Motions

Domestic and Family Violence

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:04): I move:

That the Social Development Committee inquire into and report on the prevention of domestic and family violence, and in particular–

(a) the effectiveness of current service structures supporting the prevention of domestic and family violence;

(b) the effectiveness of current initiatives supporting the prevention of domestic and family violence;

(c) how current services could be supported by improving collaboration, capacity building and the sourcing of alternative funding to enhance programs;

(d) how workplaces and industry can further support the prevention of domestic and family violence; and

(e) how current federal government legislation, initiatives and measures could affect the provision of domestic and family violence services and women and children escaping domestic violence.

I rise to move that the Social Development Committee recognise that the incidence of domestic and family violence is too great and propose to inquire into and report on:

the effectiveness of current service structures in supporting the prevention of domestic and family violence;

the effectiveness of current initiatives in supporting the prevention of domestic and family violence;

how current service structures could be supported by improving collaboration, capacity building and the sourcing of alternative funding to enhance programs;

how workplaces and industry can further support the prevention of domestic and family violence; and

how current federal government legislation, initiatives and measures could affect the provision of domestic and family violence services and women and children escaping domestic violence.

The moving of this motion follows many weeks of discussion about the possibility of this inquiry at meetings of the Social Development Committee, numerous conversations over decades with dedicated workers who work at the coalface of need in domestic violence shelters and outreach services across South Australia and, unfortunately, way too many interactions with colleagues, family members, friends, community members, constituents and acquaintances who have disclosed their own history of experiencing domestic violence and the impact it has had on their lives and the lives of those they love.

Importantly, the impetus for this motion and inquiry is driven by a number of disturbing facts about the prevalence of domestic violence across our community. These facts are:

one in three women are now subject to violence at some time in their lives, starting from the age of 15;

more than one woman per week in Australia is killed as a result of domestic violence;

there is a spike in domestic violence perpetrated against women who are pregnant;

domestic violence has a profound effect on children who witness it, and in some cases it constitutes child abuse;

women are most at risk of violence in the home from men they know, and the most common location for physical assaults against women is in the home;

one-third of clients seeking specialist homeless services have experienced domestic violence;

domestic violence is now one of the leading causes of death in Australia for women under 45;

all of these statistics are worse if you are Aboriginal, if you are young or if you have a disability;

in 2012, around 41,600 women, or 5.5 per cent of South Australian women, experienced physical or sexual violence in the previous 12 months; and

the statistics on the extent of domestic violence against women and their children are compelling and the growing prevalence of it is disturbing as it is growing at a time when as a nation we are making a major commitment to change this situation and the deleterious effect it has on relationships, on our children and on our community.

Each of these facts is unacceptable. Each of these facts clearly indicate to our community, and to us as representatives of our communities, that it is time for us to do whatever we can to eliminate domestic violence.

As I have said in this place before, I am deeply saddened by the generational impact that domestic violence has on our community and angered by the power inequality inherent in our community, which is fundamentally at the core of violence against women and which is our collective responsibility to address.

I am angry that research continues to show that there is a strong link between violence against women and their children and how the roles of women and men are perceived. I am angry and saddened that there is something about what our community teaches our young men that means they sometimes think it is their right to control women just because they are, or have been, in a relationship with them. These emotions and this deep knowledge that something is fundamentally not right (which I know many of you in this house share) is at the core of the impetus for my moving this motion.

It is time for us to say: enough is enough. It is time for us to do whatever we can together to end violence against women. In line with the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children we must focus on: stopping violence before it happens; doing our best to support, care for and empower women who have experienced violence; stopping men from committing violence and teaching our young men that it is not okay to control women through violence, threats of violence or any other means; and learning and doing more about what is effective in reducing domestic violence.

