports. I want to take this time to commend the work of frontline family and domestic violence services across the country. I know how intense the work is to support and guide survivors and their families, and I know that many lives will not have recovered without their active care and support. In Warringah, we are lucky to have local services that actively assist constituents in crisis. This includes Josie Parata and her team from Lighthouse for the Community. The local organisation works with survivors to create a safety plan, a strategy, to move them forward in life following their violent situation. Lighthouse for the Community and other community organisations across Australia are instrumental in guiding those leaving violence, with patience and compassion. That guidance is vital. While paid domestic violence leave is a welcomed step, we must ask ourselves what comes next. How are those fleeing violence supposed to navigate the ordeals on their own. I ask the government to urgently explore the expanded resourcing of services. Survivors need ease of access to services that can reliably guide them through the emotional and legal journey to independence and safety.

This bill is a good first step. It is considered and practical and I welcome it. But I would ultimately urge that we need to consider how much more is needed and how much further it needs to go to provide adequate respite to those undertaking the immense task of leaving violence. We must monitor the adequacy and success of this support and be willing to revisit it should an expansion be needed. The government must continue to legislate meaningful change, including nationally consistent definitions and public awareness of complex abuse.

Domestic and family violence is a complex and urgent issue. We need a full community approach to implement meaningful change, and as federal representatives we must all take a legal role in this. This is a good start, but this is very much an issue that must stay at the forefront of our endeavours.

11:57 am

Photo of Alicia PayneAlicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I have risen to speak in this chamber about the need for more action on family and domestic violence in Australia. So I am very proud to speak today as a member of an Albanese Labor government that is committed to providing the leadership and the investment needed to help end family, domestic and sexual violence. Paid family and domestic violence leave is a big part of that commitment and is a long overdue change that will help to save countless lives.

All Australians have the right to be safe at work and at home. No-one should ever have to choose between their safety and their income. Unfortunately, this is a choice that many Australians are forced to make every day. In 2022, it is unacceptable that millions of Australian workers have to face this impossible choice. Family and domestic violence comes in many forms; it is not just physical abuse. Verbal, emotional, financial, sexual and psychological abuse are all types of domestic and family violence, as are threats, manipulation and controlling behaviour. I have been very pleased to see our Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus, working with state and territory counterparts on a national approach to coercive control.

Family and domestic violence affects people from all walks of life in every community across Australia. It is a fact that family and domestic violence disproportionately affects women, women who are also more likely to be casual or part-time workers. Increased awareness of family and domestic violence in recent years has helped to confront this issue, but the appalling facts set out by the Fair Work Commission in its recent review show that we still have a very long way to go. The review found that, from age 15, about one in four women has experienced at least one instance of violence by an intimate partner; First Nations women are 35 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family and domestic violence than non-Indigenous women; police receive a call on average every two minutes in Australia relating to family and domestic violence; and, on average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia—mothers, sisters, aunties, cousins, friends and co-workers. For far too many women, the most dangerous place in Australia is their own home.

This is a national disgrace and it has to change, and that's why this bill is so important. It will save lives. Shockingly, over the past decade, 488 women in Australia were killed by an intimate partner, and it's getting worse. Family and domestic violence has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Queensland study showed that 67 per cent of family and domestic violence workers reported new clients seeking help for the first time during the pandemic.

I recently met with Homelessness Australia, who told me that domestic and family violence is the leading cause for homelessness for women and children in Australia. The Nowhere to go report found that more than 9,000 women each year become homeless after fleeing violence at home. More than 39 per cent of all people seeking homelessness services cite family and domestic violence as a reason for seeking assistance. The Nowhere to go report also found that every year an estimated 7,690 women return to perpetrators because they can't find anywhere affordable to live. The report titled The choice: violence or poverty revealed that around 45,000 women want to leave violence, but can't because they can't afford to leave. We must do better than this.

For too long, family and domestic violence was considered a private matter, something that just affected the home lives of victims and happened outside of the workplace. But we know that it touches all facets of life, including work, affecting the productivity of not just victims but also those around them. Labor knows family and domestic violence is not just a criminal justice or social issue but also an economic and workplace issue, and workplaces can play key roles as sources of critical support for people experiencing violence.

More than 68 per cent of people experiencing family and domestic violence are in paid work, but many can't leave without risking joblessness, financial stress, homelessness and poverty. The choice is often between their own safety and their livelihood. Leaving violent relationships costs time and money. Women who experience family and domestic earn 35 per cent less than those who do not. Paid leave provides the financial support and economic security so urgently needed to help those fleeing dangerous situations to do so safely and to rebuild their lives.

