Bills

Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Recognition of National Domestic Violence Orders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 June 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:53): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker on Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Recognition of National Domestic Violence Orders) Amendment Bill 2016. Members will be aware that we have, through the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009, as a parliament, rewritten the domestic violence order procedures in this state subsequent to a comprehensive report prepared by Maurine Pyke QC, which has helped to nourish the reform in this area.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I can't hear the deputy leader and I do want to hear.

Ms CHAPMAN: This bill, however, only deals with one small matter which has been the subject of discussions at the Council of Australian Governments last year. That was to advance the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme by providing automatic recognition and enforcement of domestic violence orders in any other state or territory.

Essentially, at present we have an electronic program known as CrimTrac, which is serviced by and the subject of work by the South Australia Police who register orders on it. Instead of the current procedure, which requires a person who might seek protection under an order (when the offending party might move interstate) to go through a process of having that recognised in another state by an application to the court, the initiative in this bill would enable the central database, known as CrimTrac, to receive that information as a South Australian order onto it, and it would have automatic recognition and therefore would be enforced in our sister and brother jurisdictions across the border.

It may assist only a few people a year from our state. Arguably, it will assist a few people from our neighbouring states if they were to come into our jurisdiction. It has minor significance to the extent of the number of people it might assist, but it is not insignificant in the value that it will have for those parties. The opposition will support this further initiative. At present, all commonwealth jurisdictions have similar laws that allow for orders to protect victims of domestic violence, and at present a DVO issued, as I said, in one jurisdiction can be registered and enforced. However, this process, as I say, obviates the need for a victim, or at least the beneficiary of a DVO order, to have this as an automatic procedure.

The automatic recognition of DVOs across Australia was developed by the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme working group and the model provisions bill was subsequently endorsed at the national level I think in December last year. Essentially, the agreed policy principles are:

1. A DVO made anywhere in Australia or New Zealand can be registered anywhere in Australia and is nationally recognised and enforceable;

2. A DVO that is nationally recognised can be amended in any jurisdiction, but only by a court;

3. If a DVO made in one jurisdiction is enforced a new order can, if necessary, be made in another jurisdiction, but only by a court; and

4. The last order in time will prevail.

One would hope that other jurisdictions are following the agreed terms. I was advised at the government briefing on 28 June that to date New South Wales is the only state that has passed laws to implement this; however, Tasmania and the ACT have, apparently, introduced their bills. Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory are dragging the chain, it seems, but the Northern Territory is probably busy with the fact that they are having an election next month. I am not raising that as an excuse for them, but I make the point that we are not the first, but we are at least advancing it.

I understand that only SAPOL has been consulted on this matter. In this instance, I think, because this issue of recognition of other jurisdiction orders has been, in principle, both sought and expressed in a positive manner by other stakeholders who have to work with the women and children who are most predominantly the victims in these circumstances (some men, but predominantly women and children), this would be something that they will applaud and advance.

Most significantly, SAPOL is the party responsible for the registration process, making sure that the list is up to date, etc. They will enforce the obligations under this amendment and so, quite rightly, they are a significant stakeholder to be consulted. I think I read somewhere that it is expected that the funding necessary—and, of course, consequently the resources necessary to maintain this register and upload and update it—will be of negligible extra cost, so we are grateful that the government has agreed to advance it. I would say that on consultation with the Law Society, they have received the bill from us; they were not consulted but, nevertheless, we have not had any indication objecting to the same.

The most disappointing aspect of dealing with this legislation in the domestic violence arena is that it is the only thing before us. We have had a number of initiatives exposed by both the select committee in this parliament and their report several months ago and by other reviews that have been undertaken which clearly indicate that there are initiatives that are effective in other jurisdictions and need to be addressed. One of those initiatives is Clare's law, which allows a registration list for people, with new partners particularly, to check if there are people with a prior record. It is operating in England, it has obviously been reviewed and it is able to be assessed.

Yet, even though we had the Premier's announcement late last year that he would ensure that an issues paper would be prepared and that this matter could then be discussed amongst other initiatives and recommendations—such as the videoing of material and the availability of that to be evidence in relation to these cases, and these are all the types of initiatives which are, at first blush at least, good initiatives—what has happened here? We get a bill that deals with only this infinitesimal small amount of law reform, when clearly a select committee populated by members of both parties and, I think, one of the Independents in this house put up a number of ideas, yet we are still waiting for an issues paper, let alone a draft bill or bills, to advance reform in this area.

