Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, the Minister for Employment and the Minister for Women (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Moore today relating to workplace relations.

I specifically asked the minister about the issue of domestic violence leave in the public sector and also more widely in the community. In relation to the public sector, the minister said that it certainly was not her role to be engaged in issues around public sector bargaining; this was the responsibility of individual agencies. When I pressed further about what was happening in other areas of the community, particularly some of our leading corporates, where domestic violence leave is now becoming a standard provision in some of the leading corporate agencies, she again said that public sector bargaining was simply an issue for the public sector agencies themselves.

When I went further—through the three steps—to the second supplementary question, and asked whether the minister would directly support an entitlement of five days of paid domestic and family violence leave in the National Employment Standards, she said at that stage that the Productivity Commission report was coming through, that she would take note of that and in due course would then give some consideration to the issue of domestic violence leave.

Today Minister Cash was a very popular recipient of questions. She received questions from Senator Waters about issues around the gender pay gap and she also received a question from Senator O'Sullivan. Of course, Senator O'Sullivan was very keen to have a male's voice in the conversation. We know that from past experience, in Senate estimates last year. It is on record that Senator O'Sullivan felt it was important to have a male voice in the process of Senate estimates. In the minister's responses she then talked about issues of structural, cultural and institutional barriers to having women being involved in their workplaces.

Mr Deputy President, in going back to my own question—before you take the point of order you may have had in your mind—my point is that the minister said that, on the issue of public sector bargaining, she would not intrude because it was the responsibility of individual agencies. Domestic violence leave is an issue of core importance. A Senate committee identified that, when it came to family violence, the link between women and their employment was a key issue with respect to their safety into the future. When we are talking about issues around domestic violence, employment—solid, secure employment—remains an important element for women.

In the public sector, some departments already had this leave entitlement. I think it is a core responsibility of the minister to look at this being stripped out of agreements and put into policy. We know that the department and the minister herself have been very active in looking at the issues of domestic violence in our community. A range of policy changes have been put in place, and the minister referred to those in other answers she gave today.

Our proposition is that when we have already identified, through the evidence provided to our inquiry, that work has already been done in key agencies such as Telstra, NAB and Virgin, where they have seen the need to actually put this into their core conditions of service, surely there would be an expectation that the government of the day, the government that had identified the need to respond to women's fear about losing employment and having no secure income, would say that they would lead in this area in the public sector, that they would entrench this kind of condition in entitlements. They would not wait for yet another Productivity Commission report or another round of interviews or processes that would say 'We know domestic violence leave works. We know it is an entitlement that would actually be valued.' Why doesn't the government include in their response to domestic violence issues in Australia a commitment to five days of paid domestic leave in people's national employment standards? Don't wait. Don't actually cover it with rhetoric. Take on directly the institutional, structural and cultural barriers around security and ensure that everyone, workers in the public sector—which was the direct element of my question—but also in the wider community could have this as a paid entitlement in their workplace. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to add to the debate on taking note of answers to questions in question time. I was quite disgusted with some of the cynical and sarcastic remarks when my colleague Senator O'Sullivan asked his question today about women and their protection from domestic violence. Senator O'Sullivan was a detective, a police officer, for many years. He has been a huge campaigner against domestic violence. In fact, when a minister's office has held meetings—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley on a point of order.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw to the senator's attention to the issue before the chair. It is not a time to promote one of his colleagues. It is about responding to the issues that are being taken note of today.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, the question before the chair is not the question that you have started to address, Senator Williams; it was the question asked by Senator Moore of Senator Cash. You are actually addressing the question asked by Senator O'Sullivan of Senator Cash.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am referring to domestic violence, and Senator Moore has referred to the question. I am getting to that very point. We are talking about domestic violence and how we solve the problem. What do we do about harm to women? None of us in this building would ever endorse or condone any actions of violence, especially against women. That is the point I was making about domestic violence.

