Bills

Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:58): Prior to the luncheon adjournment I was making a contribution to this debate, and members will be delighted to know that I am back to the Magna Carta in the 13^th century, only briefly—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because we have been doing some work on that in lunchtime.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes; so I thought I might just place on the record that in 1217 to 1225 it was the first publication of this log of claims that was presented and petitioned to King John I. I was referring to a rendition later that century and a contribution, so for the benefit of members I am going to outline to them that I was specifically referring to article 54 of the Magna Carta. Again, I urge members to have a read of this. It would be difficult in its original form because, of course, it is in Latin, but for those who cannot read Latin, I urge you to look at the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I bet you read the English version.

Ms CHAPMAN: Indeed. As the Deputy Speaker has pointed out, I am not fluent in Latin—just a few words at law school—and I certainly would have been struggling. In fact, I even struggled sometimes reading it in English, but I just want to say that it is a foundation document to the democracy we enjoy today. The independence of the judiciary and a number of other very fundamental principles that we enjoy provide and protect the freedoms that flourish in a civilised community.

I just mention, though, that, in reference to article 54 which translated reads, 'No-one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman for the death of any other than her husband.' I also made reference to the right to occupy property upon widowhood, and articles 7 and 8, which outline the right of widows to occupy and remain in property for up to 40 days after the death of their husband. Anyone following this debate can be enlightened about that important principle and their right to have their inheritance and marriage portion, as it was known in early days.

I find it a most inspiring document. Members should also be aware that for, I think, about £12,000, former prime minister Sir Robert Menzies actually bought one of the only four remaining original copies of the Magna Carta. That was purchased for, obviously, a lot of money some 50 or so years ago. It is kept in the great parliament in Canberra and is available for viewing. From time to time, on very special occasions, it is taken out of its box, rather than being viewed behind glass, but this is just the measure of the importance this document has in our legal history.

In any event, I was making the point this morning that, whilst there are some foundation principles for the protection of women, there were also the principles that related to property and entitlement. Suffice to say, the battle went on under King John over a number of years. Ultimately, he died. His nine-year-old son, Henry III, took the throne and the saga continued. Nevertheless, by the end of the 13^th century, they had sorted out an agreed set of rules and they, of course, became the foundation for our legal and democratic systems today.

Going back to the law of provocation, I was saying before the adjournment that the charge of murder can be reduced to manslaughter in circumstances in which it is established that a person acted upon the provocation of the victim. There are a number of rules under our common law that need to be satisfied for the accused to be eligible for what is called a partial defence and, in essence, there has to be some provocative act on the part of the victim. The provocation must have caused the accused to lose control and, in fact, then, as a result, kill the victim.

Then there are some objective tests in respect of an ordinary person where, if the same circumstances were presented to them, they would have also been provoked and, according to the objective test, they would have responded with an act resulting in a death. There are some very high barriers to achieve in order for this to apply. Members would also be aware that this is distinct from the complete defence of self-defence—that is, when one is acting and causes the death of another whilst attempting to protect their own safety or, indeed, that of another.

The partial defence of provocation has attracted some academic discussion in the last 10 years or so and, in fact, three of our states—Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia—have all abolished the partial defence of provocation. That is no longer available to someone who is accused of murder in those states.

However, it has been the subject of some controversy, most recently for two reasons. First, there has been a recent case in which provocation was pleaded where there had allegedly been an advance to interact in some homosexual activity and where money was offered to do so. That provocative act was pleaded as being the basis upon which the recipient of this advance responded by killing that person.

That case of R v Lindsay has gone off to the High Court and the High Court is considering it. As I was saying before lunch, the direction in that case that there be a retrial has raised the question about whether the gay advance defence, as it is commonly known, or the gay panic defence, as it otherwise known, should still prevail or even be available. I was saying before lunch that the Legislative Review Committee conducted an inquiry into this issue and it was their view that the current law in South Australia is sufficient because requests which have been made in prior cases to seek relief under the partial defence law have failed where there has been a homosexual advance, and therefore that law is sufficient to deal with this matter and it would only be in a most extreme case under our case law in South Australia where even that would be successful.

Secondly, the Legislative Review Committee had a look at the question of amending the law of provocation as a partial defence in light of the fact that we have mandatory nonparole periods for murder under our Criminal Law Consolidation Act now at 20 years. Life sentence is the sentence obligation under our law for murder, with a mandatory nonparole period of 20 years. That is a more recent innovation. They said we would need to review that aspect as well if we looked at the partial law of provocation.

