Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) currently in Australia, one woman every 4 days is murdered by her current or former partner and 2.3 million Australian women have experienced violence from an intimate partner;

(b) as of 16 May 2024, at least 28 women have been allegedly murdered by their male partner in Australia;

(c) the rate of women killed by an intimate partner in Australia increased by nearly 30% in 2022-23, compared to the previous year despite the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 being in effect; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) an immediate boost of $1 billion in annual funding for frontline services for domestic, family and sexual violence, including crisis services, refuges and emergency housing;

(b) immediately increase funding to Legal Aid by $484 million to allow more women to access the legal help they require and Women's Legal Services Australia by $25 million to allow more women to access the legal help they require;

(c) undertake an immediate national review of sentencing laws, with a special focus on strengthening state and territory level responses with use of AVOs, electronic monitoring of domestic violence and sexual assault offenders, and removal of character references during sentencing in domestic violence cases;

(d) establish a national database to record all those convicted of family, domestic and sexual violence offences;

(e) establish a national mechanism to track family, domestic and sexual violence deaths across all states and territories to identify red flags and risk factors.

(f) fund community education and prevention work consistently including respectful relationships education to bring about culture change.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgence—The words of that may have been provided to officers; I'm not sure if they have been. The standard practice when leave is sought in these situations is that leave is not granted. Certainly there are aspects of the motion that go directly to appropriations and decisions that are not ordinarily dealt with in this way. There has been discussion about there being a suspension, but, now that I've heard the motion, I am worried that this could be the first time that we end up—at the end of this, if a suspension is then moved—going to a division about family and domestic violence. I'm genuinely worried about that.

I have full respect for the motivations of the member in bringing this forward. I wonder, having now heard the motion, whether it might be possible, on the issue of whether a suspension is moved, for there to be some discussion outside the chamber. It's up to the member. She has got the right to move a suspension if she insists. But, if it is possible to get to a point where everything that comes out of this House sends a unanimous view on family and domestic violence, I would like us to find that way. It's how traditionally we've been able to deal with these issues. I respect that, in the speeches, different calls may happen, but I do not want, if it can be avoided, for us to have the first time where a message is sent to the community that is in effect a mixed message about something that, at first-principles level, every single member of this parliament agrees on.

The question that I was asked was 'Is leave granted?' To answer that question: leave is not granted. But I would offer to the member for Warringah: if the member for Warringah chooses to not go immediately to moving a suspension, then I can give a guarantee that, if we aren't able to reach agreement on words, there will be no procedural blockage to making sure that there is an opportunity later today. We won't procedurally block it in any way. But I am worried about the implications and how the community will see it if, for the first time, we end up in a divisive vote in the House which will carry an implication to some people that I don't think reflects the House. As I say, the member for Warringah has a full right, as a member of parliament, but, if that is a possible course of action, it would certainly be appreciated by many members.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgence—Could I have a clarification from the Leader of the House? Am I to understand that you would allow a debate but not proceed to a vote?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgence—If the member seeks to move a suspension and simply have the speeches, and we don't end up dividing, then I don't think there's the same risk to the House. But, if we end up with a division, I think it will be taken by some to be a message that it is not, and I'm worried about that. We can either talk about it and come back later or, if the course of action is taken now, the other option is that we understand that we don't divide. But I think there is a risk with a division, with some of the forces in this country that none of us want to encourage. A division could potentially send a very bad message.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So one option before the member could be further discussion, negotiation and then a further motion before the House or a suspension, and the other option could be moving to the other item on the agenda today, which would give time to enable that to occur.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgence—Leave has not been granted. I won't divide on the lack of leave and I won't suspend standing orders.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. So we'll just move to the next item.