Bills

Evidence (Vulnerable Witnesses) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: Here we are again. Attorney, who was consulted on the bill and did any authorities or agencies raise any particular difficulties in applying the current act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised firstly of the good news, that is that no particular difficulties were raised in the response to submissions. Those who were consulted were the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, of course, the member would be aware is very much involved in relation to the prosecution of matters and is of course the employer of Zero; Guide Dogs SA/NT Incorporated, the Dog and Cat Management Board, the Law Society of South Australia, the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, the Commissioner of Police, the Acting Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Guardian for Children and Young People, the Courts Administration Authority, the SA Bar Association, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the Chief Judge of the District Court—I do not know why he is in a different order—the Commissioner for Victims' Rights and the Victim Support Service.

Ms COOK: Was anybody from the disability community or with lived experience of disability consulted in relation to this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Some of these have an involvement with and have the support of people with lived experience; of course, the Victim Support Service, which the member is familiar with. The Commissioner for Victims' Rights is clearly someone who has responsibility both as a commissioner and a provider of a number of services. The Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Guardian for Children and Young People have a similar role.

Mr Picton: There were no disability groups.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have already indicated the list of people and organisations that have been consulted and identified four that have an active working relationship with people with lived experience and/or representatives on their boards and administration.

Ms COOK: Did the Attorney and her team seek to consult specifically with people with lived experience of disability and challenges faced in the justice system because of disabilities of a sensory or communication, behavioural or mental health nature, which is really the crux of the impediment of accessing justice within our system? If she has not or they have not, will the Attorney and her team commit to doing real consultation about the consequences of this bill and whether or not it actually meets their needs?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a fairly broad question, but I have indicated those who have been consulted. I contend that a number of these are directly involved in the provision of service for people with disability. In the context of that question on access to justice, if ever there were a party that would be relevant to having real lived daily experience in managing these issues, it would be the Legal Services Commission of South Australia and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which provide support in relation to those going through court action. Similarly, there is the Commissioner of Police and the involvement there in relation to investigation and prosecutions.

In an earlier part of this debate, the member raised the question, for example, of assistance during the investigative stage and the use of SAPOL for a particular service, which, as I have explained to the parliament, is now more in-house and not dealt with via a coordinator with Uniting Communities. In answer to the question, yes, I consider there has been, and our government will continue to have meaningful consultation with those who have an interest in advancing access to justice generally in the community but, in particular, with those with a disability.

If there were any matters that had come to the attention of any of these organisations that have not been brought to our attention, I would invite all members to advise me of the same, but I have not had an indication of any accommodation of further reform outside what is being presented in this bill in relation to the two aspects that are covered, which is from an evidentiary point of view and also the availability of Zero in the courtroom. If there are other aspects where there has been an exclusion or incapacity of access, I can certainly have a look at those.

I would also perhaps add at this point that the Supreme Court precinct has had significant redevelopment physically, which has, in the whole time I have been in parliament, really suffered the indignity of being one of our most prestigious heritage sites that has offended in many ways the obligations we impose on owners to provide access for those with a disability. The building codes we have, and obligations in that regard for new builds and developments, are very strict and have been for a long time, but the uplift of our heritage infrastructure, including our Supreme Court facility at 1 Gouger Street, has suffered from inaccessibility to many people for a long time—almost appallingly so.

The only real attention that was ever given to the plight of those who could not get in or out of an access or courtrooms that could not be used because any number of parties had a disability and could not get in and out of these facilities, and therefore were left unable to be used on occasion, was the circumstance when the former Chief Justice had been injured overseas, returned, had to use a wheelchair for some time and had to undertake his own duties in the courtroom. There were areas he could not get access to in his own building. That is how draconian that was. The Chief Justice we have now has, under his stewardship, developed significant improvements and extra courtroom space with major upgrades, including accessibility for those with a physical disability, which I think has been the best we have seen in 50 years.

In any event, apart from that aspect, which has been relatively new, I am pleased to say that that project is completed at the Supreme Court precinct. Realistically, though, these agencies—police, legal aid lawyers, prosecutors—are the people who see the day-to-day examples of where someone either is deprived of an opportunity to access or has limited access to our justice we need to look at. At the moment, we are looking at these areas in relation to access of court companions and also to deal with some evidentiary matters.