Secondly, a number of the recommendations that have come from the select committee could be initiated with a bit of extra money. In two days' time, we are going to have a state budget, but we still do not even have an issues paper. I find that very concerning, when we know that under our domestic violence circumstances at least one woman a week is being murdered by a spouse or former partner. Some would argue on the statistics that it is close to nearly two, so it is three per fortnight on a national scale. That ought to be alarming enough to alert governments to the problem and put a bomb under them to carry out some initiatives in this area.

We have coronial report after coronial report in respect of people who have had intervention orders, supposedly as part of the umbrella of protection for them. We have had a MAPS plan, which is a coordinated approach from different agencies in government to try to make sure that we are ever alert around families that are in a high-risk category. This select committee was very effective in going through and identifying where there were good programs that could be advanced, where there were good initiatives that could be followed and developed, yet we have had no action by the government in this space other than this tiny bill.

We are grateful for this morsel, but it is a crumb in the loaf of obligation that we have and opportunity that we have to help remedy this appalling social ill and blight on particularly the women and children of this state. They will have our support, but get on with that issues paper, get it out and let's get on with the real job of protecting women and children in this state.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:04): I rise to speak on the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Recognition of National Domestic Violence Orders) Amendment Bill 2016. I note that this bill was introduced by the Attorney on 22 June, and it amends the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009. This bill is part of South Australia's undertaking as part of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in 2015 to develop a national domestic violence order scheme to provide for the automatic recognition and enforcement of domestic and family violence orders in any state or territory.

It is noted that there is a central database known as CrimTrac that has been operated by the commonwealth under minister Keegan. In regard to intervention orders, they are orders that can be issued by a police officer or a magistrate if it is reasonable to suspect that the defendant will, without intervention, commit an act of abuse against a person, and the issuing of the order is appropriate in the circumstances. The act provides for protection fromphysical forms of violence but also from emotional or psychological harm and an unreasonable and non-consensual denial of financial, social or personal autonomy. For example, an intervention order may prohibit someone from being on or within premises at which the protected person resides or works.

In regard to the commonwealth, all commonwealth jurisdictions have similar laws that allow for orders to protect victims of domestic violence. At present, a DVO (a domestic violence order) issued in one jurisdiction can be registered and enforced in another. This is an additional process that the victim undertakes and involves additional court procedures, and this can put some victims off in regard to the fact that they have to have an extra court process.

Legislation to support automatic recognition of DVOs across Australia was developed by the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme Working Group, and a model provisions bill was subsequently endorsed in 2015. The model provisions reflect the following agreed policy principles:

1. A DVO made anywhere in Australia, or a New Zealand DVO registered anywhere in Australia, is nationally recognised and enforceable;

2. A DVO that is nationally recognised can be amended in any jurisdiction, but only by a court;

3. If a DVO made in one jurisdiction is enforced, a new order can (if necessary) be made in another jurisdiction, but only by a court; and

4. The last order in time prevails.

In regard to the model provisions, this bill is similar and it enables the automatic recognition and enforcement of interstate DVOs in South Australia. The automatic scheme, it is noted, only applies to domestic violence orders, not personal violence. It was in late 2015 that the government was going to conduct a review in respect of domestic violence laws and policies, including the implementation of Clare's Law, which the deputy leader has spoken about today.

We have run an inquiry in the Social Development Committee in this place on domestic violence, and I was part of that committee process. We heard a lot of confronting stories and a lot of confronting issues, and I salute all the people who reported to our committee. It took a lot of courage in a lot of cases for these people to present. One thing that has been highlighted to me time and time again is the fact that, because of the work of the Social Development Committee and work throughout the community, through our police force and people working in the field in non-government agencies, domestic violence cases are bring brought to light more often. It may not be the fact that there is an epidemic of domestic violence, but I think it is more the case that people are more comfortable in reporting it because obviously this can be a very personal matter.

