Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.30 p.m.]: Before the adjournment I was speaking on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment Bill 2008 and I was making reference to provisions in the bill for the new offence of stalking or intimidating a person as a personal violence offence for the purposes of the Act. I fully support those provisions. I believe it is a good improvement on the previous legislation we passed in 2007. This bill also will enable an authorised officer to issue an interim apprehended domestic violence order that protects not just the person for whom the order was sought but also other persons with whom he or she has a domestic relationship.

One concern I have is that I am still hearing from women who report domestic violence events against them that, despite all the legislation we have, their reports have not been upheld because the husband has denied the facts. I find it very difficult to understand how the husband's version is preferred to that of the wife, even though other people who know them have seen the violence occur and my inquiries have revealed that the wife was telling the truth and it was not in her imagination. This situation is similar to what happens when a woman says that she has been raped. We need to ensure that the same attitude takes place with domestic violence: that when a woman reports a domestic violence event, and there is a background to that report, that her word is taken above the word of her husband or partner who denies there have been any problems whatsoever. I ask the Government to keep monitoring this situation and to follow some current cases involving domestic violence. I can provide the relevant information to the Government. Some cases also involve the Family Law Court because it often follows that there is a complete marriage breakdown and divorce.

This bill also requires an authorised officer, when making an interim apprehended domestic violence order, to include as protected persons under the order the children of the person for whom the order was sought, unless there were good reasons for not doing so. I believe that is another positive feature of the legislation because, again in cases I know of personally, not only is the wife assaulted but the child is at risk as well. So it is important that the child has the protection of an apprehended domestic violence order. The legislation also clarifies that an applicant to a court for an apprehended domestic violence order in relation to himself or herself may also apply for the order to be made in relation to another person with whom the applicant has a domestic relationship. We support the provisions of this legislation.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [2.34 p.m.]: I speak in support of my colleague the Hon. Roy Smith, who has indicated that the Shooters Party supports wholeheartedly the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment Bill 2008. Domestic violence in New South Wales is a scar upon our society, and I think we all know that. The incidence of domestic violence in this country may well be better than the incidence of domestic violence internationally, but that is never good enough. The advertising campaigns that have been promulgated by both the Federal and the State government at various stages are very clear: The answer is no; domestic violence is never an option.

One of the reasons why the Shooters Party has an interest in this bill is because, obviously, bills such as this affect the Firearms Act. But I do not want any member in this place to confuse our interest in this as anything other than full support of the bill. We find that hunting, shooting and fishing and those types of outdoor activities are activities that tend to bond families together rather than break them up. Hence, that is one of the reasons why we promote the activities of constituents in these things. Indeed, one could argue that licensed shooters are of the highest calibre within society—excuse the pun. They are persons who the law has deemed to be of good repute. They also have a particular interest in protecting their hard-won rights or privilege to own and hold firearms by always considering their behaviour at any time, whether in a domestic situation or a public situation.

Where domestic violence occurs and there are firearms on the premises, of course the Shooters Party supports the notion that the firearms should be removed from the vicinity, as should other implements—I note that this bill extends to the prohibited weapons area—to ensure that women and children in domestic situations are safe. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile talked this morning at length about the influence of alcohol on domestic violence situations. Yes, quite often one sees defences raised in cases of extreme violence where, be it a male or a female, the defence put before the court is "I was intoxicated" or "I was on drugs".

I say it again: There is no discretion in this issue. There is no room in our society for domestic violence. I say to all men in our society that they have a responsibility not only to act in a non-violent way themselves but to teach their children not to act in a violent manner. Advertisements currently on television show children being influenced by acts of domestic violence and mimicking them. That is exactly what children do. I could point to my own two sons, who have had all through their lives an excellent relationship with their mother. They have been taught self-reliance, honesty and discipline, and I have done that by taking them out in the bush, by taking them hunting, by taking them fishing and by teaching them how to look after themselves—both my sons can look after themselves physically. But they have both been told not to get themselves into situations where they could be seen to be violent, and they do not. It is the responsibility of all fathers, brothers, role models, whoever they may be, to ensure that they inculcate the very best aspects of manhood and the male role model and at all times stand up wherever there is domestic violence and say no. The Shooters Party supports this bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.40 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Our Parliaments have come a long way over the years in dealing with domestic violence. It was once rarely discussed. This legislation will result in further improvements in our legislative tools to deal with domestic violence. It is a good thing that domestic violence is part of our public discourse and that it is something for which we all take responsibility and try to tackle.

It is particularly important that we are dealing with this legislation as we commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women—also known as White Ribbon Day. This House has debated motions on the topic and we have had extensive discussions about it. We know that domestic violence is widespread and that it is grossly underreported. It is worth putting on the record the statistics that are available about its incidence. The best data is collected by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the courts. Approximately 12,000 apprehended violence orders are breached and about 40,000 applications are lodged each year. That includes 16,000-odd apprehended domestic violence orders and 5,600 apprehended personal violence orders.

Domestic violence has a dramatic impact on children. It is well recognised that children are significantly affected, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, by the effects of domestic violence. Amendments made last year have expanded the legislation's objectives to recognise the particularly vulnerable position of children who are exposed to domestic violence as victims or witnesses, and the impact that such exposure can have on their current and future physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing.

The reforms required that courts must, when deciding whether to make an apprehended violence order, consider the safety and protection of the person in need of protection, and any child directly or indirectly affected, from domestic or personal violence. In making a determination, the court will now consider the effects and consequences on the safety of the person for whose protection the order would be made, and any children living or ordinarily living at the residence, if an order restricting access by the defendant to the residence is not made. Further reforms provide that a child who is either a witness or in need of protection is not required to give evidence in proceedings unless it is in the interests of justice to do so.

Additionally, where proceedings relate to apprehended violence orders, either for the protection of a child or where the child is a witness, the court is to be closed to the public in all cases but for an exceptional few. Last year another safeguard for children was introduced; namely, ensuring that magistrates must turn their minds to whether a child who has a domestic relationship with a person in need of protection should be included on the apprehended violence order. If it is determined that there are good reasons that a child should not be on the apprehended violence order, the court will be required to give reasons. This will guarantee the transparency of the process and mean that children will be given greater protections.

Members raised the domestic homicide review. We are always shocked and disturbed by any domestic and family violence-related murders. The Australian Institute of Criminology recently highlighted that 10 per cent of domestic violence homicide victims were children under the age of 15. No-one in this place could fail to be moved by the tragic deaths of women and children at the hands of their partner or father. There have been calls from the Ombudsman and members of the Domestic Violence Community Coalition, in particular, to establish a domestic homicide review process. This is a complex issue that demands careful consideration. We all recognise the tragedy of domestic violence fatalities. I am pleased that the Minister for Women announced a strategic framework this week. This is an opportunity for the Government to look carefully at the issue.

A community discussion paper has also been released on a new whole-of-government strategic framework that will provide the blueprint for our responses to domestic and family violence. As part of this process, the Minister for Women and the Premier will be considering all options to help prevent deaths associated with domestic and family violence, including the establishment of the homicide review process. This framework will be developed following a period of widespread community consultation. The consultation process will provide a valuable way for the Government to be informed of best practice policies and programs that protect women and children, including those resulting from the tragedy of domestic violence homicides.

Members might also be interested to know that the Commonwealth Government is closely examining the issue of domestic violence-related homicides. The Commonwealth Government is investing in research focused on domestic violence-related homicides through the national homicide monitoring program to inform interventions that will protect women and their children from violence. The Commonwealth Government has boosted the Australian Institute of Criminology's funding to enhance the National Homicide Monitoring Program. I understand that work is progressing to identify individual and situational risk factors associated with domestic violence-related homicides and to identify early intervention and prevention strategies for high-risk individuals and communities, including Aboriginal communities. We look forward to the outcomes of this research and anticipate that it will help to provide important feedback and input into the New South Wales Government's domestic violence and family strategic framework. As I said, we have come a long way with our domestic violence laws. This bill is yet another step forward in the constant effort to stamp out violence in our community. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

The Hon. ROY SMITH [2.47 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert after line 38:

[9] Section 72 Application for variation or revocation of final apprehended violence orders

Insert after section 72 (4):

(5) An application for revocation of a final apprehended violence order may be made by the defendant even though the order has expired. Subsection (3) does not apply to such an application.

Note. Certain consequences result from an apprehended violence order being made against a person if it is not revoked. For example, section 11 of the Firearms Act 1996 provides that a firearms licence must not be issued to a person who is subject to a final apprehended violence order or who at any time in the previous 10 years has been subject to such an order (other than an order that has been revoked).

(6) A court may make an order under this Division revoking a final apprehended violence order even though that final order has expired if the court is satisfied that, were that final order still in force, it should be revoked.

(7) In applying the provisions of this Division to an application for revocation of a final apprehended violence order that has expired, a reference to a protected person includes a reference to a person for whom the expired order was sought or made.

(8) If an application is made by the defendant for revocation of a final apprehended violence order that has expired:

(a) the Commissioner of Police is to be notified of the application, and

(b) the court hearing the application must take into account (in addition to any other matters that it is required to take into account) the effect that revocation of the expired order may now have on the protected person, having regard to the grounds on which the expired order was made, and

(c) the court may order that a further application for revocation of the expired order may not be made by the defendant except with the leave of the court.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify section 72 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 to make it clear that an application for revocation of an apprehended violence order may be made after the order has expired. Currently, for example, an application can be made to revoke an apprehended violence order 11 months into a 12-month apprehended violence order, but one day and one month later, after the term of the apprehended violence order has expired, the court will no longer accept such an application. This amendment makes it clear that an application for revocation of a final apprehended violence order may be made even though the order has expired.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.48 p.m.]: The Government will not oppose this amendment. On balance it will ensure that the rights of a victim will continue to be protected. Where it is possible that a firearms licence may be issued, the police and victim must be notified of the application. The court will also be able to order that no further applications for revocation can be made without the leave of the court. When considering the application, the court will also be required to take into account the grounds for the original order and the impact revocation will have on the victim.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [2.49 p.m.]: The Opposition also will not oppose the amendment.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.49 p.m.]: This amendment should not be supported. Victims of domestic violence should have confidence that the perpetrators of violence will have to wait many years—under the present scheme, 10 years—before they can access their firearms. If this amendment is passed it will undermine the integrity of the bill. During the second reading debate we have all, including members of the Shooters Party, stated our deep commitment to this legislation. If this amendment is passed it will be so much easier for perpetrators of violence to get their firearms back. Members need to think what they are doing if they vote for this amendment. It is not as innocent as the Attorney General made out in his short comment. This change in the law will bring stress and insecurity to victims of violence. The purpose of apprehended violence orders is to provide people with protection. In the majority of domestic violence cases it is women who are seeking protection against perpetrators of violence. The Shooters Party and the gun lobby have a long history of working to weaken AVOs. That is what is about to happen. Because we are all so tired and it happened quickly, we are not fully aware of what is going on, but this is extremely serious. Mr Pearce might shake his head, but passing this amendment is deeply wrong.

Imagine you are a victim of domestic violence. You are a woman. You are now rebuilding your life. You are probably in a new home with your kids who are probably going to new schools. Out of the blue you are served with a notice from the court that your violent partner wants to have the AVO revoked. As I said, their first step is to get their firearms back. I ask the Attorney General and the Shooters Party members, Mr Brown and Mr Smith, what happened with the amendments. When we were debating the bill yesterday, 3 December, an amendment was given to us at 6.10 p.m. from 2 December. Today, at 11.39 a.m. an amendment is brought forward. I was given it by a government staffer, so I assumed it was a government amendment. It is clearer than the Shooters Party amendment but, from what I can see, it is exactly the same, in that it weakens the AVO system. That system has its problems but it is not abused to the extent that the shooters and the fathers groups try to make out time and again. It is an important system, one whose integrity we need to maintain. Again, Labor and the Coalition are trying to undermine a process that makes a difference to people's lives.

So, we have had three sets of amendments that most people are probably not aware of—from the Shooters Party on 2 December, from the Government at 11.39 a.m. on 4 December, then this much longer one from the Shooters Party at 2.24 p.m. today. I guess the Shooters Party and the Government have been in negotiations. I would like them to run us through the details of the amendment. I need to get on the record what they believe will happen when they make these changes. This is serious, and they have to be fair to this House and to the State and explain what happened in their negotiations. I am not asking for all the ins and outs but I would like them to make clear how the latest amendment has evolved and what it means. It runs for two pages and they have not given an explanation to the House as yet.

The Hon. ROY SMITH [2.54 p.m.]: Ms Lee Rhiannon has again misrepresented the position by suggesting that perpetrators of violence will be able to apply or reapply for firearms licences. The Firearms Act specifically provides that "the commissioner may not issue a licence for a permit to anyone convicted of a crime of violence". Apprehended violence orders are not criminal penalties. They are important tools to be used by the courts and the police to avert potential issues of domestic violence, but they have an unintended consequence in that they have a 10-year effect on firearm owners and those who wish to participate in shooting sports but do not affect other people in the community.

Ms Lee Rhiannon was quite correct. Yesterday I circulated a draft of my amendment and the Government highlighted some of its concerns. I was happy to address the Government's concerns and include them in the amendment before us today. At the moment, courts can hear applications for revocation of AVOs, and the courts will determine whether the merits of the application warrant its revocation. But the courts would only hear that application for the period of the apprehended violence order, which, quite commonly, is 12 months. However, the Firearms Act provides that a person who has been the subject of an apprehended violence order may not hold a firearms licence or permit for 10 years following the issue of that order.

I am aware of a number of circumstances where this unreasonably impinges on the reasonable activities of people within the community, someone who may have been subject to an apprehended violence order many years ago. Many solicitors recommend to their clients, to assist the cause and alleviate what might otherwise be an awkward situation, not to contest apprehended violence orders, not realising that after the order expires in 12 months they will still be prohibited from obtaining a firearms licence or permit for a further 10 years. Many people in the community have that problem at the moment. This amendment will only provide people with an opportunity to make application to the courts. It will be up to the courts to determine the merits of the application and whether to approve the revocation or to continue to uphold the original order.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.57 p.m.]: I ask the Attorney General whether he can join the debate. Yesterday, when I asked government representatives for their response to the Shooters Party amendments I was told they were not supporting them. Obviously, I acknowledge that negotiations go on in this place all the time, but this is a serious development and the House deserves a thorough explanation.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.58 p.m.]: I think it has all been said.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.58 p.m.]: I was waiting for the Attorney General, and it is disappointing that he is not going to respond. I have outlined some of the concerns we have with this amendment. The House should also note that the Shooters Party motto is "Reclaim Freedom".

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Ms Lee Rhiannon will speak to the amendment before the Chair.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am most definitely speaking to the specific amendment. We were hoping to be able to finish early, and I still hope we can, so I will not be speaking for a long time. I rarely do. The point I was making is most certainly relevant to the amendment. It is about apprehended violence orders and I was preparing to lead in to a point with regard to apprehended violence orders. As I said, the Shooters Party motto is "Reclaim Freedom". That is the very thing women would like to do when faced with domestic violence, but it is difficult if the man they reside with or the man they are separated from has a gun or wants to get his gun licence back. Women have had something they could use in the justice system, and that is apprehended violence orders. Again, I ask what is going on here, because members have to be aware what they are voting on. We are weakening the apprehended violence order process.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: How?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: You ask how? Why does the Attorney General not come in on the debate? The Attorney General knows clearly that when an amendment comes before us it will result in a change in the judicial process that makes it easier for the revocation of apprehended violence orders. That is what it is all about.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [2.59 p.m.]: I do not have to respond to invitations from Lee Rhiannon to respond, and I do not intend to play her little games. As happens quite regularly in the House, members put up proposals and responses are given, and sometimes there are counterproposals and discussions to try to accommodate specific matters that are raised. That is the democratic process even if someone is not comfortable with it. Members should be quite clear about the situation with respect to apprehended violence orders. At the moment, once an apprehended violence order is granted, one is able to seek to have it revoked at any time during the duration of the order. If it is revoked, there is a correspondence with respect to the ineligibility for the revocation of a licence for a period of 10 years. I am advised that in every other State that period is five years. So that is not changing. That is not changing at all. The proposal that has been put forward does not enable a weakening of the apprehended violence order process, which stands on its own feet. The proposal that has been put forward will enable the court to hear an application after the expiration of the apprehended violence order, and I am quite proud of what we have had incorporated in this amendment. We are preventing more than one application being made for revocation without the leave of the court. We are making the court consider the impact of the person in need of protection, and we are giving notice to the person in need of protection. What is so unreasonable about that?

Question—That the Shooters Party amendment be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Shooters Party amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment.

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That the report be now adopted.

Report adopted.


Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendment.