Bills

Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Section 31 Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The SPEAKER: Minister, if you speak you will close the debate.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:32): Indeed, Mr Speaker. I just spoke at length before the lunch break, so I will not elaborate at length, but I will say thank you very much to the Attorney-General in the other place, the Hon. Kyam Maher, for his expeditious and thorough work to draft, with the support of the Attorney-General's Office and the others I mentioned previously, and expedite this really important legislation that we debate today.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: The orders that are the subject of section 13 programs are in respect of all of the purposes and objects of the headline act, including problem gambling and tenancy. Domestic abuse has been referred to at length, of course, in the second reading as well as non-domestic abuse and other purposes. My first question is: to what extent is there data available, and can the minister advise the committee about the range and scope of section 13 programs that have been made available over the relevant period, that is, on the one hand the life of the act, but more particularly the period during which it has been said the charge has been erroneously applied?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you to the member for the question. As I am sure he is aware, the programs he refers to are administered by the court in terms of which particular programs a defendant is directed toward. I can certainly say broadly that those programs deeply focus on perpetrator intervention, the desire to shift attitudes that lead to disrespect and violence toward women. In terms of naming each of those programs that the court has directed particular defendants toward, I can certainly speak at length about the content of those programs but to actually name each of those programs that a range of organisations run, including non-government organisations, we would certainly have to provide the member with a list of those programs. But I can say broadly that they focus on that shifting attitude and behaviour.

I would also add that from opposition just a few years ago, we did understand that there was not a severe enough penalty for those who did not attend those particular programs, so at that time from opposition, unfortunately, the then government did not immediately support the bill that I put forward but, after some time, and after the Independents at that time supported that bill, we did increase penalties through that bill for non-attendance at those programs.

We did that because we know that those programs in terms of shifting attitudes and behaviours that lead to disrespect and violence towards women are incredibly important in our quest to help prevent the terrible scourge of domestic, family and sexual violence. I can speak at length about the content, the reason why, the measures that we took from opposition and, indeed, that we have taken since being in government to support those programs and to toughen penalties for non-attendance, but to name each of those programs, I will make sure that we get that list to the member if that is what he is looking for.

Mr TEAGUE: I am happy to have the names of the programs. We are in the committee with this technical task of identifying matters that are going to result from the particular changes, so I am endeavouring to get to that rather more directly. Perhaps this is a way of repeating the question. As we know, the section 13 intervention programs are applicable to the range of purposes to which the act is directed, and there has certainly been a focus on the domestic violence aspects of the operation of the bill. The question goes to whether or not, and if so how widespread and how much, the subject of offences under section 31(1) are each of those programs.

For example, the minister might be able to inform the committee that this is wholly and solely a matter for domestic violence programs that are the subject of section 13, but it may well be the case and it would certainly assist the committee to know the extent to which intervention programs have been directed in circumstances other than domestic violence, for example, and if so have been in turn the subject of section 31(1) prosecutions.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: This work, as I outlined in my second reading speech, was all about making sure that where those offences had been inappropriately or mistakenly recorded as 31(1) offences rather than 31(2) offences that particular error was rectified. That has been the focus of this piece of work, and rightly so, to fix the error that had occurred over those years.

In terms of taking research into for what other reasons people had been subject to intervention orders, outside of domestic violence or domestic abuse, that has not been the subject of this particular bill, but I can certainly speak to the Attorney-General directly and ascertain that information in terms of the numbers of intervention orders that people have become subject to that relate to matters that are not domestic abuse.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that on both fronts and look forward to the minister providing both sets of information on notice. I look forward to those responses. Just to be clear, there is nothing on the face of the bill that goes, as I read it—and I stand to be corrected—to any particular function of the act. If it is the case that this is a matter that is dominated by, or indeed wholly and solely related to, issues about the prosecution in domestic abuse circumstances, then I am glad to hear that.

Otherwise, on the face of the act, the act has the range of purposes providing for intervention orders in those range of circumstances that I have spelled out. They are on the face of the long title of the act, and so perhaps the overarching question might be put another way: how many prosecutions have there been over the course of the relevant period that has been identified, and of those, how many, if any, are in circumstances other than domestic abuse intervention orders?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am not really sure which clause the member is relating the particular question to, but I will refer the member back to my speech where I spelled out these issues. We know that there were 771 particular charges. In terms of the deeper breakdown of the nature of those particular types of breaches, that is not work that has been done in relation to this bill.

The focus of this bill, as I spoke about at length—and this time, hopefully, the member can take this on—is on making sure that an error is rectified. So women, on the whole and in the majority, who have potentially felt or been unsafe as a result of this particular issue that we now rectify, this bill is about supporting those women and making sure that that error is rectified. That is the purpose of it.

The government taking this forward absolutely speaks to our stringent and enduring focus on addressing this particular range of issues. We have a very proud record of doing so. We will continue to focus, as we should, on making up for that lack of action over the last four years of the previous government, where particular bills were not supported and action was not taken. We will continue to make sure that we focus on these matters, as we should.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): It is longstanding practice that at clause 1 of a piece of legislation, more general questions about the policy decisions that took place before the bill was enacted are allowed. Are there further questions? You have had three questions already, member for Heysen. We will allow you to have one more, if you like.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you. I appreciate it. There are plenty of occasions on which one might compare and contrast or highlight policy responses.

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard: Like you did in the speech.

Mr TEAGUE: Exactly. That is the occasion, as is the—

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: That might be something we come back to in the third reading. I appreciate the opportunity just to make clear the nature of the question, and if answers are not available straightaway, then I understand, and I appreciate the two matters that the minister has taken on notice so far.

Just to be clear, and in the context of circumstances in which section 31(1) concerns actions for breach of that part of an intervention order that concerns an intervention program, what I am concerned to identify for the benefit of the committee is the range of such intervention programs and the range of charges for offences in a variety of circumstances. I just give the example of a problem gambling circumstance in which an intervention order is applied, together with the possibility of section 13 measures.

