Debate resumed from 6 March 2008.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [3.15 p.m.]: The Hon. Helen Westwood's motion, which commends the Iemma Government for its ongoing commitment to preventing violence against women, flies in the face of the available evidence. The Iemma Government is in the process of abolishing 18 regional violence prevention specialist positions across New South Wales and replacing them with nine projected officer positions.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Shame!

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is a shame, and particularly in the northern region. One wonders why the Government would reduce the number of positions from 18 to 9. I look forward to the Hon. Helen Westwood's explanation for that. Regional violence prevention specialists play an important role in supporting domestic violence networks in places such as Coffs Harbour. The Government's decision to axe these positions is a retrograde step because domestic violence is a real problem in many communities and victims of it are reluctant to seek help. The specialists on the ground in these communities play a vital role in training people to deal with such issues. The abolition of these positions means that the nearest project officer for the North Coast will be located in Newcastle, which is hundreds of kilometres away from where the service is required. This decision works against the Government's New South Wales Violence Against Women Strategy—its own strategy.

As we know, regional New South Wales, particularly the North Coast, is growing rapidly and facing very challenging socioeconomic issues. This reduction in the number of specialists on the ground is devastating. Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that the rate of domestic violence assaults in New South Wales is 381 per 100,000 people. However, in rural and remote areas such as Brewarrina, Bourke, Walgett and the Central Darling, the incidence of domestic violence assaults is more than 3,000 per 100,000 people. That is an incredible increase in numbers and it reflects many of the socioeconomic issues facing our indigenous and remote communities. The Ourgunya Program for Aboriginal Women in Brewarrina joins the Crisis Accommodation Centre in Young and Carrie's Place in East Maitland, which are also struggling with the reality of inadequate financial support from the Department of Community Services. Domestic violence in rural areas is so prevalent that every remote Aboriginal community needs a crisis centre. However, again, the Department of Community Services is failing to act on that front.

Domestic violence is fuelled by substance abuse and stress brought on by continuing drought and alcohol and drug-related dependency. It is an intractable problem in rural and remote areas and the Minister should challenge the bureaucrats and himself to face the fact that these programs need and deserve funding. Minister Greene should visit some of these communities in western New South Wales to see—

The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: He was there the other day.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Where did he go?

The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: Griffith.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Was he in Walgett, Brewarrina and Bourke?

The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: He may have been. He was in Wilcannia.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That was last year.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: No, it was about two weeks ago.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That is good and I am pleased to hear it. I thank the Hon. Penny Sharpe for that update. If the Minister is visiting those places, he will see the problems on the ground and know that funding is required and that we need to confront domestic violence.

Domestic violence is also an emerging issue in Tamworth. Statistics show a 42.9 per cent rise in reported cases in Tamworth during the past two years. According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, that trend is reflected throughout rural New South Wales, where instances of domestic violence are the highest in the State. Indigenous women are up to six times more likely than other women to experience some form of assault. It has been noted that this issue was not addressed in the New South Wales Government's State Plan.

Domestic violence service groups say that a combination of reasons—including a lack of resources, funding and political support and the impact of the drought—have exacerbated the situation. The acting director of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, Michelle Burrell, said that half of all women seeking access to refuge shelter in rural areas were turned away because fewer services, fewer dedicated police officers and fewer shelters were available. In the face of that evidence, it defies commonsense for the Government to abolish 18 regional violence prevention specialist positions and replace them with nine project officer positions.

I acknowledge that the Hon. Helen Westwood is committed to this issue and has genuine motives and concerns, as does her colleague the Hon. Linda Voltz, given her motion about paid maternity leave, which was debated recently in this House. However, I implore the Hon. Helen Westwood to encourage the Government to demonstrate commonsense about this worsening issue. We need specialist support officers in regional communities to tackle this issue head on. I cannot support the motion.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.18 p.m.]: The Greens welcome all moves to reduce the incidence of domestic violence. It is a scourge on our society and it is absolutely imperative that we take a cooperative, non-partisan approach to ensure that all attempts to stamp it out are supported and adequately funded. We welcome the Government's attempts to tackle this difficult issue. However, we are unable to support the motion in its current form. I fail to see what it is based upon. The Iemma Government's record on domestic violence has been criticised by social workers, academics, police officers, frontline workers and organisations such as the New South Wales Domestic Violence Coalition. In what seems to have been a misguided attempt at cost cutting, 24 violence specialist positions were recently removed.

These workers, employed as violence prevention specialists, had developed a range of strategies to combat domestic violence. They had built relationships with the community and possessed enormous amounts of institutional knowledge. Their broad experience and knowledge encompassed all violence against women, including domestic violence and sexual assault. This experience is lost under the new initiative. Between 1997 and 2004 reported domestic violence rates increased by 40 per cent in the greater Sydney region and by 51 per cent for the remainder of New South Wales. Cutting services and expanding—doubling and tripling in some cases—the size of the regional areas that the remaining specialist will have to cover would seem counterintuitive to say the least.

There is considerable concern about the Government's new strategy to create nine new positions within the Police Force and a centralised unit within the Department of Premier and Cabinet to work on domestic violence issues. The idea may have merit but the concern is that it will have been done at the expense of the specialist, front-line positions. The new scheme will more than halve the number of specialist in regional areas—I understand they decrease from nine to four positions—as well as abolish the designated indigenous positions. The new approach fails to articulate how work in an indigenous community is planned in New South Wales and lacks a specific Aboriginal strategy. This stands in contrast to the previous violence specialist programs. I understand one of the violence specialist positions was dedicated to on-the-ground, capacity-building work in indigenous communities, something that is clearly needed. So, the Government's much-heralded commitment to fighting domestic violence includes its dumped name-and-shame policy and a new policy unit.