Employers play an increasingly important role, and already bear significant costs of family and domestic violence, It cost employers through reduced productivity, absenteeism, recruitment and retraining costs. It costs employers about $2 billion per year and costs the national economy between $12.6 billion and $22 billion each year. This is another reason the Labor government has introduced this legislation. The connection with work and the payment of wages is so important to keep some stability in a woman's life as they seek domestic violence, and as they seek to start a new life.

The Fair Work Commission's review of family and domestic violence leave recognised that family and domestic violence erodes women's access to work, career progression and financial independence. Paid family and domestic violence leave will negate some of these negative impacts, help to reduce the gender pay gap, support gender equality and increase women's economic security. Our legislation extends the Fair Work Commission's recent preliminary review by introducing a right to 10 days paid leave for all eligible employees covered by the National Employment Standards. This will give workers—overwhelmingly women—the means to escape violent situations without risking their jobs or their financial security and that of their families.

More than 11 million Australian workers, including casuals, will be able to access this leave. This is important, because women who are experiencing family and domestic violence are more likely to be employed in casual work. Leave is particularly necessary for casual employees who are already dealing with the consequences of being in insecure work and unable to access other paid leave. There are currently 2.6 million casual employees in Australia, almost 23 per cent of all employees. To leave casuals without this protection would provide further incentive for employees to prefer casuals over permanent jobs.

The other key difference in our proposal from the commission's preliminary review is that payment relief will be at the employee's full rate of pay as opposed to the base rate minimum that applies under the National Employment Standards for other paid leave entitlements. This departure is also critical to meet our policy objective of minimising to the greatest extent possible the damage and disruption to a person's life and economic security caused by family and domestic violence.

We have also extended the definition of family and domestic violence to include the conduct of 'a member of an employee's household' to recognise that Australians are living in more diverse and different arrangements. We understand that small business, the engine room of the Australian economy, needs support to implement this. The new entitlement will take effect on 1 February 2023 for larger businesses and will be phased in starting 1 August 2023 for small businesses in recognition that they have limited human resource and payroll capabilities.

This is just the start for this Labor government's work to act on family and domestic violence. We will release a national plan to end violence against women and children later this year to set out a strategy for the next decade. We will invest in an additional 500 community frontline workers, put consent and respectful relationships education in schools, build safe and affordable housing for women fleeing domestic violence and create a new domestic, family and sexual violence commission. This change could and should have been made years ago, but the previous government failed to act. I urge the Liberal and National parties to support this legislation because it will make a difference and it will save lives.

12:06 pm

Photo of Rowan RamseyRowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill. Family, domestic and sexual violence is a hidden scourge in our modern society. The statistics are horrifying. In the last parliament I was privileged but challenged to sit on the inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. It was given to me to refer to it today in preparation for these few words. It's worth noting that one in six or 17 per cent of women and 6.1 per cent of men have experienced physical and sexual violence from a current or previous cohabitating partner. There are number of other statistics. Five point one per cent of people have experienced violence from a current or previous boyfriend et cetera. Those figures are horrifying. Most of us are familiar with the fact that roughly, on average, one woman a week loses her life to domestic violence in Australia. We are all challenged by those types of statistics. I'll come back to that report a bit later on in this speech, if I have time to do so.

Leave for domestic violence is inherently a good thing. It was decreed by the Fair Work Commission back in 2018, from memory, that five days a week should become a concern. The government is now putting forward that that should be extended to 10 days a week. I'm not opposing that in principle. I do, though, raise some concerns about who is responsible for this, and I also raised these matters in my address-in-reply speech just a few weeks ago. It seems improper to me that an employer, who has absolutely no control over the circumstances in which a person lives, is somehow held financially responsible for the outcome. Under former governments, we've legislated to ensure that paid parenting leave or maternity leave, whatever you want to call it, is not primarily the financial responsibility of the employer; it is primarily the responsibility of the taxpayer. I would say the rule of thumb here is that, if it is in the public interest and it is outside the control of the employer, it stands to reason that it should be the public's bill.

People will say, 'Well, how many people do you expect to take up this domestic violence leave?' I accept that argument, except that it can have a disproportionate impact on a small employer. Let's imagine a business that employs a dozen people. I know family and domestic violence is not a one-gender issue, but predominantly these offences are committed against females. Let's say this one employer has a mainly female workforce because of the nature of its business, and it happens to have, sadly, a couple of employees on their books who are suffering from family and domestic violence. It starts to become an impediment to their payroll.

More concerning to me is that this may well become a disincentive to employ females in the first place. Even more concerning to me is that the employer may reach to a sort of stereotyping: 'This person here looks to me like they are high risk.' We all know that family and domestic violence knows no bounds. It has no class structures. But I'm not sure that's clear in the public mind. When I say 'we all know', I mean those of us who actually deal with these inquiries and issues on a regular basis. But I wouldn't mind betting that, if I put a number of people in a line-up, if you like, and allowed people to select them on the basis of which ones they think would be more likely to be victims of domestic violence, they would come up with a view with a fair amount of conformity. So that's a concern to me about the long-term prospects of employment for women.

