HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-02-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Equal Opportunity (Domestic Violence) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 February 2019.)

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (10:32): This is a bill that adds domestic violence as a ground for discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, which can be considered by the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity should a complaint be made.

In South Australia, discrimination is against the law when it is based on a particular personal characteristic or ground specified in the act, including age, association with a child, caring responsibilities, disability, gender identity, intersex relationships, marital status, pregnancy, race, religious dress, sex, sexual orientation, spouse or partner's identity, and happens in an area of public life and causes loss or humiliation.

The opposition, in presenting the bill for our consideration, has stated that the nexus of this bill is the fact that the Equal Opportunity Act already provides protection in a range of areas; however, it does not currently provide protection for people exercising domestic or family violence. The act as it currently stands does not have the carve-outs of any specific victim of crime. By way of background for the parliament, the now Labor opposition flagged this bill previously and progressed some work on it back in 2015 and 2017. Needless to say, no reform occurred, with concerns no doubt being raised by the then attorney-general in carving out specific groups of the community.

Domestic violence is unquestionably a scourge on our society. I have claimed for decades that rape, for example, is not a sexual offence: it is an act of violence. I maintain that position, that violence, whether in a domestic setting or not, whether a victim is a member of the family or not, is unacceptable. Violence being perpetrated by a person who is in an intimate relationship with somebody is no exception. It is a crime and, from my perspective—and I think I share it with members on both sides of the house—should remain a crime. It should not be diminished as anything less than a very serious crime.

This government has already taken swift action in terms of domestic violence reform since forming government. The new strangulation law, which I reported on in the parliament yesterday, has had many cases of prosecution in the less than a month it has been operating. There have been 37  charges in 26 days. There is a tougher stance on intervention breaches, the implementation of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme and the DV round tables, to name a few.

Just this morning, I have come from the launch of the Voices of Change pilot here in South Australia, a combined initiative of Women's Safety Services SA and the commonwealth. They are piloting this in New South Wales and Western Australia as we speak. I met a number of women of varying ages who have been trained and given special support to be able to speak up about their circumstances. They are better able to aid our media and any of us in a leadership position to hear their story. They are able to articulate it in a safe manner and do so in the clear knowledge that they are motivated to ensure that our daughters and granddaughters will largely not be exposed to this behaviour and how they can best deal with it in the future. I thank them for that.

I acknowledge Lauren Novak's attendance there this morning. She has been a powerful advocate as a member of the media. I wish some others, including male journalists, would take this up. I do not doubt for one moment that they are familiar with it. They live in families and communities. They understand that this is something that their friends or family are also exposed to. It is time that we have initiatives that will make a practical difference to ensure that we minimise this scourge on our community.

Work between the Office for Women and the Attorney-General's office is also occurring to educate our business community in the workplace, those who might be alert to and be able to identify a work colleague who may be the victim of domestic violence. They might also be able to identify a colleague in their workplace, their community or their friendship group who is perpetrating abuse or financial deprivation of others, and I think the White Ribbon program has been a powerful advocate for this. This is the type of work that is very important for us to bring to the fore.

In talking to and helping to educate the business community, it is also important to appreciate the significant impact on their employees and the workforce as a whole. It is not just the victim: it is other people in the workforce who may become knowledgeable about what has occurred, their responsibility to act, etc.

This is important work, and I commend the Hon. Michelle Lensink in another place, and indeed others who have advocated for change in this area to ensure that these initiatives are brought to the fore. The government stands firm that we must work with our business community to understand where any current impediments lie, how we can assist them with acknowledging and understanding domestic and family violence in its many forms and how they can assist vulnerable people.

The Office for Women acknowledges the importance of women's economic participation. They are currently developing a new key strategy, the employment and leadership strategy. The office will work closely with small and medium businesses in South Australia to support their role in women's participation and assist them to incorporate policies to support all employees affected by domestic violence in the workplace. Genuine change will only occur if businesses really understand their role in preventing and responding to domestic and family violence.