Court infrastructure, legal representation and advice of rights are all just myriad types of issues which are all the more difficult often for people with a disability—not just physical but, obviously, intellectual disability. If the member is aware of some impediment to access of a group within the disability community we have not been made aware of or has not come through to me via the equal opportunity commissioner—who is someone I meet with fairly regularly, both the former one and the acting one now—then I would invite her to forward that detail to me.

Mr PICTON: I think it is pretty incredible to me that the Attorney has introduced this legislation regarding vulnerable witnesses and has read out a whole list of agencies and bodies, largely within her own portfolio, but without mentioning anybody she has consulted with or anybody her department has consulted with specifically in the disability sector.

There is no body, such as Autism SA or the Brain Injury Network, or not even, as I understood from the list that she mentioned, the guide dogs association, even though the guide dogs association is specifically mentioned in this legislation.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: They are. I just read them out, the guide dogs association of SA.

Mr PICTON: Okay, so they are the one body that has some connection with the disability sector that you have consulted with. The government has its own Disability Advocate within the government, Mr David Cawdrey, and he has not even been consulted in regard to this bill.

Obviously the Attorney has a lot of things to consider. She cannot be on top of everything that is happening in her portfolio. Will she make sure, between the houses, that her department consults with people in the disability sector and, importantly, people specifically who have lived experience of disabilities before the debate occurs in the next month in the Legislative Council?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will make inquiry—and I will certainly undertake to do this—as to whether there have been any matters within the submissions, and it is difficult to go through these now in detail, to identify whether there are particular aspects that have been brought to the attention of any of these organisations as examples of a problem.

I think two matters were raised by the member for Hurtle Vale that were identified as areas she felt were under equal opportunity reference: taxis refusing to pick up guide dogs and also no ramps at a hairdresser. Whilst they are not directly relevant to access to justice, if somebody cannot get transport, for example, to get access to advice or to get to court or things of that nature, then they are the sorts of things we need to know about. I am not sure about the hairdressing impediment to access to justice, but there may be others.

I make this point: if there are aspects that have been raised, what I think is completely reasonable is the suggestion by the member for Kaurna that a copy of the material be sent to the Disability Advocate to alert them to the fact that this legislation is in the parliament. I am happy to do that. Again, I invite all members, if they have issues in relation to this matter, to please let me know.

Mr PICTON: I ask the Attorney what the status is of the Disability Justice Plan. The Disability Justice Plan 2014-17 currently on the website was devised under her predecessor, the Hon. John Rau SC, so that plan is now three years out of date. Why has the Attorney not updated and produced a new plan for disability justice in that time? What is the status of that? Is there something in the works or has this issue been ignored?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There were some matters that were initiated under the plan by the former Attorney-General, and that is noted. I have canvassed this since I have been in government, in relation to what initiatives there are and what has or has not happened, so I will get correspondence to the member for Kaurna as to the updates in relation to that.

Ms COOK: Before lunch, the Attorney in her concluding remarks on the second reading was talking about Hurtle Vale and why the word 'vale' was in there. I have not had a chance to respond, so I will very quickly. Obviously Hurtle Vale is named after James Hurtle Fisher, as was Fisher.

In around 1837, as I understand it, there was a posse of very early intrepid explorers: Morphett, Fisher, Light and some marines who headed from what we know as Glenelg to Encounter Bay and stopped and camped overnight in a rather beautiful valley. It was around the Woodcroft, Morphett Vale, Hallett Cove, Sheidow Park, Trott Park, O'Halloran Hill area and they named it Hurtle Vale. They did not do it geographically on the map; they did so as a reference and it has been used commonly. If you go to the Crown Inn hotel in Old Reynella, which is a beautiful pub, straight opposite is a park where there is a storyboard and you can read all about it. So that is why it still has the word 'vale' in it: it is an historical connection. There is your little history lesson.

I will come back to the topic. Thank you very much for your indulgence, sir; you are very kind. Could the Attorney give some indication when the disability inclusion reference group, which is to be established by the Courts Administration Authority, will be established and operational?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I am meeting with the Courts Administration Authority next week, but obviously I regularly meet with the Chief Justice. I cannot recall him providing me with information about that, but I will make that inquiry and provide that information.