I am very conscious of the fact that section 31 provides, among other penalties, for expiation. In terms of getting to the question the subject matter of which I well and truly foreshadowed in the second reading, I am interested to identify the prevalence of circumstances in which intervention programs are applied in the range of different circumstances, because it will in turn inform the committee and inform the wider community about the application of the act, and particularly section 13, and the scope with which police have been applying their operational process in terms of charging matters under section 31(1) where section 31(2) was appropriate.

Now, if that is happening wholly and solely in domestic abuse circumstances, then it is good to know about it. I suggest it is important to have that on the public record, if not immediately then on notice. If the minister has nothing to add now then so be it, and I would appreciate the minister taking that matter on notice.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am not taking the question on notice again. It has already been asked and I have already fulsomely answered the question and certainly advised that we would endeavour to provide a list of the range of programs in relation to the different sorts of matters for which an intervention order may be applied. I have been very clear that the majority are for domestic violence-related offences, but I have already undertaken to provide a list. I do not see anything new whatsoever in this particular set of questions.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 3 is a convenient point to address the question that I foreshadowed during the second reading debate, and that is whether or not it is known that there is clear air in terms of the prosecution of aggravated offences subject to section 31(2), or if they have all been caught up, or if it is not known. Where there is an intended charge for an offence against section 31(2) that is aggravated, have those all been caught, in which case can comfort be provided including to those who are protected on the face of the intervention order?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: This is an area that I am deeply familiar with, having looked into the particular strengthening of penalties through the work that we did from opposition. As I understand it, the member is asking how many of the incorrect charges were actually contraventions of the aggravated form of the section 31(2) breach of an intervention order offence. The aggravated form of the section 31(2) offence, which attracts a higher maximum penalty in circumstances where there was a reasonable likelihood that a child would be exposed to the conduct constituting the offence, was only introduced by an amendment to the act which took effect from April 2022.

As I said, I am very familiar with that because that is the work that we progressed from opposition. The charging error was conclusively rectified, as I set out in my second reading speech, from May 2019. Therefore, none of the affected defendants could have, of course, been charged with the aggravated form of the section 31(2) offence, because it simply was not in existence at all at the relevant time.

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks for that answer. It serves to highlight the relevant periods of time. There is no risk therefore of anything other than the charge involving a disparity between the penalty for the basic offence under section 31(2) and the maximum penalty under section 31(1).

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think I am giving a similar answer to what I gave for the last question. The offences that a particular defendant was charged with attracted the penalties that were relevant at that time. As I said, this matter that we addressed in terms of rectifying the inaccuracies in charging was resolved by May 2019, so because these aggravated penalties did not exist at that time—I feel like I have already answered this question; I am not sure if there is a way to reframe it—they were charged and attracted the appropriate penalties at the time. On 4 April 2022, from memory, this new amendment to the act strengthened penalties specifically for breaches of domestic violence-related intervention orders. That was not actually in existence at the time when these charges were first made. If there is another aspect to the question, please let me know.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Would you like to rephrase the question, member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. The answer to the first question is that the section 31(2)(b) aggravated offence did not come into existence until after the problem period—I got that, loud and clear. The answer to the second question is really more one of reassurance. I think the short answer is yes. The point is that it is not for me; I am asking the question.

We are dealing with the history of the legislation that has applied since 2011 at least. All I am doing is asking for clarity in terms of the known maximum penalty for a breach of section 31(1). At present it is two years' imprisonment. The known maximum penalty for a breach of section 31(2)(a) basic offence is three years, as I understand it. We have dealt with that in question one.

With regard to the one-year difference that applies right now in terms of the difference between the basic offence in section 31(2) and the offence in section 31(1), has that applied at all relevant times and, therefore, are we able to confirm, advise the committee, that we are at all relevant times talking about a disparity of one year in terms of the maximum imprisonment that is available pursuant to either of those offences? That is my understanding.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will talk about the penalties during the period when those who were subject to those incorrect charging matters would have committed the offence, so the relevant period. During the period 9 December 2011 to May 2019, the relevant penalties were: for a breach of section 31(1), an expiation fee of $160 or a fine of $1,250. For a breach of section 31(2), it was two years' imprisonment or a fine of $10,000.

As I spoke about earlier, the Labor opposition and now the Labor government, has a long and proud history of reform that helps to prevent domestic, family and sexual violence. During the course of opposition, we moved a bill to strengthen penalties for breaches of intervention orders. We did that work. It was initially rejected by the then Liberal government, of which the member was a part. It was rejected and rejected and then the crossbench supported the bill and it passed. At that time, when that piece of legislation came into effect, the relevant penalties changed. That time was after the time when those incorrect charges were attributed to particular defendants, the 700 defendants we have spoken about.

Mr TEAGUE: Can I add, for what it is worth, that, as I understand it, the section 13 provisions, the subject of the headline act, were introduced in 2015. Section 13 at least was amended in a couple of different ways in 2015. I guess what I am looking for is an indication, again I think it is clear enough, that notwithstanding changes to section 13 along the way and notwithstanding the introduction of the aggravated offence, at all relevant times, the difference in the maximum penalty that is associated with what we will call the erroneous charge, is a year. That might have varied over the period. If so, let's hear it.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: It is not correct to say that the difference was a year because there was not a penalty at that time. As I have spoken about at length, we changed that to strengthen penalties but there was not a period of time of imprisonment in the original penalty. Does that make sense?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. So what was it?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): The minister has already indicated that.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will say it again. I will read it again. During the period 9 December 2011 to May 2019, the relevant penalties were: for a breach of section 31(1), so the programs, etc., non-attendance, etc., an expiation fee of $160 or a fine of $1,250. Fora breach of section 31(2), the penalty was two years' imprisonment or a fine of $10,000.

I was so disappointed that the then Liberal government did not initially support it. The reason I strengthened those penalties was because we know that often when an intervention order is first made that can be an incredibly dangerous period for a woman who is a survivor, who has taken that courageous step to apply for an intervention order; we know that that is a really dangerous time in terms of reoffending.

The reason that I moved legislation to strengthen the penalties was to act as a further deterrent for those perpetrators at any time, but particularly at that time when we know there is a heightened danger of reoffence. I think I have set out the time frame of when I moved that particular legislation, when that legislation came into effect. I have certainly articulated exactly what the penalties were at the time when the charges we now know were attributed in error, and I have certainly set out the time of the legislation coming into effect to strengthen those penalties.

What I can also say to the house is that during that period we moved multiple pieces of legislation to help to prevent domestic, family and sexual violence. One of those I actually moved twice, and I was so disappointed that the then Liberal government just refused—absolutely refused—to support that legislation. That was legislation to include the experience of domestic violence as a ground of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act.

Following calls from women's organisations, industrial organisations, the then equal opportunity commissioner—the now equal opportunity commissioner certainly supports it—we moved that bill twice. It was not supported. I am really proud that since coming to government we have made sure that that particular piece of legislation has passed. Similarly, we now have legislation in the upper house in relation to ensuring that those who commit a serious domestic violence-related offence are electronically monitored as a condition of their bail, and I look forward to when we debate that particular piece of legislation in this house. That is a really important step forward.

I could go into a range of other programs, funding, etc., that we have initiated but I will save that for further answers relating to questions that the member may have. However, I do want to highlight that one of the really important ways to progress prevention is to make sure that we have appropriate penalties. This legislation certainly goes to that. One of the other really important strategies in prevention is to make sure that at the earliest possible opportunity women who begin to experience or are worried about particular behaviour, or are beginning to experience domestic, family and sexual violence, have somewhere to go.

What happened under the previous government is that there were particular hubs that began to be established, but what we discovered from opposition is that there was no funding for those hubs. One of the many things that we have done that helps in these efforts to prevent violence at the earliest point is to ensure, with the support of national funding also, that there are now paid staff members in each of the 10 regional hubs, and we have committed funding to open a southern domestic violence prevention and recovery hub and a northern domestic violence prevention and recovery hub in the metropolitan areas. The southern hub is already open and absolutely supported by community, and the northern domestic violence prevention and recovery hub is close to being launched. That will provide a really important place to prevent violence as early as possible.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr TEAGUE: We can consult the record to see that section 31(1) and (2) have been amended in the course of the last government in 2018 and in 2021, and in other respects was amended in 2015, so through the period that we have been concerned with. Resisting the urge to set out histories of other matters—

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order!

Mr TEAGUE: What has been made clear is that—and forgive me if I am the one who is a bit slow off the mark in this regard—for at least a substantial part of the relevant period, that is between 2011 and 2019, the contravention of a section 13 aspect of an intervention order attracted a fine, and slightly less of a fine than it does presently, not a term of imprisonment.

Leaving aside the virtues of superimposing that possibility for 31(1) that has happened recently, is it not the clear case that for a large part of that period of time, there is a clear difference between a 31(1) contravention in terms of penalty—no prison term attaching at all—and the penalty that attached for the contravention of any other substantive term of an intervention order—two years, as the minister has advised, for the bulk of that time.

So, for at least a substantial part of that time, for better or worse, there was a substantial term of imprisonment attached to a 31(2) offence, whereas there was no term of imprisonment attached to 31(1). If an offender was facing the court and erroneously sentenced according to 31(1) on 31(2) evidence, then there is a certainty—and I hesitate to put it as high as a certainty—or the possibility to apply a term of imprisonment on that offender that might otherwise have been applied had the penalty regime then in force been applied correctly, then the opportunity to apply a term of imprisonment is lost altogether.

Therefore, through that period, one can presume that there are impositions of pecuniary penalties, that is until the change is made, and at and from the time that the term of imprisonment is attached to 31(1) the problem becomes a narrower problem in terms of the maximum penalty. Is that a correct state of the affairs for the relevant period of time, or has there somehow been a capacity to sentence pursuant to 31(2) at all times and therefore the problem has not existed? That is not the way I understand it.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I spoke about this in my speech and I think the question goes to a really important point for bringing this bill to the house. What we need to be clear about, and I think it is a very important point for those people who applied for intervention orders in terms of people who may be worried about safety, etc. is that the paperwork treated the offence, the charge, as 31(1). What the court actually did was treat the particular conduct as an offence under 31(2).

Therefore, people in relation to particular types of breaches and circumstances did face imprisonment because the court treated the offence rightly, because the conduct constituted a breach under section 31(2). The error was about the paperwork, how the offence was recorded in terms of the actual charge on which section the breach related to.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you for that answer, minister. That was not my understanding prior to the answer. I am not quarrelling with it; I appreciate the answer. So it is not just the case that the court received evidence in accord with section 31(2), it is that the court has also consistently sentenced as though the charge was brought under section 31(2), and therefore there is actually no disparity, no inconsistency at any time in relation to the maximum penalty that might be applied—and leave aside the aggravated point, or post relevant period of time.

At no point has there been any disparity between either the capacity to receive evidence that might be relevant to section 31(2) or the court's actual proceeding to sentence as though sentencing under section 31(2). If that is the case, that renders this about as close to the line in terms of necessity and brings into focus, I suppose, the Law Society's observations in terms of the adequacy of a deeming provision.

I do not want to gainsay the advice the Attorney and the government have received, and the reasons why we are here. We are supporting the bill. However, if that is the assurance that has been provided by the minister, then that really does leave us in territory that is even narrower than I perceived it until now and I guess the benefit of this committee process, at least for my purposes.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: What I can say, in relation to the member's question, is that, based on the advice that has been received, we are going as far as we can to limit avenues for appeal without completely shutting the door.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Third Reading

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker, for your work there as Chair. I trust that the questions that the member for Heysen had following the explanations that I provided in my second reading speech now make things clearer for him.

I want to reiterate something about this bill and then go back to a point that I made earlier about prevention. First of all, I reiterate that this bill is about providing assurance to those who have applied for an intervention order, about providing them with comfort about their safety. It is about, as I just said in relation to the last question, making sure that we close particular avenues for appeal. It is about us absolutely rectifying a past error that happened for a period of time that was not rectified under the previous government. It is now rectified, and I am very glad that the opposition has chosen to support the bill and that we can now progress it.

I would say one other thing that I did not have time to speak about earlier and that is in relation to the prevention of domestic, family and sexual violence. I spoke about the intervention orders to which this bill is subject, I talked about what we do in the community, but there is another very important thing, and that is that we know that the core, at the heart of the horrific scourge of domestic family and sexual violence lies gender inequality which creates disrespectful attitudes toward women and leads to violence toward women.

So to tackle the awful scourge of domestic, family and sexual violence, we all have to be aware of what we are doing to create in every aspect of community life, in our economy, gender equality and that includes in here. That includes making sure that in this place we show that we value women, that we want equal numbers of women and men here in the parliament, that we value diversity in decision-making. It means actually deliberately taking steps to make sure that you understand, and that each political party understands, that talent and merit is not gendered and therefore taking decisions to make sure that we display gender equality in here.

I am really, really, really proud that on this side of the house over some years we have taken steps to recognise that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women of merit, to make it clear that we understand that when there are not equal numbers of men and women in our party taking on parliamentary positions that we do something proactive about it. We have done that. We now have more than 51 per cent of women on the government benches in this house. That is really important for this place. It is really important in terms of the message that we send to our community.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I would hope you agree with this. It is incredibly important that we do that—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order, members! Member for Morphett!

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: —and that as leaders in our community we show that we understand what it takes to create that gender-equal future. I am so proud that the Labor Party and this Labor government has taken those steps to ensure gender equality on this side of the house. It is so important for so many reasons—so many reasons.

It is so disappointing that on that side of the house they have not. They have two excellent, outstanding women on that side of the house—brilliant women. I absolutely have the highest respect for those women. They are wonderful women. They are great advocates for their community and great advocates for the state.

I say happy International Women's Day for tomorrow to those two women on that side of the house and to the many women on this side of the house as well. I genuinely have deep respect for all of the women in this parliament. I have deep respect, deep gratitude and deep satisfaction that on this side of the house we have taken those steps to advance gender equality.

I am utterly disappointed that those on that side of the house consistently send a message, given their lack of attention to advancing gender equality, demonstrated by the lack of numbers of women in this house. I am so disappointed they have consistently refused to take those proactive steps to turn that around. That sends a terrible message to girls and women in our community. It sends a terrible message about their complete and absolute lack of understanding about what it takes to advance gender equality and why that is so important.

It is important because it actually makes a difference to the aspirations that girls and women have. It makes a difference in our economy. We know that if we encourage that equal active participation in the workforce and tackle women being more likely to engage in insecure work, that makes a difference for those women and also for our economy. We know that every decision-making body, in sport and in every aspect of community life, is enriched when we have gender equality.

I am absolutely dismayed, and frankly appalled, that those opposite have done nothing to advance it. It is so important. Gender inequality, we know, lies as a terrible, pervasive cause of domestic, family and sexual violence. When we all stand up and say that it is incumbent on all of us to play our part in helping to prevent domestic, family and sexual violence, that means playing our part in creating gender equality everywhere, including in here. I wish that you understood that on that side of the house. I fervently wish that. I absolutely wish that. This parliament would be enriched, our community and our economy would be enriched, and more girls and women would see this as a pathway for them.

On that note, again I wish all the women in this house, on both sides of the house, and the entire parliament, including all the staff here in parliament, a very happy International Women's Day for tomorrow. I had hoped to have an opportunity earlier to do this. I also say, in closing, that I intellectually understand—as we all do—why gender equality is so important in here. We understand it; we get it.

When these wonderful women came into parliament post the 2022 election what they showed us is that when you have roughly equal numbers of women here the feeling of this place is different, and that matters. That absolutely matters, for so many reasons. I say thank you to all the women and all the men who work to advance gender equality, and reiterate why it is so important, including in the prevention of domestic, family and sexual violence, which this bill goes to the heart of.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:29): Can I say the electors of South Australia—indeed, more particularly, the electors of Dunstan—will have the chance on the 23^rd of this month to elect another star Liberal woman to join the ranks on this side of the house, because I can tell you that Dr Anna Finizio, in every context in which she has been described, has been described as nothing short of a star candidate.

This is in spite of and in the face of the most outrageous conduct by the colleagues of the minister, including one who is used to sitting a couple of seats down who has taken the step to, it would appear, flush out what is ordinarily a point of vulnerability for an applicant—in this case, a shining star young woman applying to apply her skills in an area of policy—having a letter of job application flushed out and used for the most base political purposes. This is something that has happened as recently as the last week, by a colleague of the minister, who has just hopped up and given us a lecture on how to treat women, and women who would be in public life.

As we on this side of the house listened silently to that contribution, it is well to make clear that the time for that sort of conduct—I mean, how outrageous to take a confidential document that an individual has chosen to put forward—

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order, sir.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): There is a point of order from the member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order: I fail to see how this is relevant and how the minister is, indeed, responsible for this conduct.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): I might remind the member for Heysen that third reading contributions are generally only on the contents of the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: On the point of order, in the context of what we have heard from the minister, it would be a travesty not to set the record straight and that is what I am endeavouring to do.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Again, member for Heysen: any member present in this chamber had an opportunity to ask for a point of order on the minister, and no-one did. Members have the capability to put the record straight, as you put it, in other ways rather than at a third reading contribution on this piece of legislation.

