I will withdraw the amendment and reintroduce it on Report Stage.

It is reasonable to have concern in respect of this. Requiring a medical certificate in respect of a third party creates its own difficulty but I am particularly concerned that some of the language, especially that on page 10, is a little excessive in the way it is framed. It refers to such information as the employer may reasonably require in relation to the employee's relationship, the nature of the personal care or support and the evidence relating to the need of the person. It is quite expansively framed. I app…

With respect to the Minister, I do not believe he has achieved that balance. The phrase he used, “the minimum information necessary”, is not in the Bill, rather it states, "such information as the employer may reasonably require in relation to ... the employee’s relationship with the person", and relationship can be construed many ways, and refers to “the nature of the personal care or support”. That is the detail of what a person will do in terms of personal or support. It addition, the employer may require releva…

I accept most of the amendments are technical, but I want to comment briefly on amendment No. 7. Am I correct that that is in the grouping? Is amendment No. 7 separate?

Perfect. That is fine. I will not speak to the others.

I welcome amendment No. 7. It is a useful Government amendment in terms of extending the purposes of domestic leave to include other relevant services. The list in the original Bill was well intentioned but inevitably there are certain other services, including, for example, financial services and the separation of finances, which is one of the most difficult things for people who are trying to leave a situation of domestic abuse, or a parent needing to go to a child’s school and make arrangements in that respect. …

I move amendment No. 8: In page 11, to delete lines 38 and 39. Regarding amendment No. 8, there is a line in this Bill that inserts a crazily high bar on the delivery of this urgent need, which is leave for domestic violence purposes. I refer to the phrase "the state of the economy generally, the business environment and national competitiveness". The idea that the state of the economy in general would be a reason for providing or not providing people with leave in situations where they are experiencing violence or…

The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the tool the Minister has described has been borrowed from another toolbox. It is not a tool designed for this situation. The Minister referred to balancing different interests. Are we tackling domestic violence and trying to introduce domestic violence leave? A rights-based approach recognises domestic violence as an egregious breach of human rights. We as a society should have no tolerance for it. Workplaces and all other parts of society are due to challenge and a…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 11, to delete lines 42 and 43, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 to 3.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 12, line 6, after “opinion” to insert “, including that of service providers working in the area of domestic violence”.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 12, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(fa) the views of service providers working in the area of domestic violence;”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 12, line 13, to delete “ in loco parentis ” and substitute “providing parental care”.

I support these amendments. I have similar amendments to the section on remote working. The detailed points made by Senator Currie and, though blunt, the wide frame of amendment No. 15 are important. Despite its Title, the Bill's contents are actually about needs – the urgent needs of those suffering domestic violence, the urgent need to medical care and the need to care. That is not work-life balance, though. Rather, that is addressing urgent care needs. The Title should read, "Work (Accommodation of Care Needs)",…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 13, line 24, to delete “shall” and substitute “may”. The Minister spoke about the review. In a way, we have already had a trial period because of Covid. I worry that if we lower our ambition for two years and let the status quo sink back in, we will be on the back foot. We had a trial period for remote and flexible working and it largely worked. There were some learnings or improvements to be made, but we are losing some momentum by making flexible work available to some people some…

Do they? Is that the argument for the provision relating to 16 years? I was concerned that there was a state of limbo where children reach the age of 16. Even in that circumstance, the child is still a minor. I refer to children with a disability. It could be that two years of having to make complicated special arrangements is exactly what makes a parent who is balancing out the cost of care, especially the very expensive cost of additional care, with the value of their continued employment fall out of the workplac…

The problem is that the "shall" sends a signal that the arrangement must terminate. A simple thing would be to use "may" to indicate it may be reviewed at that point and then continued rather than providing that it shall end not later than the child's birthday. This sends a very strong punctuation piece and would become the de facto end so that people would not get flexible leave arrangements after a child was 12. At that point a person is in an employment long enough. By using this language, we are having this arr…

It is the intersection. I was trying to see how it intersects.

I will take it from the Senator.

I move amendment No. 20: In page 13, to delete line 35.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 13, line 35, to delete “16 years” and substitute “18 years”.