Much of the recent strategy is based on a review that was conducted by consultants at the end of last year. The Government is as pleased as Punch with this review, which consulted with non-government organisations and stakeholders. However, many stakeholders had serious concerns about the way the review was conducted. The subsequent report, entitled "Coordinating New South Wales Government Action against Domestic and Family Violence", even acknowledges the problems that many people have with the review. The report stated:

It is important to note that a number of stakeholders expressed concerns about the community consultation process— highlighting that:

the time frame for consultations was inadequate

I understand that the review was commenced in August 2007, that the call for submissions took place in September, obviously only a few weeks later, and that the report back occurred in the first week of November. The report went on:

the sole reliance on written submissions limited appropriate engagement with the community sector

the scope of issues covered by the consultation was too narrowly focused on government and bureaucratic structures without appropriate recognition of the important role of the community sector.

If that is what the review had to say about itself, about how the review was conducted, it certainly has a big question mark over it. Furthermore, while the consultation process was framed as a review, all the questions within the submission format discussed future structures and approaches. The Greens welcome genuine attempts to stop violence against women. The current situation is clearly not working and other approaches must be examined. However, conducting a review of current initiatives without examining current practices, without engaging those on the front line about their views on the current situation, smacks of shaping the questions to reach a predetermined answer. It is worth noting that the Government's review also noted:

strong support for the 18 regional violence prevention specialist positions, who are perceived as providing a key role in co-ordination of campaigns events, seminars, training and specific projects.

Submissions highlighted that the VAW—

That is violence against women—

regional specialist positions are vital in authentically translating the commitment of a whole of government response to the community level

the current number and grading of regional specialists is inadequate to facilitate a statewide whole of government response

[and that] there is a need for an increased number of Indigenous-specific positions

That part of the review highlights the importance of the 18 regional violence prevention specialist positions. I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment to this motion. The motion has missed the point. I emphasise the Government review because it identifies the sorts of issues the House should be dealing with in this motion. Rather than acknowledge this support, rather than increase the number and grading of positions and indigenous-specific positions, the Government has axed the positions altogether. It is a backward step.

A coordinated, centralised, high-level group to direct coherent, statewide policy and framework across departments is a welcome initiative, but slashing the jobs of those with experience and expertise in working with the community is unnecessary. We are not saying these new positions are unwarranted. We are saying they should not have been established at the expense of front-line positions. It was clear to many in the sector that front-line workers in the violence prevention specialist positions did not have sufficient grading or seniority to directly communicate the urgent systemic problems far enough up the bureaucratic ladder. These new positions will have a good deal more seniority and more open lines to local area commanders, the office of the Premier and regional managers. This is fantastic. Again I acknowledge that as a really important forward step.

Obviously we are pleased that the Government has seen fit to create these crucial positions higher up the food chain. But why must we sacrifice regional specialist workers, many of whom have years of experience in this consummately difficult role? Surely all members can agree that the scourge of domestic violence needs a massive, comprehensive and thorough approach if we are to make progress. I would have thought retaining the current 24 positions as well as creating a new, higher-level policy unit is scarcely scratching the surface, let alone excessive.

We are told that the $2-million annual grants that will be made available for distribution among non-governmental organisations will adequately replace the scrapped positions. We would like to see this expanded. There must be an acknowledgement that the system will take some time to get up and running and will not be able to immediately replace the knowledge, expertise and networks of those who have lost their jobs. Those on the front line of the battle against domestic violence also have reason to wonder about the Premier's decision to ignore explicit advice from the Ombudsman to adopt a primary aggressor policy such as the one currently operating in Victoria.

A report from the Redfern Legal Centre was submitted to the police and to other sections of the New South Wales Government in December 2006 detailing the alarming issue of women being arrested for trying to defend or protect themselves while being assaulted by their male partners. This is an ugly development in domestic violence in New South Wales. The report warns that women victims of domestic violence are frequently being arrested despite being seriously injured and that the perpetrators are getting away with domestic violence assault. This has and continues to have a severe and long-lasting detrimental impact on the female victims. All have reported suffering mental illness as a result of their arrests. The report warns that police are making erroneous arrests as a consequence of their pro-arrest policy, especially as wounds inflicted in self-defence, such as biting and scratching, are more immediately visible than bruising. Anti-domestic violence groups have stated that women are being charged with far more serious offences than those being preferred against the male perpetrators.

Police agreed to undertake a file audit on the issue and to release the results of the audit at a March stakeholders meeting. No such response has been forthcoming. That is extremely disappointing. In May 2007 the Ombudsman recommended to police that the primary aggressor policy called for by the Redfern Legal Centre be adopted. This is in keeping with section 15A of the Crimes Act 1900, which expressly states that Parliament recognises that domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children. Yet, the Premier has done nothing to rectify this rapidly worsening situation.

I acknowledge that the Premier has identified domestic violence as one of his key concerns and that he has introduced changes in this area. However, if we consider all the issues—particularly the loss of these positions—we can understand why so many people working in this area are expressing serious criticism and concern. Like many community groups, the Domestic Violence Committee Coalition and academics, the Greens share concerns about removing the word "women" from the title of the new unit. Naming it the "Violence Prevention Coordination Unit" muddies the waters and negates the seriousness of the epidemic of violence against women. Although women can be perpetrators of violence, there can be no debate about the gendered nature of violence against women. Former New South Wales detective and University of Western Sydney lecturer Dr Michael Kennedy recently said:

It is absurd to make any claim that women are as physically violent as men physical violence has many causal factors and requires a multifaceted approach. But it is mostly a gender problem that is perpetrated by men against women.

Betty Green, Executive Officer of the Domestic Violence Committee Coalition, described the decision as negligent, stating:

The failure to explicitly state "Violence Against Women" raises concerns that the gendered nature of VAW [violence against women] will be lost. In light of the fact that VAW is the most tolerated of human rights abuses and the wealth of research documenting the far reaching impact of violence on women's lives it is somewhat negligent to omit "against women" from the unit title".

