Bills

Evidence (Vulnerable Witnesses) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2020.)

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:05): It is good to be here again working with the Attorney on another piece of legislation. It feels like we were here just hours ago.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): Member for Kaurna, can you confirm if you are the lead speaker?

Mr PICTON: I confirm that I am the lead speaker, Acting Speaker. I hope you are getting some extra duties for all this extra work you are having to do.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): It's outrageous, isn't it?

Mr PICTON: It is outrageous. I rise today to speak on the Evidence (Vulnerable Witnesses) Amendment Bill 2020. I also indicate that the opposition will be supporting this legislation. This bill proposes new protections and extends support for vulnerable witnesses who give evidence in court. This includes children and persons with a disability.

This bill extends the earlier work undertaken by the previous Labor government in this area. Labor in government passed the Statutes Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Act 2015, which assisted vulnerable groups in the justice system. It was a very important piece of legislation and something that we worked very hard on and were very proud to support. It was advocated by a number of people—including a former member of parliament, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, who advocated for this—and passed through under the previous Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau.

The new bill amends the current Evidence Act 1929 in three main areas: bringing in provisions to clarify the canine court companions program, clarifying provisions about pre-trial special hearings for vulnerable witnesses and the admission and admissibility of prerecorded evidence. The bill supports the critically important outcome of making the justice system more equitable for vulnerable witnesses who may need supports to participate in the trial process. In the Evidence Act, vulnerable witnesses are defined as young children or people with a disability that adversely affects their capacity to give coherent accounts of their experiences or respond rationally to questions.

I think we can all acknowledge that for anybody to partake in the justice system or a court process can be very daunting and difficult, and obviously more so if you are a young person or a person with a disability that makes that even harder. That is why this law reform that we have had for the past five years since the previous act passed is so important to make our justice system fairer, to get better outcomes and to make it easier for vulnerable people to be able to provide evidence in the court system.

The first element of this new bill seeks to remove doubt about the use of the canine court companion in the South Australian justice system. The famous face of the canine court companion is a dog called Zero. Zero is the most popular member of the justice system in South Australia, even more so, I dare say, than the Attorney-General herself. I have noticed that whenever the Attorney-General posts a picture of Zero on her social media it gets perhaps a million per cent higher viewership than any of the other photos she posts. I think we can all acknowledge how important animals, particularly canines, can be in a variety of different fields, particularly providing comfort and support to many people who require that assistance. This is yet another way that can happen.

As a dog lover and owner myself, I feel certain companionship and support from my dog. However, I dare say my dog would not be a good participant in the canine companionship program. Zero clearly has a level of training and mastery of instructions and commands that my dog does not have to be able to work in a courtroom. It is important that this program is there to support people, and obviously Zero has excelled in the ability to make sure that it can work within the justice system.

Zero has been trained to assist certain distressed or vulnerable witnesses who are compelled to give evidence. Canine court companions are able to calm and reassure witnesses in court who may have to recount a highly traumatic experience. Other jurisdictions demonstrate how effective canine court companions can be.

The USA and Canada have used dogs in witness boxes since 2003: 37 American states have used service dogs in courtrooms, while six states have legislated to give witnesses the right to have a dog with them while giving evidence. American studies have shown that the use of dogs to assist victims and witnesses has led to more supported witnesses with lower levels of stress. This leads to better evidence, and benefits the entire justice system.

The DPP's pilot canine court companion program allows Zero to attend witness proofings at DPP offices, but he cannot accompany witnesses as they give evidence in court. It is very disappointing that that has not been able to occur. This bill seeks to remove any doubt about the use of a canine court companion, and ensures that courts can make an order that a witness can be accompanied by a dog while giving evidence at a trial. The bill amends section 4 of the act to define a canine court companion as a dog accredited by Guide Dogs SA/NT, or another authority prescribed by regulations. This ensures that canine court companions are certified therapy dogs.

The bill also amends existing provisions under sections 13 and 13A of the act, to permit canine court companions to accompany witnesses who give evidence in court. Under the act, section 13 relates to orders that a court can make to protect witnesses from embarrassment, distress or intimidation in a courtroom. Section 13A covers similar orders a court can make for vulnerable witnesses who give evidence in court. Both sections 13 and 13A currently allow a court to order that a witness can be accompanied by a relative or friend for emotional support.

