HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-02-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Fair Work (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (15:36): I was coming very close to the conclusion of my remarks, but just a brief recap: I was focusing on the impact that domestic violence has especially in regional communities, where the impact reverberates throughout the community given people often know the woman who is the victim and the children who are victims, members of family and other people who are known to the family. Not to diminish what happens in the metropolitan area, because it is all appalling, but the impact in country areas is sometimes greater.

I did also refer to the deeply disturbing statistics from Aboriginal communities, some of which are in my electorate. I did point out the figures in the Northern Territory. Alice Springs has received a lot of attention. In the intensive care unit at the Alice Springs Hospital, I think of the 14 beds 13 of those beds were taken up by Aboriginal women who had been severely beaten. Those numbers are deeply, deeply disturbing.

There is another issue that shows why this bill is important, along with a whole raft of other approaches. This bill does try to provide some support with the paid days off, and that is important. It obviously does not capture everyone, and specifically this bill is about state employees and those people who work for councils, building on the federal work that has been done by the Albanese government in relation to 10 days off on pay in the private sector.

One of the other deeply concerning figures, and it is something that has grown worse with the passage of time, is something that demonstrates the abject failure of housing policy at a national level and then feeding into the state level. Last year, 100,000 women sought assistance from homelessness services because of domestic violence in Australia. Around 30,000 of them were assisted, but it was not possible to assist the great number of people who required help.

The incredibly disturbing thing is that women were placed in this position of being homeless, often with children, having to find somewhere to stay—whether in a car, couch surfing, in a tent, a whole variety of outcomes that are incredibly damaging—and either doing that or returning home to the perpetrator of the violence. Of the numbers who returned home, 8,000 people were forced into that position because they had no option.

What we have seen over a number of decades is a massive reduction in public housing. I am not saying that public housing is the panacea or the answer, but clearly it is one of those elements that has to be seriously addressed. There is now movement at a federal level, there is movement at a state level, but given the massive build-up of need, this is going to take a lot of time and it always brings us back to the importance of housing.

I do not know whether this dark shift came about when suddenly housing, like so much else, was just seen as part of the financialisation of just about everything. Once upon a time a house was a home; there was that shift. What we have seen is profound market failure in addition to profound government failure and that failure for government to invest in a variety of ways in public housing on behalf of the longer term public good. This has an impact also when it comes to domestic violence in Australia.

This bill, as I said, is part of a whole jigsaw of tangible and practical pieces when it comes to addressing some of the issues that we face when it comes to domestic violence. I reflect back in my lifetime that in this state, and I did refer to this, we were still living in a significantly patriarchal society. We still have misogyny. We still have some disturbing survey results that indicate, amongst some cohorts of young males, there has been a backward slip when it comes to misogyny, and I put that down largely to social media.

But in my lifetime, to just show you how bad things were, and there have been some improvements and thank God for that, but just to show how bad things were—and it is not all that far back, 1976. Some people might say that is a long time ago; that is ancient history. I assure you it is not. In this state, in 1976, rape in marriage was still legal. It was the Dunstan government that introduced the legislative reforms to make that a criminal offence in this state. It is worth reflecting that this was the first common-law country in the world to do that. Once again, South Australia was taking the lead. Some of those attitudes that allowed that to happen back then are still with us now.

Most men that I meet are great people, but there is still a significant minority who can be controlling, who can go from controlling, which is in itself bad enough and can be an indicator of worse to come, to being controlling and violent. The impact on women is profound. Other people have mentioned that sometimes men are victims of domestic violence, and that is true, but overwhelmingly it is women who are victims of domestic violence.

Of course, the other victims are if there are children in the household. It is said that what those children are exposed to and what it does to those children who are exposed has long-term consequences for children who live in households where domestic violence is an occurrence.

So it is incredibly important that this parliament, parliaments throughout the country and the federal parliament continue to do what we can in a legislative sense, and also that the broader community continue to do what they can to drive those changes to the culture until we get to the point where we do not see the number of women who are killed every year in this country: one woman every 10 days is killed in this country. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services) (15:45): I am really proud to speak on this important piece of legislation. It gives public sector and local government employees access to family and domestic violence leave entitlements.

Fifteen days' leave can make an important difference in the lives of people fleeing domestic violence. Through collective bargaining between workers and employers, more than a million workers already have access to paid leave for family and domestic violence and we know the impact that entitlement can have.

The federal government has recently legislated for a further 10 million workers. Now it is time for South Australia to do its part. In doing so, we have chosen to take even bigger steps—legislating for 15 days. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described this victory as 'the best example of bottom up change' that he could think of. This is the work across years of strong union women and activists being unapologetic in their pursuit of this lifesaving leave. I pay particular tribute to the Australian Services Union, for whom this leave entitlement has been their proverbial baby.

Both South Australia's ASU and New South Wales were trailblazers in this space in 2010. One of the cases where the ASU negotiated for paid domestic violence leave was at the Surf Coast Shire Council. At this time, it was the world's most progressive workplace agreement on family violence. Since then, millions of workers across many industries have been covered by similar agreements, supported by their unions, using the ASU template.