In light of this High Court position, the opposition has taken the view that it is reasonable for the Legislative Review Committee to look at this issue again and, in particular, the outcome of the High Court case before we progress with our last state election commitment, and that was to review the law of provocation in any event. We are still committed to do that. However, currently under consideration in academic and media circles is whether there is a wholesale abolition of this partial defence or whether it is amended and, in our view, we will have to await further advice from the Legislative Review Committee. As I say, they have had a comprehensive inquiry, so it is only reasonable that they have a chance to have a look at this again.

I place on the record one concern I have: it does seem that the general discussion promoting the argument that there should be a complete abolition of this partial defence could in fact be detrimental to women. It does concern me that what has been a fairly superficial argument that has developed around the gay advance defence and the need to abolish this could, in fact, be doing quite considerable harm in not leaving it available for women, particularly in a circumstance where they may be provoked and they may kill another party.

I raise this issue because some reform occurred last year in New South Wales to their law of provocation. They have moved to amend it, to keep it, but only in extreme provocation circumstances. They have passed laws to specifically exclude from the cases where it is sought to be applied circumstances where there is a non-violent sexual advance, which will cover the gay panic defence, and, secondly, to remove the circumstance where domestic violence is used as a basis to justify the conduct. I will paraphrase it because it is quite a long amendment.

They codified a new partial defence of extreme provocation in trials for murder, and they have made very clear the circumstances in which provocation is allowed, and they have specifically excluded two things, and I will read them:

(a) the conduct was only a non-violent sexual advance to the accused, or

(b) the accused incited the conduct in order to provide an excuse to use violence against the deceased.

In those circumstances you cannot come along and say, 'I want to be eligible for a diminution of the charge from murder to manslaughter on the ground of provocation.' I mention this because, aside from this excuse to use the violence circumstance, another situation which has arisen is where usually a female in the household (the more vulnerable perhaps physically in a number of circumstances) is the perpetrator of the killing. If we were to remove the defence of provocation completely, one of the consequences that could be adverse to women is perhaps best illustrated by an example.

A number of years ago, I was involved in a case in which a woman killed her husband. That is not unusual; unfortunately, that occurs from time to time. It was in a circumstance where she alleged that her husband had had intimate sexual relations with her 13-year-old daughter. She married her husband when he had three very young children, including a tiny baby. It was asserted to her that his first wife and the mother of these three children had died. In fact, she had fled for her life to the United States. Upon hearing about the death of the husband, the first wife came back from the United States to find her children.

Meanwhile, the second wife (the person who came to see me at some stage) was charged with murder. She progressed through a jury trial. Evidence was presented of the provocation upon which she then shot her husband multiple times. There was no immediately prior act of sexual activity between the deceased and the 13-year-old girl, but she knew about it. She was outraged by it, she acted on it, and she killed him. There were two fairly clear things about this matter: firstly, that he died and, secondly, that she killed him. In that case, quite peculiarly the jury found that she was not guilty of anything. It is a curious case because perhaps that jury just felt that they would take justice into their own hands and decide that she should not be found guilty of murder or manslaughter. She was acquitted completely.

Leaving aside the quirky aspect of the case, I make the point that, if we pass a law today which removes the opportunity for someone in those circumstances to plead the partial defence of provocation, then more than likely, if the other features had been successfully pleaded, she would have been found guilty of murder and there would be no relief. I do not think anyone would say that that is fair or just.

The Attorney-General in particular, who has the carriage of this bill for the rats and mice in relation to tidying up intervention orders, it seems to me is likely to address the question of provocation. Everyone is out there talking about it at the moment and we certainly raised at the election that it needs to have some attention for the reasons I have said, and we will put it through a committee process. I just say to the Attorney—I want him to be on clear notice—that, if he wants to start tampering with this in an effort to look like he is coming to the aid of those who might be murdered as a result of their sexual interest or murdered in a circumstance of infidelity (although probably in the modern day we would not accept a husband being justified in killing someone on the allegation of infidelity of their partner, which is or has been a common use of this defence), we will have some very considerable reservations about the complete abolition of this. Whilst it seems quick to jump to the defence in certain circumstances, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water in relation to this.