The bill amends these sections to add that a canine court companion may also accompany a witness. The bill allows for dog handlers to be present when a witness is giving evidence with a canine court companion. To avoid prejudicial effects on a criminal trial, the bill proposes that canine court companions should not be visible to a jury or on video recordings when a witness gives evidence. It will be interesting to see how that is applied in practice to make sure that that can occur. As such, the bill also allows canine court companions like Zero to enter courtrooms and accompany witnesses in a courtroom.

The bill amends section 12AB of the act, relating to pre-trial special hearings. It amends subsection (1)(b) and introduces a new subsection (6a) to expressly allow for canine court companions and their handlers in pre-trial special hearings. More significantly, this bill amends section 12AB of the act to address tensions between section 12AB and section 13BA. Currently, section 12AB permits a court to arrange for a vulnerable witness to give evidence at a pre-trial special hearing for serious offences against the person, or offences like contravening intervention orders.

Pre-trial special hearings must be recorded. Section 13BA enables the court 'in the trial of a charge of an offence' to order that recordings of investigative interviews under the Summary Offences Act 1953 or of evidence given in pre-trial special hearings can be admissible as evidence. However, section 13BA only empowers the court to admit recorded evidence at trial and not in a pre-trial hearing.

Issues can arise after a vulnerable witness gives evidence at a pre-trial special hearing because a court must determine later at trial whether the evidence is admissible. If a court finds the recorded evidence inadmissible later at trial, the vulnerable witness must then be called to re-testify, defeating the purpose of a protective pre-trial hearing provision (section 12AB).

The bill seeks to limit vulnerable witnesses from having to retestify at trial by amending section 12AB(13) in clause 5(9) to state that at a pre-trial special hearing the court may make orders pursuant to section 13BA about recorded evidence at a pre-trial special hearing and/or the admission of recorded evidence of an investigative interview under the Summary Offences Act 1953.

The bill amends section 13BA so that courts can order the admission of an audiovisual record of the witness examination at a pre-trial special hearing while at the special hearing. It also clarifies that recordings of pre-trial special hearings and investigative interviews under the Summary Offences Act 1953 can be admitted by the court if they are satisfied of the witness's capacity and give a respondent a reasonable opportunity to view the recording.

The bill also inserts new section 12AC, which states that orders made by a court at a pre-trial special hearing, under section 13BA, about the admission of a witness's evidence recording are subject to certain conditions. These are:

section 12AC(2) states that section 13BA orders are not binding if a party applies by citing matters or fact that have arisen after the order was made at a pre-trial special hearing;

section 12AC(3) states that witnesses cannot be re-examined at trial except where there are further facts or matters after the pre-trial order was made or if it is in the interests of justice; and

an amendment to section 67H defines 'sensitive material' as recordings or transcripts of evidence given in pre-trial special hearings or investigative interviews under the Summary Offences Act 1953.

If you followed all the intricacies there, which I am sure you have, Mr Acting Speaker, clearly this is an intricate arrangement in terms of the Evidence Act. Some very important changes were made in the 2015 legislation, but this seeks to address a number of details about how that works, particularly in relation to pre-trial proceedings, while also allowing for the canine court companion program.

I think it is worth looking at some of the history of how this came about in terms of the support for vulnerable witnesses. Labor has a history of supporting measures like these. SA Labor passed laws to support vulnerable witnesses in 2015. This bill builds on Labor's earlier work. The Statutes Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Bill was introduced by John Rau, then Attorney-General. At the time, he noted the importance of making the state criminal justice system more accessible and responsive to the needs and interests of victims and witnesses who are children or people with a disability.

Building upon the wider Disability Justice Plan at the time, the 2015 Labor bill sought the consultation and advice of the disability sector to introduce the reforms. Within this reform, the 2015 Labor bill inserted new sections 12AB and 13BA. Though I acknowledge we are now clarifying the operation of sections 12AB and 13BA, introducing these measures was a landmark step at the time. As the Attorney-General now has noted, the then Liberal opposition supported the provisions when they were introduced by Labor.