There is also the fact that, while of course these issues should remain private, it would be almost impossible to keep them so in a small workplace. People are not stupid. It may well then also become something that the employee will cart around with them in future when they're looking for other forms of employment. I think the possibility of keeping that separate would be enhanced by having a government system, as in the paid parental leave system, where it is the responsibility of the government and not the responsibility of the employer. So on two levels—the practicalities and possible outcomes that I've just discussed and the system of fairness and sensibilities—I think this should be the responsibly of the taxpayer.

One of the other questions that this brings up to me, of course, is the government's move to include casual employees. It was not the recommendation of the Fair Work Commission, and I think it's an adventurous step, for many of the reasons that I've just been coasting over. One of those is what impact this has on an employer's decision to employ. Even more concerningly, standing alongside the government's intention to include casual employees is their intention to load up the full 10 days leave from day one of employment. Suppose that, as an employer, I employ an individual and they work one day, and they have a domestic violence situation, and now I'm responsible for 10 days. They may take their 10 days. They may work another two days for me over the next 12 months, or they may never come back, but as the employer I am responsible for those 10 days. Once again, this is something that, if it's going to be the responsibility of anyone, clearly should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.

Secondly, I think it is a dangerous precedent that it does not accrue. The suggestion from the Fair Work Commission inquiry was that it accrue to a maximum of 10 days. We know the government and their allies the unions are very keen to get rid of casual employment or decrease it in the workplace, and I just ask the question: is that part of this push to get rid of casual employees? I just don't think it's right. It just doesn't stack up. It does not make sense that somebody has that responsibility after employing somebody for one day.

Maybe when the legislation is passed, as I'm sure it will be in the Senate, and they sit down and the regulations and details of these schemes are figured out, that will be covered off. I don't know what the government's intention is. I think that in itself is a concern—that legislation is brought into this place and we're asked to vote on it without actually knowing what it means in practical terms. So it would be helpful to me if the minister made a statement to say, 'If you're a casual employee, you actually have to have worked 15 days,' or something like that, 'before you would qualify.' It is a corruption—I don't mean 'corrupt'—of a system that should be there to support people, and, I think, really unfairly targets the employer, which then, of course, leads to these outcomes where the employer may have great reluctance to employ. Those are my main concerns with the legislation as it stands.

I would like to come back to the report of the inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. In 2020—so in the same parliament—I also sat on the committee for its inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography. The report was called Protecting the age of innocence. I can tell you that neither of these inquiries were comfortable or fun to sit on. A lot of times, in parliament, one of the equalising factors, if you like, is not just that you get to meet great people—and we did get to meet great people—but you get to encounter great experience. In both of those inquiries, we got to encounter perhaps the worst of mankind, in many ways. In the inquiry looking at gambling but also access to online pornography, we had people come before us who were graphically telling us at what age children—10 and eight—were accessing graphic, violent online pornography and live sex, featuring, regularly, the degradation of women. If we could stop it with the stroke of a pen, we should—quite as simple as that.

I don't think we ask often enough what the underlying drivers are in our society—why people actually are what they are. Family, domestic and sexual violence is getting reported more often. The question is: is it getting reported more often because people are feeling more at ease with reporting the situation, or is it becoming more prevalent? In my view it's probably both, and, certainly, I swing towards the level of it becoming more prevalent. Maybe we're just becoming more aware of it. But I think it is becoming more prevalent, and that greatly concerns me. Why is it becoming more prevalent? I've touched on the online pornography, but you've only got to switch on your television after about eight o'clock at night and you can see things that I reckon kids shouldn't be watching.

In this inquiry, we were told that boys, young men, were forming their attitudes about what a modern relationship—an intimate relationship—should look like, and expecting that they would indulge in dominant behaviour, perhaps even violence, and that that is what women would like. More disturbingly, we heard that young females actually thought this was normalised activity and they were expected to conform to it. That's appalling. We can say that we can switch off the pornography, but I'm pretty bloody confident—excuse me; I'm very confident—that that would not fix the problem. If you look at the level of violence and the depiction of relationships just in modern movies and modern television programs, compared to what we saw when I was growing up, in the sixties—when we could get television—it's worlds apart. It's hardly a surprise that young people are developing attitudes that are unacceptable. We know they're unacceptable, but young people don't know they're unacceptable. I'm not a wowser, I'm not a censor, but I think we've actually got to start talking about this issue in a realistic manner and ask: where do we draw the line? We've drawn the line at age 18 for certain types of material, but, of course, the bar is set pretty high for that material.