I have read the committee's report. When they did their examination—a year or so ago I think they tabled their report—I think they raised a very good point: that we also need to look at this question of mandatory sentencing if we are going to do some justice to reform in that area. It is not a commonly used or pleaded defence. Unfortunately, murder is probably more common than we would like it to be, but it is not the most common offence in relation to which this can be pleaded, so I do not see it as urgent. I see what is more important is that we do it properly.

The other matter I want to raise, and I think previous coroners have raised this in their annual reports to the parliament, is the question of ensuring that we have clear statistical data in respect of violence perpetrated on women and children. I wrote to the Attorney immediately after a briefing was provided on this bill seeking details on the intervention order statistics and on violent crime as at least recorded in the courts. Members may be aware that the police, as part of their duties, keep data in respect of a number of areas of criminal offence but, for the purposes of this, charges against a person for assaults and other offences, and the courts also keep data in respect of the prosecution/conviction of offences. Each of them, through the different annual reports to the parliament, provide us with retrospective data in that preceding year of what they have kept.

But there has been concern raised about the fact that there seems to be no keeping or publishing on a regular basis of the detail of the examination of cases not just that come before the Coroner, because the Coroner's Court only does a selection of deaths in South Australia: they can be suicide, they can be unusual, they can be in a bushfire, they can be children in accidents and so on, all other than criminal offences and may well be accidental.

I asked that I be provided with some data and, last month, the Office of Crime Statistics and Research provided data on the recorded victimisation of the sex of the victim and the type of offender-victim relationship between 2010 and 2014. For the purposes of this debate, in the 2014 data, the sex of the victim and the offender-victim relationship information is as follows.

Firstly, those who were victims were female on 11,571 occasions, bearing in mind that some of these were multiple with the same victim. If we take that into account, the number of victims total 9,552. The reason I mention this is that, of those, a family member as an offender, being either a partner or other family member, totalled 4,578; and a non-family member, being an ex-partner or other non-family member, totalled 5,006, and of those, nearly 2,000 were ex-partners.

In short, out of 11,500 victimisations, about 9,500 were committed by a family member, being a partner, son, daughter, auntie, uncle or whatever, or a non-family now ex-partner, and the remaining 2,000 were committed by strangers or persons unknown. Now, that probably tells us what we already know; that is, in all likelihood the most dangerous place for a person to become a victim of violence—a personal offence against a person—is in their own home.

It is important that we not only keep this data, but it should be published and it should be available so that we are able to start working clearly on how we manage this. There is no point in putting our head in the sand, there is no point in just ignoring it. We have to start dealing with this and dealing with it in a serious way.

The Coroner, who has been a very busy person, I must say, is of course obliged, under the statute, to give us an annual report. In November last year, he tabled his 2013-14 annual report, and he specifically reported to the parliament, under specific matters arising during the 2013-14 year, on a domestic violence research project.

In short, members may recall that, in 2010, the Office for Women established a senior research officer (domestic violence) position, in partnership with the Coroner's Office, to research and investigate open and closed deaths relating to domestic violence. This then started in January 2011. I certainly hope that the government continues this because I think it is a worthy project, and it is important that we have some diagnosis of the deaths of persons, mostly women and children but in fact anyone who is a victim of domestic violence. The Coroner reports that:

The broad role of this position is to identify and investigate deaths which occur in a context of domestic violence. The scope of this position encompasses homicide, suicide and multiple fatality incidents involving adults and children.

The senior research officer is Heidi Ehrat. In his report the Coroner said:

Over the past year this position conducted reviews and provided advice on 25 coronial matters where domestic violence featured as part of the context of those deaths. Most particularly in 2013-14 this position had an active role in providing advice into the inquest of the death of Zahra Abrahimzadeh. The findings in this matter were released on 7 July 2014 and included 10 recommendations for system improvement in the handling of domestic violence matters. These recommendations were directed to the South Australian Premier. Also of note in 2013-14 is the South Australian government's development and implementation of a database to identify serial offenders of domestic violence. This initiative relates to the 2011 findings and recommendations by the Deputy State Coroner in the matter of the death of Robyn Eileen Hayward at the hands of her ex-partner, Edwin Raymond Durance.

Of course, he goes on to present his case to the parliament to seek the continued operation of that role in the Coroner's office. Both of the deaths that are referred to in his report have had significant comment made about them in this and other places. I have spoken at length on the findings of the Robyn Hayward murder, and I think that all members of this house would be very well aware of Zahra Abrahimzadeh's murder and subsequent imprisonment of her husband.