In summary, Labor supports this bill. We must ensure equity of access for children and people with disability when they interact with the court system. While balancing the rights of defendants to a fair trial, we must also support people who may be vulnerable while they give evidence in criminal proceedings. It is critical that people who are considered vulnerable witnesses receive the support they need to maintain an accessible justice system in South Australia.

In conclusion, having said how important the canine court companion program is in relation to the court process and how Zero has been such an important player now within our courts, DPP and justice system—hopefully that is going to expand, and I would certainly be interested to hear from the Attorney-General whether there are plans and funding for that program to expand beyond Zero—this comes at the same time as the parliament has banned canines within this building. A wonderful dog named Dusty, a survivor of the Kangaroo Island bushfires, was donated to the member for Mawson. From time to time, the member has brought Dusty in to meet with schoolchildren from his electorate. Dusty has now been banned from parliament.

As I think the member for Mawson has said, this is not the biggest issue in the world, and he will obviously comply with the ban. I certainly think it is disappointing for children and other people who come for tours from Kangaroo Island and elsewhere within the Mawson electorate that we are not making this building a similarly accessible place for people to bring canines in the same way that we are now doing in the courts system.

I presume and hope that parliament would allow assistance dogs into the premises, and I have no evidence that this has ever been a problem. Clearly we need to have proper consideration of how animals and humans can interact in government buildings, and we can all gain benefit from the fellowship of animals, particularly canines, that are well trained and supportive of many people. This is where this bill is important and I think it is going to add a lot to our justice system.

I also note from my time as the corrections minister that we had a great program in relation to greyhounds that started in our prisons under the previous Labor government. Sadly, there are a lot of issues in terms of what happens to greyhounds after they have finished life as a racing dog. This great program is being run to make sure that they can be retrained so that they can be adopted and find new homes and new families to look after them.

Starting at the Women's Prison, but now expanding to men's prisons as well, the Greyhound Adoption Program that is run within our prisons has met a number of important objectives. It has helped prisoners in terms of responsibility, in that they manage the program and look after those dogs. This has obviously helped their education and responsibility within the corrections system. We obviously want to make sure that people are rehabilitated and that they have access to education because the vast majority will be released from prison eventually.

The program is also great for the animals because they go through that retraining and then they will be able to find another home. I think the program has also been noted to help the prison environment generally. Having those dogs within the prison has added to a sense of calm, a sense of camaraderie and a sense of care within the prison. There is a great documentary, which I would implore everybody to watch, of the program as it was running in the Adelaide Women's Prison. When I was the corrections minister, I was lucky enough to be there for its expansion to Mobilong Prison on the outskirts of Murray Bridge. Hopefully, we can continue to see that program expand.

It is just another example of how animals and humans within the justice system have been able to work together for everyone's benefit. We are seeing that expand with Zero and, hopefully, more people in our court process and prosecution service, and I think there are more areas in which we can see that expand in the future.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (12:23): I rise to wholeheartedly support the Evidence (Vulnerable Witnesses) Amendment Bill 2020. I thank the Attorney-General once again for her work on this important and compassionate bill. It is excellent to hear that we have support for this bill from the opposition as well.

The bill amends the Evidence Act 1929 to provide for canine court companions to accompany witnesses while they give evidence and to make clearer provisions regarding pre-trial special hearings and the admission of prerecorded evidence. Since May 2018, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has undertaken a canine court companions project as part of its ongoing work in assisting vulnerable witnesses. This project has been developed in conjunction with the Guide Dogs of South Australia and Northern Territory.

The presence of dogs has been shown to provide comfort and support for people dealing with trauma. Having a canine court companion present while recounting traumatic events has been proven to decrease anxiety and heart rate, increasing memory function and mental clarity. This calming effect will help vulnerable witnesses deliver better evidence.

Zero, the first canine court companion to be approved, has received overwhelmingly positive feedback. The next stage will involve using canine court companions to give comfort to witnesses in waiting areas of the courts prior to them giving evidence. The final stage will be the use of canine court companions in the courtroom while witnesses give evidence. If the bill passes parliament, canine court companions will be introduced to court gradually, initially providing comfort throughout the whole court process.