Secondly, while I know most parents try to do the right thing, gee, there are a lot out there that wouldn't know how to read PG and M and MA ratings and all those things and actually adhere to them. Often, when the oldest child qualifies to watch something, they can all watch it now. That's not really good enough, I don't think. It doesn't make me feel particularly happy to have to stand up and speak about this, but, given the bill we're talking about, and given the recommendations that are made in the bill, and given that we are now moving towards greater leave from work for people who are victims of family, sexual and domestic violence, I think these are the issues we should be talking about. I don't know the answers, but I'm pretty confident I know what some of the problems are, and I reckon we need to get serious about them.

12:20 pm

Photo of Susan TemplemanSusan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

This is a bill that's going to save lives. It's going to save women's lives; it's going to save children's lives. The really key thing here is that every employer can be a part of saving someone's life, potentially, when this bill is enacted—whether that person is a permanent full-time worker, a part-time worker or a casual. We see people dismayed at the loss of life that occurs; well, here is something tangible that every employer can be a part of and will be required to be a part of so that lives can be saved.

The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 is about providing 10 days domestic violence leave. That means leave that allows you to do some of the endless lists of things that are required as you are either preparing to leave, or are leaving, an abusive partner. Front-line workers—let's be very clear—have been key to the success in raising awareness about what's needed here because they have not just had the fortitude to work with women and children who are fleeing violent situations and to support them through their journey but also advocated exceptionally hard, over a very long time, to ensure that people like me are aware of what's involved. What they tell us is that leaving a violent relationship, even planning to leave a violent relationship, involves time and money.

People need to find somewhere to live, and that is not an easy feat. In fact, for anybody, even in the best of circumstances right now, that takes time. They need to find new schools for kids. They need to go and meet with people around a range of issues, and all of that takes time. These things so often need to happen at the same time that work commitments occur. They can't always happen out of working hours. This paid leave will mean people no longer need to make a choice between safety and earning money—because, right now, that's the choice people have. They go, 'I want to be safe and my kids need to be safe, but that means I won't earn money this week.' That's what we can fix. There are so many problems in this place where we say, 'They're so big; how can we tackle them?' Well, here is a really tangible, practical step that we can take and that we are taking, and we really hope that those opposite support us on this one.

The principle behind this leave entitlement is really simple. It is about the rate that people would have been paid had they not taken leave. It's not just their base rate of pay; it's about what they would normally have received for that day's work—whether they are a permanent worker or a casual. What would they have received that day? Once this law is in place, the 10 days leave will be provided upfront from the day that you start, allowing immediate access to the full entitlement of the leave. Again, there's no waiting period. There's no having to wait in a home with an abusive partner. You can actually go as soon as you are ready to go. This is about empowering women to be able to do this.

A couple of things have been raised with me as I have been talking with workers in this field about what a difference this would make. One of the really key things is the detail and thought that has gone into this bill. I heard comments from those opposites like, 'It might need some more thought.' This is an extraordinarily detailed piece of legislation and—if my memory serves me right—there is a 52-page document that goes through a lot of the detail.

Another thing that has been raised with me is whether it is going to be noted on a payslip that domestic violence leave was taken. There is no requirement in this legislation for it to appear on a payslip. An employer can quite rightly ask for evidence of the circumstance. An employer has the capacity to do that. It might be a police report or some other sort of document that indicates the circumstances the woman finds herself in. But there is no requirement to record it on a piece of paper. That makes a real difference for women who are planning to leave but who are under the control of a partner who looks at their payslip, who looks at why they did not get a loading for that day and asks, 'Why weren't you there that day?' It takes all that out of it. There won't be any change in what the normal payslip would be, nor will there be any indication on the payslip that the leave has been accessed. That is a level of detail and thought that has gone into making sure that this saves lives and that there are no unintended consequences.

One of the things I recognise, having had my own small business for 25 years and having grown up in my dad's small business, is that small business will need some time to adjust to this. That is why this legislation provides for around 12 months so that we can work with small businesses and ensure that they are very clear about what the responsibilities and the requirements are and what a difference it will potentially make to their employees.

I want to give an example of what a small business in my community did in recent years. One of their workers was a victim of family and domestic abuse and that person wanted to leave the area. This was a valuable employee—and, quite frankly, right now every employee is of value to the business they work in—and this employer, who I will not disclose, deliberately supported their worker several years ago so that they could relocate to another city but could maintain their employment. This was pre COVID. This is before working from distance was a much more normal thing to do. That is the level of support that employer game. And they are not alone; small businesses are supporting their workers, because they value their workers, as they go through traumatic domestic violence situations. But bigger employers are also doing this. Something like 70 per cent of employers already have paid domestic violence leave in their agreements.