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting all words after "That this House" and inserting instead:

calls on the Government to:

(a) specify the exact role of the new domestic violence police positions, and explain how these nine project officers and the "coordination unit" will be able to conduct the same breadth and depth of work as the 18 domestic violence regional specialists who have lost their jobs,

(b) acknowledge the crucial work being undertaken by those in the regional specialist positions and recognise the wealth of valuable experience that will be lost when these positions are wound up,

(c) reinstate the 18 regional specialist positions,

(d) acknowledge the gendered nature of violence against women by including the words "against women" explicitly in the title Violence Prevention Coordination Unit,

(e) immediately release the results of the file audit NSW Police undertook to conduct in September 2007 on the arrest and prosecution of victims of domestic violence,

(f) undertake an urgent investigation into the arrest of female victims of domestic violence and their treatment by New South Wales police, and

(g) initiate urgent discussions with the Redfern Legal Centre on the findings of the NSW Police file audit and the current pro-arrest policy.

I look forward to the debate on this matter.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.33 p.m.]: I speak in favour of this important motion and thank the Hon. Helen Westwood for moving it. Domestic and family violence is a scourge on our society, on our communities and within our families. The rates of violence are high and the impacts of violence reverberate through our families, communities and society. Over many years dedicated women have made it their life's work to stem the tide of violence against women. These dedicated activists—dare I say feminists—brought the issue of domestic violence into the public realm by speaking up and speaking out. Over many decades they have been there, establishing women's refuges, counselling and supporting women to escape violence, lobbying for changes to our laws and running education campaigns in our communities. Most importantly, they have never let governments—no matter what their persuasion—forget their responsibilities to support a woman's right to live free from violence.

I have listened very carefully to the debate and now take this opportunity to respond to the issues that have been raised, particularly in relation to the new structure and the new approach. I will speak against the amendment moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. First, the proposal embodies an entirely new approach. The 18 officers will not simply be removed and not replaced by something else. I will outline the changes to members. They are important, necessary and will make a difference. In 1996 the New South Wales Strategy to Reduce Violence Against Women was central to the Government's efforts to reduce domestic and family violence. The strategy has made an important contribution to tackling both domestic and family violence against women.

Over the past decade the violence against women strategy has involved an extensive range of local and regional activities across the full spectrum of issues related to violence against women, particularly community awareness raising, advocacy and community activism, facilitation of local partnerships and support for small-scale initiatives. The influence of the violence against women strategy has resulted in strong recognition by all government chief executive officers of the impact of domestic and family violence, both social and economic, and the need for agencies to address the causes and consequences of this violence. Most importantly, the activities of the violence against women strategy have allowed greater recognition of the rights of victims and helped contribute to a greater range of policies and programs to address violence. But, as we know, more can always be done.

The commitment by this Government to address violence against women was clearly articulated in both the State Plan and the 2007 election policy. These policies include new commitments to address the underlying causes of violence, improve support for women and families who experience violence, and improve criminal justice measures. They also signal the Government's intention to build on the achievements of the violence against women strategy, to provide even greater support for women and families and to deliver more effective, coordinated responses to domestic and family violence.

The Government commissioned an independent review on how to improve services and examine ways in which the Government could improve coordination of action in relation to domestic and family violence. The review was informed by some 41 submissions, mainly from community organisations, domestic violence specialists and individuals. The recommendations of the review form the basis of the new model and the Government's new enhanced approach. In adopting those recommendations the Government acknowledged that systemic changes are required to improve responses and ultimately improve outcomes for victims and those at risk. The way this Government tackles violence against women will deliver a new structure and a new approach. The new approach brings the issue of violence against women and their families into the centre of government, with oversight by a powerful central agency, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, as well as specialised expertise from within the Office for Women.

A Premier's Advisory Council on Preventing Violence Against Women will be established. The council will be chaired by the Minister for Women and will operate as an expert forum to advise and report to the Premier on issues that relate to the development of policies, programs and services that impact on women and violence issues. Ten members of the council will come from the community sector, drawing heavily on their expertise in this area. The manager of the new Violence Prevention Coordination Unit will also be a member of the council. In the first instance the council will concentrate on domestic and family violence issues.

At the heart of the new approach is the need for central, strategic direction to guide action in this area and the need to adopt systemic improvements. The non-government sector has long called for this direction. The new approach will ensure that all government services work together to drive down domestic and family violence and provide even better responses and support to victims. Supporting the new approach is a new structure that is recommended in the independent review. It allows for the establishment of senior positions that will have the capacity and authority to help drive systemic changes across agencies and better coordinate government action at both regional and statewide levels. The seniority of the positions is essential and will help to elevate the status of domestic and family violence specialist officers across the New South Wales bureaucracy. This is indeed a welcome initiative.

Three key elements form the new structure. First, a decentralised Violence Prevention Coordination Unit, located in the Office for Women, Department of Premier and Cabinet, will be established. The unit will be responsible for coordinating the whole-of-government response. It will also develop the strategic framework responses to domestic violence, maintain and further develop strong linkages with other government agencies and the non-government sector, monitor and evaluate government responses and provide strategic advice to the Premier and the Minister for Women.

Second, five statewide project coordinators will be appointed to oversee five key domestic and family violence projects and deliver statewide changes in key service systems. Coordinators will be employed for the following projects—indeed, some have already been appointed. They are: the domestic violence court intervention model positioned in the Attorney General's Department, which has already been established; the staying home leaving violence and integrated case management projects positioned in the Department of Community Services; a risk assessment tool project for people at risk of domestic violence positioned in NSW Health—this position has already been established—and a specialist domestic and family violence training and resource project located in the Education Centre Against Violence, which is part of NSW Health.

The third part of the structure is the establishment of a network of nine regional coordinators within the New South Wales Police Force located at Newcastle, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Tamworth, Wollongong, Wagga Wagga, Surry Hills, Bankstown and Parramatta. These coordinators will be responsible to police regional commanders. Their focus will ensure that links between local domestic and family violence service delivery and statewide strategic priorities are developed and maintained. They will promote change to ensure that regional criminal justice and human service responses are delivered in an integrated manner. The regional coordinators will engage with operational managers in key agencies to influence how services are delivered, and I am pleased that Ms Lee Rhiannon acknowledged that that has been an issue in the past. The upgrading of these positions will be the key to delivering those services. It is anticipated that the coordinators will eventually work closely alongside the 40 new domestic violence police specialists who will be appointed to the New South Wales Police Force in the near future. Those positions are about to be advertised.

Engagement with, and support for, the non-government sector is a cornerstone of the Government's new approach. The strategy also comes with new money. A new $2 million grants program is being set up that will provide funding to a diverse range of community projects and programs, in partnership with the non-government sector. The new unit in the Department of Premier and Cabinet will administer the new grants program.

The first job for the Violence Prevention Coordination Unit will be the development of a framework to establish statewide priorities and objectives aligned with the State Plan. In developing that framework, consideration will also be given in the first instance to addressing some other forms of violence—another issue that has been highlighted. The framework will underpin Government action across the State. The framework will also consider the best way to achieve coverage of violence against women issues beyond domestic and family violence and the experiences of other jurisdictions. It will be developed in close consultation with partner agencies and the non-government sector.

I am aware of some of the criticisms of this new approach, which I know some other speakers have mentioned. The new strategy is about not removing front-line staff who support victims of violence but building more effectively on the work that has been done in the past. The work of existing staff will be built upon and expanded under the new structure as greater coordination of policies and services is developed. When the new regional senior project officers are appointed in the New South Wales Police Force they will ensure that appropriate community linkages developed by the former staff are maintained.

The Government has committed significant resources to funding front-line services. We are providing 40 additional police, including locally based officers, with specialised training in dealing with domestic and family violence. We will also provide $28 million over four years to improve support to the victims by increasing counselling, accommodation and support, ensuring integrated case management and continuing the successful domestic violence court intervention model. Significant resources are also being put into court services, including the installation of more video equipment in News South Wales courts to reduce the trauma for victims and witnesses when testifying.

It is important to note that the additional police will be given specialised training in dealing with domestic and family violence. I would like to respond to the issue raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon regarding the police and women as perpetrators. I have requested specific information on this. I am advised that the New South Wales Police Force is undertaking detailed consideration of the issue of primary aggressor identification. The new domestic and family violence operating procedures to be released later this year encourage police to identify the primary aggressor and victim and provide the information as part of any court proceedings. This is an important development that is not being ignored by the Government. The Government has also given police greater home search powers. Police now have extended powers to apply for a 24-hour telephone interim apprehended violence order and police can apply for apprehended violence orders on behalf of a victim who is reluctant to proceed.

I will now explain why the Government will not support the amendment moved by the Greens. The first part of the amendment asks for detail about how the new structure will operate. I believe I have dealt with that point. The Government recognises the valuable work that has been undertaken over the years to support the violence against women strategy, including by the regional specialists. However, based on the findings of the independent review, in order to achieve more effective outcomes for women and families the Government needs to link these efforts more strategically, more consistently and in a more coordinated way across the State by continuing to allow flexibility for the development of local solutions. The new structure is designed to avoid piecemeal responses to domestic and family violence, and the Government is working at the appropriate level to make a real difference. The final three paragraphs of the amendment refer to audits. I advise the House that the police made a commitment to stakeholders that they would conduct an audit. In fact, the audit is currently underway and I am advised that the Minister for Police will release the results upon its completion. That work is being done and that part of the amendment is redundant as there is no information to release at this point.

In conclusion, this is an issue about which there is genuine concern across the House; it is not a partisan issue. The Government has involved many people in this process. The final model's new approach is about trying to get government to work for people and victims by making the police, the courts, Community Services, Health and the Commonwealth work together for a better outcome. People know the Premier's commitment on this issue. He said:

I want to ensure that the services my Government provides to women in the most dreadful circumstances are the best equipped and coordinated and don't add to a woman's distress.

The new structure proposed in the review will deliver the changes necessary to achieve what are undoubtedly the goals of everyone in the House in relation to domestic violence: greater focus on prevention and early intervention; better support for women and families who experience violence; stronger alignment of human services and justice responses, including more effective management of perpetrators; and, ultimately, a reduction in the impact of these crimes on our communities and our families. I commend the motion to the House and urge members to oppose the amendment.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.46 p.m.]: The motion moved by the very courageous and honourable Helen Westwood calls upon the House to commend the Iemma Government for its "ongoing commitment to preventing violence against women". I find it abhorrent that this motion seeks to congratulate a Government that has a record that can at best be described as a substandard response to violence against women. In addition, it is a Government that has a history of cover-up and deception on this very issue. I need to use but two examples to prove my point. We need look no further than an instance involving the very mover of this motion to see that, whilst this Government may talk about doing great things to combat violence against women, when it interferes with the Government's plans everyone is dispensable.

I refer, of course, to the case of Mark Aarons who was dismissed by the Government following his disclosure to the Premier of allegations of violence against the Hon. Sandra Nori. It is no secret that the disclosures related to the Premier by Mark Aarons originated from the Hon. Helen Westwood. It is also no secret that as a result of her disclosures the Hon. Helen Westwood was subject to criticism from members of the very Government she now seeks to congratulate. Rather than receiving acknowledgement for having the courage to bring this matter to the attention of Mark Aarons, sadly the Hon. Helen Westwood was pilloried for her actions. Might I suggest that what the honourable member should do is congratulate the boys club and backroom dealers that have been so happy to try to cover up the truth? The honourable member is sending a message to women in our community that despite what happened to her and to her former boss, the Hon. Sandra Nori, violence against women is not as high a priority as party solidarity.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: I understand that the member is trying to show his deep concern for this important issue but his remarks are not relevant to the motion. The motion is about the policies that are being implemented to assist women who are victims of violence. Mr President, I ask you to draw the member back to the leave of the motion.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: To the point of order: Rather than as interpreted by Government members, the motion congratulates the Government on its "ongoing commitment to preventing violence against women". Therefore, I can give examples of where the actions of the Government, far from preventing violence against women, are indicative of a policy that is quite the reverse.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Although considerable latitude is extended to members to enable them to speak on a wide variety of viewpoints when contributing to debate, they must bear in mind that the standing orders require their contributions to be relevant to the question before the Chair. The motion being debated asks the House to commend the Iemma Government for its ongoing commitment to preventing violence against women. So long as the Hon. Trevor Khan stays within the broad ambit of the motion, he will be in order and may proceed.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: It is worthwhile looking more closely at the facts of the case involving the Hon. Helen Westwood to illustrate the complicity of Government members in covering up an incident of violence against women. On Friday 30 March 2007 Premier Iemma promoted the member for Blacktown, Paul Gibson, to the Cabinet as the Minister for Western Sydney, the Minister for Sport, and the Minister for Road Safety. That very evening, after Premier Iemma had left his office, Mr Aarons received a complaint about Mr Gibson over the telephone from the Hon. Helen Westwood, who claimed to have witnessed an assault upon Sandra Nori in her electorate office in 1991. Subsequently, Mr Aarons, having correctly assessed the need to afford this matter the priority it deserved, sent a fax to Mr Iemma's house outlining the allegations. Newspaper articles at the time referred to Mr Aarons additionally emailing Mr Iemma's Chief of Staff, Mike Kaiser. After holidaying for the weekend, Mr Iemma reportedly read the facts on Sunday evening. With the cat out of the bag, the Premier put the wheels in motion that led to the dumping of Mr Gibson from the front bench on 10 April 2007.