The canine court companions are not to be visible in any visual record of the evidence, or to a jury, to minimise any possible prejudicial effect that the presence of the dog might have. Zero has been expertly trained to be calm and quiet, providing emotional support to victims of crime in the gentlest of ways.

The second part of the bill remedies difficulties relating to the interaction between sections 12AB and 13BA of the Evidence Act. These sections were designed to facilitate the taking of evidence of vulnerable witnesses as early as possible in the criminal process and to minimise the number of times they are required to give evidence. We can all understand how traumatic giving evidence could be to a vulnerable witness.

Section 12AB gives the court power to conduct pre-trial special hearings to take evidence of a child or a person with a disability for the purposes of a trial involving a serious offence against the person, or an offence of contravention or failing to comply with an intervention or restraining order. Section 13BA gives the court power to order that evidence be admitted in the form of an audiovisual record of an investigative interview made pursuant to the Summary Offences Act 1953, or evidence given in a pre-trial special hearing.

Currently, the court only has power to admit the recorded evidence in the trial, meaning that any application relating to the admission of such evidence cannot be determined at the time of the pre-trial special hearings. As a result, vulnerable witnesses may be required to give evidence afresh at the trial if the investigative interview is later ruled inadmissible. These provisions were introduced by the former Labor government and this is yet another example of their defective legislation needing to be fixed by our Marshall Liberal government.

The provisions in the bill will rectify this by enabling the court to make orders, at a pre-trial special hearing, admitting the recorded evidence and enabling such orders to be binding on the trial court. Discretion will be used by the trial court to order that this is not to be the case based on matters arising becoming known between the pre-trial special hearings and the trial. To sum up why we are doing this, the bill aims to reduce the trauma experienced by children, people with disabilities and other vulnerable witnesses when participating in the criminal justice system.

Canine companions are very important. Zero has already helped more than 100 people during meetings since becoming the state's first canine companion in 2018. If someone is scratching, starting to rock with anxiety, starts crying or puts their head in their hand, the dog will pick up on these strong emotions from people and in a kind and gentle way will offer its support in the most challenging of times.

The bill delivers on the Marshall Liberal government's key justice priority to protect South Australians and put care around our most vulnerable witnesses. It is heartwarming to hear the support from across the chamber. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (12:29): I also would like to reiterate the support from the opposition's point of view for this very important bill and acknowledge the daily struggle of people living in our community who are sitting under the banner of 'vulnerable'. I remind members that vulnerability often comes because of the policies that are put in place as a consequence of the legislation of the government of the day. This piece of legislation, while it contains the word 'vulnerable', is aiming to strengthen and improve the capacity of people living in our community who are potentially vulnerable or actually vulnerable at the time.

Going through a process of the justice system can often be especially challenging for everybody in our community, but if you have some challenges such as being of a young age, experiencing trauma or having any type of disability, of course it will be even more difficult. I have spoken in support of aspects of court support programs and vulnerable witness programs previously and have drawn on many experiences of working with people in the community in health care and disability over my working life who have a number of varied challenges, which makes this experience all the more difficult for them. I celebrate the introduction of this program to support those types of people.

I think there is a whole range of things that can be done to support people through the justice program. While I applaud the special arrangements that will be in place as a consequence of this legislation, I think it would be remiss of me not to remind members of the cuts that happened earlier this year out of the Attorney-General's own department for a very important program called the Communication Partner Service, which was run out of Uniting Communities.

I have spoken about this very important program which, at a cost of a little over $300,000 per annum, for four years provided support for well over 300 people to access the justice system in a much more dignified, inclusive and confident way. This program started in late June 2016 and was designed to assist people with a disability to access the court system. It ended in February 2020. There is a report that members might like to access through the Uniting Communities website. If you are not able to, I am very happy to provide all members with a copy of that.

This program, starting in 2016, was a Labor initiative as part of the state's Disability Justice Plan. This plan was established on a statutory basis, under the Statutes Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Act 2015, which I was very pleased to contribute to. The program itself sought referrals from a number of groups such as SAPOL, the DPP, many defence lawyers, court affiliates and some directly from family and support workers in our community.