I note that the deputy leader has introduced a bill in the past to provide a fixed date for intervention orders and this has been rejected by the government on the basis that they are conducting their own review. We have not seen the issues paper in regard to that, but we do note that automatic recognition of domestic violence orders is a good idea. However, the central database should not be clogged with orders that are no longer relevant or required. I think they do have a lot of consequences where these old orders basically stand for life and I think it is something that should be looked at.

In regard to the committee work into this and from the Social Development Committee inquiry into domestic and family violence, I want to make a few points. I quote from part 1, the executive summary of the report:

The committee noted the process underway at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to develop a National Intervention Order Scheme to ensure that an Intervention Order/Protection Order issued in one State, or Territory, would be applicable in others. The committee holds the view that there needs to be greater consistency across jurisdictions and, that this work should be expedited.

Page 92 of the report, looking at the 2010-2022 plan, states:

Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers, accountable for reducing violence against women, are responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Action Plans by monitoring and progressing key cross-jurisdictional and national actions, sharing information and good practice, partnering with relevant ministerial colleagues within jurisdictions and at a national level and working with relevant councils under the COAG system.

In regard to the second action plan, which is on page 103 of the report, moving ahead to 2013-16, it states:

The committee endorsed the recent announcement of the commitment to develop a National Domestic Violence Order Scheme to ensure that an Intervention Order issued in one jurisdiction will be recognised in all Australian jurisdictions. This is especially important for women and children who cross borders to escape an abusive partner, or family member, and/or the perpetrator crosses State and Territory borders.

In regard to family violence intervention orders on page 151 of the report, I quote:

The Commonwealth Government has committed to making Intervention Orders, or Domestic Violence Orders (DVOs) as they are called in some jurisdictions, consistent across all Australian jurisdictions. They are currently working with all States and Territories to develop the legal framework that will enable the automatic recognition and enforcement of domestic and family violence orders. This will remove the current requirement for victims to register them in order to make them applicable in jurisdictions where they were not originally issued.

In regard to some committee comment on page 163 of the report, I quote:

The committee endorsed the work of the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children to provide three reports leading to the development of a nationally consistent Intervention Order scheme. It is concerned that the timeframe for the completion of this work his yet to be established.

In regard to intervention orders on page 166 of the report, I quote:

It is recommended that the South Australian Government lobby the Commonwealth Government to ensure there are consistent and sufficient penalties across all jurisdictions for breaches of Intervention Orders.

It was certainly something that was highlighted to the committee in regard to the cross-jurisdictional powers that police may or may not have. It does create difficulties when dealing with domestic violence orders. We heard of pretty close relationships down at Mount Gambier with their colleagues in Victoria, as well as our police in either in the far north of the state or the west of the state working with their colleagues, whether they be in the Northern Territory or Western Australia.

The current situation does provide a lot of headaches for our police on the ground and I certainly think this legislation is very much a step in the right direction. It will certainly streamline the way intervention orders are managed across the country. I notice that SAPOL has lobbied this bill through to the Attorney-General and the parliament. I think it will only benefit the situation in managing domestic violence, not just in this state but across the country. It is a scourge and it has to be stopped.

We must do all we can to end this scourge because it is, essentially, killing our children and their mothers. It is a terrible thing and the more we can do and the more recommendations that can be taken from the social development report that was filed here in the last couple of months, the more we can do for the benefit of all our society. This includes perpetrator programs, but also, as I have said before, it is about education programs.

I note the advertisements that have been on television recently about getting to children and that is where you need to start—getting to children. It is not okay to be bullies in the schoolyard. It is not okay to beat up on someone of the opposite gender. People need to get it into their head that that is not the right thing to do. The more education we can do hopefully will mean that later on it is less money that we have to spend at the policing and protection end, because at the moment most of the money in regard to domestic violence goes to the crisis end of management.

Coming from a regional area, I know it is hard for regional areas to have safe houses because, like anything in a regional area, most people know what is going on virtually as it happens because that is the way the bush telegraph works. To have safe houses in regional areas is tough. I know they are there, but it is very hard to keep people safe, so a lot of the time motels are used at great cost.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Multi-Agency Protection Service. One of the highlights I saw, in being involved in the committee, was talking to not just the police, who are the lead agency, but to all of the agencies that work there on a shoestring budget. I hope that on Thursday we see some more funding go that way in the budget because I think they do excellent work.

