The Hon. H.J. GUMBYS (16:14): I rise to support the establishment of this Joint Committee on Improving Men's Health and Wellbeing in South Australia, and I thank the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, the Hon. Blair Boyer, for bringing this proposal before the parliament. I also acknowledge the Hon. Sarah Game, whose advocacy has helped keep men's health and wellbeing on the parliamentary agenda. I would like to also acknowledge the members proposed to serve on this committee: the members for Port Adelaide and Elizabeth, Cheyne Rich and Ella Shaw; the member for Bragg, Jack Batty; and, in this council, the Hon. Robert Simms and the Hon. Sarah Game.
The purpose of this inquiry is straightforward, but the task before it is not. Men and boys in South Australia experience particular patterns of preventable illness, premature death, mental distress and unacceptable statistics surrounding suicide. They can also face real barriers to recognising that something is wrong, barriers to asking for help and finding support that is accessible, appropriate and trusted. Those outcomes affect not only individual men, they reverberate through families, workplaces and entire communities.
The figures demand our attention. Suicide is the leading cause of death for South Australians aged between 15 and 44, and men in this state are around three times more likely than women to die by suicide. Nationally, the latest revised Australian Bureau of Statistics data recorded more than 3,300 deaths by suicide in 2024, with men accounting for just over three-quarters of them. Behind each figure is a person whose future was lost and a circle of people left to carry that loss.
But this committee must not confine its attention to crisis, important as crisis response is. Men's mental, physical and social health cannot be placed into separate boxes. The inquiry must consider the full picture: preventable chronic disease; alcohol and other drug harm; sexual and reproductive health; injury; loneliness and social disconnection; housing and financial pressure; working conditions; access to primary, preventative and specialist care; and the harm caused by online misogynistic influences and algorithms.
We also need to be more precise than simply saying that men are reluctant to seek help. That observation may be true for many men, but on its own it can place the whole responsibility back on the individual. The better questions are: what makes help difficult to seek? Are services available at the time and place a man can use them? Are they affordable? Do they communicate in a way that builds trust? Are they culturally safe and clinically appropriate options? Do we recognise distress when it presents as anger, withdrawal, risk-taking or substance use, rather than in the forms we expect? And are we intervening early, or only once a man reaches breaking point?
This is why lived experience must be central to the committee's work. We must hear directly from men and boys; from families and carers; from people bereaved by suicide; from clinicians, researchers and frontline workers; and from organisations already doing this work in our community. We must also listen to those whose experience can be missed by broad averages: Aboriginal men and boys; men in regional and remote South Australia; culturally and linguistically diverse communities; men living with disabilities; veterans; LGBTIQA+ people; men experiencing unemployment, insecure work, homelessness or contact with the justice system; and men at different stages of life.
Where a man lives should not determine whether he can get help. Regional and remote communities face particular challenges of distance, workforce availability, privacy and continuity of care. In a small community, concern about being recognised can itself become a barrier. The committee should therefore examine not only whether a service exists on paper but whether people can reach it, afford it, trust it and continue to use it.
The inquiry is also right to examine the role of workplaces, sporting clubs, social groups, unions and men's sheds. These places matter because they are where relationships already exist. They can create connection, notice when someone is struggling, encourage an overdue health check and provide a trusted path into professional support. They are not substitutes for properly funded clinical care, nor should volunteers be expected to carry the responsibilities for which they are not trained, but when they can be an effective front door to care, particularly when services work with them rather than waiting for men to present at a clinic in crisis, they are so important.
As mentioned previously, a serious and rapidly evolving aspect of this committee's remit will be the influence of digital platforms and recommender systems. The concern is not that every online discussion about masculinity is harmful, nor that young men should be treated with suspicion. The concern is that platforms designed to maximise attention can repeatedly direct vulnerable users towards more extreme material in what has come to be known as the manosphere: content that turns uncertainty into resentment, equates dominance with strength, promotes contempt for women or encourages damaging ideas about a young man's body, his worth, his place in the world.
Serious response cannot consist only of telling boys to log off. We need to understand how these systems work, what accountability should rest with the platforms, how digital literacy and understanding can be strengthened and how young men can be offered credible and diverse alternatives. Positive masculinity should not be an empty slogan. It can be encouraged with empathy, responsibility without silence, resilience without isolation, and strength that includes the confidence to ask for help. It must also be grounded in respect for women and girls and in healthy, equal relationships.
This committee should examine what is already working. Across many aspects, South Australia will not be starting from scratch. Across our state, clinicians, community-controlled organisations, suicide prevention services, researchers, sporting organisation, peer networks, men's sheds and local groups have built trusted models of support. Our job is to identify what approaches reach men early, what could be adapted for different communities, where services are failing to connect and where government policy may be creating gaps or duplication.
This work should also resist false choices. Supporting men and boys does not diminish the importance of women's health or gender equality. Promoting healthy masculinity is not an excuse to ignore violence or inequality. On the contrary, men who are connected, supported, emotionally capable and secure in themselves are better placed to build respectful relationships and contribute positively to their families and communities.
Better outcomes for men strengthen the whole community. This is an issue that should rise above party lines and the committee's cross-party membership gives us an opportunity to work in that spirit. There is no single program, service or institution that can solve every problem within men's health. But complexity is not a reason for inaction. It is a reason to ask better questions, bring the right voices together and follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Men's lives are at stake. Families are carrying losses that should never have occurred. We owe it to them and to the next generation of South Australian boys and men to undertake this work diligently and thoroughly and to turn what we learn into actions and results. I commend this motion to the council.