Of course, the Premier was aware of the allegations involving Mr Gibson before he appointed him to Cabinet. We know that because the Premier himself said that he had heard rumours but was not prepared to act on such sources. We can conclude that the Premier, by appointing Mr Gibson to Cabinet, was prepared to turn a blind eye to the serious issue of violence against women. In essence, despite what he had heard, Mr Iemma was prepared, for the sake of satisfying factional allies, to ignore an allegation of violence against women, even when it involved abuse of a former colleague. An article in the Australian by Brad Norrington, published on 7 April 2007, indicates that Labor heavyweights—meaning certain right-wing members of the party—blamed a core group in Labor's Left for campaigning against Mr Gibson achieving a posting in the Ministry. Those named included the Hon. Helen Westwood and the Hon. Meredith Burgmann, a former President of this place. Mr Norrington relates that, because of concerns about the issue of violence against women, the Hon. Meredith Burgmann and her then fellow member of Parliament Ann Symonds approached well-known senior Labor figure Johno Johnson as far back as 1991 to raise concerns about Mr Gibson with the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bob Carr. It is said that former Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson, for whom Mr Iemma had worked as an adviser only months earlier, acted on Mr Carr's behalf in allegedly warning Mr Gibson not to go near Sandra Nori, with the threat that he would be drummed out of the party.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Point of order: I understand that during private members' business members may refer to lateral issues or issues that have a slight connection with the matter before the House. The Hon. Trevor Khan is going over past events. That is not relevant to the motion before the House.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: To the point of order: The Hon. Christine Robertson is welcome to speak in this debate but she is now making a debating point. The clearly worded motion commends the Government for its ongoing commitment to preventing violence against women. It is about the Government's record in this area.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: You are too clever for your own good.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: I did not write the motion; the Government wrote the motion. The Government opened the door to this discussion. It is too late. Government members now have to listen to my colleague's comments.

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a complicated matter. I do not wish to overly constrain the Hon. Trevor Khan with regard to the construction of his contribution. He is in order provided his remarks remain relevant to the subject matter of the motion before the Chair. However, for the remainder of his contribution I urge the member to be mindful of, and not transgress, Standing Order 91, which relates to imputations against and personal reflections upon members of either House.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Why did the Premier of this State not know of these serious concerns? Why was he prepared to ignore the issue of violence against women and promote a member who specifically had been warned off? Premier Iemma left out of any explanations he gave Mr Gibson's record as a fundraiser for New South Wales Labor who attracted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the hotel industry. It seems that, because of Mr Gibson's ability to raise funds for the Australian Labor Party, any concerns about him or violence against women were to be swept conveniently under the carpet. It would be remiss of me to stop at simply scrutinising the Premier. It was reported in the media at the time that another Government member of this House, who was the former chief of staff to Sandra Nori, refused to give police a statement about the alleged—I stress "alleged"—assaults by Paul Gibson on Ms Nori. She said that because she believed her evidence was hearsay it was not necessary for her to cooperate with police.

Police often receive statements containing hearsay evidence. Such information may assist police in verifying evidence or provide leads to other direct sources of evidence. Additionally, hearsay evidence is admissible in some circumstances. It is not hard to imagine the hearsay evidence of the member of this House. Commonsense and experience tell us that her evidence was likely to have been that Sandra Nori said words similar to, "Paul hit me again." This raises two issues. Firstly, this may well be considered admissible as evidence of a prior consistent statement. Secondly, and just as importantly, if the Hon. Helen Westwood and the other Labor member of this House saw or heard something suggestive of violence towards their boss—who was, I imagine, also their friend—why did they not report it to police at the time? I suspect we all know the answer, as do the women of New South Wales. The Hon. Helen Westwood, the Hon. Meredith Burgmann and another member were not willing to comment in April 2007 when media interest in the issue was paramount. Sadly, it seems, they will continue to remain silent on the issue. It is a sorry tale indeed.

That is the picture of the Labor Government's stance on violence against women in 2007. Have things changed since then? Sadly, the answer is a resounding no. On 7 March 2008 Vicki Curran, a former Wollongong council employee, was interviewed by the ABC Stateline program about what had occurred to her at Wollongong City Council and, more particularly, what had occurred to her and other women at the hands of a Labor heavyweight. A friend of, amongst others, the Minister for Ports and Waterways, Joe Tripodi, the Minister for Police, the Hon. David Campbell, and the Minister for Tourism, the Hon. Matt Brown, the man at the centre of all this was none other than Joe Scimone. During the interview with Stateline Vicki Curran said, "I feel like I have not been given a voice." When speaking of the sexual harassment that she suffered at the hands of Joe Scimone, Vicki Curran said:

No one cares, I have been let down, I would have to say by every Minister, members of Parliament. I have some correspondence alerting and asking for assistance for the right thing, the right thing by the Local Government Act. There just seems to be no support there.

