Motions

Domestic and Family Violence Prevention

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (11:04): By leave, I move my motion in an amended form:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into and report on domestic violence in South Australia, with particular reference to—

(a) the roles of the police, child protection and domestic violence services when cases arise;

(b) the effectiveness and communication between relevant agencies;

(c) whether systemic or cultural bias play any part in determining what action should be taken;

(d) what reforms, if any, are needed to improve domestic violence services; and any other related matters.

A recent death has shocked South Australia. It has seen waves of grief throughout the victim's family and community, and all who have read her story in the media. It has raised serious questions about the adequacy of the state's response to domestic violence and family violence, particularly when cultural background, language and systemic barriers intersect to leave women and children at a heightened risk.

The purpose of this committee is not simply to reflect on what has gone wrong, but to ensure that these deaths are not in vain. We must use this tragedy, and these tragedies, as a catalyst for reform, accountability and urgent action. A coronial inquest is an important process, and it will consider the cause and circumstances of the victim's death, but an inquest on its own is not enough, so we ask the parliament to act, and that is a fair question, as this question deserves clear answers.

Firstly, coronial inquests are slow—they often take 12 months or so to commence, and they can take even longer to conclude. Women and children at risk cannot wait years for lessons to be learned. Secondly, coronial inquests are narrow in scope, and they are focused on the medical cause of death, and the specific event surrounding it. They are not designed to examine broad policy frameworks, cultural competency, systematic failures or any interagency accountability.

Thirdly, coronial findings do not compel governments to act. While recommendations are valuable, they often sit on the shelf while risk continues in our community. By contrast, a parliamentary select committee can begin its work immediately and can hear evidence from frontline workers, victims, advocates, cultural leaders, agency officials and service providers. It can shine a light on systemic issues that contribute to this tragedy, and it can deliver timely recommendations to parliament ensuring that protective reforms are not delayed. This is not duplication; this is an urgency.

There is a relationship between a parliamentary committee and the recently concluded Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence led by Natasha Stott Despoja AO. The royal commission made 136 wideranging recommendations. These include reforms to policing, child protection, cultural competency, housing, bail laws and support for victims and survivors and has provided the state with a blueprint for reform. However, every member in this house knows translating a blueprint into real change on the ground is often where governments can stumble.

The commission has provided the 'what'. What we need now is to quickly act. The select committee that is proposed will complement the commission's work and exhilarate it. It will test the commission's recommendations against real cases. It will ask that had the royal commission's recommendations already been in place, would deaths like this still be happening? Are there systemic failures in how police, child protection, housing and support services respond? Are cultural factors, including women who were teenage brides, with a background in a culturally and linguistic diverse community, properly understood and appropriately addressed?

The committee would act as a bridge between the high-level recommendations of the royal commission and the lived experience of South Australian women whose lives were tragically lost due to their murder by their partners. The terms of reference I will table will enable the committee to examine:

the nature, frequency and severity of domestic violence;

the actions of South Australia Police, including responses to domestic violence calls;

the role of child protection;

housing and domestic violence services;

mental health support;

failures in information-sharing and interagency coordination and whether a systemic or cultural bias can contribute to inaction, or minimisation in the assessment of risk;

the adequacy of cultural competency frameworks across agencies, particularly in protecting women and children from CALD backgrounds;

the impact on children and whether they are to be safeguarded; and

the broader reforms needed to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

For the avoidance of doubt, the committee will not be determining medical causes of death or any other matters that are before coroners for this purpose. The focus will squarely be on systemic failures, cultural challenges and opportunities for reform.

There is a strong case for urgency. Domestic violence and the murders of women by their partners are not isolated. It is part of a disturbing systemic system across the nation. Australia has seen too many women killed at the hands of current and former partners this year and previous years. We know that domestic and family violence is a leading cause of ill health, injury and death for women under 45. We know that CALD women face additional barriers: language, fear of authorities, lack of culturally appropriate services and sometimes the minimisation of abuse as cultural practice.

In some cases the media has reported a long history of escalating violence, where there were police reports, where there were child protection concerns and where community members feared for women's safety, yet somehow, despite all of these warnings, women still end up as murder victims of their husbands and their children are orphaned. This is the very definition of a systemic failure, and when systemic failure leads to loss of life the parliament has a duty to act.

The community is watching how we respond. They are asking, 'Will this parliament try to learn from these tragedies, or will it allow them to fade into another statistic?' By establishing this committee we will send a clear message that we will not look away, we will not accept the unacceptable, we will hold agencies to account and we will deliver reforms that honour the memory of these women.