The CHAIR: We will move on, member for Hurtle Vale, but thank you for that little bit of local history. I always find it fascinating and it is good to know. It is recorded now in Hansard, so there you go.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: What is the Attorney's expectation or plan in terms of when she hopes this legislation will come into operation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Subject to the matter being able to get through this house today, which I am hopeful will occur, then it will be a matter for the Legislative Council to consider it. I imagine in the time of parliament, it would not be before the week of 10 November because that is the next sitting week. If there is some hope that that can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible after that, that will be great.

At the moment, any initiative that assists somebody who is a vulnerable witness is important. They do not always have a disability, but within that cohort we have to understand that children are a large component. We think this has been an impressive initiative in relation to Zero. The sooner we can get him into active court service the better, but he cannot get into the courtroom until we pass this, so we are trying to have this dealt with in this session.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PICTON: Why has the government not included the Royal Society for the Blind as one of the bodies specified in legislation for dog accreditation, particularly considering that the RSB, I understand, trains more guide dogs, apparently, than the guide dogs association of South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, as I understand it, the initiative in relation to Zero has been developed between the DPP's office and the guide dogs association. That is the first thing. That has been a project as the organisation has a training program that meets with international standards. I do not know, but I am pretty sure they are involved also in the programs available for returned veterans, for PTS particularly.

Mr Picton: PTSD.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: PTS, actually. As a former adviser to a health minister, I am sure you would appreciate the new contemporary description of that condition. It is PTS as it is no longer considered a disorder. With respect to that, I keep trying to remind myself that PTS is the description for post-traumatic stress.

In any event, if I can move on, the provision here is therefore that, whilst they are the body currently in this working arrangement with the DPP, the bill will provide for a person or body prescribed by regulation, so this is in no way to suggest that the Royal Society for the Blind would not be equally qualified. I do not know the answer to that. It may be that they are a group that would be considered or may apply to be considered for prescription at some other time. I am simply saying that this initial matter was with the guide dogs association.

Ms COOK: In relation to other persons or bodies that would be prescribed by regulations, can you give the chamber some idea about who these people might be, and have you consulted with them already?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There has been no-one else consulted because there has been no-one else considered. The current project is with the agreement between the DPP and the guide dogs association. What we think is reasonable in the provision for this is that, if ever this idea is expanded, for example, it may be that there will be others who are very interested in providing the service of training the dogs or whatever, but I do not know who they would be yet.

One has been raised, namely the Royal Society for the Blind. I do not know what training facilities they have in relation to companion animals. They may be very good, but I am simply making the point that we are making provision to futureproof this legislation because it may well be that there are a number of different organisations in the future that will present themselves for consideration to be eligible to undertake this work in partnership with an agency of the government.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney outline the total budget for the current canine court companions project and whether that funding comes from within the DPP's existing budget, or whether there has had to be additional funding provided to the DPP for that purpose?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have particulars of the total cost of the program, but I am happy to make that inquiry of the DPP's office. I also indicate that by virtue of this role—of Zero being available to going into courtrooms—there will not be any extra cost for that. We pay for him, his handler and those who provide the support to him, irrespective of where he does his work.

Ms COOK: What advice has been sought regarding the best practices needed to support the presence of one or multiple canines within the court building at any given time, and what has been established as the necessary human and material resources required to support this program?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, our understanding is there will not be an extra financial cost as to where he does his work. I imagine already that there would be a process in place for the courts to deal with guide dogs who are already coming there for someone who is a blind witness, for example. There would have to be some accommodation of that. I cannot imagine that in the history of our courts there has not been a situation where someone has attended with an animal most likely for someone who is sight-impaired, but the details of that I do not have.

That would be a matter that, if the parliament were to pass this, which is with the blessing of the council headed by the Chief Justice, then that accommodation would be considered and whether anything else was necessary. Nothing has been brought to my attention. We do not have to build kennels in every courtroom or courthouse, or anything of that nature, so I cannot assist you further in that regard. But nothing has been brought to my attention that would indicate to the Chief Justice that there should be some condition set or precedent to the implementation of this program if it were to pass the parliament.