Towards the end of the interview Quentin Dempster, the presenter for ABC Stateline, said:

With all the letters and emails Vicki Curran produced to Stateline to show her cries for help on behalf of intimidated staff and harassed women had been ignored by the Local Government department, Ministers and State MPs, including the member for Wollongong, Noreen Hay, she has this observation about the culture of the Australian Labor Party:

"Well, in one of my letters I highlighted the fact that when I was having a meeting with Noreen Hay, there was a brochure, a lovely glossy brochure prior to the election I think it was where they were promoting their stance against violence to women. Now, I can assure you they were alerted to severe situations, that, oh, I just had no support as a woman from the State Labor Party at all."

Quentin Dempster asked:

And this prevailed for, what, a number of years?

Vicki Curran responded:

Yep.

Quentin Dempster further asked:

So, what, they're hypocrites?

To which Vicki Curran responded:

Um, I think they're, yes, you'd have to say hypocrites.

Sadly, I am left to wonder why a member with the courage of the Hon. Helen Westwood would bring on such a motion as this. I oppose the motion. The Coalition will support the Greens amendments.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [4.01 p.m.]: I support the motion by the Hon. Helen Westwood. Domestic violence is, unfortunately, an all too common occurrence in many households around New South Wales and, indeed, across the nation. There are a number of different forms of domestic violence, which include: physical assault, that is punching, kicking, pushing, slapping; sexual assault; emotional abuse, where the abuser criticises the person and often puts them down or threatens them, leaving them feeling scared or worthless; verbal abuse, which includes yelling, shouting, name calling or swearing at the person; social abuse where a person is stopped from seeing family or friends, which isolates them socially; damaging property, including furniture or the house, in order to threaten and intimidate the victim; and financial abuse where the abuser takes control of money or forces the person to hand over all their money and does not allow them to have a say in how it is spent.

The flow-on effects from domestic violence extend well beyond the household. The household should be a place of protection and security. Unfortunately, there are many children in our society who witness some form of domestic violence in their homes. Children who are exposed to domestic violence between their parents or guardians are believed to have problems developing a sense of trust or security in later life. A child's early years are fundamental to the child's development and what type of adult he or she will become.

In September 2002 a report called Domestic Violence and its Impact on Children's Development was presented at the Department of Community Service's Fourth Domestic Violence Forum, which was held at the New South Wales Parenting Centre in Glebe. The report explored the long-term impact on children who witnessed domestic violence in their homes. It stated:

If children learn in their earliest relationships that adults are not to be relied upon, the effects are likely to be long-lasting and far reaching.

The report went on to explain that in many cases the children did not develop the same sense of security and trust and that whilst boys seemed to be more aggressive, girls appeared to be more distressed. A number of children exposed to domestic violence also displayed poor academic performance and difficulties with concentration and attention. There is little doubt that witnessing domestic violence affects a child's view of the world and how people are meant to treat each other. Many young children are never able to shake the experiences they suffered or witnessed and, as the report suggests, this can have long-term effects on their future success and happiness.

It is a sad reality that domestic violence is a vastly under-reported crime. This is largely due to the fact that the victim intimately knows the perpetrator and in many cases has had a long relationship with him or her. Unfortunately, a perpetrator is more likely to increase his or her abuse than stop it. The victim is often left feeling isolated and vulnerable and in many cases has nowhere to turn for fear of being embarrassed or shunned by family or friends. This is why it is vital that community programs are promoted and that awareness of domestic violence is raised.

I have spoken before in this place about the Canterbury Domestic Violence Support Project that is underway in my local area. The Domestic Violence Pro Active Support Service—yellow card—has been in operation since March 2003 and it aims to provide victims with a follow-up and support service. When police from the Campsie Local Area Command attend a domestic violence call-out they provide the victim with a yellow card, which allows the victims to have their details forwarded to a domestic violence support worker. The support worker then contacts the victim to discuss his or her needs and offer advice and guidance. This yellow card system has been very successful in the Canterbury area, and due to its success the Domestic Violence Pro Active Support Service is in the process of being extended and funding has been granted for a green card system, which will include follow-up support, referral and advice from general practitioners in the local area.

Another worthwhile project is the It's Time to Talk Program, which is a joint partnership between the Canterbury City Council, Bankstown City Council and the Canterbury and Bankstown Domestic Violence Liaison committees. This project began in 2006 and is aimed at informing and educating the community about the impact of domestic violence, with a special message that domestic violence is everybody's business and that it is also a crime.

An accommodation project is in place also, which helps women to escape violent partners. This program assists by providing these women with removalists, locksmiths and, in some cases, a motel if a refuge cannot be found for them. At this stage more than 100 women have been assisted by this project. The One Stop Shop is another initiative that was piloted throughout November last year: representatives from Campsie Police Domestic Violence Unit, solicitors, the Department of Housing and refuge workers come together one evening a month to allow women to come together and seek out the assistance they need to deal with the situation.

My colleagues in this place have mentioned a number of other programs across the State to deal with this crime, and whilst it is wonderful to see so many helpful and useful programs available to help women who are subjected to domestic violence, it is still very alarming that many of these incidents happen behind closed doors and are never reported. By bringing the issue of domestic violence out in the open we are saying that enough is enough and everyone has a right to live without the physical, mental, social and emotional trauma associated with domestic violence. This motion is certainly an ideal opportunity to highlight the excellent programs in our community and reinforce the fact that domestic violence is a crime that should never be tolerated or excused.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [4.06 p.m.]: I support this motion that the House commends the Iemma Government for its ongoing commitment to preventing violence against women. I believe it is very important that we endorse the whole-of-government approach that is being taken on this issue. I am appalled by the sickness of political point-taking on such an important issue and in such a sensitive time of change.