The ASU was not content to end there and took up the campaign to legislate for domestic violence leave in agreements across Australia, in our federal parliament and now here in the South Australian parliament. It is a proud legacy for a proud union and it gives me immense pleasure to pay tribute to their work.

In particular, I would love to thank the secretary, Abbie Spencer, the assistant secretary, Scott Cowen, Ella Waters and Daniel Spencer for their important roles in the passing of this legislation. Your local government workers will be thankful for your contribution in the most difficult time of their lives. I also place on record my thanks to the United Workers Union, who represent some of the lowest paid workers in the public sector. Your advocacy on behalf of these workers will change lives.

This law will not end domestic violence. It is a much harder task and there is a lot more to do, but it is an important step, because no worker should have to choose between safety and income. No worker should have to choose between income and medical care. Every worker has the right to be safe at work and at home.

Family and domestic violence leave can be used for any purpose relating to the worker experiencing family and domestic violence, including attending medical appointments, court proceedings, receiving legal advice and relocating residences. It is not hard to see how life-changing this could be in the journey of a domestic violence survivor.

I am privileged to be the Minister for Human Services, which encompasses so many female-dominated industries, but the care economy also hides the brutal reality of what many women face on a day-to-day basis. We know that disability support workers, early childhood educators, aged-care workers and many other women-dominated workplaces are paid poorly and have insecurity in their roles. We know that secure work and the confidence that your employer will support you during times of crisis means that women can continue to support themselves and their families and can take the steps they need to ensure they remain safe.

Since becoming the Minister for Human Services, I have worked every day to undo some of the work of the previous government, which enacted considerable damage along its four years. Many of our marginalised cohorts of people were left to fend for themselves during the global pandemic, and the former government failed to work collaboratively and proactively on so many issues in homelessness, domestic violence, cost of living, disability support and many other areas of my portfolio.

Since coming to government, I have committed myself to undoing this damage, and in so many ways this work is directly related to domestic violence. One of the first things we did was reverse the funding cuts to Catherine House. Across our term of government, we funded $2 million to Catherine House, where many women experience a complex group of challenges, one of which is often domestic and family violence.

We have instigated our Older Women's Housing Taskforce. This goes to the heart of unstable housing, again often caused by domestic violence. Many women are affected by these issues together—domestic violence and homelessness. The journey we are on to end domestic violence has many travellers. I want to pay particular tribute to the Women's Safety Services SA, fondly known as WSSSA. They support women and their children who are experiencing domestic violence in our community. During difficult conversations like this, it is important that we recognise frontline workers and their support systems that already do exist.

WSSSA provides integrated responses to their clients through the provision of specialised, accessible and flexible models of service delivery that are informed by the lived experience of women and their children, responsive to the diversity of the lives of women and their children, easy to access, evidenced-based and high-quality, engaged in effective strategic partnerships, strong in advocacy and influence and supported by a sustainable organisation. We are so lucky in South Australia to have this important service to support women fleeing domestic violence.

I do meet survivors of domestic violence every day in my work, as do all members of this place, I am sure. I know that this important legislation will go some way to helping more people. One of the extraordinary days that I have spent was alongside the workers and participants of programs at the Zahra Foundation. This foundation is providing a real conduit for change for women. It is empowering women to take control of their financial situation, to take control of their decision-making and to improve the outcome.

I was really impacted by the time I spent sitting around the table with this diverse group of predominantly young women and predominantly mothers of young children, who are every day faced with decisions that are almost impossible to make in terms of providing safety for themselves and their children as well as a roof over their head. So I want to congratulate the Zahra Foundation on the work that they are doing which has been born out of tragedy.

I want to comment in regard to the member for Giles' contribution regarding housing. While this legislation will go such a long way to providing the capacity for women in the acute phase of domestic violence, in an acute experience that is impacting so profoundly on their life, to be able to make a safe choice to seek some treatment and some assistance, I think it is absolutely true what the member for Giles says about housing being at the heart of providing for a community that seeks long-term safety for its citizens.

We have drawn a line in the sand, and we have made a number of announcements around improving and increasing the supply of public housing, improving and increasing the supply of affordable housing, addressing the rental crisis and providing active and proactive solutions to women who are in unstable housing.

Only last week, during country cabinet, I met with a number of women who are survivors of domestic violence, women who are supporters of family members of survivors of domestic violence. To sit and listen to the stories of the instability of the journeying of the women from house to house, the swapping around of the accommodation arrangements to try to protect each other, it is pretty difficult stuff to listen to. It provides me with energy and a real determination to continue to ensure that we get the settings right to provide secure housing and the supports needed to ensure a safer future for women and families experiencing domestic violence.

Only in the last couple of months, we, along with the Homelessness Alliance partners in the north, have opened an accommodation service, a crisis accommodation service called Peppertree Place. It comprises eight units and provides accommodation, at any given time, for eight women and children as family units to seek some safety and some refuge as they recalibrate what it is to live together as a family in safety and begin a journey to secure longer term housing.

