Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

That actually was my next question in relation to the travel costs, Senator Watt, and you have now answered that, thank you. I know you'll be aware of this but, just to put it on the Hansard record, the Fair Work Commission in their decision about the rate of pay for paid family and domestic violence leave, FDV leave, have stated:

However, we consider that it would be overly disruptive to the integrity of the safety net to establish, on an across-the-board basis, a new paid leave entitlement which operates on a radically different basis to the paid leave entitlements for which the NES currently provides.

They also stated, in paragraph 863:

We cannot identify a persuasive rationale for taking a different approach in the case of paid FDV leave only.

Again just to get it on the record: given that that was the Fair Work Commission 's opinion—and I understand the ACTU had put forward another view and the government accepted that, and that's what we're looking at today—can I just again get the government's rationale? When we asked for it at the committee hearing, the department were not able to provide that assistance. And, to be fair to them, they are not the government. What was the government's rationale in actually going further than what the Fair Work Commission had stated, in particular given the concerns that the Fair Work Commission have put on the record—'overly disruptive to the integrity of the safety net'—in terms of this part of the bill? And how did the government determine it would depart from the advice and the decision of the Fair Work Commission?