The biggest concern is not that the Coroner's work is going unread or even unattended to. It seems to be that they were two cases, for example, where there had been severe criticism mostly of people in the police department and where we have senior members of the department and representatives of the commissioner's office saying that they are progressing the recommendations and have taken heed of the concerns.

The Zahra Abrahimzadeh case was most notable because, in that instance, an injunction was applied for and obtained on an interim basis, and even though the place of residence and work of the alleged abuser was well known he was never served, and then there was just a litany of failings of improperly investigating, protecting and actioning for her protection. She was stabbed and that was the end of that matter.

In Mrs Hayward's case she was murdered by Mr Durance. He was then killed by the police. The litany of problems there was that there were not only injunction-type orders similar to what we now have as an intervention order, but there were breaches of it; and again there were just repeated failings to act on the notifications of the breaches in this regard. We just had a whole lot of rules that had been established which said that where certain situations occur there has to be an inquiry as to whether there is an existing intervention or injunction and that has to be recorded, and then it has to be acted upon if there is an allegation of breach, and none of these things happened. It is just a shocking case.

I have spoken on it on a number of times in this place and it sickens me every time I think about it. But I tell members what really makes me angry: that even after those two cases highlighted by the Coroner and published in the Coroner's recommendations (which, of course, come in here and we hear about them, and sometimes there has to be a mandatory response if the deaths are in prison or in custody), very often we hear the plaintiff presentation of a minister that they have listened and they will learn and they will activate and they will do what they can to ensure that this does not happen again. However, almost at the very time of the handing down of the Abrahimzadeh coronial inquest, within days—and bearing in mind there was (just like the sad Chloe Valentine case) a whole lot of public media surrounding the evidence given at that inquest over the months beforehand—we find the murder in Encounter Bay of Graziella Daillér. She was murdered this time last year and it appears that her partner had then killed himself. Both bodies were found.

Again, there had been a history of complaint. In this case, there was a very supportive family. Her children, and even her former husband, have come forward to try to get some relief and understanding about what has happened here. How is it that their mother could be murdered in a circumstance where there was a known history of threats and violence? We have all of this media happening around the Abrahimzadeh case and others as they have limped along with the shocking revelations that had occurred. It is now a year since Ms Daillér was murdered and still they have not heard from the Coroner's office as to whether there will be an inquest. They cannot get a death certificate for their mother, they cannot move on. This raises another important question of the Coroner's office having sufficient resources to be able to conduct inquests when they need to be done.

I do not want to be reading any more Coroner's reports. I am sick of reading them. I have been reading them for 30 years and it is alarming to me that I hear the same words, the same pleas, the same promises and still nothing has happened. I thought that after the Hayward case and after the Abrahimzadeh case—these are so wicked, these are so horrid—that there would be some assurance to make sure that when it is known it would be acted on. I have never said and I do not think anyone would expect our enforcement authorities to be able to understand or certainly to be providing surveillance to every possible household. How can they? Of course, they cannot, but when they know about it and when there are complaints like in child abuse there has to be some responsibility to act on it and ensure that there is protection.

The way that the government has acted on dealing with domestic violence includes this bill, and we will support it. It needs to tidy up some of the intervention order processes; we have accepted that. What makes me cross, though, is that there has been great fanfare around introducing a bill of this nature as though this is going to be some magic wand to deal with the issue, and it clearly is not. This is a tidying up exercise that obviously we will not stand in the way of, but I can remember when the government introduced the principal bill to create intervention orders which replaced the old restraining order process that we had which was only through the court system. These new intervention orders were going to be a very important tool in being able to protect women and children and other vulnerable people, sometimes they are men, from abuse and threat.

One of the initiatives was that it would be able to be issued by a police officer of a certain rank, protected by a process of having to be brought before a court within a certain time for approval by a magistrate and that that would make it more accessible and more immediate for the relief of those who are going to be protected. At the time, there was not any evidence that magistrates could not be made available to make urgent orders, even in the middle of the night, because there are duty judges and magistrates at all times, nor was there any evidence that a person was left at risk in the immediate vicinity or proximity of the accused person because, if that was the case, there was a capacity for the police to be able to undertake the arrest and use other means, including bail conditions, to be able to protect a person until court the next morning.