It is a much better environment than a hotel, a much better environment than a caravan park, a much more stable environment than a friend's couch, so I was very proud to open that recently, and we will continue to watch how that is going, and look for other opportunities to do exactly the same kind of work across other areas of South Australia. I know that this is not just a metropolitan issue; in fact, it is amplified in the regions. Again, last week's opportunity to talk with women and families was an excellent way to get more information and reaffirm the determination to do better in this space.

I also want to thank the many people who work in electorate offices who are often faced with providing that support for women who come to the office seeking advice about domestic violence. I know there are many young trainees, many young adults, working in electorate offices who are faced with this on a regular basis, and they do an extraordinary job providing support, advice and referral for people seeking advice and safety in crisis.

Before ending, I want to make a little callout to the member for Elder on her contribution, her very strong contribution, calling out the attacks that often happen on social media when members of parliament actually discuss or put up a post about domestic violence and its effect on women and families. None of us deny that there are occasions when domestic violence is inflicted on men. None of us deny that.

What we all want to take account of here is that the vast majority of the devastating cases, and the murders, occur against women every week, week after week. We do not deny this happens to men, and I think that the member for Elder, who is a fairly new member in this place and a young, powerful woman in her community, did an exceptional job of articulating that in terms of calling out the attacks that happen in regard to this issue. Please think before you start attacking what is actually a very important conversation as we journey towards bringing an end to domestic violence. I commend the bill.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:00): I rise to close this second reading debate and to thank all of the members who have contributed to this really important discussion and exploration of issues around this bill and, more broadly, around domestic violence and its impact on people and communities.

In every contribution, members shared the reasons that they support this bill and discussed technical aspects. What so many also did was share their feelings; share the experiences of people they know or experiences of their own; deeply and rightly acknowledge the courage of victim survivors; and recognise the intersection between economic independence, financial security and recovery and healing.

They also spoke about the incredible commitment of workers in the domestic violence services sector and about the way that those workers walk alongside women experiencing domestic violence. As well as providing particular supports and services, they are deeply committed to providing those services with compassion, in a way that ensures women are able and empowered to walk new pathways with dignity as they traverse that journey to recovery and to healing.

In members making these contributions, I think that they all exemplified the importance of us as members of parliament leading the way in speaking about domestic violence—and in doing so, in speaking, encouraging every person to speak and to ensure that every aspect of domestic violence is brought out from the shadows and that a light is relentlessly shone upon it until it is prevented and ended.

I am extremely proud to be leading the passage of this bill in this place and to work closely with our Attorney-General in the other place towards progressing this reform and others that make up our strong policy commitments that we took to the election last year. These are commitments that focus on amplifying the voice of those courageous victim survivors; commitments that focus on calling out the disrespect towards women and the gender inequality that underpins and drives violence against women, that focuses on shifting attitudes to ensure that that gender inequality is tackled as it should be.

These are commitments that focus on empowering our communities to be part of the solution, to be part of working together towards preventing and ending domestic violence, to bringing to life that oft-repeated mantra that domestic violence is everybody's responsibility. These are commitments that, as the member for Hurtle Vale just spoke about, speak to an understanding about the role that safety and security of housing plays in that journey of recovery and healing. Contributions also spoke to the need for us as a parliament and as a community to tackle the deep and complex intersection between child protection and domestic violence. These are commitments that absolutely speak to our government's desire to do all that we can to progress change that moves us towards a community where domestic violence is prevented and ended.

As I said in my remarks upon introducing this legislation, I am really grateful for the long-lasting efforts of union members and officials who have championed the right to paid domestic violence leave for a very, very long time. I again pay credit to the work of the Australian Services Union and the Australian Workers' Union who, for almost 15 years, have led the charge in rightly calling for family and domestic violence leave in the local government sector.

I thank those union members and, indeed, the members of other unions and officials, who have tirelessly advocated for this change for this step forward to support and empower women experiencing domestic violence. I am really proud to have been part of those efforts, alongside officials and brave workplace representatives who have relentlessly spoken up for their colleagues to have this crucial right.

Since coming into government, and for years and decades previous to this, it has been a great joy for me to hear the stories and experiences of women—women leading change in their fields, and those empowering the voices and autonomy of other women in the face of some of their hardest moments. As I said, I have thoroughly appreciated hearing the reflections of other members throughout this debate, sharing personal stories, stories that have been shared with them and comments on how this bill and the provision of leave will benefit women and workers—and benefit them it will.

This benefit is well known to me when in previous roles, working with workers and employers through different aspects of enterprise bargaining, the conversations held around the matter of domestic violence leave led to further conversations in the workplace regarding how everyone in that particular workplace could better support an employee experiencing domestic violence, what that workplace could do together as a workplace to progress change in addressing domestic violence more broadly and in raising awareness about it. As we continue to speak publicly about the scourge of domestic violence, each one of these contributions continues to raise awareness. They send a message to victim survivors that they are seen, and encourages those experiencing violence to reach for assistance.