Mr PICTON: I ask the Attorney: are there any plans to further expand the canine court companions project in the future? Has there been any funding allocated to do that? Are there any plans in place to do that and, if so, what are they?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I indicated earlier in the debate, there are no plans to do any expansion. Zero is not fully booked at this stage. He apparently has other time available in his schedule when he could undertake work, so therefore the demand is not there, but that may change. It may be that, depending on what extra time in his schedule is spent supporting the vulnerable party in the courtroom, that may in fact eat into that significantly, whether he is waiting with a vulnerable person or in the courtroom while evidence is being given, or there for support during interviews by the DPP or police prosecution, or otherwise. We are yet to see how that uptake is done.

I would imagine that existing clients, and parties or witnesses in proceedings with the DPP's office who currently avail themselves of this service for interview, would be the logical ones to extend the use to in the court facility if it is necessary for them to go to court. As the member might appreciate, irrespective of whether the victim or a witness is a vulnerable person, many cases do settle and it is not necessary, ultimately, for witnesses to be called to prove the case if there is a plea of guilty at an earlier stage. In short, we will see how that goes.

Personally, I think this is a very meritorious project already. It may prove to be even more useful to the courts and we may have even more supporters for the expansion of the program. At the moment, Zero is not fully booked, so when his diary is booked or at least considered as likely, then we will get started on Zero 2.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Between 'Inc.;' and 'or' insert:

(aa) the Royal Society for the Blind (South Australia);

This is to add the Royal Society for the Blind as one of the organisations for accreditation of these animals. I think it is unfortunate, as we have discovered during this debate, the lack of consultation the Attorney and her department have undertaken in regard to this bill with organisations in the disability sector, including no consultation with the Royal Society for the Blind (RSB).

Clearly, the RSB is a major player in South Australia in terms of training assistance dogs, whether they be guide dogs, autism assistance dogs or assistance also for veterans in the community. In looking at the information they provide, it states:

The RSB Assistance Dog program changes the lives of people in need every day The service changes the lives of people who are blind or vision impaired, children with Autism and people with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD).

RSB Assistance Dogs accompany their owners everywhere, including on public transport and in shopping centres, cinemas and restaurants. They are trained to carry out a range of tasks aimed at reducing anxiety as well as being a friend and companion while participating in daily activities.

They have their guide dog service, and they have an autism assistance dog, and they also have Operation K9, where Operation K9 dogs are provided are provided to veterans of the Australian Defence Force who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). They use PTSD, despite the Attorney's mention of that term.

This is a major organisation in South Australia. I was very surprised that this was not something the Attorney thought about. I was racking my brain because there have been so many opportunities since I have been a member of parliament to interact with the RSB and to learn about the great work they have done. They have been into parliament a number of times, I have met them in my electorate a number of times and I have been to events with them a number of times. I thought it must be strange that the Attorney has not also had the opportunity to do so, but it turns out she has. I did find on her Facebook, from 11 October 2018, a photo of her with a dog from the RSB that was being trained. It said:

Shaking the adorable Xenia's paw tonight! Celebrating the fantastic work of the Royal Society for the Blind…with Pip and many other volunteers. (I already asked. I couldn't take her home!)

Clearly, the Attorney had awareness of the work of the Royal Society for the Blind. They were not contacted in relation to being consulted about this legislation. I think this is an opportunity to make sure that they can be included in the law. They should be recognised for the tremendous work they do for South Australians each and every day.

Ms COOK: I would like to rise to support the really good amendment from the member for Kaurna, supporting the insertion of the Royal Society for the Blind within the bill as it stands, rather than leaving it subject to addition in regulation. They have a magnificent track record, as do Guide Dogs SA/NT, in training dogs for a whole range of purposes—sensory impairment, behavioural issues, mental health. I think it is eminently sensible to include this amazing organisation now at a time while the bill is being passed through this house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for bringing the matter to our attention via the amendment and indicate that the Royal Society for the Blind, as I have indicated, is a worthy organisation and may well have qualifications to be able to provide the service. In fact, I think I outlined during the course of this debate all sorts of other services where canines can be helpful, including PTS that has been referred to with veterans in particular, in giving access to those who have the benefit of canine support.

The Royal Society for the Blind has indeed visited Parliament House. It is a very worthy organisation. I do not know its current qualification obligations in relation to court assistance work. Nevertheless, that is a matter for them. My question to the mover of the amendment is: has the mover consulted with the Royal Society for the Blind to seek their request or consent to be incorporated in this bill?

