People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
Topic last updated: | See what’s been updated
Key findings
- Some people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds may experience vulnerability due to temporary and dependent visa status, language barriers, and/or lack of community support and networks. These factors may increase their risk of exposure to family, domestic and sexual violence (FDSV), be exploited by perpetrators, and heighten barriers to seeking help.
- Cultures can differ in their attitudes towards gender roles, relationships, and family dynamics, which can impact the way FDSV is perceived and tolerated.
- Some forms of violence are more likely to be influenced by a person’s visa status and/or by religious, cultural or community contexts, for example visa abuse, dowry abuse and female genital mutilation/cutting.
Family, domestic and sexual violence (FDSV) occurs across Australia, and impacts people from many different communities and cultures. While cultural and linguistic diversity is not an explicit indicator of disadvantage or risk, many people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds may experience increased exposure to risk factors or heightened barriers to seeking support. Contributing factors may include recent displacement, temporary and dependent visa status, language barriers, or lack of community support and networks (El-Murr 2018; HRSCSPLA 2021; Webster et al. 2022; Vaughan et al. 2016).
Australia is a nation diverse in cultures and ethnicities, with more than 1 in 4 (28%) of the population born overseas and more than 1 in 5 (23%) speaking a language other than English at home (ABS 2022). Understanding patterns of FDSV experienced by people from CALD backgrounds is important for identifying and responding to the specific needs of CALD populations. Box 1 describes how CALD is defined for this topic page.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Standards for Statistics on Cultural and Language Diversity (SSCLD) outline a nationally consistent framework for the collection and analysis of data representing people from CALD backgrounds. The SSCLD includes a minimum core set of four indicators:
- Country of birth of person – the following categories are often used in reporting:
- Born in Australia
- Born overseas in Main English-speaking countries (MESC) – a term used to describe the main countries from which Australia receives, or has received, significant numbers of overseas settlers who are likely to speak English. This includes Canada, Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and United States of America.
- Born overseas in Non-main English-speaking countries (N-MESC) – a term used to describe countries other than main English-speaking countries. It is important to note that being from N-MESC does not imply a lack of proficiency in English (ABS 2021).
- Main language other than English (LOTE) spoken at home
- Proficiency in spoken English
- Indigenous status.
However, there is considerable variation in how CALD status is collected and reported across data sources. Most national data collections do not have the measurement of CALD as a primary focus, so may collect information on only one or 2 of the SSCLD measures. CALD may be defined in different ways for different purposes, and other measures of cultural diversity may be collected additionally, or alternatively, to those under the SSCLD. For reporting, in some cases a specific group is defined as having ‘CALD status’, while in other cases the measures of cultural diversity are presented without CALD/non-CALD categorisation. Measures may be reported separately, or combined to provide a richer understanding of the diversity that exists within CALD groups.
The 2 key data sources used in this topic page (see Data sources for measuring FDSV experienced by people from CALD backgrounds) have data available on country of birth and/or main language spoken at home. The terminology used in this page reflects that used in the published data sources, noting that for one source a specific group has not been defined as having ‘CALD status’.
It is important to note that while Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are diverse in language and culture, their experiences and needs as First Australians are unique and are therefore considered distinct from the CALD population for the purposes of this report. See more at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and Data sources for measuring FDSV experienced by people from CALD backgrounds.
What do we know?
It is important to recognise that people from CALD backgrounds in Australia are not a single homogenous group, however there are several factors that can increase the risk of FDSV for some CALD people and/or impact their perceptions and understanding of violence, and help-seeking behaviours.
Cultural attitudes towards women and understanding of violence
Cultures can differ in their attitudes towards gender roles, relationships, and family dynamics, which can impact the way domestic violence is perceived and tolerated (Webster et al. 2017; Le et al. 2020). For example, some cultures may expect women to submit to husbands and fathers, stay in a violent relationship, and avoid bringing shame to themselves and their family (Vaughan et al. 2016).
Why is it sometimes difficult to recognise FDSV?
'As a survivor from a migrant community, a broader recognition of family violence is crucial. My perpetrators were my father, my uncle, my aunt and my grandmother. I also witnessed the abuse against my mother by the same perpetrators (her husband and her in-laws). Due to the lack of conversation around non-IPV perpetration, our experiences were first, hard to recognise, and later, hard to seek appropriate help for.'