It is something you do not see very often—multiple agencies in one room working together instead of the silo mentality. They are doing magnificent work, and I will certainly be pleased if I can see a positive outcome for MAPS in the budget because that is certainly where it needs to be. They are at the front line, receiving 400 or 500 contacts a week in regard to domestic violence. I know they are not the only way we can combat domestic violence, but certainly at that crisis end they are doing magnificent work and should be applauded for it.

With those few words, I think this will be good legislation for moving us on our journey against domestic violence. May it have a speedy passage through the house.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (16:18): I rise to make a very brief contribution to this bill. Obviously, I support the bill. I want to congratulate the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's gang on their initiative and on continuing this important work. It is a feature of our federation that people can move freely, trade freely and live wherever they like across our great country, yet, for historical reasons, our criminal codes have evolved along separate lines. We are rightly protective of those criminal codes, as our attorneys-general sometimes are.

We are increasingly seeing crime across borders generally, but we are seeing, concurrently, an increasing degree of cooperation, even though those criminal codes are not integrated. We are seeing that with terrorism, organised crime, drug-related crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs, and this is in that spirit, but in some ways more important, because it is about protecting innocent people and preventing criminal behaviour from happening across the border, even though it is in another jurisdiction. It is the same criminal behaviour, but happening to people across the border. It is a really important step.

We have obviously taken some important steps in this state in regard to intervention orders. They have always been an important tool to protect victims, but we have taken some steps so that the police who are on the front line can make significant and real-time decisions about protecting people, and can issue at least temporary intervention orders to protect victims even when those victims perhaps express that they do not want protection in that instance. The police can make that determination and bring it before a magistrate, and I think that is an altogether good move.

There has been some debate about whether we should introduce further police evidence such as first-on-scene camera evidence. I believe that will be a feature of the discussion paper that members have alluded to, and I will be speaking more about that at another time but, again, it was a very good move that we gave more power to the police in this respect. Various members have mentioned the Social Development Committee report. I was not on the committee, but I recognise the good work they did. I note, as has the member for Hammond, that this reflects at least the spirit of some of the recommendations, particularly No. 34. I also recognise of course, as the member for Bragg and the member for Hammond have done, that there is a lot more work to be done.

The member for Bragg particularly talks about the discussion paper that is working its way through government at the moment, particularly in regard to Clare's Law and those types of things. Like the member for Bragg, I look forward to its release. I look forward to that conversation, and I look forward to some really important reforms coming out of that but, unlike the member for Bragg, I recognise that this is a comprehensive piece of work that is coming out. It is not just a back of a napkin collection of ideas and thought bubbles: I am told and I trust that this is going to be quite a significant piece of work.

Importantly, it is going to bring together data and evidence. Part of the problem has been that this data has been very difficult to get hold of and very difficult to compare and contrast in any meaningful way, so that has been part of the rationale behind this discussion paper. I look forward to the release of this discussion paper, as I said. I look forward to being part of that public debate, particularly around Clare's Law, which I, along with the member for Bragg of course, was part of promoting early on. There is obviously plenty of work to do, and this is just one step in the right direction.

I am really pleased that in my own community, the Playford Community Fund, who are a charitable organisation who do a lot of good work in the north, have recently received a grant from Treasury enabling them to provide furniture, bedding, blankets and those sorts of things immediately, overnight, to victims of domestic violence through the Northern Domestic Violence Service. The Playford Community Fund operates on a shoestring. They buy things in bulk through donated money and through money from their volunteers simply because it is needed up there in the north. I want to commend Dennis Jarman at the Playford Community Fund for his good work.

Speaking of the Northern Domestic Violence Service, I am also working with them on options to help them with the chronic lack of short- and medium-term housing for domestic violence victims. They have been through a process where they, for historical reasons, had to move some of their housing, and they have found themselves in a situation where the housing they have is largely in the wrong area. They need housing in the City of Playford, in the Elizabeth area, where they tell me the vast bulk of their families in need come from. Those families do not necessarily want to move, and nor should they have to do, and uproot their kids and cause all of the problems that those movements entail, so I am working with them. I am working with the Minister for Housing and Urban Development on some options around that.

