Senate debates

Thursday, 23 March 2023

Committees

Work and Care Select Committee; Report

3:41 pm

Photo of Jordon Steele-JohnJordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The benefits of a four-day work week are undeniable. There is evidence from all around the world that speaks to this reality. The case studies cite numerous examples of improvements in the physical and mental health of workers, higher rates of employment retention, fewer sick days taken and increased focus and engagement while working—also known as enjoying your job! All of this is achieved while maintaining productivity and output in the vast number of studies that have been undertaken. So the case is strong; it's pretty spectacular.

What I want to do this afternoon is add a few specific benefits for members of the disability community. Managing a full-time workload is challenging for anyone, especially with the astronomical rises in childcare costs, soaring interest rates, stagnant wages and a general pressure around the rise in the cost of living. On top of this, many disabled people and many chronically ill people have additional expenses, including medical appointments, medication and assisted technology equipment. The list goes on and on and on.

It really is important to remember that many disabled people and chronically ill people don't receive any financial benefits or assistance with these costs. Many of us aren't eligible for the NDIS or other forms of support. Even when we are it is rare, in my experience, that the supports available meet someone's actual costs and actually cover the cost of being disabled. Put this together with the reality that many disabled people and chronically ill people are in a situation where they are forced to work beyond their capacity in order to afford the care and the supports they need to live a good life, and you begin to see the picture of why a four-day work week would be so beneficial for disabled people and chronically ill people. Over time, the fact that we are forced to work beyond our capacity in order to live puts us at a much higher likelihood of burnout and the need to take an extended amount of time away from the workplace—or in some cases to stop work altogether—typically at a huge personal, professional and financial cost.

Maintaining 100 per cent of the salary for 80 per cent of the work hours and having that become the standard, as the Greens' four-day work week plan proposes, will help correct this structural imbalance that is not serving so many disabled people. Allowing people to take more time—to take the time needed to gain the energy to get better and to be able to work through struggles in their lives—while simultaneously having the funds they need to do that would transform people's lives. Hopefully, over time, we will be able to support people to avoid periods of burnout altogether and to avoid being forced out of the workforce and onto the DSP, JobSeeker or other allowance payments. I constantly hear from disabled people about how difficult it is to access these payments when they actually need them and the way in which they force them to live below the poverty line.

One of the key barriers to successfully navigating the workforce as a disabled person or a chronically ill person that I hear of constantly in the community is that struggle of juggling working for five days a week while also attempting to attend all the medical and healthcare appointments that you are required to engage in as a disabled person to maintain your care. Work-from-home options and flexible start and finish times obviously help with this tremendously, but I cannot emphasise enough how valuable additional accommodations would be to the community and how important it is that these types of flexibilities that would be enabled by a four-day work week actually become the norm. Even with these in place, we know that most medical appointments still happen during business hours, so we need to give people more of their week back. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Comments

No comments