Ending violence against women and children is one of the greatest challenges our generation faces. In moving this motion, I am heartened that there is so much focus and energy on our collective goal to end violence against women and so many initiatives that are helping to achieve change. I am heartened by a number of speeches I have heard on this challenge by members on both sides in this place, and I am hopeful that it is this collective energy that will see our generation build and leave a safer, more respectful and harmonious future for our young women and young men.

As you may have noticed, given a number of the speeches I have made in this house, I have a relentless and lifelong commitment to preventing violence against women and children. When I first had the great privilege of being elected as the member for Reynell, I was deeply hesitant to speak about my childhood and deeply personal experiences of witnessing domestic violence, and sometimes I still feel a tinge of embarrassment to have revealed such personal issues in such a public way. I am sure from time to time I may feel the same tinges of embarrassment, probably after this speech today and no doubt many more to come.

Despite this, I know that even if it is uncomfortable, we must speak up and out and in doing so encourage women who are experiencing violence to speak out, men who do not know what are appropriate behaviours and responses in personal relationships to speak up and seek help, and show our daughters and our sons a different way of interacting. It is every person's responsibility, and particularly ours as leaders, to challenge stereotypes, name sexism, speak up if we hear excuses for violence, and spread the word that there is no excuse and violence is never an option.

I grew up in a household where I witnessed domestic violence and I also witnessed its aftermath. I know the impact that it has on children, relationships and families from generation to generation but I also know and hold very close what my mum taught me from a very young age. She taught me that no matter what was happening for me to look outwards into your community and see what was happening for others and to be active in your community.

I did and I learnt some very important things: that there were many people doing things really tough but when we are part of an active community pulling together, we make change and we make everybody feel as if they are a part of a bigger, safe and secure family. I certainly did and so did my brother, my mum and my two sisters. My brother is a shining example of a man whose childhood experience showed him one way to be and his community and his spirit showed him another. Despite what he saw, he is a good and loving husband and father to two beautiful boys, and experiences like these must also be shared in our conversations about breaking the cycle of violence, so I will continue to speak and I encourage you all to do the same.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has amongst its top priorities the safety of women and that has found its voice, spoken out and been relentless in developing and implementing comprehensive and proactive measures to prevent and respond to domestic violence. In moving this motion and in advocating for this inquiry, I intend for us to give the strongest possible voice to as many people, organisations, groups, advocates and leaders about this issue as we can.

As mentioned, there are many current initiatives of which we can all be proud. On 8 August this year, our Premier announced that South Australia has joined the National Foundation to Prevent Violence Against Women and has committed $79,000 to it, indexed over four years, and in doing so indicated his commitment to leading serious change to men's attitudes towards women and how they relate to the prevalence of domestic violence.

We are committed to a new multiagency protection service that brings together staff from police and other government agencies to identify patterns of harm before they escalate. A domestic violence serial offender database is being established and courts will be given the right to ensure perpetrators pay for their rehabilitation. Our A Right to Safety initiative demonstrates our commitment to eliminating violence against women, particularly through our Women's Safety Strategy which has at its core the Family Safety Framework to ensure that families at risk of violence are interacted with in a structured and systematic way, a framework which is now operating in 19 areas across South Australia.

In 2009 our government introduced the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act which commenced in 2011. Importantly, this legislation gave police the power to immediately issue intervention orders in circumstances where there was an immediate risk to a woman from a perpetrator of domestic violence. Our commitment to ending violence against women continues through the excellent services already in place, services which continue to be staffed by extraordinary workers and community leaders whose commitment to leading an end to violence against women is deep and enduring, whose support and advocacy for and empowerment of women fleeing domestic violence often at the brink of despair has helped to transform the lives of thousands of women and their families.

These services include emergency and ongoing support services, crisis response, ongoing counselling and accommodation services for women who experience violence, specialist domestic and Aboriginal family violence services, and domestic violence safety packages which provide safety upgrades to houses to support women and children to stay in their own home, programs targeting men who use violence to break their cycle, and family support programs focused on families where women and children have experienced violence.