Heshani
For information on community attitudes and understanding of violence against women among people from CALD backgrounds, see Box 2.
The NCAS is a national survey that measures community knowledge of, and attitudes towards, violence against women and gender inequality. The 2021 NCAS surveyed 19,100 people, of whom 21% spoke a LOTE at home, 10% were born overseas in MESC and 24% were born overseas in N-MESC (see Box 1; Coumarelos et al. 2023).
Respondents who spoke English at home were significantly more likely than those who spoke a LOTE at home to demonstrate ”advanced”:
- understanding of violence against women (48% of respondents who spoke English, compared with 31% of LOTE with good English and 22% of LOTE with poor English)
- rejection of gender inequality (30% of respondents who spoke English, compared with 21% of LOTE with good English and 13% of LOTE with poor English)
- rejection of violence against women (38% of respondents who spoke English, compared with 21% of LOTE with good English and 6% of LOTE with poor English).
Respondents born in Australia were significantly more likely than those born overseas in N-MESC who had been in Australia for up to 5 years to demonstrate “advanced”:
- understanding of violence against women (48% of Australia-born respondents compared with 21% of N-MESC who had been in Australia for up to 5 years).
- rejection of gender inequality (30% of Australia-born respondents compared with 21% of N-MESC).
- rejection of violence against women (38% of Australia-born respondents compared with 13% of N-MESC).
Respondents born overseas in MESC did not significantly differ to Australian-born respondents in their understanding of violence against women, rejection of gender inequality, or rejection of violence against women.
For more information on the NCAS, see Community understanding of FDSV and Community attitudes.
Pre-migration experience
Immigrants may be particularly affected by recent arrival to an unfamiliar country (HRSCSPLA 2021). Some immigrants, particularly refugees, are also at increased risk of migration-related trauma. For example, some refugees may have experiences of war, torture and other traumatic pre-arrival experiences, including FDSV. These experiences of violence can affect a person’s mental health, including their ability to cope in a new environment and developing post-traumatic stress, and can worsen family functioning issues during re-settlement (El-Murr 2018; Vaughan et al. 2016).
Visa status
People from CALD backgrounds on temporary visas may face additional challenges in seeking help for FDSV. Victim-survivors on a temporary visa may be dependent on a violent partner for residency and may not disclose violence due to the fear they may be deported. Conditions of temporary visas can result in social isolation due to, for example, restrictions to accessing employment and housing. Isolation may be further heightened for those who do not speak English or drive (HRSCSPLA 2021; Vaughan et al. 2016). Moreover, temporary visa holders are often unable to access social support such as income support and healthcare (e.g. through Medicare), as eligibility is limited to people with permanent residency or citizenship status (Cullen et al. 2022; NAGWTVEW 2018).
Barriers to support
Aside from visa-related barriers, people from CALD backgrounds may face other difficulties accessing support for FDSV, such as:
- lack of CALD-specific information (for example, related to gender equality and violence, service availability, or legal rights and entitlements)
- language and communication barriers
- fear and distrust of authorities due to pre-settlement experiences
- community norms that discourage disclosure, acknowledgement and intervention of violence within relationships
- community belief that family and domestic violence issues should be dealt with within the family unit (El-Murr 2018; Cullen et al. 2022; NAGWTVEW 2018).
What are some of the barriers to getting help in migrant communities?
'The full extent of the family violence was never acknowledged or discussed explicitly with anyone, not even with my mum or sister, who were also abused by my father. We had an implicit understanding that we couldn’t discuss this, as we were protecting ourselves from being overwhelmed with helplessness, as we weren’t sure what to do once it was acknowledged. This experience highlights the differences in the tolerance and acceptance levels within different family structures, even within my own community, highlighting that there are differences in the level of comfort survivors have when disclosing their abuse to people of different backgrounds and how a lack of discussion broadly impedes help-seeking.'
Heshani
Lack of culturally appropriate services
To effectively address FDSV, responses require culturally competent and safe services that take into account the unique experiences and needs of victim-survivors from different backgrounds. This can include providing language interpretation services, training service providers on cultural competency, and involving community leaders and organisations in safety planning for victim-survivors (Cullen et al. 2022; DSS 2022).
A study by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) on the FDSV workforce has identified a lack of policy frameworks and specialised support services addressing cultural factors that mediate violence against women (Cullen et al. 2022). However, existing research suggests promising outcomes for culturally appropriate programming and effective violence prevention strategies when community-based involvement is promoted in FDSV responses and workforces (AIHW 2018; El-Murr 2018; HRSCSPLA 2021; Cullen et al. 2022). For more general information see FDSV workforce.
Both the national Inquiry into FDSV and the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022–2032 identified the need for distinct policy, specialist services and resources to support FDSV victim-survivors from CALD communities (HRSCSPLA 2021; DSS 2022). However, the diversity in backgrounds and experiences of violence can make it challenging to meet the needs of all CALD victim-survivors, especially in instances where victim-survivors also experience intersecting forms of inequality, such as racism, disability, homelessness or poverty.
Measuring violence experienced by people from CALD backgrounds
While some national data on FDSV experienced by people from CALD backgrounds exist, there is a limited level of disaggregated data available on specific sub-groups, such as refugees, specific migration visa holders or cultural groups. This is either because the range of relevant data items may not be collected, or the data are not of sufficient quality for reporting due to small sample sizes. To overcome this limitation, reporting of broader indicators, for example binary categories based on country of birth or language spoken at home, are used to provide high-level insights, but can conceal cultural and ethnic variation. In addition, there may be underrepresentation of people from CALD backgrounds in surveys due to language barriers, especially where alternatives to English are not available and self-reported information is required, and/or under-reporting by people from CALD backgrounds due to a reluctance to disclose sensitive information in official government surveys, or variations in how people acknowledge or define violence between different cultures (AIHW 2018).
Data sources for measuring FDSV experienced by people from CALD backgrounds
This page draws on the modest data available across national surveys. The key sources used are: the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey (PSS), and the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study. For more information about these data sources, please see Data sources and technical notes.
What do the data tell us about FDSV experienced by people from CALD backgrounds?
Personal Safety Survey
The PSS collects data on the experiences of violence in Australia and captures information on respondents’ country of birth and main language spoken at home. See Box 1 for information about the categories used for reporting. The PSS defines sexual violence as the occurrence, attempt or threat of sexual assault; physical violence as the occurrence, attempt or threat of physical assault; and a cohabiting partner as someone the person lives with, or lived with at some point, in a married or de facto relationship.
The 2021–22 PSS estimated that, in the 2 years prior to the survey, of women born overseas:
- 2.1% of those born in N-MESC (non-main English-speaking countries) had experienced sexual violence compared with 2.0%* of those born in MESC and 3.4% of women born in Australia (ABS 2023b)
- 1.0% experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a cohabiting partner (partner violence) compared with 2.1% of women born in Australia (ABS 2023a)
- 4.6% of those born in N-MESC had experienced emotional abuse by a cohabiting partner (partner emotional abuse) compared with 5.4% of those born in MESC and 5.6% of women born in Australia (ABS 2023a).
The PSS also found that a similar proportion of women who mainly spoke a language other than English at home (LOTE), and women who spoke English at home, had experienced:
- sexual violence (2.9%*and 2.9%, respectively) (ABS 2023b, see Box 1)
- partner violence (1.7%* and 1.7%, respectively) (ABS 2023a)
- partner emotional abuse (4.8% and 5.4%, respectively) (ABS 2023a).
Note that estimates marked with an asterisk (*) should be used with caution as they have a relative standard error between 25% and 50%.
National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study
The National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study is a nationally representative survey that examined elder abuse among 7,000 people aged 65 and over living in the community (i.e. not in residential aged care settings). Around 1 in 6 (18%) were identified as CALD respondents, based on those who spoke a LOTE at home (AIFS 2021). The study found that the prevalence of elder abuse (financial, physical, sexual, psychological and/or neglect) in the 12 months prior to the survey was similar for CALD (14%) and non-CALD respondents (15%) (AIFS 2022). Among CALD respondents, 1 in 25 (4%) reported experiencing abuse relating to their language and cultural background in the 12 months prior to the survey – for example, not being respected when talked to because of their culture, race or ethnicity; restricting their contact with friends or others from the same cultural background; and restricting their access to culturally familiar activities (such as attending certain events or watching shows in their preferred language) (AIFS 2022).
This box presents some key additional findings from selected research. While these surveys are not nationally representative, they can provide some high-level insights.
Monash University’s Migrant and Refugee Women in Australia: Safety and Security Study surveyed around 1,400 migrant and refugee women in 2020 (Segrave et al. 2021). The study found that 1 in 3 (33%) had experienced family and domestic violence (FDV) by a current or previous partner, other family member, and/or in-law, in the 5 years prior to the survey. Among these:
- Around 9 in 10 (91%) had experienced controlling behaviours, for example, limiting contact with family and friends, controlling finances, and/or threatening deportation or withdrawal of sponsorship.
- Almost half (47%) had experienced violence towards others, pets and/or property.
- Around 2 in 5 (42%) had experienced physical and/or sexual violence.
Almost 1 in 4 (24%) indicated they experienced FDV frequently or often. The study also found that FDV was more common among migrant and refugee women on temporary visas (40%) than those who were Australian citizens (32%) or permanent visa holders (28%) (Segrave et al. 2021).
The ANROWS Migrant and refugee women’s attitudes, experiences and responses to sexual harassment in the workplace study surveyed just over 700 self-identified migrant and refugee women in 2022 (Segrave et al. 2023). Interim findings indicate that of the migrant and refugee women in the study:
- Around 2 in 3 (68%) had experienced at least one form of sexual harassment in any setting in the last 5 years in Australia
- Almost half (46%) had experienced at least one form of sexual harassment in the workplace in the last 5 years in Australia.
Perpetrators of sexual harassment in the workplace were most commonly men in senior positions in the workplace or who were clients or customers (Segrave et al. 2023).
Analysis of the 2019 Private Lives 3 survey to examine FDSV experiences among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) adults with disability was funded by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Hill et al. 2022). There was not a sufficient number of respondents with disability with an intersex variation for the survey data to reflect their experiences. Around 29% of survey respondents (or 700 people) reported their background as multicultural (that is, a cultural background other than Anglo-Celtic). The study found that among respondents with disability from a multicultural background:
- Around 8 in 10 (81%) had ever experienced violence from a family member (compared with 76% of those from an Anglo-Celtic background)
- Around 7 in 10 (72%) had ever experienced violence from an intimate partner (compared with 69% of those from an Anglo-Celtic background)
- 1 in 5 (20%) had experienced sexual assault in the past 12 months (compared with 15% of those from an Anglo-Celtic background)
- Around 1 in 3 (34%) had reported violence from a family member or intimate partner to support services (compared with 32% of those from an Anglo-Celtic background) (Hill et al. 2022).
For more information on these population groups, see People with disability and LGBTIQA+ people.
What else do we know?
Some forms of violence are more likely to be influenced by a person’s visa status, and/or by religious, cultural or community contexts, for example:
- visa abuse
- dowry abuse
- female genital mutilation/cutting
- reproductive coercion and abuse (see Pregnant people)
- modern slavery (such as forced marriage or human trafficking) (El-Murr 2018; HRSCSPLA 2021).
Further information on some of these forms of violence can be found below.
What is visa abuse?
-
Over 2 in 5 women
on temporary visas who sought support for family violence in 2015–16 were threatened that sponsorship for their visa application would be withdrawn
Source: Temporary migration and family violence: an analysis of victimisation, support and vulnerability
Refugees and migrants living in Australia on temporary visas may face unique experiences of FDV. Visa abuse can happen when the victim-survivor’s temporary migrant status is used by a perpetrator to control or coerce them or their family member (Safe Steps 2023). For example, a person in Australia on a temporary partner visa may face deportation if they leave the relationship, or a perpetrator with citizenship may threaten to take custody of any children (see also Coercive control).
Currently there are no national data on visa abuse. However, some state data from the Victorian family violence service, InTouch, are available to provide insights on responses to incidents of family violence in migrant and refugee communities. A Monash University study on InTouch’s case files of 300 women on temporary visas who sought support for family violence in 2015–16 found that:
- over 2 in 5 (44%) were threatened by a partner or family member that sponsorship for their visa application would be withdrawn
- almost 2 in 5 (39%) had been threatened with deportation from a partner or family member (Segrave 2017).
What is dowry abuse?
Dowry and other similar practices are observed in many cultures globally and generally involve the giving of money, property or other goods by one family to another during or any time after marriage (AIJA and AGD 2022). Dowry-related violence or dowry abuse occurs when a victim-survivor and/or their family are coerced into making further or larger gifts by another individual/s, typically in-laws, current or former spouses and fiancés and can be exacerbated by visa status (Parliament of Australia 2019). This coercion can involve:
- psychological, emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse and harassment
- cultural and social isolation
- economic deprivation (see Economic and financial impacts)
- threats of cancelling visa sponsorship, marriage annulment or deportation (AIJA and AGD 2022).
There are limited data related to the prevalence of, and responses to, dowry abuse in Australia. However, case studies and stories from victim-survivors that have been shared as a part of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence 2015–16 and the 2019 Senate inquiry into the practice of dowry and incidence of dowry abuse in Australia (the 2019 Senate Inquiry) indicate that it is a major concern for some communities in Australia (O’Connor and Lee 2022).
Women in Australia who experience dowry abuse-related violence may face a number of barriers to recognising the abuse and seeking help such as:
- feelings of shame and failure
- fear of retribution, cultural and social isolation
- language barriers or a lack of awareness of their rights in Australian society and where to get help (Parliament of Australia 2019).
The 2019 Senate Inquiry recommended that economic abuse should be recognised as a form of family violence, with dowry abuse included as an example of economic abuse. It was also recommended that more data should be collected on both dowry abuse and economic abuse in general. For data related to economic abuse, see Economic and financial impacts.
In response to the 2019 Inquiry, the Victorian Government recently legislated for dowry abuse to be an example of family violence in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and dowry abuse is mentioned under the definition of family violence in the Western Australian Restraining Orders Act 1997 (AIJA and AGD 2022).
What is female genital mutilation/cutting?
The term ‘female genital mutilation/cutting’ (FGM/C) refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs, for non-medical reasons. FGM/C is mostly carried out on young girls between infancy and adolescence, and occasionally on adult women, and can result in lifelong medical and psychological complications (WHO 2022).
While FGM/C is internationally recognised as a violation of the human rights and abandonment of the practice by 2030 is a United Nations’ sustainable development priority, FGM/C is still a common cultural practice in communities in some African, Asian and Middle Eastern regions (United Nations 2022; Matanda and Lwanga-Walgwe 2022). Through migration, there are also many females affected throughout the world, including in Australia (AIHW 2019; WHO 2022).
FGM/C, including sending a person overseas to have a procedure done, or facilitating, supporting or encouraging someone to have it done, is illegal in all Australian states and territories (DSS 2019). Mandatory reporting laws require that selected professional groups (for example, medical practitioners and teachers) report instances where they suspect FGM/C has been conducted, in Australia or overseas, on children normally living in Australia (AIFS 2020). People seeking support for FGM/C in Australia can visit the National Education Toolkit for Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Awareness website (NETFA 2022).
Available international data suggests there has been an overall decline in the prevalence of the practice over the last three decades. However, this progress has varied between countries, and it is estimated that at least 200 million girls and women alive today across 31 countries have undergone FGM/C (UNICEF 2022).
There is limited evidence on the extent of FGM/C in Australia. The AIHW estimated that over 50,000 girls and women born elsewhere but living in Australia in 2017 had undergone FGM/C (AIHW 2019). This figure is based on modelled calculations only and should be interpreted with caution. While rudimentary, this estimate provides insight into the potential extent of FGM/C in Australia. For further information on the study’s methodology refer to the report, Towards estimating the prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting in Australia.
Related material
More information
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2021) Migrant data matrices, ABS website, Australian Government, accessed 10 July 2023.
ABS (2022) Cultural diversity of Australia, ABS website, Australian Government, accessed 10 July 2023.
ABS (2023a) Partner violence, ABS website, accessed 7 December 2023.
ABS (2023b) Sexual violence, 2021–22, ABS website, Australian Government, accessed 23 August 2023.