The government is committed to addressing domestic and family violence and sexual assault affecting all Australians. It is a serious problem. From my personal life experience, where I hear or see women especially being harmed or bashed, often it is related to drugs and alcohol. The treatment of women by some men is deplorable. I was referring in that context to Senator O'Sullivan, who has been a huge campaigner against domestic violence. We talk about what we in government are doing about this issue. The point I want to make is that when a minister has had open meetings at their office to address this very issue, the first person through the door was Senator O'Sullivan. We need to address this issue and he has been a huge contributor to the abolition of domestic violence.

Getting back to the issue of many businesses having discussions with their employees about the best way to support affected employees in the workplace. This should be encouraged. It is important that individual businesses, in conjunction with their employees, work out leave and other arrangements that will suit their unique circumstances. In most cases, it is, of course, not one size fits all. So it is important for businesses to actually work together with their employees to see that people who have been treated badly in domestic violence situations are treated in the best way possible. I am pleased to hear reports that a number of large businesses are taking positive steps to deal with domestic violence issues by proactively addressing it in their workplace arrangements and policies. This is to be encouraged. Businesses are showing the lead.

I keep coming back to one thing: Why is there so much domestic violence? Let's look at the root cause of it. It is a very difficult question to answer. Why do businesses face this situation? Why are some people so disrespectful to their partner, their spouse, their workplace colleagues et cetera. That is the question I ask, and I wonder what the solution is. It is a very simple question to ask but the solution is very difficult to find. This is a complicated issue. Earlier this year, even a member in Sydney was reported to have accepted that it would be complex for small employers to cope with a mandatory system of domestic violence leave. It would be very complex—what are the situations and what are the causes? We see the result of something very wrong being done. But why is the violence there? We should look to the root of the problem, to the violence itself.

I note that the Productivity Commission's report into the workplace relations framework included a discussion on domestic violence in the workplace. The government is carefully considering the Productivity Commission's discussions in relation to workplace support for the victims of domestic and family violence. They need support. Some of the things we hear are disgraceful and deplorable. I add that it is not always women. I know that men have been bashed and abused, as well. The statistics show that 99 per cent of the time it is the woman who is being treated badly.

How do we solve the problem? We should work with businesses and encourage them to do exactly that. The immediate and urgent priority of the government is to ensure the safety of women and their children who are at high risk of experiencing violence. The $100 million package announced by the Prime Minister in September 2015 provides essential measures and services that will improve front-line support and services. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to making my contribution today, particularly in light of Senator Williams asking how do we resolve this issue of domestic violence. For a start, the government should not be outsourcing responsibility—it should be showing leadership. That would be a very good start—an excellent start. Senator Cash comes in here and, first off, who does she blame? The CPSU—let's attack another union—and she then went on to say that these negotiations had nothing to do with her; she wanted to wash her hands of them. Well the buck stops with the government of the day.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance because of your very sensible ruling a minute ago when this speaker took the same point of order on Senator Williams. Senator Polley is talking about the wrong question. In accordance with your ruling before, I ask you to direct her to the question before the chair.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: Senator Polley is absolutely on point. I can read the whole question to Senator Macdonald, if he failed to listen to it the first time. The question before the chair is to take note of the answer of Senator Cash to the question asked by Senator Moore, which was about Australian public sector bargaining for domestic violence and family work leave. I believe, Mr Deputy President, that Senator Polley is absolutely on point.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it includes the CPSU?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard your supplementary comments, Senator Macdonald. The motion is to take note of the answer given to the question. I was also in question time and I recall Senator Cash's answer, and I think Senator Polley is addressing that question exactly.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. As I was saying, the minister has come into this chamber and wiped her hands of any negotiation. This government has failed to show any leadership. When it comes to domestic violence, if you have spoken to anyone who has been a victim then you would know how difficult it is for those women to speak up, to seek out help. It is extremely difficult. So here we have a government who is negotiating with its own employees, and the minister says it is nothing to do with her when she has a perfect opportunity to lead the nation—not leave it to private enterprise. It is like when they want to outsource everything to do with the work force in aged care—the minister told us in estimates it was not her responsibility. This is a serious issue that all Australians should be concerned about, and I believe most are. We need leadership from the government. The Labor opposition, through Mr Shorten, has already outlined the plan for an incoming Labor government to invest $70 million in measures to assist people in family violence situations.

