Comment
  1. Home
  2. Comment
  3. View from the Street
COMMENT

Dodging domestic violence leave shows this government's opinion of women

Why should pollies do anything about saving lives when wearing ribbons is so much cheaper?

Andrew P Street

Domestic violence is one of those things for which governments of all levels and sides like to express their righteous condemnation, provided that it's done in cost-effective ways like wearing ribbons and making empty statements to the media.

For conservative governments in particular, their zeal for reform tends to be sharply curtailed the moment that someone suggests they should, y'know, do stuff that might actually address the problem.

Up Next

The case for copyright reform

null
Video duration
02:47

More National News Videos

null
Video duration
02:59

Mythbusting domestic violence leave
null
Video duration
02:47

The case for copyright reform
null
Video duration
02:24

Sydney cooks in scorching heat
null
Video duration
01:48

Christmas Grinch caught on camera
null
Video duration
01:46

Fire brigade accused of harassment, sexism
null
Video duration
01:42

Victoria warned of energy price hike
More videos

Mythbusting domestic violence leave

Will people fake domestic violence to get leave? How is it different to sick leave? Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Ged Kearney argues against common misconceptions about domestic violence leave.

That's because it often involves annoying, spendy sorts of things like "funding women's shelters" - which have been cut heavily all over the country, particularly in regional areas, and rolled into general homeless services which are already over-full and not necessarily places women would feel safe going to, especially with children.

Also, if you're a conservative government, addressing domestic violence also means being forced to acknowledge that there are structural problems in society that look a little bit … well, gender-specific. 

And it's hard to do something meaningful about helping women escape abusive households without also doing politically awkward things like, for example, acknowledge that the vast majority of victims of domestic violence are female and that the vast majority of domestic abusers are male, an assertion which - while accurate - should immediately spur a bunch of angry #notallmen commentators to pile into the comments. 

Similarly, governments trumpeting opportunity and individual responsibility tend not to acknowledge that women don't earn as much as men in their lifetimes and therefore women fleeing domestic violence are often trading a violent situation for severe financial insecurity - which, again, is a hell of a challenge for those trying also to protect their children.

Advertisement

It's hard to address this in policy while still insisting that everything can be sorted out by individuals just getting on with things and pulling their socks up, which has characterised the federal government's general approach to health, workplace relations and welfare in Australia over the past four years.

(After all, it was only a bit over a year ago that our federal treasurer reminded us that everyone could totally afford to sort themselves out if they'd all just pop out and get a good job that pays good money, remember. Genius.)

Thus it was no surprise to see Finance Minister Mathias Cormann demonstrate his characteristic empathy and insight by dismissing the suggestion of providing domestic violence leave to government employees as being "another cost on our economy that will have an impact on our international competitiveness", following a Council of Australian Governments meeting on Friday in which the states agreed to kick the matter down the road until next year.

"It's a matter of making sure that you get the balance right and that you pursue policy settings that don't have counterproductive consequences potentially," he inarticulately explained on Sky News, before presumably realising what his comments sounded like and immediately deflecting all further questions on the matter to Employment Minister Michaelia Cash instead.

Labor, predictably, didn't miss an opportunity to point out that "It's domestic violence, not domestic violence leave, that costs our economy and harms our international competitiveness," via MP Terri Butler who cited KPMG's 2012 report that concluded that domestic violence costs the Australian economy $13.6 billion a year - and that's without taking into account all that unimportant human suffering stuff. 

Domestic violence leave seems like a quick, easy way to help make a hellish situation a little more manageable, but like so many reasonable policy ideas it's been turned into a culture war flashpoint thanks to idiotic arguments from commentators who sniffily point at organisations that already offer domestic violence leave - such as the ABC - and sneeringly ask how giving people time off is meant to solve the problem of domestic violence.

That's despite the fairly obvious fact that it's not designed to "solve" domestic violence; it's designed to mitigate the effects of domestic violence by giving people time to sort out a lot of urgent and complex legal and logistical problems that DV creates. 

Some particularly poisonous writers have even whimsically suggested that DV leave somehow incentivises women to continue to pursue "feckless men": a gleeful bit of deliberate victim blaming via an argument that makes as much sense as suggesting that workplaces offering sick leave has encouraged everyone to deliberately acquire cancer. 

And while the question will be revisited by COAG next year, it's unlikely to change as long as the federal government wants to pursue the fantasy that Australia is a meritocracy where everyone gets what they deserve and that problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, even if the problems are entirely caused by sudden and brutal funding cuts, let alone where the costs of doing nothing vastly outweigh the costs of helpful intervention.

In the meantime, premiers and prime ministers can slap on a white ribbon and be an ambassador for stopping violence against women, even while overseeing swingeing cuts to services - decisions which have a body count. 

But we'd hate to put "another cost on our economy", right? 

Be like George Brandis and grab copies of Andrew P Street's The Short and Excruciatingly Embarrassing Reign of Captain Abbott and The Curious Story of Malcolm Turnbull: the Incredible Shrinking Man in the Top Hat, just in time for Xmas

0 comments