Finally, I just want to concur with the member for Hammond's remarks about MAPS. I had the good fortune to visit MAPS as well on some separate occasions. They do amazing work. I am not privy to the budget, but if there were extra funds for the continuing operation of MAPS, it would be more than welcome from my point of view. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:24): I rise to add my voice to this bill because the electorate I represent is a wonderful electorate that has a whole heap of positives. We have high levels of employment, and we have high levels of social cohesion. As a result, we have some of the lowest crime rates—if not the lowest crime rates—in this state, and that is a great thing. Whilst we have not seen some of the worst excesses and worst scourges that drugs and drug-related crime have brought to our community, whilst we have not seen the rates of property theft, assaults and those types of things, unfortunately the Barossa is over-represented when it comes to domestic violence statistics, and it is an area of my community that needs a large amount of work.

I have met a number of times with key agencies within the Barossa that are on the front line of welfare service delivery. Recently, Junction Australia, which is a group that provides social housing and a whole heap of ancillary services all across the state and quite a bit down Victor Harbor way, convened a meeting of local service providers. People from Lutheran Community Care, people from UnitingCare, people from the council, and people from major community-oriented businesses within the area were there and they sat down to have a discussion about how we can coordinate those services better.

When we looked at the report that Junction Australia had done into what are the greatest needs within the Barossa, it talked about pockets of social disadvantage as they exist. One of the key things that it talked about (and we talked about, indeed), was domestic violence service provision, and it is an area that the Barossa lacks. The services we have are provided by the Northern Domestic Violence Service, and they are a fantastic group of people. I have met with them a number of times and toured through their place and had a lot of discussions with them about where they are at. Unfortunately, the service they provide in the Barossa is an outreach service and when it comes to the pointy end of those outreach services it is the crisis accommodation that is needed when women make that decision to separate from an abusive partner.

If they do that in the Barossa, if they are lucky, they can get a spot down at the centre run by the Northern Domestic Violence Service in Willaston, and there are 12 little apartments there—little homettes—that they run. If they are not lucky enough to get into one of those spots, then they have to go down to the northern suburbs of Adelaide because that is where most of the crisis accommodation is provided. What that does is exacerbate the issue and concentrate it around the northern suburbs. Indeed, the Barossa's perspective very much is that we would like to look after our own problems.

We think that it would be much better if we had some crisis accommodation in the Barossa so that, for those who need those services, we could look after them where they live. I think that is important because it means that children can stay within the schools that they are in, the woman fleeing violence can potentially stay with those community supports and those family supports that she potentially has around her, and it means that we can take pressure off the other areas, especially the northern suburbs, which have their own needs they have to look after.

We are not talking about huge numbers here. In fact, we have estimated that we are only talking about half a dozen places. Initially, we were excited by the 'One thousand homes in 1,000 days' proposal, and this idea that there were homes slated for subdivision, sale, and then smaller groups of units being built on the remaining land. We thought that was something great, but unfortunately it seems that the Barossa is not a target location for that. Certainly, Junction Australia seemed extremely positive about being an organisation that could have facilitated the development of that accommodation, and the Northern Domestic Violence Service were, again, extremely supportive in helping to run that accommodation and run those systems.

It is an issue. As an advanced economy and as an advanced society dealing with domestic violence and the fallout and the social breakdown that happen as a result, it should be very much at the forefront of what we do. In my view, it is behind road infrastructure funding and behind a new Barossa hospital. It is one of the areas of highest need for my electorate and something that I implore the government to help rectify.

Indeed, when country cabinet was on last year I asked the exact question of the minister, who at that stage was the Hon. Gail Gago. Her response was, 'Yes, we provide those services in the northern suburbs,' which was answering the question in a way that meant she did not understand the problem because what I was trying to say was exactly that: the services that are being provided are 20, 30, 40, 50 kilometres away from the communities these people live in. Her answer was, 'Yes, they should go down there.' I think that it concentrates issues in an area as opposed to helping to spread those issues out to potentially be dealt with much better in the communities that these people come from.

In terms of this legislation, I am extremely supportive. It seems a common-sense measure. The shadow attorney has had things to say in relation to other measures that may need to be taken, but certainly we are happy to support it on the basis that this is what is in front of us now. I urge the government not to let the urgent crowd out the important and, when looking at where services need to be provided, maybe to take that step further and look at the source of that need, as opposed to where that need is being fulfilled. On behalf of the Barossa, I implore the government to help us find a solution to this issue and thank the government for bringing this bill to us.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:31): I, too, rise to speak on this important bill, the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Recognition of National Domestic Violence Orders) Amendment Bill 2016. In doing so, I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to the house. As members of this house would know, ending the scourge of domestic violence in our community is an issue which I am deeply passionate about. I know that many others in here are similarly passionate.