So even though I was not moved by the need for this to be done by a police officer, and moreover was concerned about how police officers were going to actually manage the information that was coming to them, especially in a circumstance where there was no observable injury to one of the parties as a victim, we nevertheless supported it. The government said, 'This is going to be a great new initiative, it is going to help women and children and vulnerable people in these circumstances,' yet it took them two years before they commenced its operation, and their excuse was, 'Well, we need to train up the police.'

That is just complete nonsense. It seems to me that the government wanted to get the headline and be able to say that they were doing this, but to then not introduce it for two years was shameful. Maurine Pyke QC had been commissioned a few years earlier by the government to look at reforms that would assist in relation to domestic violence—she also wrote an excellent report, the actual name of which I cannot recall now, but it was a very good and comprehensive report—and this was one of the things that she thought was applying in some other jurisdictions and was worthy of us supporting. Well, we did, yet the government took two years to implement it once we had passed the matter through this parliament.

I get very concerned that we come in here in a fanfare of reform with the government's ambitious attempts to deal with difficult issues with some sort of panacea of capacity to provide protection, and it falls very short. There was no justification for the delay. They could have done it at the time we were dealing with that, as they frequently do with other bills—they appoint people to boards, they have people starting their training programs, they get things in place even before we have considered them in the parliament; when it suits them they will get it ready—and in this case there was every opportunity for a small number of police officers to at least be given some extra training.

The other thing is that I think it was a bit of an insult to the police. Certainly, in the 30 years that I have either been in practice or have been in here there has been a very strong focus on teams within the police force to deal with sensitive and careful questioning and interviewing of victims. It started with a lot of attention in the 1970s, particularly regarding women who were victims of rape or sexual assault, followed by an enormous amount of training in respect of the identification of indicia to raise concerns, where necessary, for child abuse, including child sexual abuse.

That went all through the eighties; we dealt with the law on that and the police picked up on it and made sure they had proper teams. Indeed, there were identified concerns raised and two units were set up at our hospitals to make sure that there was proper forensic assessment of children, specialist trained police officers and others to interview alleged victims, child victims and other members of the family during very stressful situations to ensure two things. The first was that as much of the information as could be was elicited for the purposes of having a successful prosecution, and the second was to make sure that it was not contaminated along the way so that it would not potentially abort a successful prosecution down the track.

I was very concerned at the time, and I kept asking the then attorney and other members of the government, 'Where are these intervention orders? Why haven't they been introduced?' They said, 'Oh well, we are still training the police.' It was woefully ignorant, and I think it showed a complete disregard of the urgency and importance of protection in this area. I would hope that, at the very least, in the tidy up we are being asked to consider here that they do get on with this. We are debating here its passage through this house to make sure that these initiatives are implemented. I would think the electronic transfer of information, which we are supposed to be supporting today with amendments to make it easier to get that material out and fulfil the obligations on courts and other parties to distribute it, is also helpful.

However, I just make another point: the court infrastructure in South Australia is in an appalling state. I will not even go on about the fact that the court precinct plan seems to have completely evaporated on the grounds that it is no longer 'value for money', whatever that is. We have had announcements that there will be closures of suburban courts. More recently, the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court has been salvaged.

The state of the infrastructure generally in the courts is a disgrace. One of the factors holding up the implementation of some reasonably modern electronic equipment in these institutions is that it has been hampered by the poor infrastructure. In the years I have been here, it has been said, 'Well, look, we're not going to implement that. We're just going to do a bit of a patch-up on the package that we've got at the moment, whether it is hardware or software, because we're going to be building new courts and sometime down the track, we will then do it all properly.'

I, for one, accepted that that is not an unreasonable thing to do—build something purpose-built, and not try to retrofit all of the modern technology that we want to be able to apply, not only for electronic lodgement, collation of exhibits and all the other things for trial work, but also for the processing of all the civil claims. It is a great idea, but that does not mean that we should be waiting around.

In the 14 years I have been here, we are still waiting for that infrastructure to be built, and then they come in here and say, 'Well, we're going to make sure that we've got a new regime legislatively to facilitate electronic transfer of this information.' We do not even have a decent courthouse at this point, let alone some of the equipment that is going to be used to patch up what we have to try to exploit this opportunity.

I am not overly confident that that will be dealt with in a hurry either and, meanwhile, women and children continue to be bashed and killed and we continue to read the sorry saga in coronial reports and media articles. It really is a shameful situation. The Deputy Speaker will be pleased to know that that is the conclusion of my contribution.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:42): I rise to speak to the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015, and I will assure the parliament that I have no notes on the Magna Carta, which is a shame.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Give him something quickly!