Those organisations do not all have the direct capacity to support people they love, people they work with and people who are presented as a consequence of an issue with the law to be able to support them. This service, which predominantly had volunteers at its front, was a way of attaching somebody to build that relationship and allow support for the person navigating the court system. There are excellent results and stories to be read in the report, and I thank Sarah Watson and Simon Schrapel and all the amazing volunteers at Uniting Communities who have headed up that program for four years.

In a nutshell, as I understand it, the recommendation out of the Attorney-General's Department was to flip this model of a program, overarchingly funded, to Uniting Communities, which is then operated by the volunteers underneath as a fee-for-service type model, where SAPOL or the DPP or a lawyer and their firm would seek the assistance of these skilled workers from Uniting Communities and pay for that level of support for their client or the person who presented to them.

It is a sad report to deliver to the parliament that not one person has accessed it under that model. I would urge the Attorney-General, who has a great understanding of people with disability and the challenges, to look at a reversal of that decision, along with this great piece of legislation, and a remodelling to a large degree of that fee-for-service type arrangement because it does not seem to have been something that is able to be picked up for whatever reason. I would urge a review and, as part of this process, to look at how that could be reinstated.

We are in a time when disability, mental health and other health matters should all be looked at and we should be making decisions to ensure the community and all the services provided in the community, whether it is from a public or private point of view, are fully accessible. As part of that, the Disability Inclusion Act is currently rolling out a whole range of Disability Access and Inclusion Plans from all authorities, government departments and local government departments as well. We have seen a flurry of these appear lately with two-week consultation periods.

To quote Kelly Vincent in a video that she has made talking about the difficulties in delivering their report from the task force following the death of Annie Smith, I would have to say that people with disability often need a little bit longer to consider things. Consultation on a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan for two weeks for people with a disability trying to look at how to make these departments—behemoths like health and transport and important justice departments like the court system—make decisions about whether or not those access plans are going to be effective in improving access? I just fail to see how that is an appropriate length of time.

But from a broader point of view, there are two things: there is access and how we as leaders in our community ensure access and equity in our community. In terms of justice, $4.8 million was cut from Legal Aid in the 2018-19 budget. We have a one-off $2.3 million of funding coming from the commonwealth that we hope will provide some relief, but what is the vision for the long term when you see things like $1.7 million going from public safety?

We have seen $780,000 taken out of the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service. We have seen $2.3 million slashed from the Victim Support Service in May this year, which has resulted in the closure of critical regional offices. All of these things contribute towards justice and equity for people with disability, young people and people who are living on the breadline or below who do not have access to the funds to be able to self-manage some of this advocacy.

There are two huge, important organisations that I know have been defunded in the last couple of years under the Liberal government, which has made it very difficult for people to seek justice. I refer members to the Welfare Rights Centre and to the Housing Legal Clinic. All these things make for justice. They make for equity and they help with access, and sadly we have seen so many cuts happen that this piece of legislation—while it is welcomed—barely brushes the surface of justice.

We need to see reversal of these other cuts, we need to see reinstatement of communication partner programs, we also need to see more noise being made in terms of the equal opportunity issues that we see in our community. I know that I would not be the only member of parliament who has seen or been told about taxis turning up—mostly Ubers as well—to people with guide dogs and the car scooting off down the road, refusing to pick up a dog.

There are other issues that we need to address as well. I know of people with disability who use wheelchairs for mobility who simply just cannot get into their local hairdresser for a haircut because the hairdresser cannot afford to do the modification to the building to allow for a ramp to allow access through the door. I think that the government can take some leadership on this. The opposition would certainly support that and work cooperatively around a dive into what is true equal opportunity and true access in our community.

I would like to reiterate that I support this bill wholeheartedly. I thank all people in the community who work very hard to ensure that people who have become vulnerable because of a situation or a policy or legislation are able to access support to get real justice in our community. I urge the government to enhance this capacity to access justice by reversing some of these budget cuts that have happened and that have shut very useful and hardworking organisations where we have lost the capacity to support everyone. I commend the bill.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Hurtle Vale. I apologise—I had Fisher on my mind knowing that was incorrect.

