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

The government does not agree with the three sheets of amendments the Greens are proposing in a number of cases because our very strong view is that the bill as it currently stands achieves exactly what the amendments are seeking to achieve. Just stepping through them quickly, for the amendment on sheet 1641 which seeks to broaden the wording to apply to an employee who has experienced family and domestic violence and also seeks to amend the wording to apply to situations where it's impractical or unsafe for an employee to do certain things, with the current wording of the bill, which talks about applying to an employee who is experiencing family and domestic violence, that is a flexible concept and picks up a broad time period in which a person experiences the consequences of the family and domestic violence. Other forms of leaves, such as personal and carers leave, may be available to eligible employees to deal with longer-term physical and psychological issues. We don't consider that it's necessary to add the word 'unsafe' to the particular clause in the bill. The existing clause refers to situations where it is impractical to do something, and I would find it very hard to believe that any court or tribunal would not consider something that is unsafe to also be impractical, so we think that that covers the field effectively.

What Senator Waters described as the 'technical amendment' relates to a note to a clause. The note does not have operative effect, although it gives guidance to employers and courts as to the intended scope of a section. As Senator Waters would know, the Acts Interpretation Act also makes clear that examples in notes are not exhaustive, and the note itself clearly states that the examples are not exhaustive, so we don't believe that that part of the amendment is necessary.

For the amendments on sheet 1652, we also do not agree with this one. This seeks to provide an entitlement for a further four days family and domestic violence leave annually where employees have exhausted their 10 days of annual paid leave. One of the underpinning policy objectives here is that employees can take leave to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence without the loss of income that they would have otherwise experienced. Of course, the National Employment Standards set out minimum requirements. Employers are already free to provide additional leave at their discretion, either on an ad hoc basis through workplace policies or as a result of bargaining. The bill also amends subsection 106A(5) to clarify that employers and employees can agree that the employee may take more paid or unpaid leave in addition to their minimum entitlement.

The amendments on sheet 1653 seek to add a new section to the Fair Work Act to provide that an employer must not take adverse action against any person who is an employee or prospective employee because the person has experienced or is experiencing family and domestic violence. Again, we don't agree with this amendment because the act already does this. Exercising a workplace right, including taking or requesting to take paid family and domestic violence leave, is already protected by the general protections in the Fair Work Act. An employee requesting or taking family and domestic violence leave is protected from adverse action, including an employer dismissing an employee, injuring them in their employment, altering their position to their detriment or discriminating between them and other employees, and an employer refusing to employ a prospective employee or discriminating against them in the terms and conditions the employer offers. The existing Fair Work Act already does what the Greens are seeking to achieve via their amendments, so we don't support these amendments being made.