We recognise that there will need to be some lead time, particularly for small businesses that have a number of unique challenges. We recognise that cash flow challenges and not having a full human resources capacity to administer a new leave entitlement, especially around such a sensitive issue, will provide some challenges, and some support for those businesses is essential. So it will be a phased-in commencement, with most businesses having around six months but others closer to 12 months. I would ask small businesses to think about what they can actually do to change someone's life in these circumstances—not just to change their life but potentially to save their life. We are making it as easy, clear and simple as possible to be able to be implemented, and I welcome feedback from any of my small businesses about support that might be useful in going through these processes.

I said earlier that this legislation has been informed by the frontline workers. In my own community, that's people like those who work at WILMA, part of DV West Blue Mountains. It's the feedback over many years from services like the Blue Mountains Women's Health and Resource Centre who have worked with women escaping domestic violence for many, many years. I want to thank them for the work they do, and I particularly want to thank the members of the ASU, who, from the time I first stood as a candidate back in 2010, have talked to me and helped me have a deeper understanding of what would be practical and useful for the women they support. I hope that they get to see the benefits of this before any of us because they're the ones on the front line who try and find a way forward for so many women. There's never enough support. There are always too many women in need. The Richmond Women's Cottage is another example of this. Every one of my services tells me that COVID has meant a massive increase in women reaching out for help, and we know that the data is horrific.

From the age of 15, approximately one in four women experience violence by an intimate partner. That's what the data tells us: one in four. First Nations women are 32 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be hospitalised due to family and domestic violence, so we see yet another level of trauma there. Everyone in this place should already know that, on average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia. That's something that has been brought to the attention of this parliament multiple times, and it's the sort of fact that we should know and should not need to have repeated. They're the facts that inform this piece of legislation, and it wouldn't be happening without those frontline workers, so I want to finish by thanking them for what they do year in, year out.

I recognise that there's a lot of work we have to do in that area. I know from recent discussions with the Blue Mountains Women's Health and Resource Centre that the need for a trauma informed approach is absolutely vital. Unfortunately, our current Medicare system doesn't support that. It doesn't make it easy to do the holistic approach that is needed to bring together all the different pieces that help someone move from a place of danger to a place of safety and then build a new life. So they're the sorts of issues we're dealing with. It's great to have this piece of legislation moving through the House and I look forward to it being passed, but there are many things that we need to do as we go forward so that we can look back and say that this parliament made a difference and see the statistics start to shift as women's and children's lives are saved because of what this place has done.

12:33 pm

Photo of Allegra SpenderAllegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

Australia is a wonderful, extraordinary country in so many respects, but the prevalence of family and domestic violence is not one of them. It is true that this violence is more common on average in other countries, particularly in comparable places like Britain and the US, but we lag behind countries like Austria, Ireland and Spain, where women are almost half as likely to suffer intimate partner violence as in Australia. We are closer to the middle of the OECD distribution than the bottom, and that's where we ought to be. According to the Institute of Health and Welfare, around 2.2 million Australian adults have been the victim of physical violence from a partner. A woman is killed every single week in Australia by a current or former partner. That is the statistic. It is the lives of people we should never forget.

Domestic violence is typically associated with a current partner but is most often perpetrated by a previous partner. The chance that you know someone, a friend or family member, who's been the victim of violence is very high, though you may not know it. Many people who experience this violence don't want to be known. I remember in my own working life, a team mate coming into the office with her clothes in her bag, leaving her home that morning to escape family violence, with no plan of where she would be sleeping that evening.

Around three-quarters of the victims of violence were women and around half a million of the victims were men. It occurs across every age and demographic. The impact of this violence can be costly and long-lived. Firstly, there's simply the economic cost to the state. My local police commander told me that up to 50 per cent of police time was used on domestic violence incidents. But the higher cost is on people. Many victims later experience anxiety, depression and disability. Domestic and family violence is a leading cause of homelessness.

I want to draw attention to the wonderful grassroots organisations that do so much work to support victims of domestic violence. It was only the other day that I visited the Bondi Cottage, an organisation in my local electorate of Wentworth, which provides counselling for women suffering domestic violence and occasional emergency child care so that those women can actually access that counselling. It is absolutely vital that we continue to support organisations like that and continue to focus on the grassroots organisations that have been shown time and time again to be most effective in supporting victims of domestic violence. I take my hat off and pay homage to all those who work in this space, as well as those who have supported other family members, friends and colleagues through one of the most difficult times in people's lives.

Let us come now to the legislation. It is absolutely true that, when people experience domestic violence, many need to take time off work to restart their lives or to get the counselling or support to even leave. Around 20 per cent of women and 17 per cent of men who've experienced violence from a de facto partner have had to take leave. Under the National Employment Standards, as they currently stand, Australian employees have the right to five days of unpaid domestic violence leave each year. This leave is available to someone who is experiencing violent, threatening or abusive behaviour by a current or former partner or family member or someone related by kinship. Let's be honest, employers can and often do provide more than this, but this is currently the minimum standard by law. Employers can also ask for evidence, such as police or court documents, support service documents or statutory declarations. They have the right to, but they're not obliged to do so. My understanding is that most employers would not normally insist on an employee providing such documentation.

