Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

With the member for Griffith and my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, I rise to register my absolute rejection of this new arrangement that's going to be put in place by Minister Porter and this government when it comes to the 1800RESPECT service. I know this service well and I know many people that have relied on this service. I know Karen Willis and the people from Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia, and I know their reputation. I have visited that service in the past, and I know Karen personally. Karen, her staff and that organisation have 50 years of experience. How can a government ignore, not understand, not respect and—most importantly—not listen to 50 years of experience? I met with Karen Willis and the ASU last week. They explained to me very carefully the implications of the decisions this government has taken in relation to the 1800 RESPECT service. I won't go over the ground that has already been covered by my colleagues, but the ground that they have covered very well is the importance of trauma counselling. That's what we are talking about here.

In my discussions with Karen she explained carefully—and it's not hard to make the emotional and intellectual leap to understand what she was saying—that trauma counselling is often about people who experienced sexual violence when they were children and have finally found the capacity and had faith in the 1800 RESPECT trauma counselling service to be able to finally address those horrors. That does not happen in the case of someone who is less qualified than the people who have been doing the counselling service with RDVSA. It requires patience. It requires several conversations. It requires long conversations. It is not just about registering that you want to talk to someone, and certainly not someone who is less qualified than the present counsellors working out of their kitchen or lounge room.

I, like other members, am not saying that the people and the organisations who will now be taking on this tender are not reputable, good organisations. But what I am saying is that the very nature of this service is being changed, from a trauma counselling service to a service that does not deal with trauma counselling, that is a referral service on sexual violence and domestic violence. It has been outlined clearly why RDVSA have not proceeded with the tender. It is not, as the member for Boothby just outlined, that somehow or other they just decided not to. That is an insult to the people at RDVSA. It was, as my colleague the member for Lindsay outlined, because of deep ethical concerns about the people whose voices have been recorded and the information on files that will be required to be handed over. This government is compromising the very safety, the very confidence—that some of this information could end up in the hands of violent perpetrators in litigation and played aloud in court. For someone who has been sexually assaulted as a child and has finally gone to get some support for that, this prospect will stop them from seeking that support. And the very idea that this is going to become a money-for-service fee is just not acceptable. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context