If we want to find a solution, as Senator Williams said, to this serious issue then we need leadership—we need to start with the government leading the way with its own employees. The Prime Minister has the ability to direct that in the bargaining framework policy they adopt the same policy that we have set out to ensure that those people who need it get five days paid leave a year. It is easy to come in here and talk the talk but it is a lot more difficult to go out in the community and walk the walk. We saw last year when Ms Batty was the Australian of the Year how it put domestic violence back on the political agenda. But once we are in government we have the responsibility to lead—it is not for a minister to wash her hands of it and put it back onto someone else and use the opportunity to again attack unions. These are real people who work in government departments and work in private enterprise. All of us and our families deserve to have support and know that we can reach out and when needed can have some extra leave available to us. Senator Williams is quite right—it is not just women who experience the trauma of domestic violence. We cannot forget that there are children in those families and those circumstances who not only are affected on a daily basis but also can be impaired for the rest of their lives.

This is not an issue that should come in and out of vogue. This is an issue that should be on our agenda every single day. We will not sit here in this chamber and be lectured by Senator Cash and have her attack unions when we have a union that is trying to represent the best interests of government employees. The minister is going to sit back and allow that to continue without setting the agenda and intervening. Before the election Mr Abbott promised one thing and did another, and this is another example of Prime Minister Turnbull not showing leadership. After the performance here in the chamber at question time, if I were him I would be calling the minister in and asking when she is going to ensure that those provisions are included. That is what I would be doing if I were Prime Minister. I am calling on him to show some leadership and take some action, because it is unacceptable for a minister of the Crown to come in here and just wash her hands of such a serious issue. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous two Labor speakers have indicated that the answer of Minister Cash was attacking unions. That is not a bad debate to have in this chamber. I can understand why the Labor Party, who are totally supported by the union movement both with cash and in kind, do everything the union movement ask them to jump to their feet to defend them, even in the case of the ACTU, which has been proved in courts to be an absolutely vile, bullying, outrageously aggressive union—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I reluctantly have to, yet again, draw your attention to the fact that the good senator is in no way speaking to the issue before the chair. I ask you to draw to the attention of the senator to the fact that he needs to be relevant—although he is not really relevant in here any more.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some general flexibility is allowed in this debate, however I will listen to Senator Macdonald's comments and I remind all senators that the question is to take note of the answer given by Senator Cash to the question by Senator Moore.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleague has just alerted me to the fact that I said ACTU. Of course, I meant CFMEU, which is a vile union led by what appears to be thugs and bullies. The two previous Labor speakers in this debate indicated in their speeches that Senator Cash was attacking the union. I simply point out that I can understand why workers have left the unions in droves. One of the reasons is that they do not want their money going to support the Labor Party, which is where the union money goes.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, if you would resume your seat. Senator Brown, on a point of order.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I ask you to bring the senator back to the question before the chair. The question is about public sector bargaining. He is nowhere near it. It is about public sector bargaining for domestic violence leave and family leave. That is what it is about. It is an important issue. I ask you to bring the senator back to the question before the chair.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Senator Cash's answer where she talked about unions it was specifically in respect of one particular union in relation to the bargaining that is going on at the moment. That does not invite people to take a very general position. I simply ask Senator Macdonald to confine his remarks as best as he can to the answer given by Senator Cash. Senator Macdonald, you have the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that. I can understand why Labor senators jump to the defence of the unions every time the facts are shown. As the two Labor senators said in this debate, we are addressing the answer given by the minister and, according to the two Labor senators who spoke, the minister's answer was attacking the unions. I can understand why the CPSU, of all the unions, has a 44 per cent membership, and I might come to that shortly. In the private sector, the union membership is 12 per cent. It is no wonder people leave the unions.

I want to indicate, as the minister did, that this is an issue which has attracted this government's attention and the money that this government controls. The immediate and urgent priority for the coalition government is to ensure the safety of women and their children at high risk of experiencing violence. As the minister indicated, in September last year the Prime Minister announced a $100 million package to provide essential services and leverage innovation technologies to keep women safe and to provide education resources to help community attitudes to violence and abuse.

