❓ Question regarding WA state budget investment in measures supporting young people impacted by family and domestic violence. The Minister outlines specific investments and criticises the opposition's claims of funding cuts.
AnsweredQoN 331Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — YOUNG PEOPLE
331. Mr D.A.E. SCAIFE to the Minister for Prevention of
Family and Domestic Violence:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's unprecedented commitment to combating family and domestic
violence and keeping Western Australians safe.
Can the minister outline to the
house how the state budget is delivering investment in important measures to
support young people who have been impacted by family and domestic violence
across Western Australia?
331. Mr D.A.E. SCAIFE to the Minister for Prevention of
Family and Domestic Violence:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's unprecedented commitment to combating family and domestic
violence and keeping Western Australians safe.
Can the minister outline to the
house how the state budget is delivering investment in important measures to
support young people who have been impacted by family and domestic violence
across Western Australia?
AnswerView source ↗
I am very pleased to answer this
question. We have had a bit of discussion in the chamber over the last couple
of days about domestic violence and our state government's response to
it. I am very pleased to go through the very large number of items—the
different services, the different contributions, the reform, the engagement
with the sector—the wide variety of responses and the increased
investment that we are putting in place to combat domestic violence. Sadly, we
know that domestic violence impacts a range of different people in our
community, not the least of whom are women and children. In the past we have
underappreciated the impact that domestic violence has on children and young
people. They can often be exposed to domestic violence either physically or
they see it happening, and of course this is hugely traumatic for them.
Ensuring that young people have the right support is crucial if we want to
break the cycle of domestic violence and address the trauma that it brings.
During the last election, we
committed to $2.5 million to establish two family and domestic violence
counselling services especially tailored for
young people aged from 12 to 18 years. We have announced that Rockingham and the
wheatbelt will be the locations for those two services. We have commissioned
the Australian Childhood Foundation with the Youth Affairs Council, as well as
Karla Kuliny Aboriginal Corporation, to deliver the service model. They are
consulting at the moment to look at what those services will look like in those
two locations. They will work with young people who have been impacted by
domestic violence, as well as Aboriginal organisations and elders in those affected
communities. That consultation is occurring now. The Leader of the Opposition
asked that question; I hope she is assured that local organisations will have
an opportunity to tender for the actual service provision when it comes about.
They should participate in the discussion about what would work for their local
community. We expect these services to be operational by the end of the year.
It is another example of how our government is putting more money into the
prevention of domestic violence.
I was astounded on the weekend to
see the shadow minister try to claim that we are putting less money into
service provision, because the forward estimates for the line item in the
budget papers reflect a reduction. They reflect a reduction because of the time-limited funding that the federal
government puts in as part of our national partnership agreement. Not
only has it put in time-limited funding—usually these are five-year
agreements—but also, in this case, they have been very short
agreements, related to COVID. That is why there is a reduction in the forward
years. There is no other reason. When that was explained to the shadow
minister, she did not change her position at all on this, and has continued to
say in Parliament that there has been a reduction. She encouraged some of her
colleagues to say the same. Let me make it clear. What does it mean? Does it
mean that they do not understand how to read the budget papers, or they are
wilfully misleading the situation? It means one of those two things. Similarly,
we had advocacy from the other side for DVassist, which is a service based in
the metropolitan area but targeted at regional communities. It is funded by
only the federal government, but the federal government has not given ongoing
funding. What did the opposition do? It came to the state government and said, ''You
need to fund this because the federal government is not.'' Have we seen
any indication that the opposition is advocating to the federal government?
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
Ms S.F. McGURK : The member
for Vasse might want to listen to some of this, because she continues to
provide the public with misleading
information. I am also not aware of her providing any advocacy to her federal
counterparts to say that if they want to step up and create expectations
and new services, they should do the right thing and provide long-term funding,
which is absolutely necessary.
question. We have had a bit of discussion in the chamber over the last couple
of days about domestic violence and our state government's response to
it. I am very pleased to go through the very large number of items—the
different services, the different contributions, the reform, the engagement
with the sector—the wide variety of responses and the increased
investment that we are putting in place to combat domestic violence. Sadly, we
know that domestic violence impacts a range of different people in our
community, not the least of whom are women and children. In the past we have
underappreciated the impact that domestic violence has on children and young
people. They can often be exposed to domestic violence either physically or
they see it happening, and of course this is hugely traumatic for them.
Ensuring that young people have the right support is crucial if we want to
break the cycle of domestic violence and address the trauma that it brings.
During the last election, we
committed to $2.5 million to establish two family and domestic violence
counselling services especially tailored for
young people aged from 12 to 18 years. We have announced that Rockingham and the
wheatbelt will be the locations for those two services. We have commissioned
the Australian Childhood Foundation with the Youth Affairs Council, as well as
Karla Kuliny Aboriginal Corporation, to deliver the service model. They are
consulting at the moment to look at what those services will look like in those
two locations. They will work with young people who have been impacted by
domestic violence, as well as Aboriginal organisations and elders in those affected
communities. That consultation is occurring now. The Leader of the Opposition
asked that question; I hope she is assured that local organisations will have
an opportunity to tender for the actual service provision when it comes about.
They should participate in the discussion about what would work for their local
community. We expect these services to be operational by the end of the year.
It is another example of how our government is putting more money into the
prevention of domestic violence.
I was astounded on the weekend to
see the shadow minister try to claim that we are putting less money into
service provision, because the forward estimates for the line item in the
budget papers reflect a reduction. They reflect a reduction because of the time-limited funding that the federal
government puts in as part of our national partnership agreement. Not
only has it put in time-limited funding—usually these are five-year
agreements—but also, in this case, they have been very short
agreements, related to COVID. That is why there is a reduction in the forward
years. There is no other reason. When that was explained to the shadow
minister, she did not change her position at all on this, and has continued to
say in Parliament that there has been a reduction. She encouraged some of her
colleagues to say the same. Let me make it clear. What does it mean? Does it
mean that they do not understand how to read the budget papers, or they are
wilfully misleading the situation? It means one of those two things. Similarly,
we had advocacy from the other side for DVassist, which is a service based in
the metropolitan area but targeted at regional communities. It is funded by
only the federal government, but the federal government has not given ongoing
funding. What did the opposition do? It came to the state government and said, ''You
need to fund this because the federal government is not.'' Have we seen
any indication that the opposition is advocating to the federal government?
Ms L. Mettam interjected.
Ms S.F. McGURK : The member
for Vasse might want to listen to some of this, because she continues to
provide the public with misleading
information. I am also not aware of her providing any advocacy to her federal
counterparts to say that if they want to step up and create expectations
and new services, they should do the right thing and provide long-term funding,
which is absolutely necessary.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.