For years I worked in emergency departments in different parts of the State. A fair time ago I remember a woman who came into the intensive care unit where I was working and she had lost an ear. It was an appalling situation, and as the nurses were caring for this woman they realised she did not have a bone in her body that was not broken. She and her partner were apparently living in a van and she had been enduring a constant cycle of abuse. The nursing staff at the hospital tried desperately to get assistance for this woman but, unfortunately, the woman did not want in any way to complain about her situation—she was terrified she was going to lose the only life she knew, which was living in a van with this person who kept breaking her bones. Two weeks later the woman was readmitted to the emergency department, but she was not alive: she was pronounced dead from a stab wound to her chest. In those days we as a group at that hospital had no recourse to get this woman assistance. I am very pleased to know that this situation no longer exists.

For several years I worked on a women's refuge committee with a group of local women to produce a very good service of refuge for women in trouble in the community, mostly in relation to domestic violence. We were a bunch of professionals or quasi-professionals on the committee and I remember one committee member saying, "Why on earth would you come to this place?" That was because we all had credit cards. If we got into some sort of trouble at home we could find somewhere to go—these people could not. They needed to know there were support services and resources they could access.

There is absolutely no way that the incidence of domestic violence has increased. I spent years working in emergency departments in the city and in the country. There is no way that I could count, or could even think about counting, the number of people—men, women and, especially, children—who came into emergency departments for treatment because they had been maimed. As an aside, I worked on the North Shore for a while. What finally made me leave was the hidden violence that occurred. There was just as much domestic violence as occurred elsewhere, but it was all "nice". That was about 20 or 30 years ago, and in those days the nice people could easily convince the professionals that there was no issue. I reinforce that this problem is not exclusive to one class of society—it happens across the board.

In 1986 I was working with a group of women in a western New South Wales village. I was involved in an intensive community development project dealing with healthy babies. Its main aim was to empower women to recognise the community knowledge base and sharing that was available and to be proud of their community and themselves. It was about increasing self-worth. I was very proud of myself and what I was doing at the time, but my naivety produced an unanticipated result. As pride and confidence increased in the community of women, the obvious physical violence visited upon them increased daily. My cleverness resulted in a change in the power structures in their homes. I had somehow managed to shift power into the women's hands and the potential for domestic violence increased. That is a good example of why we should not let missionary types loose to help people. This new program, which is about coordination, advice and information for all resource providers, will ensure that they have the appropriate information to deliver the service properly.

In some communities and societies there is an acceptance of inequitable power structures and that physical, emotional and sometimes financial abuse against women is appropriate to keep them in order and in their place. It is definitely not a new issue. I have worked in communities in which women would not report abuse because they did not want their spouse to be sent to jail. I am talking about more recent times. This issue has been referred to in the debate today by a couple of members. I have worked in emergency departments in which the cultural belief was that abused women deserved the abuse. When they came back time after time they increased the feelings of contempt for them rather than the perpetrators. Through the continued work and dedication of some sections of our community, domestic violence is no longer considered normal. Notifications, charges, arrests and protective orders have all become a much more normal outcome of domestic violence these days. Of course we are aware of more incidents, because there is more reporting. Domestic violence is no longer acceptable.

I congratulate the people, organisations and public sector workers who have persisted with this issue to prove domestic violence is a crime and not to be condoned in any form. The Premier's whole-of-government approach means that there will be coordinated action and service delivery to pull together the decades of work that has been done to remove any perception of normalcy with regard to domestic violence. That is what the changes are about; they are not about saving individual positions or trying to have one person providing every service in a geographic area. This will be a whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach to make a difference to this centuries-old problem.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.15 p.m.]: I am pleased to support this motion and to say that I condemn the use of violence in any way, shape or form in our community. We all have the right to live in a community that is free from fear, but every year the lives of thousands of Australians are shattered by domestic violence. Domestic violence affects the entire community and occurs in all sectors of society regardless of geographic location, socioeconomic status, age, culture, ethnic background or religious belief. As the Hon. Christine Robertson said, there is a strong correlation between domestic violence and, ultimately, homicide within families. I have known two women who have been killed who were in violent relationships. For cultural reasons one of the women felt that she could not leave the relationship, but the other woman did leave and thought she had made a break. However, she was tracked down and fatally shot outside her workplace during her lunch break.

When we talk about something as important and as devastating as domestic violence is to the community, it is a poor effort when members opposite—particularly members of The Nationals—smear the debate. That is appalling. Members of The Nationals should look at their own camp before they have a go at other people. I am sure that all members deplore domestic violence and support the measures being implemented to try to eradicate this problem and to support the victims of domestic violence.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay will come to order.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Obviously the Hon. Duncan Gay has been out of the Chamber. He might have been in the staff bar. He obviously did not hear the Hon. Trevor Khan's contribution, which was nothing but grubby.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: It is just too easy for political operatives in this place to infer that someone has been out drinking. I request you to ask the member to rescind those comments because I certainly am not a drinker in this Parliament. If you cannot win an argument, you infer someone is drunk—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon Duncan Gay will take his seat. I ask the member to withdraw that statement.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I happily withdraw it and I accept the statement from the Hon. Duncan Gay that he is not a drinker in this place. However, he did not hear the contribution of the Hon. Trevor Khan. If he had, he would have understood the context in which I made my comments. As I said, this is a very important topic. I had hoped that all members would support this motion, but obviously they will not. I am sure all members who deplore domestic violence where they know it exists and if they know it exists would support any measures implemented to try to eradicate this problem and to support the victims of domestic violence.

The New South Wales Government has been very active in working to prevent domestic violence and, as stated, has implemented a range of strategies to provide a whole-of-government approach. I am pleased that one of those strategies was implemented in my duty electorate of Orange. The victims of domestic violence—the women and children—who were involved in the program were not forced to leave their homes, the perpetrators were. Alarms with back-to-base connections to the police were installed in their homes and they were regularly visited and monitored to ensure that they were safe. The perpetrators learnt that they had to keep away from those homes and to stop harassing those women and children.

If members were to go to the New South Wales Government website and type in "domestic violence", they would get 56 responses referring to the Department of Community Services, NSW Health, the Department of Housing, the Attorney General's Department, the Legal Aid Commission and the New South Wales Police Force. I am proud of the strength and breadth of these initiatives. I urge members to stop participating in grubby and snide politics— [Time expired.]