Ms COOK: It is history.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): History that is. If the Attorney speaks, she closes the debate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:42): I thank all members for the contributions they have made and indications of support for the passage of this bill. I agree with the member for Kaurna that when social media shots include our court companion elect, Zero, in the publication the attention from the public skyrockets. He is extremely popular. It probably just means they are not too interested in me, but nevertheless the significance is that there is overwhelming love and appreciation for animals. Dogs enjoy this, and when they do an extra special thing to assist members of the community who are more vulnerable it has an even greater effect.

The Zero effect is not only one which is seen on social media by the general public but is one which provides a great warmth in his addition as the most-loved employee of the DPPs office, I think. I mention his handler, Darren Evans, and some other supporters who provide supplementary supervision. He never answers back and he is very compliant in his duties.

I understand that, in response to the member's inquiry as to whether this is going to be a service that is expanded, there is still room in his diary for further appointment, but I would hope, of course, that an increased demand certainly would need to be monitored to identify whether there is an extra need for this resource because it has been so demonstrably positive and effective, and therefore we will bear that in mind. At the moment, he still has spots in his diary and we would not be needing to look at others to supplement.

It is fair to say that we have canine support, particularly in the police area of drug supervision and detection, so there are lots of areas where we already have that advice. The Premier, who is the veterans minister in this state, has been very proudly part of the development of Canine Companions support, particularly for those who have returned from service in the forces and are suffering PTS. That has been a remarkable advance for those who have provided testimony of their appreciation for having this support.

Of course it is an expensive procedure, and we rely on the Guide Dogs SA/NT to assist us in this regard. The training of the animals must be at a very high standard. It is an expensive process but it is one which we have found in a number of areas of work, whether it is the detection of drugs, the provision of support, the mental wellbeing of veterans or, in this instance, the taking of evidence from witnesses and victims to support the DPP's role in relation to prosecution of criminal matters.

All of these have great advantage, and I can agree and confirm that in particular the benefit to children has been immeasurable. I always think it is rather sad if children during their general growing up are not exposed to animals and the opportunity to have pets—and not just dogs—because obviously this is a wonderful opportunity for children to learn about not only the value of animals but also the interdependent relationship in providing support, care and shelter for their pet, and this is all part of children's development.

It always saddens me if I walk along the beach and I see a dog frolicking and a child in response, apparently terrified, rushing off to their parent on the beach, clearly indicating to me at least that the child is scared of animals. That may be because they have had no exposure to them, it may be that they have had a negative experience, but it always makes me feel a bit sad that there has not been some way to provide children with a pleasant and beneficial exposure to animals. Nevertheless, even the most disturbed and distressed child can respond to an animal who is trained to approach them gently and help them through to relax and provide reliable and useful evidence then to prosecute cases in which they are either a victim or witness.

It is an invaluable role. I cannot speak highly enough of Darren and Zero, and we will look at how his workload continues and we will of course review those matters. There is another program in Victoria, and I think I have already advised the house on another occasion that the dog that was providing canine support in Victoria has recently retired or its retirement has been announced, so at times we will need to review how these things work and how we can change and enhance them.

At the moment, Zero is a high-rise dog. He is part of the DPP's office, which is in a building of 19 storeys. He has his play area and rest area and, as I say, he is a valuable resource to us. I want to say thank you to the Chief Justice and the judiciary generally, particularly counsel, who of course have been consulted about the access of Zero or an approved canine court companion into the courts to provide this service because they, too, need to provide accommodation for the entry of an animal in these circumstances.

That is something that we can only do with their support. The Sheriff's Officers and court staff will also need to be mindful that he may be present in court hearings or in waiting rooms where people are waiting to give evidence, etc.

In short, he is a valuable asset. We love him. I am deeply distressed that, on inquiry as to whether I could nominate he and Darren for a Public Service Medal, unfortunately canines are not eligible. Apparently, it has to be a human. That is a bit sad; I will have to think about how I might remedy that. In any event, dogs do provide a valuable service in lots of ways. I think that in some way, at some times, we need to recognise that. Certainly, at the commonwealth level they have an extra role in airports, usually for drug detection, illicit imports, food and things of that nature.

