Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I had the great privilege of chairing the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee when we undertook a very extensive inquiry, which took over 12 months, into family, domestic and sexual violence. Naturally, one of the issues that arose was whether there should be paid domestic violence leave. What the member for Moreton said just a few moments ago is fundamentally false; he indicated that members on this side of the House were against setting up paid family and domestic violence leave. The committee looked at this issue extensively and made a recommendation, and the Fair Work Commission was actually undertaking its inquiry at the time. Extensive investigations and inquiries were being undertaken by the Fair Work Commission. The committee left it open; it didn't dismiss it or reject it. It looked at the importance of the issue. It is an important issue. The committee heard extensive evidence. The member for Moreton talked about an average of $18,000. That wasn't correct. That wasn't the figure that the committee heard. The committee heard that there were expenses of up to $18,000. It wasn't an average; it was up to $18,000. You might think I'm playing semantics, but, clearly, I'm not.

The issue of family, domestic and sexual violence is one over which this country should hang its head in shame. We see a woman die at the hands of a partner or a former partner every eight days. If that were any type of instance other than family, domestic and sexual violence, Australians would be up in arms. We'd be calling for fundamental legislative changes. I won't go so far as to say there would be riots in the streets, but there would be a great deal of concern and action. There would be calls for action. I lived and breathed this issue, at least from an academic point of view, when I chaired this committee. It was one that touched me deeply. I have to say I don't have any personal experience—thank God—in this area, but certainly, having worked on this committee and heard the evidence over such a long period of time, it impacted upon me and all of the committee members.

Not only does one woman die every eight days; there are many examples of where men's lives are taken. This is not just an instance of women dying at the hands of men. We know that, whilst one in six women are impacted upon by family, domestic and sexual violence, one in 16 men are also impacted upon. Clearly, there is a disparity in those figures—I'm not suggesting anything other than a great disparity—but quite often we home in, with a laser-like focus, on the impact on women. But we should also be mindful that one in 16 men are impacted by domestic violence.

These are Australians. The issue of family, domestic and sexual violence does not discriminate by postcode. It does not discriminate by how much money you have in the bank or how much money you earn. This impacts upon all quarters of life, in all areas of Australia. And, as I said when I started this speech, it is something that we, collectively, as Australians, should hang our head in shame over.

The committee which I chaired received over 350 submissions. We gathered over 90 hours of evidence. We made 88 bipartisan recommendations. It was a very significant piece of work. This inquiry formed the shaping of the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Children, and I am, for one, very proud of the work that we did. The choice between physical and psychological safety and financial security is an impossible one for victims to make. Many victims of domestic, family and sexual violence feel entrapped, and this goes to the very issue of whether there should be some form of paid leave. No person should feel that they have to continue to live with a person because they can't afford not to—if that relationship is a violent one.

We in the committee recommended that the Fair Work Commission review the family violence leave measures that were already in place, which was five days of unpaid leave. The committee knew that the Fair Work Commission was undertaking extensive work on this issue, so if there was ever any criticism of the committee as to why it didn't make this decision about the introduction of paid domestic violence leave, it was because the work was already being undertaken extensively by the Fair Work Commission.

In their review, the Fair Work Commission ruled that leave should be paid for 10 days for full-time employees and on a pro-rata basis for part-time employees. That's what the Fair Work Commission found. It found that leave should be accrued progressively each year, in the same way as personal and carers' leave is accrued under the National Employment Standards to a cap of 10 days. It found that leave should be accessible in advance of an entitlement to such leave accruing, by agreement with the employee or employer. It found that leave should be paid at the employee's base rate of pay. It found that leave should extend only to those who are experiencing violent, threatening or other abusive behaviour by a close relative to coerce, control, harm or intimidate an employee. It found that this ruling is in line with the commission's previous ruling under section 106B of the Fair Work Act.

I support this bill, with some caveats. The problem with the bill as it is currently drafted is that it goes beyond the recommendations of the Fair Work Commission. The bill as drafted effectively mirrors the recommendations of the ACTU to the Fair Work Commission. It goes beyond the findings of the Fair Work Commission. We all talk in this place about the importance of an independent arbiter and an independent umpire—in this case, the Fair Work Commission. What this government have done is go beyond it, and I'll talk about some of the problems with the way that they've addressed this issue.

Instead of supporting paid leave at the base rate of pay, as is the custom with other forms of personal leave, and in line with the Fair Work Commission's decision, Labor are promising a rate of pay including bonuses, loadings, allowances, overtime, penalty rates and other incentive-based payments. This is proof that the Labor Party do not understand the way that small business operates. It is proof that the Labor Party don't understand business—full stop! How is an employer going to calculate the rate of pay, taking into account bonuses, loadings, allowances, overtime and penalty rates, when those have not been earned?

How do you calculate for instance, a commission which has not been earned? How do you calculate overtime that has not been earned? These are things that other leave provisions do not provide for, for good reason: because they almost, in fact, make it unworkable and incalculable.

So I would implore those opposite to revisit this issue. Sure, you've got the numbers. Politics is a matter of mathematics. But, on behalf of small businesses in particular around this country, I would implore those members opposite to really have a good look at how these provisions are actually going to work. I'm not arguing with the merits of the underlying argument; I'm arguing about how the rate of pay is to be calculated.

My second issue is how family and domestic violence leave will be paid to casual workers. The Fair Work Commission found that the leave should be paid to full-time and part-time workers. But what about where you have casual workers? I know many people would say: 'Well, that's unfair. Why should you put casual workers aside?' I get the fairness argument, but, coming back to the calculation argument, how does one calculate the leave entitlements for someone who is a casual worker? Do you, for instance, look at an ordinary month or an ordinary fortnight? You've got 10 days leave. Do you calculate it over an average period? The bill is silent about that, so how are those calculations going to be made? Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I know you're very curious about that, and with good reason. What about irregular rosters and irregular work? The whole basis of casual work is irregular, so the Fair Work Commission expressly did not extend its recommendation to casuals.

The other concern I've got is the upfront accrual of 10 days leave. Labor are proposing that the whole 10 days of leave be accrued on day one of employment. That is totally inconsistent with other forms of leave that are paid. So this is a concern where someone rocks up and starts work on day one and they've got 10 days. This is not Andrew Wallace, the member for Fisher, saying this; this is the Fair Work Commission, which didn't extend this recommendation for leave, as important as it is, to the various concerns that I have raised here—and it was for good reason that it didn't do so.

The Labor Party have a choice. They can box on and march through with their numbers—the iron laws of arithmetic. But I would ask them—on behalf of every small business owner around this country who is ultimately going to have to pay for this—to make it workable. Don't just repeat the lines of the ACTU. Respect the umpire's decision. The umpire is the Fair Work Commission. (Time expired)

See this speech in context