This is an issue that I believe we best address through determined collaboration focused on addressing the underlying causes of domestic violence and on prevention and effective intervention wherever possible to keep those experiencing domestic violence and their children safe. We must do everything we can, in every corner of our community, to ensure that people experiencing domestic violence are as safe as possible and provided with the supports to build a sustainable future away from violence.

That is why, together with the member for Stuart, late last year we initiated the Parliamentarians United Against Domestic Violence group. That is why shortly after coming to this house I moved for the Social Development Committee to inquire into all aspects of domestic violence and the services and supports and funding available both through the federal government and our state government. I am very pleased that the Social Development Committee has now handed down a comprehensive set of recommendations that I know we will look at deeply.

I have spoken in many forums and in this house about, amongst other things, the shocking and unacceptable statistics about violence against women and a range of strategies that are employed in relation to ending that violence. Clearly, we must do more, and this bill is a clear action that we can take in this house to support those experiencing domestic violence. Domestic violence orders are a key part of the system that protects victims of violence, and they are now used across our nation.

When we introduced intervention orders in South Australia I know that our domestic violence sector greatly applauded that step and that move. I know, through the women who come to my office in our community often in desperate situations, the difference that those orders have made to them. However, currently those who have a domestic violence order must apply to the courts to ensure that their orders apply in all jurisdictions, not just in the one in which they applied for them.

I strongly believe that we must break down the administrative barriers that stop women seeking help and assistance and being readily and quickly provided with that assistance. Even small tasks can seem insurmountable when life is fraught with stress, fear and worry about one's own safety and the safety of one's children. Contact with the court system can prove stressful in itself and this process, this contact, must be as seamless as possible.

Nationally and across all the states, we have committed, through COAG, to effect model provisions to form the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme (NDVOS) to enable the automatic recognition and enforcement of DVOs across the country and to develop a supporting national information-sharing system that police and courts will be able to use for evidentiary purposes or to enforce DVOs.

The purpose of this Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Recognition of National Domestic Violence Orders) Amendment Bill 2016 is to amend the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 to give effect to the domestic violence orders model provisions bill within the existing South Australian intervention order framework and to enable the automatic recognition and enforcement of interstate orders in South Australia and vice versa.

This is a huge and very important step forward for us to address domestic violence together across our nation. It is a huge step forward for women feeling safe wherever they are in Australia and wherever they want to go and for women feeling able to easily access a safe environment. The model provisions reflect a number of agreed policy principles:

1. A DVO made anywhere in Australia is nationally recognised and enforceable.

2. A DVO that is nationally recognised can be amended in any jurisdiction by a court.

3. If a DVO made in one jurisdiction is in force, a new order can, if necessary, be made in another jurisdiction, but only by a court.

In addition to the model provisions, the NDVOS will also comprise a capability for sharing information on DVOs within and across jurisdictions. I know that a number of other members in speaking in support of this bill have spoken about the incredible success of our MAPS initiative. This bill engenders a step that upholds the principles that underpin the success of MAPS.

A national information-sharing system that will allow courts and police to share a broader set of information about DVOs is being developed by CrimTrac for all jurisdictions and it is proposed that the national information-sharing system will ensure the highest standard of data integrity regarding DVOs, their status and supporting information, allow greater functionality and information sharing, allow police and courts access to DVO information in real time, and present a possible platform for a future national capability for other types of court orders including bail and Corrections orders with future agreement and funding.

In the interim, enhancements are being made to the national police referencing system by CrimTrac that will provide police and courts with access to a minimum set of information about DVOs created in all Australian states and territories within 12 months. The aim of this bill and an NDVOS is to provide better protection for victims of domestic violence who move across jurisdictional borders, for example, in order to flee a situation of domestic violence. This amendment aims to make service and enforcement of an intervention order simpler and to avoid police officers having to unnecessarily track down a defendant for service where they were present in the court for the making of the original order.