Whilst this excellent work continues, it does beggar belief that the federal Liberal government in their vicious attacks on our most vulnerable citizens, including women fleeing domestic violence, is coming after the funding for those services. The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness was not included in the forward estimates and $44 million has been cut from the agreement with the commonwealth only committing to funding for the 2014-15 financial year and unlikely to provide funding for this after 2015-16, seriously putting at risk homelessness services including women's domestic violence services.

The National Affordable Housing Agreement is included in the 2014 federal budget but at a significantly reduced rate. The impact of this will be a reduction in funding to South Australia through this agreement of $1 million, despite the fact that the South Australian government contributes around 50 per cent to NAHA-funded homelessness services, significantly more than in every other state.

The inquiry I have outlined in this motion gives us an opportunity to reach out to community, various practitioners, leaders, service providers and others to thoroughly explore and measure together what initiatives to eliminate violence against women we are doing well, what we can expand, better support and grow, where we can expand particular initiatives so that domestic violence does indeed become everybody's responsibility, and what negative impending changes we can fight together. The incidence of domestic violence is too great and I hope that this inquiry enables us to work together and take another step together towards ending it.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:16): In rising to speak on the motion, I move to amend it as follows:

Paragraph (e) delete the words 'federal government legislation, initiatives and measures' and substitute 'legislation, initiatives and measures of all levels of government'

Insert new paragraph:

(f) what measures are being undertaken in other jurisdictions that might be suitable for adoption in South Australia to help prevent and support those affected by domestic and family violence.

The motion will now read:

That the Social Development Committee inquire into and report on the prevention of domestic and family violence, and in particular—

(a) the effectiveness of current service structures supporting the prevention of domestic and family violence;

(b) the effectiveness of current initiatives supporting the prevention of domestic and family violence;

(c) how current services could be supported by improving collaboration, capacity building and the sourcing of alternative funding to enhance programs;

(d) how workplaces and industry can further support the prevention of domestic and family violence;

(e) how current legislation, initiatives and measures of all levels of government could affect the provision of domestic and family violence services and women and children escaping domestic violence; and

(f) what measures are being undertaken in other jurisdictions that might be suitable for adoption in South Australia to help prevent and support those affected by domestic and family violence.

The reason for these proposed changes is that the opposition supports the inquiry that is described, and the opposition supports the intent of the inquiry that is described. As the member for Reynell indicated, the approach to domestic violence should be a bipartisan issue, and for the most part it is. I do not think there is anything to be gained in achieving the goals that we all seek to gain by making this a partisan issue. I was disappointed that the member for Reynell phrased her speech, at least in the last section, as a partisan attack on the federal government. I do not think that that is necessary.

I think that it could have been framed in a different way, in a way that was more constructive. I know that the member for Reynell is very serious in her endeavours to combat domestic and family violence. In her speech she spoke about sometimes wondering if she is embarrassed for having revealed such personal details. Member for Reynell, can I say to you that you should never feel embarrassed. The maiden speech that you gave, that I think all of us here witnessed, was a strong and strident declamation against domestic and family violence and you are a role model and you are seen as a role model. People, I think, who are not in a position where they are able to run for parliament, or have that confidence, see the position you have taken and the confidence with which you conduct yourself would take heart and courage from it. I commend you for continuing to do so, and I know that you will.

In framing the motion, the member for Reynell identified that it has been a matter of discussion between members of both sides, members on the Social Development Committee, who have discussed the framing of such a motion and the framing of such an inquiry. The member for Reynell also indicated that such a motion was the result of long conversations with many workers in domestic violence services over many years, and that is true. I commend the member for Reynell for having those discussions. Members on this side have those discussions also.