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much for the question. I have consulted with them the exact same amount that the Attorney-General has consulted them in relation to the drafting of this bill. The Attorney-General's consultation in relation to this bill has been absolutely dismal. To not consult anybody with lived experienced, to not consult any of the major disability bodies in South Australia, to not consult the Royal Society for the Blind, to not consult even her own government's Disability Advocate, with all the resources of government and all the departmental resources available to her leading up to this legislation, I think has been absolutely despicable.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: They named the dog after her consultation process.

Mr PICTON: That's right. The dog has been named after how many disability organisations have been consulted in relation to this bill, as the member for Mawson points out. I have been consulting with the RSB many, many times since my election to parliament. I continue to talk to them. In fact, I believe I was at the same event with the Attorney in October 2018. I believe it was at the Central Market, if I recall correctly. I believe the Governor was there. It was a very good event and we learned lots about the great work that the RSB do. The RSB were the chosen charity of the night.

The RSB have been here at parliament, I have met them in their electorate and I have seen what they have done. For the Attorney to suggest in her discussion earlier that they were somehow potentially not accredited in terms of assistance dogs I think is very insulting to the RSB. Clearly, they are the other major organisation in South Australia. Clearly, they should be recognised in this legislation, and it is only due to a failure on her behalf that they have not been included and they have not been consulted today.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that as a no, they have not been asked. They might wake up tomorrow and be very surprised that they are suddenly in the legislation. Let me make this very clear: the reason other parties, including the Royal Society for the Blind, are not scheduled here is that the existing contract is with the Guide Dogs and the DPP. It is an existing program.

We are seeking to change the law so that under an existing program the relevant party, namely Zero, can go into a court room. But to futureproof it, especially if it expands and other providers are there and other canine supporters are in this process, we are making that available. Having outlined all the attributes of the Royal Society for the Blind and probably others that are out there in the community that may or may not become interested in this option, let me say that the government does not put people or organisations into legislation just by reading about the attributes on a website.

The concept of actually preparing a handwritten amendment to try to present this as an inclusion of someone who has been somehow or other deliberately excluded is utterly absurd. I utterly reject the assertion that in some way this is some indication of discrimination against another worthy party that may or may not be interested in joining in on this program. I have given an indication that, if this program is considered to be approved and is worthwhile, there is more advocacy for its expansion and/or Zero's diary is full, we will look at whether this can be expanded.

Indeed, it may be an opportunity where we review whether other parties who are trainers in this area and/or providers of a service supplementary to this would become part of it. In those circumstances, I indicate that this hastily handwritten amendment that has been presented will not be supported by the government.

Mr PICTON: I am very pleased to inform the Attorney-General that during this debate, without the resources of government, the opposition has been able to consult with the Royal Society for the Blind and we have talked to the CEO. The Royal Society for the Blind very much appreciates the amendment that we are proposing to insert them into the legislation.

Since we learned a few minutes ago, during this debate, that the Attorney did not consult with them in the drafting of this legislation, we have now consulted with them. They agree and appreciate us inserting them into the legislation. We hope that this house will back the Royal Society for the Blind against the neglect of the Attorney-General in not consulting with them in the lead-up to this legislation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I assume the fresh text-based consultation has occurred—I have no reason to say it has not—and I note that. I look forward to receiving a proposal by the Royal Society for the Blind for their consideration and we can have a look at that. In the meantime, I cannot accept that website assessment on this. I will be indicating to the Royal Society for the Blind that they can present something to me in writing as to why they should be prescribed for the purpose of this legislation or indeed any project. I would be happy to hear from them.

Ms COOK: Just to confirm, I have now received a response from the RSB regarding this proposal to insert them into clause 4 to enable them to be part of this right from the start. I will certainly be speaking to them in regard to that submission. I thank the Attorney-General for her kind suggestion and wonder if she would consider further consultation and a review of her decision regarding this amendment between the houses in order to get this to happen sooner rather than later?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, it will not be a matter for me to assess the submission; it will go through the normal courses. I am happy to receive any proposal that they want to put to me; it will go through the normal processes. I would suggest that if it does, subject to how this matter progresses in the parliament, there is provision for prescription by regulation if that is to be included.