It is fair to say that leave—paid or otherwise—for a victim has been the subject of discussion and implementation in the public and private sectors. These are initiatives that are important to advance. At this point, the members of the government and I take the view, as part of the Liberal Party's position on this, that a lot of work is to be done. The work that was done as to the potential for abuse and discrimination in this area was raised by the member, who is the mover of this, who I think for a short time sat on the 2016 inquiry of the Social Development Committee. I read that report, then I had a brief viewing of it again the other day. They touched on it, but we do need some data to deal with it.

As I said, the report suggested the option to consider amending the Equal Opportunity Act. I stand here in this parliament as the legacy of someone who started equal opportunity in this state, the Hon. David Tonkin, who was brought up by a single mother. When he was in opposition, he introduced equal opportunity legislation for the first time in Australia. To the credit of Don Dunstan, when he came into office he perpetuated that into legislation, and I am the beneficiary of some of his advice and counsel.

I applaud all the initiatives that are raised by the opposition, in particular that of the mover of this bill. I know that she has a personal commitment to try to expose weaknesses in our laws and to do all she can to protect women and children in these circumstances. We have had a look at the bill. It is not in a form that I think is going to provide protection. I think there is a weakness in the provision as to those who are to be excluded, particularly the attempt that is made to exclude perpetrators from being able to get access to this. For example, if they were claiming discrimination in the workplace because they were identified as a recipient of an intervention order, an employer might say, 'We do not want you here anymore. You are obviously somebody who is not consistent with what we want in the workplace because you beat up your wife.'

These are the sorts of things we have to work through and look at carefully. But if we are going to deal with victims of crime, is it just going to be dealing largely with women in the workplace or is it going to be all victims of crime? Do victims of crime include a young person who does not get a shift anymore at the local McDonald's because she has been a victim in that circumstance by virtue of being exposed to family violence in her family household? These are examples we have to look at. I do not question the merit, the passion and the personal commitment of the mover. I think the bill in its current form is ill-advised. We have a lot of work to do in this area. I indicate that the government will be opposing the bill.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Reynell is called to order.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (10:43): I rise today to support the Equal Opportunity (Domestic Violence) Amendment Bill 2019, introduced into this house by the member for Reynell in her capacity as the shadow minister for women. I want to take this opportunity to thank her for her advocacy in this area. It is not just since she has been elected to parliament. Like many in this house, she has raised this issue through her previous roles and shared her own lived experience because it was important for her to show leadership and to make sure that we continue to address this concern.

This amendment bill will provide people experiencing domestic violence, who are discriminated as a result of that experience, with an avenue to seek redress. We are only at the beginning of truly understanding the damage and trauma that occur as a result of domestic violence. Both state and federal governments are committed to making a substantial cultural shift in Australia.

However, only recently have we really considered the damage and trauma that domestic violence causes and begun to understand that domestic violence is not just physical abuse; it can be financial, emotional, sexual, stalking behaviours and control. Most importantly, as a nation we are committed not only to supporting people who are experiencing DV but also to stopping it at the start by identifying how we act, how we speak and how we accept disrespectful behaviour.

The amendment before us today layers the response from a mature society that recognises that the impact of DV is not just confined to someone's private life behind closed doors. As we respond by assisting someone who is experiencing domestic violence, it can often involve the health system, police, the courts and, potentially, child protection. Today, this amendment acknowledges the impact on their employment. This is a time when we are more aware of domestic violence and when we encourage workers and employees to be open about their situation. They do so with the belief that it will result in support from the workplace.

We must be aware that it may, in fact, result in a different outcome, making the individual wish that they had withheld from the workplace the issues that they were or are experiencing. This is an amendment to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, enabling a protection or remedy for the circumstances when people experiencing domestic violence can be subjected to discrimination in the course of their employment. At this time, the commissioner has no scope in the act to hear these matters because the experience of domestic violence is not a ground for discrimination.