Each of the aspects of legislative reform committed by our government, and other efforts to prevent and end domestic violence at their core are about, as I said, addressing gender inequality which we know sits at the centre as the root cause of this violence. We know all too well that achieving gender equality is the right thing for girls and women and it is absolutely the right thing for our entire community, as an equal future benefits everyone.

As members outlined in their contributions, I, too, am committed to ensuring that the voices of women and victim survivors are central to decisions made in relation to the prevention of domestic violence. Throughout the drafting of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, launched in October last year, all states, territories and the commonwealth listened deeply to victim survivors and put their experiences at the heart of that national plan, which takes a whole-of-society approach to ending gender-based violence.

The voices of victim survivors are so incredibly important, and I am honoured to share some of their words in this place. Their call to action as outlined in the National Plan, Victim-Survivor Statement notes:

It is everyone's responsibility to end the perpetration of violence against women and children, and all victims of gendered violence.

The powerful statement goes on to say:

Too many of us are being re-traumatised trying to engage with systems that are meant to 'protect' us but fail. Systems that create barriers to access and have costs beyond our means because services are not designed for the realities of our lives. Instead, they perpetuate the same dynamics of power and control as our abuses. Systems that wait until the worst has happened before they respond, then blame us for not reporting or leaving.

We should not have to die to get your attention.

We should never be forced to choose between violence in our homes or being homeless and facing violence on the streets, or having our families torn apart in ways we never wanted and that cause further harm.

This is not safety.

As noted in our national plan, to reach our goal of a country where all people live free from fear and violence we need sustained, collective action across our community with every person, every organisation, using their power, their sphere of influence, to drive change. Actions cannot be left to governments alone. Each one of us has a role to play in reaching that aim of a country where all people live free from fear and violence.

As the biggest employer in the state, I am proud that we are leading in progressing legislation to enact 15 days paid domestic violence leave. Looking at the whole-of-society effort, our national plan highlights the role that businesses and workplaces can have as we work towards the aim of ending violence against women in a generation.

Key areas in that plan for workplaces include the prevention of gender-based violence through fostering gender equality in the workplace, designing products and services that are safe and prevent misuse whilst also focussing on perpetrator accountability, and providing leave entitlements for victim survivors such as paid family and domestic violence leave and paid parental leave.

This legislation is a key step in enacting our national plan and progressing towards our vision that by the time children born now are starting their own families, the society they live in will be free from violence. This vision is ambitious, but if we are all pulling in the same direction it is achievable. To achieve this kind of generational change we know we need a long-term commitment. The new iteration of the national plan gives us a chance to emphasise the need for long-term action beyond the life of the plan. That is our shared national commitment, and all governments—as we are doing today—need to pull in the same direction and be united in our efforts to achieve that vision.

In closing, again I thank the many members who have spoken to this bill throughout the debate. I thank them for their words and for sharing experiences, and I thank each of them for their commitment to this cause as we all strive towards change that shifts attitudes and prevents violence against women and children.

I would also like to thank Hilary Wigg in my office, Elliot in the Office of the Attorney-General, Sanjugta Vas Dev and Sandy Pitcher from the Office for Women and the Department of Human Services respectively for their work towards this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to clause 1, in terms of background information on how the bill was constructed, could the minister provide a list of those organisations, individuals or others who were consulted, including unions, in the construction of the legislation?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you for the question. With your indulgence, Chair, can I also just say that I feel terrible because there was another person I wanted to thank in the final sentence of my speech. Can I also thank Angas Oehme from the Attorney-General's office for his work towards this bill.

I will come to a specific answer to your question, but I do want to say that this piece of legislation has been discussed for a very long time by women's organisations, by domestic violence service providers and by organisations that play a role in ensuring the economic independence and financial security of women who escape domestic violence. They are organisations like the Zahra Foundation and the Women's Safety Services, so there has been a very long-term conversation.

Certainly, when we were in opposition and now in government I have discussed this bill with a range of those women's organisations, as well as the Working Women's Centre. Also, on 25 September the draft legislation was released for consultation between 25 September and 10 October 2022. It was also provided to public sector and local government unions, to the Law Society of South Australia and to the Local Government Association. We did receive several responses that suggested some technical amendments, which were of course also considered.

Mr COWDREY: Just as a point of clarification, did you receive submissions from each of those organisations you have listed, or were they just who the draft was provided to? I would just like some clarification.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We did not receive written submissions from every single organisation, but for instance the Local Government Association contacted us. They did not provide a submission but did advise that they did not have any particular issues with the bill.

Mr COWDREY: Would you be able to walk us through for the benefit of the committee how you landed on 15 days? Why was it that number as opposed to a different number in terms of background to understand the thought process to land on that number?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: There were a few reasons. Obviously we wanted to have the best provisions we possibly could. Also, for a particular period of time public sector employees did have access to 15 days' paid leave through a public sector determination, and obviously we did not want to move backwards from that particular position.

Also, not all but a number of councils in their enterprise agreements have struck agreement around particular clauses on the provision of paid domestic violence leave. Some of those are less than the 15 days, but a number are actually higher. Some are at 20 days and others sit around 15.

