Bills

Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Application Fees) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 November).

The Hon. J.B. TEAGUE (Heysen—Minister for Planning and Local Government) (11:56): I rise to address the bill and I am pleased to indicate to the house that there has been some considerable and productive work involving the mover and the government. I can just indicate that the desired outcome of the bill is the removal of the imposition of application fees in circumstances where an applicant victim of domestic violence is seeking such an order.

The effect of the bill as it is presently drafted is, and I think unintentionally so might be the way to describe the matter, would cover a broader range of circumstances than is intended. The result of the work that has been done back and forth is that the removal of these fees in circumstances of domestic abuse will be done by way of fees notice and that that will be implemented just as soon as possible and certainly very early in the new year.

I wish to, in these circumstances, put on the record the very good work of the Attorney-General over recent months and also the good work of the member for Reynell in responding to what we know are circumstances in which the vast bulk of applicants are experiencing a two-step process at the moment. They need to go ahead to make an application for a fee waiver, and the fee waiver is being granted in the vast bulk of the circumstances that we are talking about but, at the very least, applicants are being put through a process which is unnecessary.

What I would like to perhaps observe is that this waiver by way of fees notice will have the effect, hopefully, of saving the administrative process, giving peace of mind to those applicants and also ensuring that the state's courts administration can retain the capacity to be precise in terms of providing the waiver and so the unintended categories of an applicant might still be the subject of fees in appropriate circumstances.

I have given my undertaking to the member for Reynell to continue to work through this. There will be correspondence today to that effect, and I can give an indication of my assurance to the house that the introduction of the fees notice to address these matters will be done as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

Perhaps, with those words in terms of setting the overall circumstances in which the matter is to be addressed, I might indicate to the house that what we are here addressing is the fees that are applicable in a range of circumstances of abuse that are the subject of the 2009 act. That includes circumstances of domestic violence. The act also covers other circumstances of abuse.

The act also addresses those circumstances in which an application to vary or withdraw an intervention order might be made. We know that applications to vary or withdraw are, in a large number of cases, brought by a perpetrator. They may also be brought by a victim in circumstances of coercion, and so there is a need to navigate what can be a complex landscape.

I highlight in particular that question about that secondary process, if you like, of an application to vary or withdraw that might be initiated by a perpetrator or might otherwise come to the court in circumstances beyond what we are all endeavouring to achieve, and that is to make sure that a victim of domestic violence is not in any way suffering any administrative, financial or other hurdle in bringing forward their application.

The result of the work that has been done over recent months, including over recent days, is that that will be done in a way that I can, I think, report to the house is embraced by the Courts Administration Authority and can be embraced here by all members. I give the house again my assurance that in the days and weeks ahead I will continue to work closely with the member for Reynell with a view to implementing that fees notice expeditiously.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr Harvey.