Like the submarine debate we had, here is a government in this area actually doing things that Labor did not do when it was in government. Labor complained about the submarines, but when they were in government for six years not one contract did they give for submarines or any shipbuilding whatsoever, and it is similar here. This government actually does things. It puts money into it, and I have mentioned the $100 million package. It does not just get up here when the CPSU rings the bell or pulls the chain. When they do, up jump the Labor senators to try to increase their membership drive or whatever they are doing. The coalition government acts—it puts money into it—as it is doing with shipbuilding. It again shows the abject hypocrisy of the arguments of the union movement and of the Labor senators who are simply mouthpieces for the union movement.

I want to also indicate that under the National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act, employees already have a specific right to request flexible working arrangements if they are experiencing family violence or providing care or support to a member of their family or household who is experiencing family violence. The act also includes a number of other provisions that may assist employees who are experiencing domestic and family violence. This is already there in the act. These provisions include a range of general provisions, statutory minimum entitlements to personal, carer's and compassionate leave to support a family member with a serious personal illness or an injury. These things have been addressed, they are being addressed and, more than that, they are being supported with government money, as the minister indicated.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take note of the answer of Senator Cash to the question asked by Senator Moore about public sector bargaining, in particular with regard to domestic violence leave and family leave. I note that this morning in this house we had breakfast to acknowledge that it will soon be International Women's Day. It was a very well-attended breakfast, where both the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, and the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, spoke about the importance of addressing domestic violence and about how important it is to curb this scourge of Australia to ensure that women are empowered, that women have equality and that women are able to be full participants in the community. I certainly recommend to people that they have a look at the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made this morning. I am very proud of what Mr Shorten said with regard to domestic violence. He gave practical examples of how we in the parliament can assist to ensure that we wipe out domestic violence.

I do note, like my colleague Senator Polley, that the Minister for Women, Senator Cash, who was also at the breakfast this morning, when asked the important question, 'What is the Turnbull government's attitude to retaining domestic-violence and work-family leave provisions in public sector enterprise agreements?' unfortunately immediately took the low road and started to attack the union that represents public service workers in this country—a very disappointing response, I thought. But we in the Labor party were not surprised that that was the initial reaction of the minister for the status of women. Of course, we heard that reinforced by both Senator Macdonald and Senator O'Sullivan's contributions in the taking note of answers debate today.

The reason that the Labor Party asked these questions about domestic-violence leave and work-family leave is that we know the devastating impact that domestic violence has on working women, and it affects women in the public sector as it does women in the private sector. Both the public sector and some private sector firms have made great strides in ensuring that domestic-violence leave is available to women as part of enterprise agreements or other workplace negotiations.

I point out that the whole issue of domestic-violence and work-family leave was put on the table in enterprise bargaining negotiations by trade unions. It did not just appear there out of nowhere. It was put there by trade unions, who have worked very hard to bring this issue into the workplace so that it can be dealt with, because we know that women in the workplace who are affected by domestic violence suffer enormously.

Not only do they suffer physically and have to maybe take sick leave or leave to look after their children when the relationship is in strife; they also often have to take leave to deal with things like legal matters, to move house to escape a violent partner or to find alternative schooling for their children when they have had to move away from the family location because of the domestic violence perpetrated on them. Those things mean that women miss out on many workplace benefits, including opportunities for promotion or pay rises—because they are dealing with violence at home that affects them in the workplace.

At the last International Women's Day, in 2015, the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, made some significant commitments about what a Labor government would do to ensure that there was adequate funding in particular for legal services for women suffering domestic violence, because we know that that is another big factor affecting women. The Labor Party will also support unions to ensure that domestic-violence leave and work-family leave is included in enterprise bargaining agreement frameworks for the public sector.

It is a responsibility of government. We cannot wash our hands of it, as the Turnbull government has done, and say, 'It's up to the agencies in the public sector to determine whether or not we have domestic-violence leave.' This government can make that decision. This government can ensure that agencies in the public sector include domestic-violence leave and work-family leave in public sector enterprise agreements. It is not appropriate for the Minister for Women to stand here and say, 'It's not up to me.' It is up to her. It is up to all of us—but, in particular, it is up to the Turnbull government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.