A select committee with the power to call on persons, papers and records will provide the transparency and accountability that our community demands. It will give voice to those who have been silenced. It will ensure that evidence is heard in the public forum and in the parliament. I propose that the committee be conventional, comprising three government members and two opposition members, chaired by a government member. This ensures the government can lead the reform process while still benefiting from scrutiny and collaboration from the opposition and the community. This is not a partisan issue. Domestic violence is a matter of life and death. Every member of this house, regardless of affiliation, shares responsibility for ensuring women and children in South Australia are safe.

I know that some members may raise concerns of sub judice or duplication, and let me address this. This committee will not interfere with the Coroner, nor can it influence a jury, as there are no juries in Coroner investigations. It will not make findings as to the cause of death. It will focus on systemic and policy issues, matters that are squarely within the parliament's jurisdiction. Far from duplicating the royal commission, the committee will operationalise its findings, test their adequacy and accelerate the implementation. This is not theory; it is practice. It is our parliament ensuring that recommendations translate to real action and change.

At its heart, this motion is about preventing further tragedies. It is about ensuring that when women come forward to report violence, they are heard, believed and protected. It is about ensuring that children in violent homes are safeguarded, not left in harm's way. It is about ensuring that our systems work for all South Australians, regardless of culture, language or background. The committee will not bring up individual cases that are still to be inquired into, but can help make sure that other women and children in such situations grow up in a safer South Australia.

Too many women's deaths by their partners have left a scar in our community, reminding us of what must never happen again. By supporting this motion, members of this house can ensure that these deaths are not just more women murdered by their abusive husbands. We can ensure it becomes a turning point, a moment when parliament says, 'Enough is enough.' I ask every member in this house to join me in supporting the establishment of this select committee. Let us act with urgency, with compassion and with determination. Let us honour these women by ensuring that their deaths lead to change, accountability and a safer future for South Australian women. I recommend this motion to the house.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence) (11:17): I rise today to indicate that the government will not be supporting this motion. Every woman deserves to feel and to absolutely be safe in every aspect of their lives: at work, when studying, when they are out in the community and at home, a place that should always be their sanctuary. The death of any woman is an utterly unacceptable tragedy. My heart—and I know the hearts of everyone in this place—goes out to the children, the family, the friends and the community of any woman we have lost.

When awful, abhorrent incidents of violence occur in our community, we all ask ourselves: 'How can this happen? What more can we do?' In contemplating these questions, it is right for us to consider what processes may or may not be happening, or may be imminent, and ensure we do not ever in any way compromise the important deliberations of any of those processes.

The Malinauskas government is absolutely committed to progressing far-reaching reform to tackle the complex and distressing drivers of domestic, family and sexual violence and its prevalence. We have set about doing so throughout our time in government and, indeed, during our time in opposition, with the moving of a number of legislative measures to drive far-reaching change. Our journey of reform continues and will now, rightly, be guided by the detailed recommendations of the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, which present a once-in-a-generation opportunity to our state for change.

The release of the historic report of the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence was deeply moving. Its 654 pages are now being contemplated, as is the harrowing Voices report that accompanied that report. This Voices report compels all of us, in the voices of survivors, to be very, very careful about how we approach their experiences and to be careful that we never ever retraumatise them as we contemplate what they have told us.

As we do contemplate that far-reaching report—and always, I honour the courage of survivors—I hold in my heart those we have lost, including the four women who tragically died in the space of just one week in November 2023. This royal commission was established following that horrific, heartbreaking week, a week that demands action. The report 'With Courage: South Australia's vision beyond violence' provides our government, and indeed our whole state, with a road map for real, tangible, lasting reform. In fact, the royal commission's report includes discussion of the need for a dedicated death review function where there is a context of domestic, family and sexual violence, and it calls for government to give that matter further consideration amongst many, many others.

This and every recommendation in the report presents our state with a generational opportunity to build a system that protects, supports and heals, and empowers our whole community, every agency of government and the whole sector to collaboratively drive change. The report also makes it very clear that addressing domestic, family and sexual violence is our shared responsibility. The causes of domestic, family and sexual violence are multiple and complex, with impacts across all areas of society and with not just one single solution. As we go about this opportunity for reform, I honour all the women whom we have lost to domestic, family and sexual violence. It is for them that our work will and must continue.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:22): I rise in support of the motion. I am afraid I was momentarily distracted, and I am not clear on whether the government is supporting the motion or not.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: No, the government is not supporting the motion.

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard: Is that when you were laughing?

Mr TEAGUE: I am sorry? No, it was when I was clarifying the—there has been an interjection from the minister just now, asking whether I was distracted because I was laughing.

Members interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: No, at the moment that I was distracted and did not hear whether the government was supporting the motion or not, I was engaged in discussion with the mover about amendments to the motion that had been made at a moment or two's notice to alter the terms of the motion to make it acceptable to be heard this morning in the parliament. That is the reason I was distracted, to be very clear. I did not hear at the outset what the government's attitude to the motion is. It is now clear that the government is opposed to the motion. The reason for addressing the particulars—

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: Excuse me?

The SPEAKER: Minister—both ministers: while the minister was having her say, the people on my left listened in silence, and I would ask everyone on my right to afford the deputy leader that same courtesy. It is a very important matter.

Members interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: Fun and games? Is that what I overheard the minister say just then?

The SPEAKER: Deputy leader, you have the call.

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard: Absolutely not. And don't misrepresent me.

Mr TEAGUE: What did I overhear?

The SPEAKER: Both sides, interjections are out of order and I will not stand for any of them.

Mr TEAGUE: The reason I rise is on a matter of process in relation to the motion in the form that it has been put. The motion on the Notice Paper that has then been amended while the mover has been on his feet, and that is on the record, I appreciate the circumstances in which all members have endeavoured to deal with process. What I need to make clear, and I think the house ought to make clear, are the circumstances in which the house considers investigating particular matters, and that is in circumstances where a sub judice point has been aired or at least raised as a reason for being particular about the terms of a motion that is put.

The circumstances of this case, let's be clear, are such that there has been a death and there has been a death in which the perpetrator has also died, and there is no criminal trial in prospect, as far as I am aware—there is no criminal trial in prospect. There is a coronial inquest that is in prospect and underway. In those circumstances, there is no relevant sub judice point—in the circumstances of the inquiry that has been put—and in my view, it would be perfectly appropriate for the house to set out its objective to inquire into the particular circumstances of a particular case.

I am glad to hear it has been broadened because of the prospect of that inquiry covering circumstances more generally. But it is important for the purposes of the house's capacity to conduct its business that where there is a coronial inquest that is ongoing in circumstances where there is no realistic prospect of impacting a subsequent jury in a criminal trial, then the sub judice point ought not be a matter of concern to the house.

I have heard no-one on the other side participating in the debate point to any prospect of a criminal trial in this case. I will say it again: quite often, a coronial inquest will occur in circumstances where a criminal trial is in prospect. That is—

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Point of order: I understand that you ruled it was sub judice and the member is debating whether it is a question of sub judice.

The SPEAKER: No, I have not ruled that at all. I would like the deputy leader to continue with his remarks. If we can stop, as I have asked before, the interjections so that we can actually hear this out.

Mr TEAGUE: I will not stay. I am glad that this is not occurring, frankly, in circumstances where there has been a ruling and any necessary dissent in it. The reason—

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Trade, you are on your final warning. This is a subject that I am taking quite seriously, as I know we all do. I have some sympathy for the deputy leader because I was made aware of things as I was walking in here today, things that normally we might have sorted out before we got in here. Everyone is thinking on their feet. Everyone is trying to react to things that have just happened. Perhaps we should have had a little bit more notice, but that is the fault of none of the 47 members in here. I invite everyone to remain calm and allow the deputy leader to have his say.

Mr TEAGUE: I thank you again, Mr Speaker, and I might put on the record that I appreciate the opportunity to have had a word with you about this very matter and I appreciate that we have done so in the circumstances that you have just described. Far from being some endeavour to take some partisan point or to differ with anything that the Speaker has indicated so far in the course of this debate, the important purpose of putting the matter on the record at this time is that—

Members interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: Members are interjecting for some unknown reason. You are welcome to contribute to the debate when I sit down, and I will do so in a minute. The point that I am wanting to put clearly on the record is that where matters of sub judice are raised, regardless of the circumstances in which they are raised, the relevant principle upon which the question turns for the purposes of this house is whether or not a subsequent jury is likely to be influenced in a way that might prejudice the criminal trial at which that jury is required to determine a relevant matter of fact. That is the test.

Members interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: That is the test.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Again, I ask members on my right to listen in silence. Minister for Trade?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I rise on relevance. The member asserts that the question before the house is one to adjudicate or arbitrate on the question of sub judice. The motion itself has been amended by the mover. There is no question before the house to adjudicate on sub judice. I ask for you to rule that the matter is now irrelevant to the member's contribution.

The SPEAKER: I think the deputy leader has made his point. There were some discussions about whether sub judice was in play or not, so I do not think I want to rule that out entirely for the deputy leader to reference that. I might even make my own reference to that in response when the deputy leader has finished his remarks. It may not be exactly relevant to the motion that is before the house, but I think it is in terms of the discussion that is being held.

Mr TEAGUE: I will not say more. As I said, I have stressed that it is happily not something that is raised in circumstances in which there is any need to reflect on a ruling. There is on the Hansard record at the commencement of the debate a reference to that point, so I raise the circumstances of the bounds of sub judice, in my humble view, in the circumstances in which the motion as amended has been moved and debated.

It is in that context in particular that I speak up in support of the motion: the motion as printed on the Notice Paper and the motion as it has been amended and moved by the member for Unley. That is for the reason that this house is perfectly capable of inquiring in the public interest into matters that may also be the subject of coronial inquiry. It is well known that coronial inquiry processes are extraordinarily thorough, they serve particular purposes, and the results of their work are known for practical reasons—often many years subsequent to the events that they are considering.

The inquiry work that the house can do in the public interest is for a different public purpose that may have overlapping usefulness, but it is important that this house is not held up for what might reasonably be expected to be years and years waiting to hear about the outcome of a particular discrete coronial process before it then embarks on important work that it might need to do in the public interest to ensure improvement in the interests of all South Australians. I support the motion.

The SPEAKER: I might just make some comments because the motion has been amended and we never had to make a ruling on it, but it has brought up an interesting matter for discussion. I want to read from Erskine May, which is something I rarely do, paragraph 25.74, where it states:

…it is recognised that Parliament should not generally intervene in matters where the decision has been delegated to others by Parliament itself.

I then refer you to section 21 of the Coroners Act 2003, where it says that the Coroner's Court must hold an inquest to ascertain the cause of circumstances of all violent deaths and make recommendations to the relevant authorities.

I further note that the Minister for Police has publicly confirmed that the case will be subject to a coronial inquest and in cases in which proceedings are active in the United Kingdom courts, including courts-martial, Coroner's courts and fatal accident inquiries, they may not be referred to in any motion, debate, question or supplementary question. So, we did not have to get there and make any rulings on it, but it is an interesting discussion, nonetheless.

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services, Minister for Seniors and Ageing Well) (11:36): I want to place on record that my reasons for opposing this motion are many, but the two primary reasons are, firstly, because we have already had an inquiry in this parliament into domestic violence that was led and moved by the Minister for Child Protection in another government and, secondly, we have had a royal commission. Now we do the work.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (11:36): I thank members for their contributions. I know that everybody in this house is as concerned as we all are collectively about the surge in domestic violence and how it is becoming still a very difficult nut to crack.

I think one of the recent events that shocked me the most was when a member of this place was charged with domestic violence charges. The only statement was that he was not making a statement because it was a private matter and it was not challenged anywhere in the media. Are we still in the 1950s where people believe that domestic violence is a private matter? I certainly do not believe it is a private matter, like I do not believe that rape is a private matter. I do not believe that burglary is a private matter. I do not believe that any other crime is a private matter. Yet, to this day, I have not seen any published response to that member's disgraceful response to the domestic violence charges against them.

The debate today has been disappointing. I think it is an opportunity for the government to introduce a new avenue for expanding options for dealing with domestic violence because there is no doubt that lived experiences are the best experiences from which to learn. In the olden days, the crown inquest may have been influenced by what was going on in parliament, particularly when there were no charges pending, and maybe that is something that the parliament can look at for the future. In many of these instances, there is no risk of prejudicing any trial because there is not one and you cannot influence the jury because there is not one.

Coronial inquiries are inquisitorial: they are not adversarial. Their purpose is to establish cause of death and, where relevant, make recommendations to prevent similar deaths. They are conducted by a judicial officer without a jury, and findings are made on the balance of probabilities, not to determine guilt or innocence.

Parliament retains a duty to address systematic failures. If that means we have to look at the way we are doing things currently—and sometimes that may mean moving or updating convention or tradition—then maybe it is time we looked at that. Matters such as intervention orders, police resourcing and domestic violence prevention are squarely within the purview of parliament. To silence debate until a coronial inquiry is conducted could delay reform for many years. This is the real cost to public safety. Precedents recognise flexibility in applying sub judice.

In closing, I dream of the day when everybody believes it is their business, when they identify a victim of domestic violence, to intervene in whichever way they feel comfortable—calling it out, reporting it, supporting the victims of domestic violence. The only way we can do that is to talk about it, to raise it time and again and to act on what we learn, whether it be through a royal commission, whether it be through a select committee, whether it be through a series of interviews and investigations.

I am hopeful that the royal commission will be acted upon quickly and will see those recommendations implemented, but in the meantime we cannot stop learning, from experience, how we can make women safer.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 11

Noes 25

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.