INTERVENTION ORDERS (PREVENTION OF ABUSE) BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

The CHAIR: Attorney, do you wish to speak to it?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, ma'am. I simply wanted during this significant time in the Liberal Party's history to congratulate Tony Abbott on his victory.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not entirely sure what that contribution has to do with the prevention of abuse. It could have something to do with the Labor Party. I rise to indicate to the house that the opposition supported the thrust of this legislation throughout its relatively short period in the parliament. We outlined our specific concerns, particularly about the introduction of the new regime of police powers and the power of the police to make interim orders (now to be known as intervention orders) for a period of up to eight days, and we put to this house and the other place the importance of the assessment of these matters being retained in a court arena. That has not been successful here or in the other place, but those in the other place have raised some other concerns and would also seek to qualify what could otherwise be significant power. One of those concerns, which was also raised by the general community, was the question of being able to make an order for a fixed term.

I think that, when one reflects on the intention of the recommendation of Maurine Pyke QC on this matter, it is fair to say that it was not her intention to cause difficulty by recommending against fixed terms. However, with the full debate on this matter, it became clear that there needed to be an opportunity for the court to have the discretion to deal with orders on the basis of a fixed term. I am glad that that flexibility in the options available to the court when determining these matters has been included.

Otherwise, as we have previously indicated, the opposition recognises the significance of passing this bill to be able to be effective. I remain concerned about the government's indication that it will be over a year before the proposed implementation of this new regime of protection for women on the basis that it is claimed that it will take at least a year to train the police force to understand its new role.

That really is a shameful outcome of delay, when we have done everything we possibly could to put this through the house and another place to ensure that protection is offered to those who are victims of domestic violence, which is confined not just to women and children, but they, of course, are predominantly those who suffer abuse.

With the new definitions of abuse referring particularly to those who are in a carer/provider relationship, they are adding a very new but very vulnerable group that is to be offered protection under the new definitions. With those few words, I look forward to the passage of the bill and, although delayed, its implementation some time in 2010.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I cannot let that contribution go unanswered. If the member for Bragg had any experience of government, she would know that a lead time is required to train police and others who will administer this legislation. One cannot have instant gratification in politics. One cannot bring in a law on one day and expect the entire South Australian police force and the public servants of this state to be across very detailed but worthwhile changes to our domestic violence legislation. It requires time to turn around the Queen Mary, and time we will give it. It is the member for Bragg's inexperience of government and administration that causes her to say these things.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order. There is no basis for the Attorney-General to make that reflection and on the motive of—

The CHAIR: Order! That is not a point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: —the member making that statement, and I ask him to withdraw it.

The CHAIR: Order! That is not a point of order. The member may make a personal explanation or indicate that she feels she has been misrepresented, but it is not a point of order. The Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I also have to say that the government tried to get this bill through sooner but was held up by the parliamentary Liberal Party, whose spokesman was unable, when called upon, to debate the bill in this chamber. It is more of the excuses we hear from the shadow attorney-general: 'The dog ate my homework. My racoon has hepatitis, so I can't come into the chamber and debate the bill.' The government was ready to go; the opposition was not ready to go. Out of courtesy to the opposition, we delayed the debate in the House of Assembly on this bill until the member for Bragg was ready.

Motion carried.