The CHAIR: I will put the amendment. The amendment is to clause 4 standing in the name of the member for Kaurna. I am working my way through your handwriting, member for Kaurna. It reads, I think, that between the words 'Inc.;' and 'or', add '(aa) the Royal Society for the Blind (South Australia);'. Is that correct?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: It is amazing how proud the Attorney is, despite her lack of consultation with the relevant bodies. In relation to clause 5, how will AGD ensure correct checks and balances on the power to support vulnerable witnesses and also maintain defendants' rights?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not quite sure what the member is referring to, but if he can be a bit more specific that will help me to be able to give him an answer.

Mr PICTON: Clearly, there is a balance that needs to be in place, and it was the attempt in the original legislation to make sure that there was a balance in providing additional access and additional support in relation to vulnerable witnesses, but we obviously want to make sure that defendants have their rights as well. In relation to this amendment to 12AB, how are they balancing in these amendments the rights of the vulnerable witness and the support that they will get and also maintaining the defendant's rights?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I still do not understand the question. Could you point me to what part of the change to the pre-trial special hearing service where there is some kind of change of balance that is being asserted because I do not see anything immediately, that these changes here are in some way going to tip the balance between the relative parties. I do not even understand the question.

Mr PICTON: I think if the Attorney-General is suggesting that her changes to this are doing nothing, then maybe that is her answer. Clearly, there is a whole series of amendments as to how evidence is going to be provided, how obligations to give sworn or unsworn evidence or cross-examination are provided, and for all those there is a balance between making sure that we can add additional benefits, additional support for vulnerable witnesses and also make sure that defendants have their rights in terms of cross-examination and being able to scrutinise evidence that has been provided.

I think that was certainly the balance they were trying to strike in the original legislation that passed. Clearly, there is now a whole series of changes being made to pre-trial steps and special hearings. If the Attorney's response is that she does not think any of it really changes whatsoever, maybe that is her answer. I would have thought that this is a pretty fundamental question that she would have in mind.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will just ascertain exactly what we are talking about here. There are two situations where I think there can be some prejudice: in relation to dogs or in pre-trial hearings. I have not identified from here in relation to clause 5 how that specifically would be prejudice, but I will go back to the original explanation of clauses and see if that can make it a little bit easier.

As I understand it, in relation to pre-hearings there is no change that would affect the right of cross-examination, the matters that have been raised. What this has the effect of doing is to allow the introduction of the evidence at an earlier stage. Do you want to know about the dogs as well, or do you want to wait until later on in the bill?

Mr PICTON: We can do that later on.

Ms COOK: Just in relation to how this whole amendment and process interface with access and inclusion around people with disability who will be experiencing this process, is this interfacing with the development of the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan and what is the time frame for consultation on that plan? Does it take into consideration vulnerable witnesses, vulnerable people before the court as an interface with this particular bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have this clear. This process will assist vulnerable people, if they are a party to proceedings, by allowing for certain evidence to be introduced at an earlier stage. That seemed to be a potential beneficial aspect for them. Is it consistent with the social inclusion plan? I am assuming you are referring to the 2014-17—

Ms Cook: No, the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I beg your pardon. I certainly do not see anything inconsistent with it.

Ms COOK: I know we canvassed this before but, again, is the Attorney at peace with the fact that there has not been consultation with people with lived experience in relation to the construction of this process, bearing in mind the requirements of the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan to seek consultation with people with disability in order to inform the outcomes of the plan?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am very happy with the consultation, and I have identified four of the parties consulted as to their direct access and understanding of the needs in this regard. In any event, yes, I am satisfied with that consultation.

Ms COOK: In relation to the delivery on this amendment bill in the future, has the Attorney's department already sought to undertake any awareness training for staff and volunteers in the court system that may then raise awareness and promote the rights of vulnerable people and persons with disability accessing justice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Certainly not yet and, as the member may be aware, the implementation arrangements will be under discussion with the CAA once this has occurred because obviously they are a somewhat independent body, although they account to me for the purpose of getting their money from the Treasurer, etc. There are certain aspects of the independence of that entity and so that will be a matter for continued discussion with the CAA and, of course, the Chief Justice, who has the heads of jurisdiction in his council, as to how this will specifically operate.

We would not presume to go ahead with any of that until the parliament has approved this. All I can indicate to the parliament is that this proposal has been discussed. It has the approval of the Chief Justice, on behalf of the Courts Administration Authority, and we can undertake those matters if it is successful. We certainly hope it will be.

