Grievance Debate

Domestic and Family Violence

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (15:21): Today, the Premier claimed to be a leader committed to reducing domestic violence. That commitment must be more than just words; it must be practically demonstrated through real action. This is an issue of integrity for the Premier and the Labor Party he leads. Allowing a candidate who is currently facing six charges of aggravated assault against his wife to receive Labor Party preference votes fundamentally negates any claim of standing against domestic violence.

Aggravated assault is not minor assault. It is a category of offence that is extremely serious. A party leader cannot credibly stand against domestic violence while simultaneously not taking action when he can in order to deal with it. In August 2022, the Premier intervened—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Member for Unley, we have a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My point is that I am not sure if any of these matters are before a court or not, and if they are, I ask you to consider that while the member for Unley may inadvertently be putting any court action at risk.

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley, from my reading of—

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Florey, we do not need your help, thank you. From my reading of the media, this matter is before the courts, and therefore sub judice does come into play. I ask you to maybe be careful in your comments.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you for your guidance, sir. In August 2022, the Premier intervened in a Labor Party operational matter because of allegations by Master Builders that a couple of blokes' cars were vandalised by the CFMEU. Aggravated assault against women is much more serious than a couple of damaged company cars.

Public trust demands intervention. Political parties are not passive actors in elections—they are in it to win—but preferencing a candidate facing severe domestic violence charges signals to the community that political advantage is more important than the safety and dignity of women. It undermines the moral authority of the party and erodes public confidence in its stated values. By refusing to intervene, it effectively says that you believe allegations of violence against women are negotiable, tolerable and politically irrelevant. That is unacceptable.

The board of directors of AJ & PA McBride, the member for MacKillop's own family company, has acted, and the Premier must also act. In a letter to shareholders dated 13 November 2025, the company secretary advised that Nick McBride has stood aside as chairman, a position he held for just two years, and an interim chairman has been appointed. The previous chair was in the role for 16 years. This is a vital point. Even those closest to him, those with financial and personal ties, recognise the charges are incompatible with leadership of the company and the company's reputation and community trust. If a private company can take decisive actions to protect its integrity, public office demands at least the same standard, if not higher.

So if Nick McBride is not a suitable chair for his own family company, he certainly is not suitable to continue serving as the member for MacKillop. A political party cannot credibly hold itself to a lower standard of ethics than a private business. Preferences are not a neutral administrative action, they are an endorsement and substantially increase the candidate's chances of being elected, therefore placing them in a position of power.

Supporting Nick McBride's conduct is inconsistent with calling out domestic violence. Failing to act sends a dangerous message to victims and survivors of domestic violence. Domestic violence victims already struggle to come forward. Women are very often not believed or are challenged about the circumstances of the assault by their spouses and even asked what did they do to provoke him and questioning why they did not leave him. Domestic violence victims fear disbelief, stigma and retaliation.

If political leaders publicly support a candidate charged with repeated violence against his wife it sends a chilling message: 'Our politics matter more than you.' Intervening, however, sends the opposite message: we believe victims, we take allegations seriously and we prioritise women's lives and safety over political expediency.

Leadership requires courage, not silence. It is easy for politicians to speak at rallies, attend vigils and post statements online about ending domestic violence. It is far harder to challenge friends of political convenience, but real leadership requires precisely this kind of courage. Intervening to block preferences is not interfering, it is exercising the responsibility that comes with leadership.