Mr TEAGUE: I might say that in the course of the debate on this bill and in the course of my second reading contribution, I had occasion to reflect on the important work that is to come with the royal commission.

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Mr TEAGUE: That was admonished in the course of the committee by the minister, who described my contribution, I think, in terms of 'a little speech' that had inspired the minister to then embark upon some wideranging comments that the minister indicated that the minister would not have otherwise embarked upon but for that 'little speech'. In the circumstances of that having been raised I will put on the record, in the course of this third reading commitment, the contribution of the former Marshall Liberal government in this area to address domestic and family violence, including by the then first female Deputy Premier of South Australia—

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order, members! Member for Heysen, you might sit down for a second. Members, I know this is an important issue about which people can get very passionate. I understand that, but the member has the call and he has the right to be heard in silence, as do all members when they have the call. Member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. The then first female Deputy Premier of this state and Attorney-General, and the Hon. Michelle Lensink as Minister for Human Services, and I single out for particular recognition Carolyn Power MP, the then member for Elder and the Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention—who was herself the subject of the most egregious campaign that the state has ever seen—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Member for Heysen—

Mr TEAGUE: —showing enormous disrespect to a female candidate for office at the 2014 election, 'Can you trust Habib?'

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Member for Heysen! You are in danger of being named. You will not speak over the Chair. As a former Speaker of this place, you should know the rules. Now, you will confine your remarks to the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: The member for Elder, having come into this place and taken up the role of Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention in circumstances that I know the minister would condemn—just as the minister should condemn the actions of her colleagues in the last week in relation to a present candidate, the star candidate, Dr Anna Finizio. The media release to which I refer conveniently sets out—

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Member for Heysen, again! I do not know how many more times I need to warn you before I take action against you. Please confine your remarks to the bill at hand. There has been a point of order taken by the member for Elizabeth to which I have agreed. Now, I invite you to do so.

Mr TEAGUE: I am doing exactly that, Mr Acting Speaker, in that the bill is amending, as we know, the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009. In bringing the debate to a conclusion and reflecting on the ground that we have covered in the course of the second reading debate and in the course of the committee process, there has been significant reflection—indeed, the assertion has been put in terms of the work that has been done, including directly in the context—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Member for Heysen, I again remind you that if you disagreed with comments that the minister made you had an opportunity, as all members did, to raise a point of order. You chose not to do so. To ask the Chair to give you an opportunity to address something that you felt was wrong at the time to which you did not take a point of order is not correct. I will ask you to confine your remarks to the bill at hand.

Mr TEAGUE: And again, we may be at—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Attempting in a roundabout way to explain why it is that you feel you do not need to is not itself confining your remarks to the bill. Now, you will confine your remarks to the bill, please.

Mr TEAGUE: We may be at cross-purposes, Mr Acting Speaker, because the bill indeed continues the important work that this house has been dedicated to undertaking over a sustained period of time. There have been particular references to amendments to the act that have been applied since its enactment—in the first instance in 2009—and in particular to amendments that have been made to penalty provisions the subject of section 31 offences, which is the very matter that the bill is addressing itself to. Those are matters that, where they have arisen in substance, are the subject of considerable focus and investment, including by the previous government.

In terms of the changes that this bill is advancing, the changes have been deemed necessary, on advice. They will ensure the regularisation of process in relation to section 31 and section 32 offences. What is clear is that if we are to ensure the efficacy of this legislation then we must continue the work of ongoing amendment, and that includes the work that has been described in the course of the debate.

It is not a matter of drawing any particular contrast, but we cannot see as anything other than intertwined, one with the other, measures for the obtaining and, if necessary, the charging for contravention of, in terms of intervention orders with the amendments that were made the subject of the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2018. This expanded the definition of abuse and increased penalties for repeated or violent breaches of intervention orders. It allowed police-recorded interviews with victims to be admissible evidence in court and introduced a standalone criminal offence of non-fatal strangulation.

That went along with amendments to the Sentencing Act 2017, which lowered the available discount for very serious offences against the person, including those that are often experienced in a domestic violence situation, and ensured that the penalty given to perpetrators of domestic and family violence reflect the seriousness of the crime; and, indeed, amendments to the Victims of Crime Act 2001, which removed the requirement for all victims, including victims of domestic and family violence, to have any contact with the perpetrator when accessing compensation; together with the abolition of the defence of provocation, legislation in the course of the Marshall government that contained family violence-specific provisions to ensure that evidence of family violence and the circumstances surrounding it can be taken into account both at trial and at sentencing.

That is not to mention the range of measures and programs that have been applied over the course of that period of time, providing the substance and context within which the application of enforcement, the subject of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act is there precisely to ensure. They included:

early intervention, impacts of violence on children program;

the $1.9 million Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme trial;

$600,000 over two years to keep victims of domestic and family violence informed;

$2.4 million over three years for Relationships Australia South Australia's rebuild program;

$250,000 to the Office of the Commissioner for Victims' Rights;

the Family Safety Framework within the Department of Human Services;

$1.66 million over four years to the 24/7 DV Crisis Line;

$954,000 over three years to Yarrow Place;

the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service commonwealth partnerships;

$4 million for 40 new crisis accommodation beds, a subject that continues to be a matter of question, support and continuation in the term of the present government;

$1.66 million to fund the Women's Safety Services SA domestic violence crisis hotline 24/7;

$353,000 to fund the new life-saving domestic violence app;

$624,000 to fund the South Australian Coalition of Women's Domestic Violence Services, the peak body;

funding to assist in opening nine DV safety hubs in regional areas, a matter that the minister has referred to in terms of the south—

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Mr TEAGUE: There was also:

$1.86 million towards funding the national sexual violence prevention campaign program, Stop It at the Start;

a $5 million interest-free loan to develop a new DV support housing initiative;

rolling out of the Ask Angela initiative, designed to assist women facing sexual harassment in licensed venues; and

release of the Committed to Safety, a-whole-of-government new policy designed to address domestic, family and sexual violence in South Australia.