I have just alerted myself to the matter of the pre-trial special hearings in clause 5, by virtue of allowing the canine court companion to come in at the pre-trial stage, so I do not think I can leave that until later in the bill. I am happy to advise the committee on this issue because in the second reading I pointed out the importance of minimising the prejudicial effect that might arise from the dog's presence. Again, I think I need to place this on the record.

Where practicable, Zero is not to be visible in any audiovisual record of the evidence or, if the evidence is given before a jury, the jury. This is directed at minimising any possibility that the presence of the dog might evoke sympathy and/or distract the jury. The dog's handler is to be subject to the same rules that will apply to a person accompanying a witness for emotional support or communication assistance. In particular, I point out that the accompanying person must be visible to the judge while the witness is giving evidence.

If the defendant is prevented from seeing the accompanying person directly while the witness is giving evidence, the court must ensure that the defendant is able to observe that person by direct transmission of images of the witness together with that person while the witness is giving evidence. The audiovisual record of the evidence must show the accompanying person throughout the taking of the evidence. I further advise the committee that, if it is not practicable for the dog not to be visible to the jury, the court is obliged to give an appropriate warning to the jury (i.e. the jury must not draw out any inference adverse to the defendant or to allow the arrangements—

Ms Cook: That's in clause 7.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just letting you know. I am letting you know because at the pre-trial stage—we are talking about pre-trial special hearings—the question was in relation to prejudicial effect, and I am indicating where it would be in relation to the dog. To deal with that, as the interjection comes, there has been some provision for that later in the bill, and that is the judicial warning. I am happy to answer any further questions about that aspect in that later clause if you want me to.

Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 5, has there been any advice or receipt of information in relation to these changes from anybody in South Australia with lived experience of disability?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I don't think I can add anything in relation to the consultation arrangements that have been made.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Ms COOK: My question relates to the processes and the capacity of people to access justice within what would be for somebody with a whole range of disabilities a very worrying time, particularly people who have difficulties with communication. I think I flagged the communication partners program in my speech as a program which had been cut and which had provided assistance to, I think, about 340 people over four years through Uniting Communities.

While the notion was that that would then be given some capacity through a fee for service, this had not actually happened. Part of this could be because there is no money to coordinate the program. Was there any discussion around the use of such programs or any intention to review the communication partners program under its current form as it would interface and support vulnerable witnesses accessing a trial or a pre-trial hearing of any kind?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The program that the member refers to I think we canvassed in her earlier contribution, and in reply I indicated the process that is currently in place to be available for agencies such as SAPOL, which is the biggest user of the Communication Partner Service and which was coordinated by a coordinator at Uniting Communities when this matter transitioned to the services that I have indicated, that is, a cohort of trained people all ready and available for referral within government.

I had a meeting with Uniting Communities and explained how that would work. What the member has raised with me is that, on her understanding, nobody has since used this service apparently at all. I have indicated that I am happy to look into that, but in any event there is no limitation on the provisions of that service to only pre-trial special hearings of vulnerable witnesses. In fact, on my understanding, it was most commonly used for assistance in police interviews, that is, before it ever got to court.

Ms COOK: And it is available for the whole gamut?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Absolutely. I am just making the point that apparently it was at the police interview stage that it was most commonly used. In any event I have indicated I will make inquiry on that, but otherwise I don't think it really has any effect in relation to clause 6.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr PICTON: This clause covers more of the canine section, and particularly in relation to restrictions in terms of the criminal trial whereby if evidence has been given before a jury the dog should not be visible while the evidence is being given and should not be visible in any audiovisual record of the evidence.

Why has the government taken that path if that is necessary, whether there are any examples of the many jurisdictions around the world that have canine companions where that is in place and how logistically is it going to be possible in a courtroom to be able to hide the dog? Zero looks like a pretty big dog to me from your Facebook.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that, in developing this option, consideration was given to how it operates in Victoria. My understanding is—for the reasons I have previously outlined as to why it is not appropriate where possible to have the dog on display—it is because that could cause some prejudice or impression that the witness may have some disability and that that may affect the assessment by the parties, that is, a jury, and so they accommodate the dog in the witness box and/or presumably the dock, which is another possibility, to ensure that they are out of sight.