There are a number of White Ribbon ambassadors in the opposition, and as there are in the government, and I identify particularly the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the former shadow police minister, the member for Stuart. My application is pending. There are a lot of people who wish to be a White Ribbon Ambassador, so there is something of a waiting list while our bona fides are being checked out. There are members of parliament on both sides who fulfil that role. We all do work in our various ways. This Friday night, I am organising a fundraiser for the Eastern Adelaide Domestic Violence Service, and we have over 200 people booked in to attend. Hopefully, as we did last year, we will raise over $5,000, which is our target again for that service.

Domestic violence and supporting those who are affected by domestic and family violence should never be a matter of partisanship. There are opportunities to hold governments to account, and there are opportunities to encourage governments to do more. The cuts, as described by the member for Reynell, were described by her in terms of the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which she said is unlikely to proceed in the 2015-16 year, for example. I do not think that it is helpful to phrase it in such a way when we have not pointed out up until now (I do so now because it is directly relevant to this) that, under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd federal Labor government, that funding did not exist past the 2013-14 year. It has been extended by a year by the Abbott government while that and a range of other services are reviewed.

There are definitely things that we would like the federal government to do. I urge members opposite to consider this amendment in the sense that it is meant: it is meant to ensure that the things that the member for Reynell identified as things she wishes to investigate in relation to federal government are still going to be available to be investigated under this, but we can look at the state government funding as well without any term of reference being restricted. So, the state government funding, the state government services and legislation will be investigated in the same manner—and any opportunities there are for local government funding or local government services and support measures to be considered may also be considered.

All we have done in our new reference (e) is to say that we are looking at all levels of government and the opportunities that presents, rather than just saying that we are looking at the federal government. The new reference (f) is also worthy of consideration. I encourage the government to have a look at it and think about it, because the new reference (f) identifies that, rather than just focusing on those matters that are in South Australia or those matters that are under the remit of the federal government, we also look at other jurisdiction.

The MAPS program, the multiagency program the member for Reynell described, is one we identified, having looked at the English experience. I think that having the committee look at other jurisdictions, both in Australia and around the world, will be of significant benefit to this inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry surely is to find the best model possible for, and the best improvements possible to, the domestic violence services, the legislation and, where necessary, those matters that need to be funded.

The member for Reynell identified the Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children, which the South Australian government signed up to several weeks ago. It is another example where it is important to have a look at the whole picture because the South Australian government has committed $79,000 a year, indexed over four years, as the member for Reynell identified.

I note that the federal and Victorian governments, in establishing the foundation, have committed a joint sum of $6.5 million over two years to establish it and, in May this year, the Victorian Liberal government committed a further $3 million to providing funding to June 2017. The $79,000 funding that the state government in South Australia has committed is welcome and it is worthy, but it sits next to the $1 million a year from the Victorian government and further funds from the federal government. You cannot just take these things in isolation. You have to look at the broader picture, and I think the fairly minor amendments that the opposition has suggested to the terms of reference are worthy of the government's consideration.

I am sure that if the member for Reynell is willing to let the debate be adjourned today so that she can take it to caucus and consider the very reasonable amendments that the opposition has suggested, the caucus will see the benefits and the value in such an amendment, and we can then come back in two weeks' time and consider the matter further. I know there are one or two other members who would like to speak on the matter.

Hopefully, we can have a demonstration to all those victims of domestic and family violence in South Australia, and indeed a representation to all those perpetrators as well, that this house stands united against domestic and family violence, and that there is not a whiff of partisanship or a whiff of politics in this matter. This house should stand united against domestic and family violence; there should not be any taint of partisanship in the way that this is presented. The amendments that have been suggested deliver on that promise, on that suggestion and on that hope.

I urge government members to take this contribution in the spirit in which it is meant. We are all trying to get the best possible outcome. I think this is going to be a very important inquiry that the Social Development Committee can do. In the term of this parliament, I hope that the job of work which the Social Development Committee does on this will be seen as its shining moment and will inform the legislation, inform the services and the support, that governments of both persuasions are able to give for domestic violence services in the years ahead.