As well as wanting to have exemplary legislation, we did not want anybody to go backwards or to have any derogation of those particular rights they had been afforded through particular industrial instruments or through that public sector determination.

Mr COWDREY: How closely, if at all, did the state government work with the federal government in the drafting of the bill?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Obviously we considered the drafting of their legislation and where they landed, and we certainly did adopt particular provisions and had consideration of it along the way. However, as you have just stated, it is certainly not identical in terms of the provisions, but a number of the clauses are expressed in similar ways or go to the same issues.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr COWDREY: I note that the federal legislation that was passed recently, as you have already alluded to, covering much the same subject matter and covering obviously the vast majority of South Australian workers, has come into effect for large businesses on 1 February 2023 and does so for small businesses on 1 August this year. When does the government imagine that this legislation will be operable in South Australia?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The exact date is not determined, but what I would say is two things. Firstly, we would like to see it enacted as soon as possible; however, we are also cognisant of the need to give notice, particularly to councils and local government organisations, to make sure that they have the opportunity to make their arrangements around these particular provisions. We will be cognisant of that need.

Mr COWDREY: That was effectively my next question. In terms of transition time to implement the change in payroll system, coding or any of those things, is there a transition period of time that you are imagining is going to be necessary for, as you have referenced, local governments and local government organisations to be able to put themselves in a place to operably deliver the change?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: It is a really important question, thank you. It is our intention that we actually consult with the LGA about the length of time that is needed for the transition so that councils do have, as you and I have both said, that opportunity to make their particular arrangements around pay systems and other systems that may need to be changed. We will consult with them about the particular period that is required to do that effectively.

Mr COWDREY: Did they provide any indication to you in any of their submissions of how long they expected to need to implement it? Are we talking by the end of the year, or are we talking mid next year? Do we have any idea of time frame?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As I said, they have not specifically given a position across local government. As I mentioned before, there are particular councils where they do have provisions in enterprise agreements, so different councils are in different positions in relation to what is provided. Having said that, we would anticipate that the transition period would be months rather than something that occurs next year.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, do you have an understanding about the effect of these amendments on how many employees in South Australia will be able to access this process?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: There are two parts to the answer that I give you. First of all, there are around 130,000 public sector employees. Also, there are around 11,000 employees in local government. What I would say is we want the provision to be available to all those workers, and the reason we are moving this bill has been articulated well by various members. We want people to be able to access these provisions.

Having said that, with the second part of my answer, whilst it will be open to all those workers, what we also hope with this bill and a number of the other mechanisms that we are putting in place that we have committed to to tackle the scourge of domestic violence is that it will help to raise awareness about domestic violence in workplaces. I think every person in this house would agree that we hope that, as we begin over time to see the prevention and eradication of domestic violence, it is a smaller number of people who actually need to use it because we hope that the prevalence of domestic violence begins to abate.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you for the answer, minister. In regard to the local government employees—and I am not sure whether you want to combine the local government and the Public Service—does the government have any understanding of the extra cost implications with the leave, and obviously in the uptake of such a process, and how this will affect productivity and budgets?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, it is a really important question and it is a difficult question for anybody to answer because none of us can predict right now exactly how many workers may need to access these particular provisions.

There are a couple of other things. I know that the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment is looking across government at how statistics about usage can be improved, particularly should this bill progress, which will be really important in terms of better understanding the prevalence of domestic violence which we all always strive to do.

In terms of productivity, I think that is a really interesting question because whilst a person who avails themselves of paid domestic violence leave then is not in the workplace for a particular period of time, what we know is that through the provision of this paid leave they are much more likely to continue their connection with the workplace, and to feel that they are supported and able to raise these issues in their workplace.

As I said, a really important component of this legislation is the provision of the leave but also the awareness-raising. Whilst there might be that impact where particular workers are away from the workplace, we also know that through offering paid leave that really important connection for the workplace—the understanding in the workplace and also for that particular worker in terms of their financial security at a time when they need it most—is actually secured.

Mr McBRIDE: At clause 2—Commencement, with the commencement of this where does this place South Australia amongst the other jurisdictions, other states, with their processes timewise and the need to support such a difficult issue and situation in our society? Are we at the top of the pendulum for being really supportive or are we at the bottom and low and perhaps we have the least days? I want to know what your thoughts are in regard to where the government has landed in South Australia and where it places us with the other states.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, a two-part answer to your question. First of all, I think that here in South Australia we are doing really good and important work and taking steps forward because of the suite of policies and legislation that we are either progressing or have committed to progress here in South Australia.

As members would know, when we tackle domestic violence, it is really important that we do so from a range of angles including the legislative angle. Obviously, this bill, as I have spoken about many times in this place, is part of a suite of legislation that we have either moved or intend to move, but also it is really important that it sits alongside measures around prevention, tackling gender inequality, making sure that the connection between child protection and domestic violence is contemplated and understood.