AIFS (Australian Institute of Family Studies) (2020) Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect, Child Family Community Australia, AIFS, Australian Government, accessed 6 October 2022.
AIFS (2021) National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study: Final report, AIFS, Australian Government, accessed 7 July 2023.
AIFS (2022) Elder abuse in Australia: culturally and linguistically diverse Australians, AIFS, Australian Government, accessed 7 July 2023.
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2018) ‘Culturally and linguistically diverse populations’, Australia’s health 2018, AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 6 July 2023.
AIHW (2019) Towards estimating the prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting in Australia, AIHW, accessed 7 October 2022.
AIHW (2022) Family, domestic and sexual violence data in Australia, AIHW, accessed 6 July 2023.
AIJA (Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration) and AGD (Attorney-General’s Department) (2022) National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, AIJA website, accessed 29 September 2022.
Coumarelos C, Weeks N, Bernstein S, Roberts N, Honey N, Minter K and Carlisle E (2023) Attitudes matter: The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS), findings for Australia (Research report 02/2023), ANROWS, accessed 6 July 2023.
Cullen P, Walker N, Koleth M and Coates D (2022) Voices from the frontline: Qualitative perspectives of the workforce on transforming responses to domestic, family and sexual violence (Research report, 21/2022), ANROWS, accessed 6 July 2023.
DSS (Department of Social Services) (2019) Female genital mutilation/cutting factsheet, DSS website, Australian Government, accessed 6 October 2022.
DSS (2022) The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, DSS website, Australian Government, accessed 11 July 2023.
El-Murr A (2018) Intimate partner violence in Australian refugee communities, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Australian Government, accessed 23 October 2022.
Hill AO, Amos N, Bourne A, Parsons M, Bigby C, Carman M and Lyons A (2022) Violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of LGBTQA+ people with disability: a secondary analysis of data from two national surveys, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, accessed 11 July 2023.
HRSCSPLA (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs) (2021) Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence, Parliament of Australia, accessed 6 July 2023.
Matanda D and Lwanga-Walgwe E (2022) A research agenda to strengthen evidence generation and utilisation to accelerate the elimination of female genital mutilation, United Nations Population Fund, UNICEF, World Health Organisation and Population Council, Kenya, accessed 7 October 2022.
NAGWTVEW (National Advocacy Group on Women on Temporary Visas Experiencing Violence) (2018) Path to Nowhere: women on temporary visas experiencing violence and their children, Australian Women Against Violence Alliance website, accessed 14 March 2023.
NETFA (National Education Toolkit for Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Awareness) (2022) Find support, NETFA website, accessed 6 July 2023.
O’Connor M and Lee A (2022) ‘The health impacts of dowry abuse on South Asian communities in Australia’, Medical Journal of Australia, 216(1):11–13, doi:10.5694/mja2.51358.
Parliament of Australia (2019) The practice of dowry and the incidence of dowry abuse in Australia, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Commonwealth of Australia, accessed 29 September 2022.
Safe Steps (2023) Visa abuse, Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre, Victoria State Government, accessed 12 July 2023.
Segrave M (2017) Temporary migration and family violence: an analysis of victimisation, support and vulnerability, Monash University, accessed 12 July 2023.
Segrave M, Wickes R and Keel C (2021) Migrant and refugee women in Australia: the safety and security survey, Monash University, accessed 10 July 2023.
Segrave M, Wickes R, Keel C and Tan S.J (2023) Migrant and refugee women in Australia: A study of sexual harassment in the workplace (Research report, 06/2023), ANROWS, accessed 7 September 2023.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) (2022) Female genital mutilation, UNICEF data website, accessed 6 October 2022.
United Nations (2022) Sustainable Development Goal 5 – Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, United Nations website, accessed 7 October 2022.
Vaughan C, Davis E, Murdolo A, Chen J, Murray L, Quiazon R, Block K and Warr D (2016) Promoting community-led responses to violence against immigrant and refugee women in metropolitan and regional Australia. The ASPIRE Project: research report, ANROWS, accessed 11 July 2023.
WHO (World Health Organization) (2022) Female genital mutilation, WHO Factsheet, WHO, accessed 6 October 2022.
- Previous page LGBTIQA+ people
- Next page Veteran families