With that, I urge members of the house today to adjourn, unless the members indicate they are willing to support the amendment, so that this can be considered at the next possible opportunity.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:27): I rise to commend the member for Reynell for bringing forward this motion, and to indicate that I will support it as amended by the member for Morialta. This motion, in principle, is very similar to one that I brought to this house back on 22 May this year, and I support the member for Reynell in her endeavours in this effort, as I do the vast majority of people in this house who I am sure would stand on exactly the same principles.

The motion I brought forward was about the recognition of Domestic Violence Prevention Month, and condemning all forms of domestic violence. When I spoke on 22 May, I brought forward many statistics. The member for Reynell has just brought forward many facts as well, and essentially they paint a very similar picture of a completely unacceptable situation within our society; it is unacceptable in every way.

I support the member for Morialta in his amendment and his words, because all he is aiming to do is take the politics out of this motion. Deputy Speaker, you might remember that one component of the motion that I brought forward in May was that I called on the government to do more to prevent domestic violence. The government chose to amend that motion to say 'noted' or 'recognised', or gave some sort of acclaim to the government for the work that it does do.

I found that particularly distasteful, because I think every single one of us could do more: every single institution, every political party and every government could do more. There was not any politics from my perspective, but I thought that for the government to turn that around and rather than accept responsibility for the fact that they could always do more, try to give themselves some credit for what they were doing, that was political.

I find it even more concerning that the member for Reynell has, in her contribution, attacked the federal government for not doing enough. I support the member for Morialta trying to take the politics out of this. There should not be any politics in this issue, other than to call on every single one of us in whatever capacity we have to do more to contribute to solving this problem that is not going away.

Domestic violence is completely unacceptable in principle. It is overwhelmingly undertaken by men against women and children. It is cruel, it is mean and it is bullying. The fact that it is violent includes the very obvious physical aspect, which includes the fact that typically men are physically more capable than women, so it is without any dispute a dreadful bullying behaviour.

We can all understand fighting for something we believe in. We can all understand passion and anger and in a nonviolent way doing everything we possibly can to achieve a means. Many of us—men and women—who have participated actively in sport (as I know the member for Reynell has) can understand that, when there is a physical component, your blood is really boiling in terms of trying to achieve something, but that has absolutely nothing to do with domestic violence. Domestic violence is a bullying, self-serving behaviour that seeks to put people down and seeks in a very perverse way to raise the perpetrator's own self-esteem in some sick way. It is completely unacceptable.

As did the member for Morialta, I commend the member for Reynell for sharing some personal experience which, no doubt, would not have been easy. I commend her for sharing that personal experience that gives her an insight into this issue I do not have. I think it was brave and admirable of her to do that, and it is a personal decision. There might be another person in this house who for whatever reason has had similar experiences, but they choose not to do that, and that is 100 per cent acceptable as well. It is a very personal decision.

I am incredibly fortunate that there was never a hint of domestic violence in my home. There was, unfortunately, in my mother's home when she was a child, and I am sure that contributed enormously to her choice with regard to who she married. My father is a very firm, very strong and very gentle person, and I can tell you that there was never a hint of it in our home.

I am fortunate to have that embedded in me, both with regard to the examples and also, very importantly, with regard to the lessons that were given to me. It was not something that was glossed over, it was not something that was just assumed to be that way and it was not something that was never considered because it was not part of our personal experience in my immediate family. It was actually something that was discussed from time to time.

Both my parents thought it was very important that their two sons understood what was important in this regard and that they did not just head off into the wide world without ever thinking about it because it was never part of their home. My parents also thought it was exceptionally important that their daughter understood all her rights and everything that she had to expect as a girl, as an adolescent and as a woman in future life. So, it was something that we discussed, and I am incredibly fortunate that my parents focused on this issue from time to time and made sure that, to the best of their ability, their children understood what they wanted them to know about it.

That is one of the reasons why I regularly speak on this, support motions such as this and support the member for Morialta doing everything he can to take politics out of this. I am a White Ribbon Ambassador. I am very proud to be a White Ribbon Ambassador, as are members from both sides of this chamber and both sides of politics in all states and across the nation too.