So what I would say is that I think we are doing good work. There is more to go; there is still a way to go, of course. But as we contemplate this, in amongst the suite of policies and legislative changes, etc. that we are enacting, they are complemented by the national plan that is comprehensive and focuses on prevention, intervention, response, recovery and healing. As we as a state and other states respond to that, we are continuing with that effort in a holistic way, if you like.

In terms of the actual legislation, in light of the federal legislation being passed, a number of other jurisdictions we are aware are developing legislation. I can certainly, perhaps, come back to the house about exactly where each of those jurisdictions are up to at this moment because I do know there has been a flurry of activity in this space. I will check exactly where those deliberations are up to and I can bring an answer back to you.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr COWDREY: I just wanted to put on record that it speaks for itself and is supported.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr COWDREY: Just in regard to the review function, if you compare the federal bill and the review function for the legislation and the act that is contained in that particular legislation, it is no different to many review functions that we have in many bills and acts that effectively from time to time will look at the operational effectiveness of the legislation against achieving the objectives of the act. What struck me as strange in this particular bill is that it appears that SAET is the only body that is able to initiate a review. Is that correct and is that the intention of the bill?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: There are two things. I feel like I keep having two answers to the question but I just want to make sure there is a really fulsome explanation. The first thing I would say is that in terms of other leave—and I think other provisions—but definitely other leave provisions like bereavement leave, carer's leave etc. that is actually standard in terms of SAET. At particular points in time, or particular reasons, or particular community desire they have the ability to review any of those provisions for leave in that same way that it is described here.

The other thing, though, that I would say is that none of this prevents another organisation from making an application to have a review of this particular provision and the quantum of the provision to SAET. Probably just the other thing—and I guess I am just pre-empting if there is a question on this—you would have seen for (a) and (b) that there is a provision around the two-year period where this will stand as is.

Mr COWDREY: The question was more given the focus of this parliament on this issue over a period of time and given that we essentially have a minister responsible for the issue, and have for some time, whether there was thought that the minister potentially had the power to review. Again, I will leave that because I think your answer was fulsome enough to cover the field for the purposes that we need.

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard: I can add something if you like on that point or not.

Mr COWDREY: I think it is okay. The other question I had in regard to this clause is around the explicit employer obligations that were contained in the federal bill but not in this one, particularly in regard to disclosure on payslips and how the leave was going to be presented. It was explicit in the fact that it was prohibited from being expressly stated as domestic violence leave in the federal bill. Is that something that is contemplated by this legislation and, if not, why not?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The provisions in this bill do not constrain a particular organisation from determining that they will potentially display the leave as paid domestic violence leave or in any other manner in which that particular workplace determines.

Mr COWDREY: Do you think that is appropriate, given the inclusion of that in the federal bill? As more than half of employees in South Australia, should they take this leave, will be protected in the presentation of that leave on their payslips, is it appropriate for that protection not to be afforded to Public Service workers?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: In relation to these organisations that we are speaking about, they are obviously large employers, either the public sector or local government, with pretty sophisticated systems to be able to construct the description of this particular leave in ways that are safe for particular workers. But you do make a good point; it is something that we will continue to monitor. We would encourage workplaces to work with staff through their awareness-raising conversations as this is implemented about exactly how this will be displayed on their payslips, and we will certainly be monitoring how that works also.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps by way of comment, if the minister did want to provide an amendment in between houses, I think we on this side would be happy to support any amendment in that vein if you did want to provide it in a more express manner.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr COWDREY: Quite literally, the vast majority of the substantive aspects of the bill are contained in this clause, so I will try my very best to contain it to three questions. We talked earlier about the reasoning for 15 days and obviously the interaction with previously agreed entitlements that were there and not wanting to depart from that too far. Particularly in the second reading speech and in most of the commentary that I have heard publicly so far, there has been an argument about wanting to have consistency between entitlement for all workers in this area.

My question is both in regard to where we have arrived from a state perspective on public sector employees and those covered by the Fair Work Act and then obviously the federal bill and the provisions that are provided there. Is it sensible to have inconsistency between the public and private sector in regard to the level of entitlement for workers?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Too right, there is inconsistency. However, I would say that I actually think it is important that we do proceed with the 15 days paid leave, because it is really important that the public sector does lead in terms of efforts to ensure that new provisions, etc., are made available to employees and that they are of a high standard.

The other thing I would say is that there is that other consideration, which I spoke about before, and that is that we certainly do not want anybody to be worse off as a result of the implementation of this legislation, and there are inconsistencies right across those councils that do have these provisions, bearing in mind a number of councils do not have them at all.

Mr Cowdrey: This overrides those, does it?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: That is right. So I am saying though that we do not want anyone to be worse off, if that makes sense. I understand there is that inconsistency, but it is really important that we do lead the way and that we certainly do not go backwards in terms of any provisions for workers.

Mr COWDREY: In that same vein, I think you described this legislation as exemplary legislation. Did the federal Labor Party not go far enough in their bill? Would you like to see 15 days across that? Did they not go far enough three months ago when they moved their bill?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am really, really proud that federal Labor has implemented the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Act. It is such an incredible step forward. It has been long awaited by many, many people and organisations, and it is just an excellent thing that that is now happening across the country, and that now we are making sure that everybody here in South Australia is able to access it.