Under the new standard proposed in the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill, employees would have the right to 10 days of paid leave each year rather than five days of unpaid leave each year. This would be available to full-time, part-time and casual employees at the full rate of pay that they would normally receive. This principle of 10 days of paid leave at full pay is one that I wholeheartedly support. I suspect many other employers would feel the same way. But we should be aware of the danger of applying it as a sensible principle to all workplaces without first thinking through the details of how this will operate in practice. I am thinking most particularly of small businesses, where I've spent so much of my career. I'm not implying that small businesses would impose this entitlement or they're too hardhearted to support their staff. Frankly, it's quite the opposite. Most small businesses are small and have close relationships with their people. They want to make their people feel valued and obviously safe and do enormous work with their people so that they feel that. They want to do the best for their people. This change will impose some potentially difficult obligations on them, which is the basis for the concerns that I and others have with this change.

One obligation is financial. Larger, even medium-sized, businesses will no doubt be able to cope with these changes. But, for small businesses, there are times when money is very tight. This bill applies new financial obligations to those businesses without offering any relief from other financial obligations, not even obligations on the bureaucracy that government imposes on small businesses. I understand that a number of business groups have raised their concerns with the government and through the Senate inquiry process but without resolution.

Another obligation would be figuring out how to provide casual employees with leave at their full rate of pay. For some casuals, their working hours are consistent and predictable, and I'm sure that in most cases there won't be much trouble, but for other casuals their hours are inconsistent and unpredictable, and therefore I think we run the risk of having quite difficult conversations. What is the full rate of pay for someone who works different hours every week? What if their hours are taken sometimes in ordinary time and sometimes with loading? It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where fair-minded people come to different views of what the full rate of pay should be, potentially creating a dispute and another source of stress when an individual is already experiencing a hard time.

A third concern is that this might require quite personal conversations between employers and employees—conversations that some small-business people may not be equipped to handle. But I am not aware currently of any support the government is providing to ensure that businesspeople are able to be as delicate and sensitive as their employees deserve. I know that the Fair Work Commission has published a fact sheet for managers. It includes tips such as, 'Stay calm and respond appropriately,' and, 'Take the matter very seriously.' I think the Commonwealth of Australia can do better than that, and it must do better, because this affects small businesses. If we want to do right by people in desperately difficult situations, we need to provide support that is actually useful to employers, ideally supported in conjunction with those who are expected to use it and also reflecting the multicultural Australia that we have and the number of different languages spoken in the workplace.

These concerns will not stop me supporting the bill, because I support the principle behind it and I believe in providing real and valued support to Australians in these situations. But I hope that the government rethinks its stance on how the bill will apply to small businesses and whether we can secure the outcome of paid leave without imposing additional obligations on those businesses or at least while providing best-practice advice to those businesses and reducing administrative burdens on small businesses in other ways. In fact, I hope it rethinks its stance on small businesses more generally.

It is terrifying how easy it is for parliament to solve a problem by passing a law and leaving it to businesses to figure out how to implement the change, with businesses facing huge penalties if they fail to properly implement ill-designed policies. When businesses raise concerns, they are often brushed aside, as small businesses were in the case of this bill. Well, let me tell you: a cost that seems small when you're sitting in the houses of parliament can be the difference between viability and nonviability when you're a small business out in the community.

This government—and, indeed, this parliament—is filled with many smart, well-intentioned people, but it doesn't have as many people as it should who have run small businesses and understand how they work. When a government lacks expertise in something relevant to a community, it's sensible and appropriate for it to engage with that community. The government needs to engage appropriately and with an open mind at an early stage so that policy can be designed around the legitimate concerns of businesses and ensure that it works as much for them as for workers and for larger businesses. On this issue and on others, they haven't done this.

Let me offer a channel for that engagement, I've spent most of my life from an early age in and around small business. If you talk to me, I'm very happy to help you understand their concerns. Come along to an event organised by the Parliamentary Friends of Small and Medium Businesses and Entrepreneurs and meet some of those people who these sorts of bills affect. Talk to your businesses, share your policy goals and listen to their thoughts on how it will work in practice. I promise you they'll be constructive. Their goals are not political. They are retailers, cafe owners, small fashion companies or small technology companies. These are people trying to create jobs and prosperity in the Australian community, and they deserve our wholehearted support. They just want to do what the government asked them to do, and then they want to get back to running their businesses and focusing on what they do best, which is supporting their customers, working with their suppliers and supporting their employees.

I support the principle of this bill and I look forward to it passing into law and providing relief to so many people facing domestic violence. But I do hope the government reconsider how businesses can be supported in its implementation and how they can engage with the small business community in the future.