Whether somebody is or is not a White Ribbon Ambassador, we all have a role to play. We all have a role to play at the smallest level, just with regard to our actions—the way we live our life, the things that we do and, importantly, the things we do not do, all the way through to us as members of parliament trying to take this issue, promote it, improve it and lead by example. Then, of course, there are professional people who actually work in this field as well and lead not only by example but with their professional participation.

I support the member for Reynell and commend her for bringing this forward again. I suspect that we will both be speaking on this issue many more times throughout our careers—and we will be very pleased to do so. I also support the member for Morialta and his amendment which purely takes the politics out of it. It does not attack any government, it does not lay blame on any government or any political party, but it essentially recognises the fact that all of us should do more to address this issue.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:35): I rise to indicate my support for the motion as amended by the member for Morialta. I thank the member for Reynell for bringing this matter to the attention of the parliament because it is appropriate that there be regular reviews. The Social Development Committee is the standing committee that should be dealing with this matter and continuing to identify in our community, and within the services that are provided and the circumstances that surround domestic and family violence, what we have, what is working, what we should be doing more of, what we could perhaps leave aside and what other initiatives from other jurisdictions or from members' ideas may assist the situation.

The member for Morialta moves an amendment that is primarily based on depoliticising this issue and making sure that we concentrate on the primary issue. Can I add another issue in relation to the legal aspect. I raise two matters in respect of the paragraph (e) of the motion, which refers to current federal government legislation initiatives and measures, etc.

First, the federal government does not make legislation; the federal parliament does. If it is the purpose of this part of the motion to deal with federal legislation, that, it seems to me, needs to be remedied. Secondly, the Social Development Committee has a certain charter to deal with matters that it recommends to this parliament for implementation, either in legislation or to the state government, of course, for implementation and certainly for favourable consideration if that is the way they choose to progress.

They are not responsible for federal government actions, and therefore I think there may be a question raised as to whether it is an area of investigation which should be properly looked at by this committee—that is, in the sense of leaving aside the legislation and looking at what initiatives another government has. It may not be terribly useful in any event for many of the reasons that have been raised by the member for Morialta. However, to ask what programs are out there offered by any level of government or the non-government sector currently is important.

When this motion ultimately passes, with or without amendment, I would also like the committee to consider this, and I think it would be caught under (b), but it needs to be spelt out. At present we collate data and statistics, largely through the Office of Crime Statistics and Research (OCSR), provided through the Attorney-General's Department. That is a helpful indicator to us to identify areas of criminal activity, which, of course, some of this conduct culminates in.

Sadly, it is often reflected in murders, and some statistics have been referred to by the mover in this debate and, sadly, they include a high number of people who are victims in a domestic circumstance where there may be domestic or family violence—and they are also perpetrators. If members were to visit the Women's Prison in South Australia, they would see a number of women who were sentenced to life imprisonment usually because they had committed a murder against a partner or husband—again, in tragic circumstances. So, we do need to have up-to-date data.

It concerns me that the OCSR statistics have fallen into shameful neglect in the availability of information. The latest data is now four years old. The late Hon. Bob Such was a great champion of this cause. I remember him bringing it first to my attention to look at and make sure that you have access to contemporary data to know what we are talking about, to be able to identify at least some patterns and concerns for the purpose of assisting us when we look at what we should be targeting at the highest level, both in initiatives, legislation and, of course, funding programs that will have an influence and an impact. In looking at current initiatives I would hope that, ultimately, a subsequent committee will look at the aspects that surround that.

There is also a very considerable contribution made by a number of groups providing domestic violence services. Yarrow Place springs to mind as, I think, one of the exemplary services in South Australia which caught our attention in a policy way, from the South Australian opposition's point of view, when we made certain announcements during the last state election of continuing support. Where you find a good service that is operating well, let us work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we promote that.