Members could, of course, inspect the fabulous new improvements down at the Supreme Court and see the modifications that have been made, especially during COVID, to accommodate all sorts of new things that we are having to deal with, including the spacing out of jurors and where else they might sit in a courtroom.

In a COVID situation, it may be more difficult to conceal Zero or any other court companion dog easily, given that a number of jurors at present are being spread out in a courtroom. That would be a matter to be considered. All the detail of how that would be dealt with would be worked out with the Courts Administration Authority, but the development of this has come on the information and the valuable support and advice we have had from Victoria's experience.

I will see whether there is anything further from the DPP that might assist. Really, that is in relation to the contention that it is potentially prejudicial as distinct from not, rather than where Zero might sit in the courtroom, so he is not able to help me with the geography of where Zero might sit or lay or provide his support from, so we will be leaving that matter to the Courts Administration Authority.

Just like we have at the moment, courts have to take into account factors such as if a party has a significant disability or they might have wheelchair access requirements, etc. They choose a courtroom that is going to be able to accommodate that. Those sorts of things are common to identify for a vulnerable witness and also for a number of other people who provide ongoing services as staff members of the Courts Administration Authority or, indeed, it may be members of the jury. Again, this is not a new aspect that needs to be considered for courts, but this particular aspect would be a matter for courts to work out with the Courts Administration Authority.

Ms COOK: In relation to clause 7, we pay a lot of attention to our language and being inclusive in the community and it strikes me that the use of the word 'embarrassment' around people who have a different appearance or something different about what they are doing is to me a little bit—I am searching for the proper word. It is not demeaning but it is just the use of language that I am not sure really strikes resilience and strength into the hearts of the people that the bill is intending to support. I am wondering whether that particular clause and its intent is taken just purely from the Victorian experience or whether there was any actual questioning or checking in with people with lived experience, in terms of the use of that language?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This language is not new. It is repeated throughout the Evidence Act. There has not been any conscious attempt to review all the act to contemporise or modernise the language, but I take the point. If it is a matter that can be looked at at the time when we refresh legislation, that can be attended to, but this is the usual practice for the language throughout the act.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (8 to 10) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (16:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I wish to speak on the matter to thank members for the contributions made, particularly the member for Kaurna and the member for Hurtle Vale. Some of the aspects that they have brought to my attention I have undertaken to follow up, and I certainly will do so. I appreciate their interest in this issue and indication of support.

I wish to thank Mr Andrew Rodriquez, who has been a very helpful assistant today and of course in the development of this legislation so that we might have the best, most senior of our team in relation to this matter. I thank him for that. It is probably the last time he will be sitting here in the parliament with me in this role, not because I am going anywhere, you might be disappointed to know but because Mr Rodriquez has accepted another position. We will miss him in the Attorney-General's Department. We wish him well in his future endeavours. He has been a stellar performer in the advice he has provided to me and in services to the department, and I wish to place on record my appreciation for the same.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (16:42): I would like to add my support for this bill. What a wonderful idea to bring dogs into the court system to help support vulnerable witnesses. As someone who took on a dog this year, I have to say to see the interaction they have with people, particularly kids, has been extraordinary.

Like the Attorney, my dog was born on Kangaroo Island. Like the Attorney, my dog Dusty was affected by the bushfires. When he was allowed into parliament—I know he was recently kicked out, banned from parliament—he was here in March, and we had a group of schoolkids over from Kangaroo Island. I took them on an excursion and a tour of Parliament House. Little Dusty was there. Two of the 30-odd kids who were on that tour had brothers or sisters of Dusty, and they immediately felt right at home.

A lot of these kids had gone through huge trauma with the bushfires. Many of them had lost their homes and were living with friends and relatives or not in their homes because they had been destroyed. It was their first trip away from the island since the fires and, in some cases, it was the first time they were not with their parents. I just saw the way they took hold of Dusty and were giving him cuddles and how it softened everything for them, and their reaction was priceless.

I am sure that Zero, the dog who is being trained up to be a companion animal for these vulnerable witnesses, will do an extraordinary job. If his dance card gets too full too soon, and you are looking for a backup dog, I am sure Dusty the Kangaroo Island kelpie would only be too pleased to come along to court and help out. Well done; this is a great move forward for vulnerable witnesses in our justice system.

Bill read a third time and passed.