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [4.18 p.m.], in reply: I begin by thanking all members who have spoken on this motion. I acknowledge their contributions even though they may have been counter to my views on this issue. Clearly, some members will not support the motion. This is an important motion for a number of reasons. First, it is important that we acknowledge the work being done by the Government. I had hoped there would be a bipartisan approach and bipartisan support for this excellent program. It is a new strategy to deal with domestic violence and violence against women in our community in a sincere attempt to reduce the incidence of these events. I am disappointed by the approach taken by some members.

The fact that we as community leaders are speaking about domestic violence and highlighting it is important. We have all spoken about victims of domestic violence we know and its impact on their lives, their children's lives and their work mates and families. As the legislators of this State we must set standards in our community. When we speak about issues like this we must do so with a view to resolving them offering constructive suggestions. I do not think that has been the approach taken by all members, and that disappoints me. From a personal perspective—if I can borrow from an old saying—I have always acted in line with the belief that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. In response to the Hon. Trevor Khan's allegation against me, I can assure him I have always acted when I have known of domestic violence and I have acted until that domestic violence has stopped. I will always continue to do so and I am very proud of that.

Perhaps honourable members are not aware of the changes to the approach to domestic violence in this State because they were not aware of the review. I draw honourable member's attention to the review. It was independent of government. It received submissions from community organisations and organisations that work with victims of domestic violence. It came up with a number of recommendations that were supported by community workers and domestic violence workers. We are now seeing those recommendations endorsed through the New South Wales Government's strategy. I believe this new strategy should be allowed to be put in place and tested.

A number of honourable members, in particular the Hon. Penny Sharpe, have outlined some of the issues that were raised and the criticisms that were made, particularly by Ms Lee Rhiannon, about the new approach. I would argue strongly that this is a whole new model. It has not been about the abolition of particular positions. It is a whole new approach to domestic violence throughout the State. I urge members to allow it to be put in place and tested. I know some honourable members do not think this issue is important because they are quite willing to laugh and discuss personal matters throughout my reply. They are happy to be critical of the Government's approach, but this is a good model. It is supported by the majority of workers in the sector who work with victims of domestic violence. It should be allowed to be tested and reviewed, and it certainly will be.

I go to some matters that were raised by honourable members during the debate. The Hon. Catherine Cusack suggested the Government had backflipped on two important points, the first being naming and shaming. It is clear to me that the honourable member has not understood the Government's new legislation. The Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act that was debated last November not only delivers on the Government's promises to make it easier for women and children to obtain apprehended violence orders, it also automatically protects them with an apprehended violence order if their attacker is charged with certain personal offences. It better protects children by automatically including them on the apprehended violence order, unless there are good reasons for a judge not to do so, and it gives police greater home search powers. This new law does exactly what the Government intended it to do, by creating a new stand-alone Act for apprehended violence orders and associated domestic and personal violence issues, which gives full recognition to the seriousness of violence against women and children.

It also specifically introduces a new offence of domestic violence. This means that being convicted of domestic violence will leave a permanent stain on a person's record, which will make them readily identifiable by a sentencing court or a court making a bail determination. Formerly, offences of violence such as common assault did not specify whether the offence was committed in a domestic situation. This made it difficult to track habitual offenders. The new provision clearly achieves the Government's objective of naming offenders and protecting victims.

Secondly, the honourable member suggested that the Government had backflipped on the location of the stand-alone unit in a central agency. Again, this is incorrect. The Violence Protection Coordination Unit will be located as a stand-alone unit in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, but sensibly it will also be located within the Office for Women. Clearly, the vast majority of domestic and family violence is perpetrated against women and it is crucial that the Government ensures that we consider the spectrum of violence that is perpetrated against women alongside our broader women's policy agenda. I am pleased the shadow Minister for Women supports this position. In a media release of 14 December last year she said:

It makes sense for the domestic violence unit to be based in the Premier's office under the direction of the Office for Women.

There has also been criticism of the deletion of the word "women" from the title. This is simply a furphy. The Violence Prevention Coordination Unit will take a leadership role in the development of policy aimed at reducing domestic and family violence. This unit will be located within the Office for Women in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It represents a key element of the Government's response to the most important issue affecting women in our State. The unit will focus on both domestic and family violence coordination as well as violence against women more broadly. As honourable members should be well aware, while domestic violence is mainly perpetrated by men on women and children, women and girls are not the only victims. It is important that we also recognise that men and boys can be victims of domestic violence and ensure that our strategies include all victims.

The new structure incorporates senior positions not only across agencies but at the heart of government and in doing so aims to elevate the status of domestic and family violence across the New South Wales bureaucracy. The Hon. Marie Ficarra suggests that the Opposition will need to monitor the Government's implementation of our new strategy. I am pleased that she shares our interest in this aspect of the new strategy. One of the initial key jobs of the Violence Protection Coordination Unit will be to develop and oversee the implementation of a strategic framework to underpin statewide responses to violence against women, in particular to domestic and family violence. As part of that, we have requested that the framework have in place mechanisms for reporting against initiative 4.1 of the State Plan to ensure a coordinated, integrated interagency response to domestic violence. These key accountabilities are written into the job descriptions of the Violence Protection Coordination Unit officers' positions that have recently been advertised. This will ensure that the Government has detailed monitoring mechanisms in place to make sure that our plans are working into the future.

I am pleased that the Hon. Robyn Parker mentioned Carrie's Place, in the lower Hunter region, which provides accommodation and support to women and children experiencing domestic violence. It is true to say that this work will continue through a number of projects being funded in that area. As well as funding Carrie's Place—it was funded through the new $2 million domestic and family violence grants program to non-government organisations—projects, such as the Liverpool Women's Health Centre and the Joan Harrison Support Services for Women, are also being funded in the Liverpool area.

I believe our Government is committed to coordinating interdepartmental action on the crucial issue of domestic violence. I believe our State initiatives and programs, together with the detailed monitoring mechanisms we have put in place, will ensure that our plans are working into the future. That is why I commend this motion to the House.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 114 (4) applied.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.