Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

The advice I've received is that, in the situation you're talking about, it would be possible, of course, for a future employer to ask a previous employer whether someone had applied for or used domestic violence leave, just as it would be possible for a future employer to ask a previous employer about annual leave or sick leave, but it would be absolutely illegal for a previous employer to provide that information to a future employer. It's an existing provision under the law that future employers are not entitled to receive information from previous employers about any kinds of leave claims that have been made, and that would certainly apply here. That's correct. Yes.

While I am on my feet, I will put the government's position on this amendment on the record. Just in case those following aren't entirely clear, this amendment, which has been moved by—I am not sure—Senator Lambie or Senator Tyrrell, seeks to combine family and domestic violence leave with compassionate leave and rename the entitlement as 'emergency leave'. I accept that the mover of this amendment has the very best of intentions in seeking to do so and there have been productive conversations with the shadow minister's office about this but, be that as it may, the government does not agree to this amendment.

Compassionate leave, the existing category, is sought to be renamed as a special category of leave providing up to two days paid leave per occasion for full-time and part-time employees. Compassionate leave allows employees to spend time with a severely ill family member or allows them to deal with a family member's death. If this amendment were to pass it would significantly change the current compassionate leave settings and that could very easily result in a number of undesirable consequences. For example, women experiencing family and domestic violence who also need to take compassionate leave, either to spend time with severely ill relatives or due to a family member's death, would have to choose between escaping violence and grieving or caring for a severely ill family member, as compassionate leave would be no longer reserved for grieving purposes. Combining these forms of leave into a single leave balance may, in some cases, provide less paid leave than what is actually proposed in this bill.

The proposed amendment makes significant policy changes to compassionate leave. It would increase the potential amount of compassionate leave that can be taken from two days per occasion to up to 10 days per year, extend paid compassionate leave to casuals and make compassionate leave payable at the full rate of pay instead of the base rate of pay. None of these changes have undergone proper and adequate consultation and, for that reason, the government does not consider it appropriate to support the amendment.

What I will say, though, is that we have tried to pick up the intent of this amendment through the amendments that we have already passed relating to the changes to records on payslips. The government fully understands the importance of protecting personal privacy and acknowledges the concerns of the mover of the amendment regarding the importance of maintaining confidentiality for employees. The government have listened to a range of stakeholder concerns around payslips and that is why we made the amendments earlier that try to deal with the same problem via a different way, but we won't be supporting this amendment.