Mr PEDERICK: The original Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 came into operation on 9 December 2011. This was about reforming issues around domestic and personal violence restraining orders by creating intervention orders and broadening the range of people who would be protected by these orders. Obviously, these orders can be made to protect people from violence and from threatening and controlling behaviour. The act recognises not only physical forms of violence but also emotional and psychological harm and unreasonable and non-consensual denial of financial, social or personal autonomy.

As we have just heard from the deputy leader, this bill is about facilitating the electronic transfer of information between the South Australian police, the courts and other relevant public sector agencies, by allowing the provision of the prescribed details of an order rather than a copy of the order itself.

As the deputy leader said in her contribution, there is still so much work to be done in regard to courthouses, and not just in the city. We are waiting for an upgrade of the courthouse at Murray Bridge. The site is right next to the new police station. The sooner we can get a new courthouse, which will facilitate the fact that we do not need to transfer prisoners from Swanport Road through to the main street in Murray Bridge, the better off we will be in Murray Bridge in dealing with any court matters.

Section 31 of the act is also amended to give courts the sentencing power to require perpetrators of domestic violence to bear the financial burden of an intervention program. These programs, sadly, are only available in metropolitan Adelaide and are fully funded by the government. The amendment to the act that is currently in use will give the court a discretionary power to order a defendant, upon conviction of a breach of an intervention order involving physical violence or a threat of physical violence, to make a payment of not more than the prescribed amount towards the cost of any treatment program ordered as a term of their intervention order. It is supposed that this cost recovery service will allow perpetrator programs to be expanded to regional areas.

I am a member of the Social Development Committee and we are currently conducting an inquiry into domestic violence, and we are hearing some terrible stories and some intriguing evidence at times. Domestic violence is a terrible scourge in our society. I think a big part of the issue is not only that we do not have women's shelters in many regional areas where women experiencing domestic violence can go—they are usually put up in motel rooms—but also that there are no perpetrator programs so that we can talk to the perpetrators of domestic violence and stop this cycle of events going on and on and on. If we do not get these perpetrator programs in place right across the state, we will never even get close to ending the cycle of domestic violence.

In regard to having to pay for treatment, the amendment has been drafted to include a requirement that the court inform a defendant that there is a possibility that the court can order them to pay for their court-mandated treatment if they breach the intervention order by an act or a threat of physical violence. As I said earlier, it is hoped that that will act as a deterrent for a breach of an intervention order.

Section 21 is being amended so that, in court proceedings for the making of an interim intervention order where the applicant is a police officer, the court is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself as it thinks fit. In doing so, the court must act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities and legal form. I am told that there is a precedence for this approach in South Australia. When determining whether to make a problem gambling family protection order under the Problem Gambling Family Protection Orders Act 2004, the Independent Gambling Authority is not bound by the rules of evidence.

Another change to section 34 of the act will assist police with serving intervention orders, in that this section provides powers for police to facilitate service of unserved intervention orders. The situation at the moment is that a police officer may require a person to remain at a particular place for so long as may be necessary for an intervention order to be served. In some cases, this may be impractical. Again, this can happen in small regional and remote areas.

For greater protection for victims, the amendment to section 34 would work so that a police officer may also require a person to accompany them to the nearest police station for the purpose of service of an intervention order. If this occurs, police have an obligation to ensure that the person is returned to the place at which the request was made or taken to a place that is near to that place unless to do so would be against the person's wishes or there is good reason for not doing so.

The amendments to section 23 of the act require the court, when determining whether to confirm, vary or revoke an interim intervention order, to make inquiries about the existence of any relevant Family Law Act orders or Children's Protection Act orders and consider how the final intervention order and that existing order would interact. The court is also required to take such steps as it considers necessary to avoid inconsistency between the orders.

In cases where a parenting order is made under the Family Law Act, to the extent that it provides for a child to spend time with a person, or requires or authorises a person to spend time with the child, or it will be inconsistent with the terms of the intervention order, South Australian magistrates have the power, under section 68R of the Family Law Act, to revive, vary, discharge or suspend the parenting order to remove any inconsistencies related to contact with children. If there are no concurrent proceedings in the Family Court, the exercise of this power by a magistrate would remove the need for the applicant to commence new proceedings in the Family Court to vary the parenting orders.