I am indeed referring to a long list of measures. There are no prizes—

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order! Members, I again repeat my advice I gave the member for Heysen: if members are of the opinion that what a member is saying is contrary to the standing orders, I invite them to raise a point of order. Otherwise, the member will be heard in silence.

Mr TEAGUE: There is no prize, nor is there a monopoly on wisdom or measures in this most vital of areas. I just take the opportunity to reiterate that when one does not adopt an inherently combative approach to the circumstances, one can address the facts as one finds them.

In identifying the fact that this week we have received the welcome news that Natasha Stott Despoja is appointed as the royal commissioner, to commence work in July this year, I have set out as well the course of action that we understand from the public record is to transpire from here. If the government regards that as criticism, including as criticism for not being quick enough in terms of proceeding of this area, so be it. It is a matter of a statement of the circumstances as we know them. If I have set out any facts incorrectly, then I stand to be corrected about that. Appointment this week for commencement in July, for conclusion by July 2025—that is what has been set out on the record.

Again, to be clear, I have indicated how much I welcome the particular appointment and that I look forward to contributing in any way I possibly can to that work, but it would be a mistake to indicate that this is somehow an area in which there is either somehow residing wisdom on one side of politics over another—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Members, order! Minister, order please!

Mr TEAGUE: If we are to see progress, we must apply an evidence-based approach. We must apply an inclusive approach.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Member for Unley, you do not quite have the call. Member for Unley, you have a point of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do, sir. The minister continues to interject, despite your request for her to cease.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Thank you, member for Unley. Members, the member for Heysen has the call. The member for Heysen deserves to be heard in peace, as does every member in this place when they have the call. I have already directed the member for Heysen to confine his remarks to the bill because of views raised by the member for Elizabeth that he was not doing so. He has, to his credit, seemed to have taken that advice on board and I am pleased he has done so. He will be heard in silence for the amount of time that he has left.

Mr TEAGUE: In order for there to be progress in this important area—whether it is via a relatively mechanical piece of legislation, such as the bill before us, and covering a wider range of circumstances it must be said than the area that is of most acute concern in terms of the debate, or whether it is traversing the broader challenge of identifying ways forward that will be examined by the royal commission, and indeed, every step in between.

I certainly do not come to this debate or this area professing to have any particular special wisdom. I do, however, wish to be given an opportunity to participate. I cannot do anything about my gender, but I understand I might be the only male shadow minister or minister for that matter—I again stand to be corrected—for the prevention of domestic and family violence in the country. It is a matter that White Ribbon has made a point of drawing attention to in terms of the responsibility that men have as the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic and family violence.

I am who I am. I will look to apply what ability and diligence I can to contribute in this area of policy that is so much in need of improvement in terms of outcomes, but I will look to do so in ways that do not proceed on the basis that one side of politics somehow holds all the inherent wisdom and has undertaken all the relevant and important steps.

I pay tribute to the first woman Deputy Premier of South Australia, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, for her work in this area, the ongoing work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, particularly during her time as Minister for Human Services, and the work of the member for Elder, as she then was, Carolyn Power, as Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention.

In reflecting on the committee process then more particularly, I am glad that the minister has taken those two matters in particular on notice, and I am conscious that the act is an act that is concerned with intervention orders that are applied in a range of circumstances in addition to those of domestic abuse. I just say again, important work for intervention orders includes that for which the act is responsible in terms of problem gambling, tenancy orders and non-domestic abuse, and the data in due course in terms of actions for breach of those section 13 orders will, I am sure, inform the house in terms of ongoing reform of the headline act. With those words, I do commend the bill to the house.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (16:50): I also take the opportunity to speak in a short manner on the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Section 31 Offences) Amendment Bill for it does span an important topic. I think it is quite clear that everyone in this house is strongly against domestic violence, family violence and sexual violence as well. It is a terrible scourge in society and affects so many people, and so many women especially. The statistics are very high. I have a family of four children, two girls and two boys, and a wife of course. The statistics are shocking, to think that other families are going through their life subjected to domestic and family violence.

Your family home is meant to be a sanctuary. You come home and find shelter and emotional and physical sustenance from your family. As a father, that is what I want for my wife, for my daughters and, importantly, for my sons as well. I want them to be exemplary citizens and part of the solution to end domestic violence, and I think all in this house want to see that happen.

In South Australia, just before the end of last year, we had the shocking six deaths in very quick succession, so close together, from domestic violence. That has resulted in a royal commission which, as the member for Heysen said, all in this house—and certainly, this side of the house—support. I reflect back when coming into parliament on some of the terrible instances throughout the nation that really crystalised legislators, not only here in South Australia but across the country.

There was the terrible murder and death of Hannah Clarke up in Queensland at the hands of her husband, setting fire to not only her but the children as well. It shocked the nation. Closer to home, in South Australia, we had a terrible example of family violence against a defenceless baby effectively in young Kobi Shepherdson, who was killed at the hands of the father by jumping off the Whispering Wall. A defenceless young infant who should have been protected by her father was instead, out of all control, killed in a horrific manner. That is, of course, the reason why all of us here want to see the end of that.

Bringing legislation into this house, and amendments, to prevent abuse will certainly be looked at favourably because of that. So this is more along those lines. It continues along the path, as I said, of coming into parliament and looking at how this scourge can be fought. The work that was done by the former Deputy Premier, the first woman Deputy Premier here in South Australia saw that there was progress. Of course, as the royal commission that has been announced shows, there are still gaps that need to be closed.