12:44 pm

Photo of Bridget ArcherBridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Amongst the many ways family and domestic violence can impact a victim's survival when fleeing a relationship, or in the years and decades after, the financial impact is significant. Data from researchers at Flinders University released late last year indicated that over 60 per cent of women who are experiencing family and domestic violence were in paid employment of some sort but were more likely to be in lower paid employment due working on a part-time or casual basis. However, we do know that, for employed women or those who are in the home full time who are living with family and domestic violence, the level of control that they have over their own finances is often small or none at all.

When I sat on the committee inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence during 2020 and 2021, understanding how the government could better financially support victims-survivors was a key focus. As part of their submission, Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety—or ANROWS, as they're commonly known—cited research findings that around one in five women returned to violent partners because they had no financial support or nowhere else to go. The organisation noted that financial stress is a significant, but underaddressed, barrier to safety for women experiencing family and domestic violence and that, critically, employment is an important pathway for women leaving violent relationships.

The inquiry also noted that leaving an abusive situation can be expensive, with costs including deposits on new dwellings, rental bonds, travel costs, furnishing costs and the costs of providing for any dependants the victim-survivor might have. It's estimated that, on average, it costs $18,000 for a victim-survivor to leave a violent relationship and establish safety. In response to this report, the then government implemented a range of significant measures to help with the financial cost of leaving a relationship impacted by family and domestic violence. These measures provided $5,000 in government assistance, including $1,500 to assist with some of the immediate needs when fleeing the family home, such as putting down a bond for a rental, paying school fees or the purchase of essential goods and services. I do understand that accessing these payments has not been as easy as intended, due to a range of challenges, but the former government was working to rectify these challenges prior to the election, and it's my hope that the current government will be doing all they can to ensure the path to accessing the payments is much smoother.

The legislation before us today—the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022—is another step towards financially supporting members of our community experiencing family and domestic violence, by providing the following: 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave within a 12-month period for full-time, part-time and casual employees, and leave provided at an employee's full rate of pay for hours they would have worked had they not taken leave. Importantly, the legislation extends the definition of 'family and domestic violence' to include 'conduct of a current or former intimate partner of an employee, or a member of the employee's household'.

For someone experiencing violence at home, going to work can be a place of respite and refuge from the distressing incidents occurring in the home. Depending on the type of employment, a workplace can also provide an opportunity for those impacted by family and domestic violence to quietly and securely set themselves up to leave. A constituent in my own community, whom I met with and assisted two years ago to deal with a telecommunication matter resulting from leaving a violent relationship, told me of the critical role her workplace played at the time she was looking to leave that relationship. It was at work on the phone and on her work computer that she could begin to make the necessary calls and arrangements to leave her long-term relationship as safely as possible.

With a trusted employer, a victim-survivor of family and domestic violence can be supported as they deal with their situation. It's important to note that not all places of employment are safe for victims-survivors, who can still be harassed through repeated phone calls while at work or by people turning up to their place of employment. This is where effective training for workplaces can provide staff with the tools to recognise incidents of family and domestic violence and what they can do to support an employee or colleague.

A 2019 survey conducted by Domestic Violence Service Management—a mainland charity providing support for people escaping or experiencing family and domestic violence and homelessness—found that victims-survivors wanted organisations to improve across three key areas: people in the workplace should be compassionate and non-judgemental; workplaces should provide more, or improved, tangible support; and the workplace should improve its understanding and awareness of family and domestic violence. When these three main improvements are realised, victims are more likely to share their experiences and, therefore, have a better chance of receiving the help that they need.

Unsurprisingly, ensuring confidentiality when seeking to take paid family and domestic violence leave is a significant concern to both victim-survivors and employers. Though challenges exist in larger workplaces, it's in smaller regional communities like mine—where it seems everybody knows each other or of each other—that we must make sure that, when a victim-survivor wants and needs confidentiality, both employers and employees are set up with appropriate measures in place. This concern is reflected in recent comments by Hayley Foster, Acting Chief Executive Officer of Full Stop Australia, a sexual, domestic and family violence counselling and advocacy organisation. She highlighted the importance of maintaining confidentiality when an employee approaches their employer with the need to access family or domestic violence leave, saying:

It's something employers are already obligated to do, but in practice we see confidentiality breaches all the time, and that's why we see a very low uptake: people are genuinely worried about the responses they're going to get.

Ms Foster's comments reflect some of my own concerns with this bill. I want to reiterate that I do support this legislation; however, I want to put on the record some of the concerns I have as to whether further improvements could be made on how the leave is administered. Some victim-survivors do not feel comfortable coming forward to an employer with an incident of family or domestic violence for a number of reasons, including fear, shame and the stigma that unfortunately still surrounds incidents of family and domestic violence. I also agree with Ms Foster's comments that such a universal entitlement would need to be rolled out with resources and education to ensure that it was taken up effectively. I'm concerned about the level of unconscious bias which exists and which may affect how an employee is treated either immediately or going forward, should they come forward seeking family or domestic violence leave. I also believe that there needs to be more funding into workplace programs that support both employers and employees with what responsibilities they may have should they become aware that an employer or colleague is experiencing family or domestic violence, and how they can best support someone going through it.