It was an absolute honour for me to be the minister for the status of women in the Weatherill Labor government. During this time, the premier promoted an awareness of domestic violence in the public service, with all departments undergoing White Ribbon training. We also introduced additional leave for public servants experiencing domestic violence. In South Australia, we have supported national organisations such as ANROWS and Our Watch to invest in research to understand the impact of domestic violence. Through policy, legislation and working collaboratively with departments, through the Multi-Agency Protection Service and Violence Against Women Collaborations, we are making a difference.

In addition, there were changes to intervention orders, changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, programs such as Staying Home Staying Safe and the addition of a magistrate. I acknowledge that this work is being continued by the current state government. We heard this morning about recently passed regulation laws and the continuation of work done around Clare's Law, which is now in operation. Everyone in this house knows that that is something that needs to change. It will only change when we stand up and speak out.

One of the key issues where I think there is still much for us to understand and develop is the impact on someone who has experienced domestic violence and what they have to do to rebuild their life. The research in this area shows that people are often impacted for many years after an episode of domestic violence that might have gone on for some time, that might have been short and intense or that might have resulted in incredible loss of economic control and choice.

We know that financial tactics are often used, but they are less recognised than physical and emotional aspects of domestic violence. There is considerable loss of wealth on separation if someone is to leave. Often, what is not understood—and I guess some of the case examples included employment—is when a partner comes to the workplace, causes an issue and embarrasses that person or threatens violence.

We also know that if someone has to move very quickly from their current home to another place of safe haven, it is very costly to that individual. We know that if there are disagreements around child support they have less income for their own children. We know that the research shows us that often people leaving a situation have to seek out welfare support to feed their own families.

Amendments such as the one before us today acknowledge that we still have a long way to go to thoroughly understand the ramifications of the damage that domestic violence can cause. I am rising because I would like the parliament to support this bill, and I have to say that I am incredibly disappointed to hear the words from the Attorney-General today, someone whom I consider to be incredibly progressive and supportive of women's issues. I hope that we move forward in this area particularly. I would have encouraged her to make an amendment if she did not feel that this was adequate. That opportunity was presented to her today.

When we think about the Equal Opportunity Act, we know that it has changed over time. We know that it looks at discrimination around sex, age, disability and race, and that it also pays attention to concerns around issues of discrimination on the basis of marital status, religious affiliations and caring responsibilities, but we are a mature society that knows there will come times for change, and today is one of those. That is why I rise today to support this bill and ask the house for its support for this amendment.

Mrs POWER (Elder) (10:52): I would like to commend the member for Reynell for her commitment and efforts to speak out against domestic and family violence and all her work to address gender equality. Certainly, on this side of the house, and I think on both sides of the house, all ideas and feedback about potential measures to address domestic and family violence are welcomed and require due consideration.

At first glance, when I looked at the bill proposed by the member for Reynell, I thought the idea had merit. However, for any legislation to have maximum benefit, I believe that it requires consultation, awareness and education, backed by support and resources for those whom it impacts. Legislative reform works best when it serves as a prompt for a conversation in the community and when that conversation works to better inform and educate the community and bring them along on the journey. I know that some of that consultation occurred, and I did have a look at that back in 2016.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Elder, pause for just one second. The member for Reynell continues to interject. She has been called to order. It would sadden me if I had to remove members during such an important topic this morning. The member for Elder has the call.

Mrs POWER: Back in 2016, the government at that time released a discussion paper regarding domestic violence and actually proposed the specific issue we are debating today. Interestingly, the feedback from both the community and the sector certainly did not show clear support for it. In fact, in the community survey summary in one of the reports provided, where it says the community was asked what actions would best encourage victims to be more confident to seek support and assistance in the workplace and other environments, the specific question was: do you think domestic violence should be a ground for discrimination? Thirty per cent came back saying yes, 38 per cent came back saying no and 32 per cent came back saying unsure.

