Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Adelaide for her comments on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. In recent times this government and coalition governments more broadly have been the subject of accusations of gender inequality, bullying, discrimination against women, and the like. It's an image that this government is failing to shake off. Indeed, you might have thought that the government would have used this legislation to do just that. If it is the case that this legislation was brought in in an attempt to dispel the perception of the poor image on gender inequality that this government has, then this legislation falls very flat.

I'll make two observations about it. Firstly, yes, the legislation is a step in the right direction. But it falls short in making it clear that this government is serious about addressing women's inequality issues. It falls short because the adoption of the Fair Work Commission's five days of unpaid domestic violence leave is at odds with perhaps 1,000 or more private businesses and other governments, at both state and international level, that already provide paid domestic leave to people in their jurisdictions. So, we're already behind what other governments are doing. You might have thought that if this government was wanting to use this legislation to reinstate its credibility with respect to the treatment of women in this country, then it might have done what has already been done, in a much fairer manner, by other jurisdictions.

Secondly, I note that since this debate started—at the time there was only one government speaker listed to speak on the legislation—two or three others have come on board and spoken. Nevertheless, if government members truly believe in this legislation, why are they not in this chamber speaking in support of it? Why are they in fact evading the opportunity they have to speak in support of it? Is it because they don't really support it? Or is it because they maintain this image of a party that is completely out of step with women's issues in this country?

This legislation brings recognition to the serious and very widespread issue of domestic violence. Of course, the greater effort should always be on prevention, so that supporting measures are not ever required. But, sadly, that is not—and possibly will never be—the case. That would be the ideal situation, however: if we didn't need this kind of legislation. But we do have a long way to go and, in the meantime, we need to support victims of domestic violence, who in most cases are women.

The ABS estimates that two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. How difficult must it be for them to front up to work the day after perhaps a terrible incident in their home, and how difficult must it be for them to have to interact with their work colleagues and perhaps with customers if they are in a business that deals directly with the public? I can only begin to imagine, yet they clearly do it day in and day out around the country.

According to a study that KPMG conducted in 2015-16, domestic violence costs society $1.9 billion. Again, I don't know how those figures are derived, but, quite frankly, I'm not at all surprised that we're talking about billions of dollars, and it may even be higher. What is even worse, however, is the sobering figure that has been put time and time again by members on this side of the chamber in speaking in this debate, and that is that every week one or more women lose their lives because of domestic violence. That is not to mention the psychological impact a loss of life has on the surviving children, because in most cases there are children. Nor do I know how many suicides of both women and children have their origins in domestic violence. I don't know if any studies have been undertaken with respect to that, but I suspect that, if there were, we would find that there is a link and that many of the suicides that we see around the country, sometimes years down the track, date back to a domestic violence household. As the member for Adelaide quite rightly pointed out, we also know that domestic violence is one of the key causes of homelessness.

We also know that there is a real concern for women who suffer in silence. Because they might be further abused, because of shame or because of their need to protect their children, a lot of the women who are subjected to domestic violence never, ever speak out, and they live a life of misery and stay in the relationship that they are in. I could talk about personal cases that I have been directly or indirectly involved with, but I won't go there. But I say this as someone who has spoken to families that have had a serious domestic violence issue. I've seen the impact it has on those families—both the children and the women.

For those who do need the domestic violence leave that this legislation provides—or the 10 days of paid leave that this side of the House would prefer to see—the reality is that it may not always be taken up. Clearly, it will be taken up only if there is a need to do so. I say to members of the government: spare a thought for the hardship, suffering and trauma of the person who is saying, 'I need additional support.' Spare a thought for the children in that household because, quite frankly, their needs are much, much greater than what they might be asking for. Spare a thought also for the psychological effect on those people as they continue to live their lives. They are people at a critical time in their lives and need all the support they can possibly get. Sometimes 10 days of paid leave or, as the government is offering, five days of unpaid leave might be all they need. On other occasions it might be more.

I make two other observations about the complexities of domestic violence. We know that one out of every three victims of domestic violence are not in the workforce. For them, this legislation provides no support whatsoever. Indeed, for them it's often even harder because they are isolated, in many cases, in their own homes. They don't go to work and interact with other women and other work colleagues to whom perhaps they can sometimes confide what is happening within their lives. So they remain even more captured than the others.

I also note that, between 2012 and 2014, there were 126 intimate partner homicides in Australia and, of those, 32, or roughly a quarter, were of Indigenous people. I suspect that most of those Indigenous people were also unemployed. Clearly, we need to make a much greater effort towards assisting Indigenous communities with this very serious issue, and the statistics are there for all to see.

As we also know, in most cases the statistics make it very clear that domestic violence seems to occur at even greater levels within lower socioeconomic communities. Clearly, one of the things we need to do as a nation is to ensure that we provide the level of assistance, whether it's through employment programs or even unemployment programs, to help get those people out of the poverty that they are in, because quite often it is the very situation that they find themselves in that leads to domestic violence.

I want to take the opportunity in speaking on this bill to acknowledge two local women's groups in my area that have done some fantastic work with respect to supporting victims of domestic violence and, in particular, women and children. I refer to the Zonta Club of Para District Area and also the Tea Tree Gully VIEW Club. I commend them for their efforts over many years in providing assistance to women and children caught up in domestic violence situations. The women of the Zonta and VIEW clubs quietly, without any fanfare, have over the years engaged in several projects that I'm aware of that provide real assistance to victims of domestic violence, and I indeed thank them for their efforts to do so.

In closing: of course our primary effort should always be in preventing domestic violence. I note that there are several good initiatives around the country, some at local level and some at national level, that are already underway, and I'm sure that they are making a difference, but I also believe that we could do a lot more. And we should be focusing on doing more because ultimately that would minimise the impact of this legislation or any other support measures that are required when a family has to go through a domestic violence situation.

Domestic violence is a serious matter, and it shouldn't be ignored, because of the trauma it causes and the lives it ruins. I believe that there is opportunity for us as a nation to put in both support measures and preventative measures. I see this legislation as a step in the right direction because it does a bit of both. It both supports the person who finds themselves in that situation and simultaneously says to the perpetrator of violence, 'There is some support that will be provided to your partner, to your wife or whoever it may be, if you become violent with them.' That in turn, I hope, might act as a deterrent, at least in some cases, to the violence that would have otherwise been committed. For those reasons, as other members of this side have said, we will support the legislation, but of course we believe it could have gone further and should have gone further.

See this speech in context