In my own electorate, Womens Legal Service Tasmania has joined with the Hobart Womens Shelter, Women's Health Tasmania and Engender Equality to run their Mentors in Violence Prevention program, which has been rolling out across workplaces and community organisations since 2020. The workshops give participants the chance to develop and practice concrete options which they can use in a number of situations both in and outside the workplace, ranging from situations that may seem harmless to actual violence. Margie Law from Women's Health told me:

Some participants return to do the workshop more than once, to deepen their skills. Many participants attend with work colleagues so they can take the skills back into their workplace. There are scenarios that relate to workplaces, such as what people can do when they receive a sexually inappropriate email or hear "banter" that is disrespectful.

It is important that training and workshops are held in a safe environment, with support offered as we know that at every workshop there is likely to be someone who has or is experiencing family violence. At the same time, there are participants who have some understanding of family violence but don't know what they can do to help. They are scared, partly because they think they must intervene physically. These workshops provide a range of options for people to use which keep them safe at the same time.

The workshops have been attended mostly by women. There are a few reasons for this, but one is that men might worry that they will be used as a target in the workshop. Workplaces could help support men to get training like this by encouraging them to attend as a group. It would help if male leaders attended workshops and reported back to their teams. The more men that attend, the better as we need all parts of society to learn the signs and be able to provide support and intervene appropriately.

It's worth highlighting that workplaces across the country have been leading the way for paid and domestic violence leave, with reports last year that, of the almost 1.2 million Australian employees with access to paid leave under their enterprise agreements, about 660,000 were granted at least 10 days of paid leave. The private sector makes up 95 per cent of agreements which included family and domestic violence leave. Pleasingly, small businesses currently make up around 40 per cent of that number.

While I support this leave, I am conscious of the concerns that other small businesses may have regarding how the administration of the leave may burden them. It's important to acknowledge that many small businesses want to support their employees but feel there's a lack of detail about how the current model will impact on small and family businesses. There is concern, as raised by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, that sole traders and microbusiness owners have not been considered. The government have yet to let us know how they'll support sole traders or those managing a small business who are experiencing domestic or family violence themselves. How will they access support, particularly in sensitive situations where an abuser may have control of or access to the business? These are real and legitimate concerns that the government must answer.

I also support the recommendation from the committee report handed down last week requesting a 12-month review following the implementation of the legislation. The review would seek both qualitative and quantitative research on the impact on small businesses and sole traders.

Any increase in the support available for victims-survivors of domestic and family violence is a step in the right direction. However, as I've said time and time again in this place, more must be done to address the challenges of the principal drivers of family, domestic and sexual violence—that is, gender inequality; stereotypical attitudes towards gender roles, characteristics and behaviour; and disrespect of girls and women. All abuse starts with disrespect, and, until we begin to truly address this challenge, we won't see the societal shift that we desperately need.

The steps taken by the former government through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children were a positive start, and I'm hopeful that we will begin to move the dial on this scourge on our society. I look forward to continuing to advance a bipartisan approach to this issue and look forward to working with Senator Larissa Waters and the Labor member as co-convenors of the Parliamentary Friendship Group on Ending Violence against Women and Children.

12:56 pm

Photo of Mr Tony BurkeMr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | | Hansard source

I am mindful that the Federation Chamber will suspend very shortly, so I'll keep my remarks very brief. Can I first of all thank all members for the different perspectives that have been put. For many people, the Fair Work Amendment (Unpaid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 has not been an easy bill to speak on. On both sides, regardless of the different ways that people have approached the detail of the legislation, it has been an occasion where everyone has come from the best of places in terms of their generosity in the discussion. But some members have had to bring back the worst of places in making their contributions, and I just want it to be understood that that's respected and understood by the government.

I will refer to a few of the various issues that were raised. First of all, on the recommendation from the Senate committee for an 18-month review, the government is not minded to bring that back to 12 months, for the very simple reason that, for small business, it doesn't start until six months later, and we want the full 12 months of operation. For that reason, the 18-month review is what the government is supporting. We are also supporting it to be broader than just a review of the business impacts.

A lot of questions have been raised from some about potentially increasing the breadth of what we're doing here and applying it to more people. From the government's perspective, we are already taking a very big step, and the government's view is: let's take that step; let's see how it goes. There are many people whose lives potentially can be fundamentally altered for the better by the step that the parliament is taking. I commend the legislation to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16:00