One other area that was being presented by groups and persons who are leaders in this area was to record data through the coronial inquiries and how they register with respect to deaths and serious injuries, but deaths, obviously, in a coronial sense, to ensure that we have some collated data with respect to the circumstances surrounding the death of a person in a circumstance where there has been domestic violence. We can only learn from others' mistakes and from conduct that we wish to curb or to protect against. We have to learn from the tragedies that we have.

I can openly say that in the council area of Burnside, which covers a large part of my electorate, although of course I cover two other councils, we have one to two murders a year, on average. Let me tell you, they do not arise out of bank robberies, they arise out of circumstances where there has been conflict in a family. Sadly, sometimes it is a young boy killing their mother or a partnership between adults that are the consequence. So, I am very interested not just as the representative of an area, and we all have circumstances of violence perpetrated, sadly some culminating in death, but as a longstanding passion.

I commend the motion from the member for Reynell and her heartfelt contribution. I hope that she will see as a positive initiative the member for Morialta's amendment to it. I look forward to, one day, receiving not only the committee's report but, indeed, that someone out there is willing to actually act on the recommendations of it.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:43): Domestic violence is a complex issue and one that has been pointed out by previous speakers. This goes some way to explaining why it is such an effort to tackle and educate men in particular about this issue. Domestic violence has had a national level conversation for more than three decades. Successive federal, state and local governments have had task forces, parliamentary committees and councils. Unfortunately, for all the good work that has occurred on domestic violence it still occurs and it still occurs too often. That is not to take away from the hard work that has preceded us but rather shows the extent and the enormity of the hard work that is before us.

Australia has already led the world in addressing other public health issues, such as smoking, road safety and the spread of HIV and AIDS, and this clearly demonstrates that we can effect social change in our community and that it is indeed possible. Action on this issue is needed and it is needed urgently. Without action to address violence against women and their children, an estimated three-quarters of a million Australian women will experience and report violence in the 2021-22 period, costing the Australian economy an estimated $15.6 billion, with domestic violence accounting for 9.9 per cent of this figure.

Really, what I wanted to talk about today is a conversation I had with a couple of workers from the Northern Domestic Violence Service a couple of months ago, who approached me as a new MP to help to increase my understanding of this issue, because I must admit my experience with domestic violence is extremely limited. I have grown up in a household with three brothers and a mother and father, and there was never any incidence of domestic violence in our household. Certainly there were brothers mucking around with each other and being rough, but there is such a respect for women in my household, and I think it does come from the example that my father set. The idea of domestic violence to me is one that is quite foreign and quite unfathomable.

In my previous life as an employer I saw firsthand the results of domestic violence amongst some of our employees, and as an employer it is difficult to know how to reach out in those circumstances, but reach out we did in a couple of circumstances and not always to best effect. I must admit that our attempts to try to help individuals to work through the situations that they were dealing with were not always successful, but our intentions were always genuine and heartfelt. From that aspect, I can understand the enormity of the task and the enormity of a decision of a woman to take her children with her and leave a violent relationship.

Sitting down with Julie and Elaine from the Northern Domestic Violence Service was a real eye-opener for me. Something that is a real slur on the Barossa in particular—given that the Barossa LSA has the lowest crime stats and is one of the safest places in South Australia—is that incidences of domestic violence still do occur. I was told that referrals have been growing by between 5 and 20 per cent a year over the past number of years. That really surprised me, given that I thought that, as we progressed as a more modern society, incidences of domestic violence would be decreasing. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Normally, the NDVS get referrals from families and friends, but they also get referrals from police. They have an emergency facility at Willaston that offers nine emergency beds, although I understand that there is a great demand for that, and there are potentially new centres opening up just to the south of my electorate that may be able to help deal with more cases and give women more opportunity.