I think this is an issue which is central to a lot of cases, whether I have heard it in regard to the committee or whether I have heard it just through life or as a member of parliament, and that is children in custody battles, custody issues, parenting issues. Sadly, this is sometimes the trigger for people to commit violent acts. There is no excuse for any of this domestic violence, especially when victims are mainly women and children; it is disgraceful. People are sometimes restricted from their access for various reasons and, sadly, they take out their anger on their former partner and loved ones. It is totally wrong, but as I have said before we have to get perpetrator programs in place as well because the cycle will just go on and on. We are all human beings and everyone can get angry, but people need to restrain themselves, and people need to know that they have the right support and that they do not have to commit these violent acts.

Section 21B of the Bail Act 1985 is being amended to give the court the power to order attendance at a treatment program as a condition of bail. Again, we would need to make sure that funds are in place for these programs for perpetrators. In regard to the cross-examination of certain witnesses, this is dealt with in section 13B of the Evidence Act 1929, which will be amended to include an aggravated assault where the form of the aggravation is as set out in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act; that is, the offender committed the offence knowing that the victim of the offence was a spouse or former spouse of the offender, or a domestic partner or former domestic partner of the offender, or, as I indicated earlier, it could be a child who normally or regularly resides with the offender or spouse or domestic partner, or a former spouse or domestic partner of the offender.

In regard to another amendment, which was requested by the chief magistrate, it reinstates a provision that was deleted in 2013 to make it clear that a court may treat a defendant's participation and achievements in an intervention order program as relevant to sentence. Again, appropriate programs need to be introduced right across the state so that we can stop this cycle of violence. Certainly in regard to sentencing, it will be made clear to a court as well as to a defendant that successful participation in an intervention program is a relevant consideration in determining a sentence.

Just going through a bit of a summary of some of the amendments that are being made with this bill, it does allow the courts and relevant public sector agencies to provide prescribed details of a court order rather than a copy of the order itself. It requires perpetrators of DVOs (domestic violence orders) to bear the financial cost of an intervention program and with discretionary powers of the court if they fail to attend or breach the obligation. It also requires a person subject to a police interim intervention order to notify the Commissioner of Police in writing of an address for service and other amendments to assist in the serving of intervention orders, and also the Commissioner of Police to be notified of all applications for variation or revocation of intervention orders.

Also, in regard to that, an intervention order will be allowed to contain the term 'in the vicinity of' of certain premises or localities and there will be a transitional provision to provide for concerns requiring the court to make inquiries about the existence of a family or youth court order before dealing with an interim intervention order. It is for the court to further avoid inconsistency, and magistrates will continue obviously to have power to vary the orders. There will be an amendment around the provision for the police to issue an interim intervention order where the defendant is not present or in custody. As I indicated earlier, this will allow the court not to be bound by the rules of evidence, and this, as I said, follows the precedent in regard to the problem gambling family protection order process.

As I indicated earlier, I am a member of the Social Development Committee, and we are doing an inquiry at the minute on the prevention of domestic and family violence. We have had several hearings in Adelaide. We have had some regional hearings and we will be having more hearings as the year unfolds. There certainly is some disturbing information that comes to us, but there has also been some very interesting information, such as the fact that one regional service provider had a percentage of their victims in regard to domestic violence and men and then in regard to another low percentage where there are both male and female partners in a domestic situation who are both perpetrator and victim. So, I certainly do not believe, from the initial information that has been presented to the committee, that it is just a single gender-based issue. Mind you, women are well and truly over-represented as victims in regard to domestic violence, but there is no excuse for anyone in a domestic situation to beat up on their loved ones.

We must also make sure that all the programs can be extended across the state. I was talking to one of the senior police in the region about what is needed for domestic violence in relation to managing cases where men may be victims, and he indicated to me (and he was aware of the fact) and said, 'Let's try to get ahead of all the dramas we have with managing the issues around women and children being victims,' and he had a fair case there.

There is so much work to do, and you hear from the non-government agencies that work in this field that everything is at crisis point. Everything is at the sharp end of looking after or trying to assist victims of domestic violence. Sadly, it is all that crisis-end work that needs to happen, whether it is providing emergency care in motels because the shelters are not available or just trying to essentially keep people alive in the case of a lot of these domestic violence cases.