Nonetheless, effort was put in to end this scourge. Legislative changes, if I reflect on sitting in here and looking at them, one was expanding the definition of abuse and then giving increased penalties for repeated and violent breaches of intervention orders—I mean, stopping abuse being on the fringes in the grey area for perpetrators to get away with terrible acts of undermining the trust that family members put in one another. Those changes came through.

Another was allowing police-recorded interviews with the victims to be admissible evidence in court. We know how confronting it is for victims to have to face the perpetrator of the violence, so to make those interviews admissible will hopefully lead to prosecutions and will hopefully put offenders behind bars. It allows for more evidence to be given against perpetrators and increases the likelihood that they will be prosecuted, charged and then made to pay for their crimes but also then having that as a deterrent for other people who for whatever reason would go down this dark path.

Also, I remember a standalone criminal offence for non-fatal strangulation. Again, this is talking about expanding the definition of abuse. With the intimidation and threat that can come from strangling someone, the perpetrator may well know, 'Well, I am not going to go so far as to kill them, but I am doing it definitely to scare them, to control them,' but because it did not result in death, again, being able to get away with that was eliminated. It was a standalone criminal offence for non-fatal strangulation to take away the opportunity for what is a quite horrific way of controlling other family members, especially loved ones.

That relates to being able to charge these and expand the range of abuses, and then we looked at how sentencing can also be used as a deterrent. This included lowering the available discount for various serious offences against the person, often including those who are experiencing a domestic violence situation, ensuring that the penalty given to perpetrators of domestic and family violence reflects the seriousness of the crime. I think that certainly sent a message to South Australia in general that domestic violence is not to be tolerated at all.

There were also amendments to the Victims of Crime Act, because unfortunately I think it is one in six women who are subjected to domestic violence. They then have to deal with being a victim for the rest of their life. We know the detrimental effect that has on them, and the detrimental effect it has when the violence happens in the home to children. I talked before about myself having four children and just trying to model good behaviour at all times for them, making sure that the boys specifically are learning to treat women with respect.

If I get back to victims of crime, there was the removal of the requirement for all victims to have any contact with the perpetrator as they went about accessing compensation and, also, abolishing the defence of provocation, getting rid of this ridiculous defence that, 'I was provoked into doing this. I would not normally do that.' Again, I think that is sending a message that domestic violence, family violence, sexual violence are not to be tolerated under any circumstances.

Of course, laws are in place but it is also about providing support networks as well. One of those measures was in relation to providing more crisis accommodation beds. These are very important.

I was able to get a tour of one of these facilities, and the thing that was very noticeable about it was that the location was not to be disclosed. The reason for that is because, in normal circumstances, one of the real issues around domestic violence is that the woman who flees from the man—and in most cases it is the woman who is experiencing the violence—has nowhere else to go and quite often ends up going back into the family home, the very home where violence has been thrust upon her. They go back into a dangerous situation literally because they have nowhere else to go. Sometimes it is not even themselves they are thinking of, because if they have kids it is because of their children as well.

By having these crisis accommodation beds—I think 40 in all at a cost of $40 million—it allows them somewhere to go, and by not disclosing where the locations are the perpetrator cannot hunt them down and try to reinstitute the terrible and despicable behaviour towards them. This is an important measure.

Reflecting on that, there was an evaluation by, I think, Flinders University into the benefit of these crisis beds. It is certainly very cost-effective, but the alternative could be to quickly go into a hotel or motel at short notice. These are small places, notably motel accommodation, and are not ideal places for people to stay on an ongoing basis, especially when you have children as well. There is no kitchen there to prepare food, there is no laundry for the children as well. By having more beds available for crisis accommodation, it allows the women primarily and their children to establish some normalcy in their lives, and it helps them with their emotional wellbeing.

It also allows the service providers, when going to help them, to be able to provide better outcomes. It allows for more intensive support for the client because it is much more of a homelike experience for them as well. So these crisis accommodation beds are very important and they have helped out many households; I think in just one year alone over 100 households were able to be helped this way.

It is an important measure that, as I said, was brought in by a number of projects. I think there was $21 million all up in funding towards this by the former Deputy Premier. We also had the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place doing that as well, and of course the then Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence, Carolyn Power, was also instrumental in this. In fact, she was the first Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence with that focus on trying to overcome this scourge as well.

Another initiative that is really beneficial is the right to ask, the ability for people at risk of domestic or family violence to be able to find out whether their partner has had a past history of domestic violence offences. It allows information to be gathered from SA Police about the current partner's, or even a former partner's, violent offending history.

As I said before, having a young family—they are now getting to their teenage years—and being a father, it goes from the stage of being able to look after them and wrap your arms around your own children to them going out into the outside world and starting to have their own partners. I am not putting any sort of aspersions over their current partners.

The ability for all females to be able to check on any violent offences that their partner has allows an understanding of what is happening, because these things can be hidden for a period of time but you do not want to see it resurfacing and then taken out on the women by violent partners. Of course, other measures were put in place in terms of early intervention because in this bill we are talking about prevention of abuse and intervention orders.

The other part of intervention is to try to stop these occurrences from happening but also to teach and give people the skills to be able to recognise potential behaviours that could be coercive, that could be violent and how to handle them. Money was provided; $200,000 from the Justice Rehabilitation Fund was committed to deliver a program which will provide one on one intensive and assertive engagement to help support young people between the ages of 12 and 25 who are at risk of experiencing domestic violence to be able to understand and recognise behaviours.

And to recognise that it is not acceptable, because while I talked before about modelled behaviour within the family, unfortunately there are some families where it is the complete opposite, and the modelled behaviour is violence and aggression and so the children are not equipped with the knowledge of what is acceptable behaviour, why violent behaviour should not be accepted, why it should be walked away from and not tolerated at all. I was certainly in awe of this program as well.

I know as we go forward, the member for Heysen talked about his commitment to play a role in this, and what I would also mention is the shadow cabinet's commitment to play a role here. You would notice that six of our shadow cabinet are females. They bring to it certainly an equality of thought. They also give a background to provide a female perspective and that will continue. So certainly when there are calls to say what is going on around equality, that is certainly being demonstrated on this side of the house in terms of the make-up of the shadow cabinet, that is certainly committed to getting rid of the scourge of domestic violence.

We will certainly be looking at continuing measures as we go forward because I think it is beholden on all of us, for all of our constituents that we represent, because no matter male or female, you are elected into this parliament to represent your community. Certainly in the case of the constituents of Morphett, I want to do everything possible to make sure there is no domestic violence, no family violence, no sexual violence that happens in my electorate and then more broadly in the state of South Australia and in the country of Australia as well.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (17:08): I was waiting for a male from the Labor Party to get up and speak but I will speak on the bill. I note that we were very pleased to hear the third reading speech from the minister. There were no objections to the minister's reading of her speech because we thought it was all relevant. I think anything we can do to talk about stronger representation of women and the treatment of women is related to this bill. This is what this bill is all about. This bill is about protecting women from these men who think they should have power over them.

As I look at the portraits in this place, it reminds me of Joyce Steele, the very first woman to be elected to this parliament, the Liberal member for Burnside. She went on to be the first female minister in South Australia, the Minister for Education.

What is extraordinary about that story is that I know that on both sides of this chamber we are very proud of the fact that we were the first place in Australia to allow women to vote, in the colony of South Australia. We were not the first place in the world. New Zealand actually did that a few months before South Australia, but we were the first in the world to allow women not just to vote but to actually run for parliament.

It was an amazing demonstration of a failure of a political tactic for the conservatives who were in this parliament at the time, who thought the world was going to collapse, that South Australia's economy was going collapse, that all these women making decisions about who should represent them in the parliament was going to be a disaster. They tried to sabotage the bill by moving an amendment to not only allow women to vote but to allow women to run for parliament. They supported that amendment and the amendment was successful, and then of course the bill was successful. It completely backfired. What a great story to tell here in South Australia.

But it took Joyce Steele 65 years to be elected into this place. It was 65 years before she was elected. In 1959, dear old Tom Playford was Premier. If you read Stewart Cockburn's book about Playford, he will tell you that he was an old fuddy-duddy, a very conservative old fellow. When Joyce Steele turned up for her first day here in the parliament, he greeted her by saying, 'Hello, girlie.'

I tell that story to my school tours and I quickly look to see the expressions on the faces of the girls who are in the tour. They are horrified, and rightly so. It does demonstrate how we have come a very, very long way. However, you never see Labor recognising the fact that Joyce Steele was the first woman elected into this place. They wait two more electoral terms for Molly Byrne. They give awards in schools about the first Labor woman elected into this place.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order! Members, the member for Unley has the right to be heard in silence.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. It is as though they cannot concede the fact, or admit to the fact, that she was the first woman in this place—and in the upper house at the same time there was a woman elected from the Liberal and Country League—before the Labor Party did it.

I am very proud of the fact that my children's school, Unley High School, has a picture hanging in the school of the first female Prime Minister, who was a student at that school: Julia Gillard. I am very proud that my children went to the same school that produced the first female Prime Minister here in South Australia. She is a member of the Labor Party. She was a Labor Prime Minister, but I am still very, very proud of the fact that it happened. I talk to students about that, but you will not see that from Labor. You will not see that from Labor, because they want to politicise every single opportunity. We saw that demonstrated by the minister in her third reading speech.

Here is another interesting fact: I have been told—and I guess it was a reliable source—that when Molly Byrne turned up for her first day here she had to use the male toilets, because despite the fact that 65 years earlier this parliament said that women were welcome, that women could be elected, no-one had bothered to put female toilets in the building.

It is quite an extraordinary story, but it is a story of celebration. I think there is no doubt that we are all very proud, and I certainly like to tell that story. The minister is right: we need a parliament that is representative of our community, and women are 50 per cent of the community, but we also need a parliament that is representative of our community from the professions, from the trades, from the many occupations, from the many social demographic groups. We have a lot of work to do in that place. I think that as we get closer to our goal of this place being a fifty-fifty share of men and women, we will also expand the backgrounds and experience that are brought into this parliament because we do need to make sure we share the aspirations of those whom we represent.

We know that parliaments around Australia and around the world have, over the years, become dominated—members of parliament—by people who have been in professional politics for a very long time. We need more people from small business. It is very hard to move from small business into politics. You cannot just win the election and then leave your business and walk into the parliament; you have to decide what you are going to do with that business that you may have had for 20 years and the staff that you have, and how you are going to manage it. I know that it is very difficult for a member of parliament to be involved in a family business while they are a member of parliament, so most people decide to move that business on or close it down or whatever.

I imagine that there are other professions where it is more difficult: for example, if you are a GP going into politics, all those people you have been servicing for 20 or 30 years will, all of a sudden, need to find another GP. Obviously we need to look at ways to make these pathways easier or have an understanding of how those pathways could be difficult for some professions and for some people—who might have different pathways or different occupations that really have nothing to do with politics or government or administration—to come into this place.

If we go back to the founding of this green chamber, it was really all about people. Consequently, we need to ensure that we continue to have good policy like the legislation that was spoken of by the member for Heysen and the member for Morphett about what South Australia's first female Deputy Premier and first female Attorney-General brought to this place. Much of it was long overdue and much of it was innovative, and particularly for the benefit and safety of women. With those remarks, I conclude my contribution to this bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.