The biggest stat that really upset me through our conversation was the fact that the NDVS worked with 1,000 families over the past years and, of those 1,000 families, 15 per cent were from the Barossa. To compute that there are 150 families in the Barossa who are victims of domestic violence is something that does not sit comfortably with me. We, with all our electorates, come into this place and brag and boast about how our electorates are the best in the state. This is one measure where I think the Barossa community needs to put their hand up and say that they need to do better. The idea that 150 families in my community are suffering under what should be something that is gone and wiped from a modern, prosperous society really astounds me. On that measure alone, I support wholeheartedly the member for Reynell's motion.

The brief of the NDVS is to look after the wellbeing and safety of the children and the mother. In fact, they were telling me that they really do not interact with the man—and in over 90 per cent of cases it is the men who are the perpetrators. I tried to drill into whether or not there is hope, so whether or not they do see incidences of men reforming their behaviour. The answer I got back was not necessarily that positive. There still is a belief that men can get away with what they are doing and that programs to reform malbehaviour are never fully evaluated. Indeed, they said to me that what quite often is the case is where women decide to stay in the relationship—whether or not that is a true decision we can debate—some of the time the physical violence stops, but it degenerates into emotional abuse and that continues.

The other thing they talked about is that it is not something that is inherent in past generations; it is not the silent generation or baby boomers who are doing this. They say that a lot of the new cases that present themselves are young men, and that upsets me because I would have thought that our generation has moved on. I am really quite embarrassed for the men of my generation where this continues to happen, and it seems that it is on the increase rather than on the decrease.

They talked to me about the fact that they can give information and help support the decisions that women undertake but, of course, it is always a question of the women wanting to make the decision. They told me that in 30 per cent of cases women simply do not want to leave the relationship, for whatever reason. We need to do more to make sure that there is true choice and a true decision to be made by women so that if they decide to leave the relationship there is as much support as we can offer to enable them to do that.

In closing, I wholeheartedly support the member for Reynell's motion. I wholeheartedly support the member for Morialta's amendment in trying to make this more about the core and the crux of the issue, as opposed to making this one of a partisan nature. There are a number of issues in this place that are bipartisan, and this one is very worthy to be part of it.

For the people who live in Schubert and for the good work that the Northern Domestic Violence Service does I support and commend this motion to the house. In the future I look forward to having better ways of helping victims of domestic violence and working towards a future where we no longer have these debates.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:51): I would like to start by very much thanking and acknowledging those members opposite for their absolutely sincere words of encouragement. They were very kind words, and I want to let them know that I hear them and I appreciate them. I also want to say that they give me great encouragement. I think we really are in a position where we have a fantastic opportunity before us to work together to end domestic violence against women and children, and the words I have heard today give me great hope in that regard. So, I very much look forward to doing that together with members opposite and those on this side of the house.

I have a couple of comments about the proposed amendment I wish to make, and I want to let members know that we had a very good discussion in the Social Development Committee about the proposed terms of reference for the inquiry. Whilst I have been absolutely disparaging of the federal government's indication to reduce NAHA and NPAH funding, which will impact domestic violence services here and across Australia, I have done that because having talked with workers right across the sector I hear day in and day out about their worries in relation to those cuts.

Having said that, when we look at the terms of the original motion that sentiment certainly is not in those terms. There is very much an open statement in paragraph (e), I think—I do not have my notes in front of me anymore—about exploring federal initiatives, etc. Despite my disparaging comments about the federal government cuts in this regard, which is my great worry, and where they will lead, the terms of the motion certainly do not contain that sentiment within them.

I think the original terms of reference can take us forward in a very positive way. I think they will allow us to work together on this huge challenge for our generation, and I think also that the first points in the terms of reference will allow us to fully explore measures both here and in other jurisdictions as well.

I will proceed with the original motion, and I do not support the amendment. In saying that, I wholeheartedly believe that we will be able to work together in good faith and do whatever we can to eliminate domestic violence here in our community, and I look forward to doing that with everybody in this house.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.