They do a great job in lots of ways. I remember the Hon. Amanda Vanstone was a former minister in charge of Customs. I think she used to give an annual award to her canines for their service in relation to detection and customs surveillance for that job. I think the benefits are obvious, so a big thanks to the judiciary and the Courts Administration Authority for their support in allowing this to be facilitated. With the passage of this bill, we can get on with that being advanced.

May I briefly address a response to matters raised by the member for Hurtle Vale. I think she is the only person in the parliament who has an electorate name that includes the geographical basis upon which it was provided. It could have just been Hurtle, which would have recognised the person who is responsible for the naming in the Hurtle Vale area. I am not quite sure even today why she still has 'Vale' in the Hurtle Vale name; nevertheless, unusual as it is, I recognise that.

She raised some concerns about the importance of recognising other services assisting vulnerable witnesses and/or persons with a disability who might be accessing the justice system. We have as a state—I think it was finally the Premier who signed on the state's behalf—a new legal assistance agreement. It has provided a powerful new basis for legal aid to the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the Legal Services Commission and our community legal centres. I am very proud that has been achieved. Yes, it has provided the uplift of the one-off payment that the member has referred to but also an ongoing increased provision of legal services funding.

There has been reference to the court assessment program. I just remind members on the other side of these changes in approach. That is a program that continues between the Commissioner for Victims' Rights and the Legal Services Commission. The Victim Support Service had a contract to provide for a significant legal service, which has been put out to tender, and the Legal Services Commission still provide that. The support in relation to court assistance is now both funded by and under the supervision of the Commissioner for Victims' Rights' office.

I know the member has been concerned about particular agencies losing the funding in relation to these matters, but these services do prevail, and a number of those are now covered by Relationships Australia, the Legal Services Commission and the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. The member raises another matter, the coordination for the Communication Partner Service. She is quite correct: Uniting Communities did receive funding to employ a coordinator to deal with this matter.

There was a development, after the vulnerable witness legislation was passed under the previous government, to establish a cohort of trained people as volunteers to be able to provide this service. That has occurred. There are a number within the government. It turned out that the principal amount of work that they were called upon to do was from SAPOL, largely when someone who was in a vulnerable circumstance might be called in either as a defendant, as a victim or as a witness.

The police would need assistance to be able to ensure that they got the full picture from the person who was vulnerable. Whether they are being accused of something or whether they have been a victim of something, this is an important initiative, I agree. SAPOL are the biggest users of this, as I understand it.

The funding in relation to that discontinued on the basis of two things. Firstly, there was a significant cohort of people available to undertake this service. Some of those are in government already, and they would continue to be available. I will look into the issue that the member raises that nobody has used this service since because I would be concerned if there has been no utilisation, particularly by SAPOL, because they were the biggest users before. I will have a look at that.

Secondly, in regard to the equal opportunity of persons with a disability, I, too, totally agree with the member for Hurtle Vale. For five years—three years before I came into the job in government—the single-biggest issue identified for people being discriminated against in relation to employment and access to education at schools and universities was disability, not by a little bit, not by a reasonable amount, but by a smashingly high amount. It is beyond my understanding as to why, frankly, more has not been done to deal with this. This is been a priority since I have taken over as Attorney-General. It is the single biggest issue of the level of complaint in relation to this area, and it has to be addressed.

I started to work with the equal opportunity commissioner—as you know, she has just recently taken up a position in Victoria—and with the acting equal opportunity commissioner. This has been on the agenda at our first meeting. So I agree that we need to do more in this area and particularly in relation to employment and access to education, which has demonstrably been a concern in the community and which apparently has not had a lot of attention. I want to assure the member for Hurtle Vale that it is under my watch. I know the Premier is very interested in this area, and it will be something that we will continue to pursue.

In relation to the other matters as to the upgrade in regard to the pre-trial special hearings, nobody else has raised any other questions on those, so I do not propose to revisit them. They are still important initiatives, and we look forward to the passage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.