I know how pervasive domestic violence is in my own community and the stats tell us of its tragic pervasiveness across the country. Women come into my office and I also hear through many discussions with organisations like Southern Domestic Violence Service the incredible negative impact this is having on those women, their children and, indeed, our broader community. I do not want to mourn another woman. I do not want any other child to go through what so many do. Women, men and children flourish in a world free of violence, and we as parliamentarians must do all we can to make South Australia a place where this will occur. This bill gives us an excellent opportunity to take a very small but very important step towards that end.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:39): I would like to say a few words on the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Recognition of National Domestic Violence Orders) Amendment Bill 2016. I will not speak for too long and I will not go into enormous detail because I know that other speakers have done that very well. I trust and believe deep in my heart that all members of the South Australian parliament are united in their desire to combat domestic violence in our state and other places to the very best of our ability. We all take this issue seriously. The member for Reynell and I have certainly formed a particular partnership, but we are supported by all members of parliament in this effort. The main principles of this bill are:

1. A domestic violence order made anywhere in Australia or New Zealand domestic violence order registered anywhere in Australia is nationally recognised and enforceable;

2. A domestic violence order that is nationally recognised can be amended in any jurisdiction, but only by a court;

3. If a domestic violence order made in one jurisdiction is in force, a new order can (if necessary) be made in another jurisdiction, but only by a court; and

4. The last order in time prevails.

They are the supporting foundation principles that we all agree to. Our deputy leader has added that we also believe that there should be an amendment with regard to fixing the term of DVOs, and I think that is important also. With reagrd to acknowledging the importance that within Australia DVOs should be able to cross borders, I would like to comment on why that is so necessary.

It is incredibly necessary because state borders are the least of the issues crossed over when it comes to domestic violence. Domestic violence crosses cultures, geography, income levels, religions, ethnic backgrounds and employment groups. Almost any demographic description that you can find unfortunately has its share of domestic violence. By that, I mean that it is found everywhere, and it is completely unacceptable. That is why at the very least we need to be able to cross state borders and work with New Zealand in relation to these orders.

The effort to address this issue needs to be just as strong in every corner of our nation. I know that we are united as members of parliament on this matter. Certainly, as a local MP I take it very seriously. As the shadow minister for police, I take it seriously. As a white ribbon ambassador, I take it very seriously. As a person and as a man, I take it incredibly seriously because the only demographic description that separates it from the others is men versus women with regard to domestic violence. It is not exclusively men, but it is overwhelmingly men who commit domestic violence against women.

With those few words, I support all members of this parliament who have spoken on this matter. I appreciate the fact that everybody is working so hard on this issue. We are unfortunately decades too late, but we should just start, get going and do everything that we possibly can in every way on this important issue.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:43): Can I say thank you to everybody who has contributed so far. This is one of those issues about which, happily, all of us in this place are very concerned, and all of us are very keen to see this move along as quickly as possible. I would like to thank all the members who have made contributions. I know that this is a matter that does not have any party boundary at all. I noted the stinging critique from the deputy leader on how little this bill is. Quite frankly, this little initiative is going to be very significant for a large number of people, so little in terms of its scope, but significant for a large number of people. I think it is an absolutely important thing that we do now, we do not wait for the balance of other fairly complex things to be dealt with, we get on with it.

Can I reiterate that the actual discussion paper—I am hoping and, in fact, I am reliably informed—is likely to be out there in the public domain with any luck before the end of the month. We are pushing it along, and hopefully that will add to an informed conversation about this. The member for Hammond made a very good point when he said that in all probability we are not facing an epidemic of this behaviour: we are facing a completely different attitude to the reporting and the prosecution of this behaviour. That is not to say it is not a problem.

This is one of the questions in the discussion paper: is what we are seeing now something that was not visible in the way that it is now but was going on the whole time? Is it something that is exploding in an exponential fashion, or is it more likely than not mainly the fact that, not entirely but mainly the fact that, it is now publicly encouraged and accepted for this sort of behaviour to be the subject of a report and that, when it is the subject of a report, people like police officers and others who get those reports act on those reports, note those reports and take the appropriate steps to make sure that something happens. Again, I thank all members for their contributions in relation to this matter and I trust the bill will pass speedily through this place and, hopefully, elsewhere as well.

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 Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.