There has to be a lot more work done, a lot more investment, and we certainly have to break the cycle. A lot of that is in regard to working with perpetrators so that we can stop the circle of violence. I commend the bill and wish it speedy progress through the house. Let's get this into law so that we can do some good for the people of this state.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:00): I will not make a long contribution, but I listened with interest to the points the member for Bragg made and felt that I needed to endorse a couple of those points. I will perhaps just pick up first on something the member for Hammond mentioned a minute ago that this domestic violence is not confined to women. Indeed, the overwhelming number of victims are women, I acknowledge that freely; however, I know very well an Adelaide lawyer who himself was the victim of domestic violence, unfortunately, and he is still struggling with that years later.

I seriously question where we are going as a society with the impact of drugs and particularly, more latterly, the impact of methamphetamines and ice. Marijuana is not called dope for nothing, but what methamphets and ice do to people's behaviour is absolutely horrendous. Having just been through a number of prisons with the Public Works Committee, I read some more information on the 2,400 prisoners in South Australia who are in there for violence. How many of those are actually to do with domestic violence I am not sure, but the numbers, I feel, would be horrendous.

I am probably no different to many other members on both sides of the house, but I seem to have an increasing number of constituents come through my office—women—who have been or are subject to domestic violence. It is rather horrifying that that seems to be increasing. In some cases, they feel severely let down by government agencies, and I think that is something that we have to come to grips with. Why, in some cases, the agencies are failing I am not quite sure. Whether the information does not get through, I am not quite sure. I do not say this with any intent, but whether as a society we are getting too blasé about it, I am not too sure, but something has to happen. It is too regular.

More particularly, the member for Bragg mentioned the case of Graziella Daillér. It is something that has been to the fore in my electorate over the last 12 months since Ms Daillér was murdered. The fact is that they still have not got a death certificate, and the Coroner still appears to be doing nothing. Graziella's family have buried her in France, but they cannot understand for the life of them why the authorities in South Australia have not tidied up much of this, why indeed they do not have the certificates that they need, why the system is so slow and why they cannot get some finality. That is the family in France.

Graziella's former husband Kym Holly has been a tower of strength for his children. His children are Natasha, Adelaide and Vincent, and they are really struggling some 12 months later with the effect of their mother's brutal murder by Dion Muir in Encounter Bay. They should not have to. They should be able to get some finality on this. I think the state has failed them, quite frankly. I think that the state has failed them dismally and it is simply not good enough. These are young people. Natasha has a couple of young children. Adelaide is in her mid-20s and Vincent, I think, is about 19 or 20, and they are at their wits' end to get some finality so they can set their minds at rest and move on with their lives.

It is having a devastating impact on them and it should not. When I say 'it should not', what should not be is the fact that it has been delayed for so long. Now, what is SAPOL doing? I have asked questions in the house on this. I still have not had any answers. I was hoping that the police minister would come back with some answers, or the Attorney, but no. Natasha, Adelaide and Vincent are still being torn apart. I do not know where all this finishes, I really do not. Perhaps we are becoming a decadent society, I just do not know, but it is a worry.

We do not know what will eventually come out in the Coroner's report. There were ongoing cases of violence by Dion Muir directed towards Graziella Daillér but it still went on until she was dead, and she could have been dead for a couple of days down there at Encounter Bay. So, anything we can do to expedite action against domestic violence—and I would put in brackets drugs, methamphets and ice because I think it is all linked in—we have to do, because we have to do something about it.

There has always been violence. I have seen examples of my parents' generation—my father and others who fought in the Second World War—and what happened after the war. There was no such thing as PTSD and there with was no treatment. There was no such thing as what happens with the Vietnam vets and those who have fought in Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. There was none of the treatments or things available for them that there is now. It was mainly alcohol fuelled because these poor blokes really had no outlet to do something about the dreadful problems and things that they brought back from World War II.

With those few words I am supportive. I hope that we do get this through in rapid time, but I reiterate: somebody in the government or someone in government agencies need to get off their collective backside and do something about the case of Graziella Daillér for her family's sake. You failed dismally. Someone has failed. Some heads need to be cracked. The ministers do it, the Premier does it or the Attorney, I do not care, but the bureaucracy is failing and the government is failing to do something about the tragic death of Graziella Daillér.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:09): This is, indeed, a great thing. I am very pleased that we have had so many very useful contributions in relation to this matter. I am also relieved that we are not going into committee, as I understand it, which is very positive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you would just want to move that it is read a second time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that is basically what I am getting to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I cannot say any more than I have already said. It has been terrific and thank you.

Bill read a third time and passed.