The thing I would say about the federal jurisdiction that is different to our South Australian jurisdiction is, because of the coverage of workers under the Fair Work Act, it covers a range of private sector employers, so the small fish and chip shop to particular private sector businesses, Qantas, etc. Whereas in this bill, we are talking about similar workers—public sector workers, local government workers; it is very clear who the group is—and we are really clear about what those provisions already are in each of those workplaces. In each of the councils we are really clear. We are really clear in terms of the public sector.

As you would all appreciate, there is a multitude of different sized organisations in the federal arena, and there are all sorts of arrangements, of course underpinned by the Fair Work Act, so I do think that the step forward on the paid 10 days' domestic violence leave is an incredibly important one, and I am sure the commonwealth will continue to make sure that that is implemented well.

What I would say as well is that the federal government has done some extraordinary work to bring every state together over the past eight or nine months since they came to government, to have every state and every territory sign up to the national plan, and the national plan is a brilliant document that is guiding all of the states and territories in terms of the steps forward that we take.

Mr COWDREY: I potentially just have two final questions.

The CHAIR: That is okay. Given the scope of the clause, I might be a bit more lenient.

Mr COWDREY: It is just in regard to schedule 3B section 3. It introduces the reasonable person test around evidence that must be provided on request of the employer. I am just keen to understand how that interacts with the confidentiality provisions that are contained in section 5. From an operational perspective, to whom in the organisation—for the sake of simplicity let's assume this is a government department of some sort where an employee is in the unfortunate circumstances of needing to access this leave.

Is this simply managed by their direct report, by their HR manager or whomever the person feels the most comfortable in approaching, and how do the confidentiality provisions that are contained in the act cross over with the communication of necessary information to ensure that that reasonable person test has actually been met?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: There are a few things about confidentiality; it's a really, really important question. In every organisation there are particular requests for leave made now—whether that is public sector, local government, small business, however that is—and there are provisions around confidentiality in terms of the person that you make that application to, whether that is bereavement leave, carers' leave or sick leave. There are absolutely already confidentiality provisions in place, so that will continue to operate.

However, there are two other things I would say. One is that those confidentiality provisions also do not preclude a person who may choose to disclose particular information to that person, or indeed to other people in a workplace. Our expectation would be that the confidentiality provision is there, bearing in mind that leave provisions are already confidential in terms of the nature of leave that people apply for.

Also, as I said in the speech I gave before and in earlier answers, implementing this leave is also about raising awareness in a workplace. As I said in my speech just half an hour or so ago, if we are serious about bringing to life that mantra that domestic violence is everybody's responsibility, then we do need to have conversations in workplaces, etc., that build awareness.

When I say that, I am not suggesting that everybody knows. Of course I am not suggesting that that is disclosed. What I am suggesting is that we would expect workplaces and departments to actually work through who that appropriate person is that people can speak to about their particular experiences. In many places, that may be the HR contact, in other settings it may be a particular equal opportunity officer or designated representative in the workplace. That is something that we want departments and workplaces to work through in their context and in a way that continues to build awareness about everybody's responsibility in terms of preventing, and building awareness about, domestic violence.

Mr COWDREY: I guess where I was trying to go is where an employee comes in, discloses their situation and their need to source some leave to their immediate superior, who then provides the information that leave needs to be sought to the particular HR function at this particular organisation. The organisation then wants further details. Under the confidentiality provisions, it appears without consent of the actual person that that direct superior would not be able to pass on any further details to the HR manager. It is not unreasonable to think that that situation may occur.

In regard to the confidentiality provisions or in regard to the reasonable person test and the information that is being sought by the employer, is there anywhere where this may overlap and actually cause problems? That is one situation that clearly jumped out.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Clause 5, which goes to the confidentiality issue, and then clause 3(3) are to be read in conjunction with one another. They are not exclusive. In your scenario, if a worker goes to the particular HR contact person and says, 'I want to avail myself of these particular leave provisions,' it is confidential. However, that does not stop the employer from asking and working with them to find out some information about why, or supporting evidence as is listed in the bill also.

Mr McBRIDE: Still on clause 5 point 2, minister can you please explain why the Canberra federal government would advocate 10 days and this state government thinks that 15 is better? Then consider that maybe 20 might have been better on top of that again. So I would ask you why did you settle on 15? Secondly, do you have any idea in regard to the cost of those 15 days compared to the federal government 10-day rollout and what that would mean to the government?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I feel I have answered it, but if there is anything else I will try to add some information. First of all, the 15 is about having the best legislation possible and making sure that we do set a good standard. I would also say that public sector employees have previously, through a public sector determination—not through an act that enshrines those rights forever—had access to 15 days' paid leave. Similarly, in local government there is one council that does 20, a number that do 15 and a number that do 10, so we wanted to make sure that we are lifting people to that standard and not taking away from particular rights.