The results from the sector also support this. They suggested the following policies and actions to better support victims of domestic violence in the workplace: promotion of where to go to get help; employee assistance, in terms of a domestic violence worker; domestic violence leave, which is well underway; training for managers; and White Ribbon accreditation. The results of that consultation clearly show me that there is more work to be done in bringing the community along on this journey and certainly making sure that the business community, which would be most impacted by this, are involved in the consultation and that their voice is heard and considered. In doing so, there is an opportunity for education and awareness raising.

We all know the horrendous impact of domestic violence. We know the shocking statistics that mean we have far too many women living in fear and living in unsafe homes. We also know that as a community we can no longer turn away from this issue. I think our community has every right to ask and demand to know what their government is doing to address domestic and family violence. I think they want to know that their government is committed to genuinely addressing the issue, and I think for them that means they want a government that is not only talking about the issue and raising awareness but taking action.

Furthermore, when it comes to government, the community expects talk and action to be backed up by funding. This Marshall Liberal government has announced an $11.9 million of new funding and investment to address domestic and family violence. People in the sector tell me that it has been a long time since they have seen such significant funding in this area. As the Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention, for me it is about looking at what we are doing to take action that translates into tangible, positive benefits. That is, what are we actually doing? Furthermore, it is not just about what we are doing: it is about the process with which we are addressing domestic and family violence. So it is not just what we are doing but also how we are doing it.

I am really proud that we are working alongside the sector, that we are working with the sector and the community. We have already had five domestic and family violence round tables and we have a sixth coming up in Murray Bridge. We have introduced a range of measures that will lead to tangible benefits for people in our community, such as the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, funding the crisis hotline 24 hours a day, seven days a week, funding our peak body—a range of things that have not been done to this point in time.

Finally, I hope that our differing opinions on the bill are not politicised and that the opposition does not go about suggesting that the Marshall Liberal government is not genuinely committed to addressing domestic and family violence or, even worse, scaremongering in our community. I think that would be absolutely outrageous. To date, we have been bipartisan on this issue, and all political spheres have together clearly sent a message to the community that domestic violence in any form is not acceptable. I hope we can continue that bipartisan approach so that together we can take action that leads to tangible benefits for people living in our community.

Ms Hildyard: Stop saying we didn't do anything.

The SPEAKER: The member for Reynell is now warned. I remind her that she will have a right to speak at the conclusion of this debate, unless she is ejected beforehand. The member for Elizabeth has been waiting patiently.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:58): I am a patient man, sir. I will make a very brief contribution to the bill, but I must say that, like the member for Reynell, I am a little upset, too, about the comments of the member for Elder that suggested, if I understood them correctly, that during our term of government we did nothing in terms of domestic violence reform. I was always certainly very active, as were the member for Reynell, the former member for Enfield and, indeed, the former member for Cheltenham, as I am sure his successor will be. I should mention that the member for Stuart, too, has been quite active in this area.

Today, I was originally going to make quite a play of the very real bipartisanship that has existed across the chamber on this issue. There has been a certain measure of bipartisanship—unlike on many, many other issues—and it is disappointing to hear those comments.

I think we all generally accept that a lot of the reforms that have come from the Attorney-General in recent months have been very good reforms in the main, and they were reforms that were well on the agenda in the previous term of government. We can argue about how quickly they should have been brought forward, but to suggest that we were not considering them and working towards them is simply untrue—and there are many examples of that.

The bill we have before us today makes some very simple changes. It is not out of the ether: this has been brewing for a while. Again, we were talking about this in the previous term of government, and the member for Reynell has consulted widely with domestic violence groups. These are the people the member for Elder claims to be close to and talk to all the time. Surely they are telling her the same things, and surely they are telling the Attorney the same things on the occasions she might meet with them.

This is a very simple change. It protects women in the workplace, and it gives them protection they do not have. I cannot see any cost to this bill. I cannot see why we cannot just pass this today. At worst, it does nothing and at best it gives women the protection they need.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 20

Noes 23

Majority 3

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. (teller)
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P.
Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Stinson, J.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K.
Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N.
Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.

Second reading thus negatived.

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