Of course, those who have 20 paid days in an enterprise agreement will continue to have those 20 paid days in an enterprise agreement until such time that that agreement is renegotiated, expires or lapses. Those are the considerations that we took into account that people are already accessing in terms of the group of workers who are covered by this particular bill here in South Australia.

I would also go back to what I said before that, yes, there will be cost but we cannot absolutely say that this many workers in this particular place will avail themselves of this leave at a particular time because we do not know nor can we know exactly what particular experiences workers will go through in terms of that experience of domestic violence and what requirements they would have in terms of leave.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to the whole rollout of this valuable and good amendment to employees, and finding themselves in this area, is there any way that the government has given consideration to it not going far enough when it comes to see the numbers, the days required, the sufferance that is perhaps exposed, or is there any way that the government has given consideration that the incidence is way higher than anticipated? I will be the devil's advocate here and dare to say that it perhaps could be used by some to rort or use incorrectly or for the wrong reasons. How does the government think that they would manage this perspective?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will just take your last point first, in terms of being the devil's advocate and speaking about whether particular people would misuse the leave—I think that is what you are putting forward, although I am not saying you are suggesting that. Sadly, it is the case that much domestic violence actually goes unreported and that there are many, many people who experience domestic violence who feel afraid, or do not feel comfortable, or who, sadly, feel embarrassed, etc., to raise these issues. My concern would be more about under-reporting, in line with under-reporting, more broadly, of experiences of domestic violence.

The other thing I will say is that we will, of course, monitor how this is being utilised, and think about the number of weeks and provisions, etc. As I spoke about earlier, we will also make sure we give, to local government in particular, that time to address any issues they may have in terms of implementation of the bill.

Mr McBRIDE: Still on clause 5, but moving to dot point 4, it picks up there that, with this leave entitlement, if an employee is on overtime, allowances or loadings, these will also be included. Is this consistent with federal policy, consistent with WorkCover accident-type policies? If it is not, why not?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: In terms of consistency with the federal act, yes, it is consistent. Given that this leave is absolutely designed to promote the safety of people experiencing domestic violence and also to ensure their financial security at a time when we need them to stay connected to their employment, continue to earn their wages, etc., it is important that they have access to leave entitlements that reflect their pay in its entirety so that they can rely on that to pay mortgages, drive their car, all those things that people spend their wages on. It is really important they are included. It is commensurate with the federal scheme in terms of paid domestic violence leave.

In terms of WorkCover, that is a much more complicated question. Depending on the type of work somebody does, when or where they have their particular injury and so on, there are circumstances where penalties, etc., are included and others where they are not. It is difficult to say conclusively because there is a range of different factors contemplated in the return to work legislation.

Mr McBRIDE: It is perhaps appropriate to speak very positively, that hopefully this actually assists workers and families and the like. Obviously, with this legislation there could be huge amount of discovery, perhaps opening up a lot of closed issues in workers and families in South Australia. Is the government prepared for, has it given consideration to, the fact that there may be a greater need or requirement for specialist health workers—be that psychologists, counsellors or the like—to address these issues, to get these employees back into the workplace and create that happy family environment we so much desire?

What resources has the government considered in trying to address this? We already know that the health sector is under a lot of pressure from COVID and other ailments out there in the wider community.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: It is a really good question. Thank you very much. What I would say first of all is that you make a really good point that we do not introduce this type of legislation or anything to do with domestic violence, improving people's rights and protections, dealing with perpetrators or whatever the particular legislation is in isolation. There are always a whole lot of other departments, people and pieces of legislation that operate at the same time.

The first thing I would say is that I remember some years ago working with—and I cannot now remember whether it was still the Australian Central Credit Union or it had changed to People's Choice Credit Union—the employer and workers there to introduce paid domestic violence leave.

One of the things that we did there—which was incredibly important on that journey, because it was pretty early in terms of the journey of any workers in Australia accessing paid domestic violence leave—was to invite Maria Hagias, the CEO of the Women's Safety Services, and others, to work very closely with workers in that workplace and the employer to talk about what it means to have this provision in their workplace, and if somebody is requesting this leave what might be happening for them and how important it is that there is shared knowledge in their organisation (as well as providing the leave) and what other services and supports can a person who applies for leave be connected to.

That was a really important part of that process, because it was not just about the leave; it was also about, again, raising awareness and really giving people confidence and capacity to understand where else they could connect those particular workers who might apply for that leave to services and supports.

I would say that, in terms of other workers, we are constantly striving in a range of different ways to make sure that when a woman experiences domestic violence that, at the earliest opportunity, there are supports and services that provide prevention in terms of early responses and support, etc., and that there is also effort around really broad primary prevention in terms of raising community awareness.

Also there is a focus on early intervention through staffing, that is, having paid staff members in regional hubs, in 10 regional hubs. There is a process we are going through in terms of consulting about the criminalisation of coercive control and awareness-raising around that.

I say all those things because our work here in South Australia, indeed around the country and I would say also around the world, constantly focuses on how can we make sure that there is that shared effort across departments, across services with community to really make a difference in terms of understanding people's experiences and making sure that they are connected to the right support.

Clause passed.

Long title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (17:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT