Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 15 August 2017] p2783d-2822a Mr John Quigley; Mr Sean L'Estrange; Mr David Templeman; Mr Peter Katsambanis; Dr Tony Buti; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Terry Redman; Mr Simon Millman; Mrs Liza Harvey; Ms Libby Mettam; Mr Mark Folkard; Mr Kyran O'Donnell; Ms Emily Hamilton; Mr Terry Healy; Mr Donald Punch; Mrs Lisa O'Malley; Ms Sabine Winton; Ms Janine Freeman; Mr Matthew Hughes DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDERS (NATIONAL RECOGNITION) BILL 2017 Declaration as Urgent MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler — Attorney General) [3.59 pm]: I move — That in accordance with standing order 168(2), the Domestic Violence Orders (National Recognition) Bill 2017 be considered an urgent bill. The National Domestic Violence Order Scheme was agreed to by all leaders of states and territories at a Council of Australian Governments meeting in late 2015. It is due to commence operation nationally on 25 November 2017—White Ribbon Day, the international day for the elimination of violence against intimate partners. Unfortunately, Western Australia is lagging behind the other jurisdictions in its legislative preparations. In fact, Western Australia is now the only jurisdiction that is yet to enact enabling legislation. Failure to join the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme in step with other jurisdictions on 25 November 2017 would create practical issues for victims who would rely upon the NDVOS in WA and would certainly cause significant reputational damage to this state. Given that this matter was agreed to at COAG by all states and territories, including Western Australia, in late 2015, but was not enacted by the previous administration, it is imperative that Parliament deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible. Given the time constraints and the importance of this bill, it needs to be endorsed by both houses of Parliament as a matter of priority. Accordingly, the government seeks to have this bill declared an urgent bill for the purposes of debate in this chamber. MR S.K. L’ESTRANGE (Churchlands) [4.02 pm]: I am seeking, through the Leader of the House, an explanation of why this matter is urgent. MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah — Leader of the House) [4.03 pm]: The Attorney General has highlighted very clearly the reason the Domestic Violence Orders (National Recognition) Bill 2017 needs to be passed by this place by November—to comply with the agreement made at COAG. This agreement was signed by the previous government at a COAG meeting attended by the appropriate minister. We need to see this bill through this house and into the other house, and passed, so that we can comply with the agreement made by all states and territories by the November date that the Attorney General highlighted. The Attorney General has moved that this bill be declared an urgent bill for those reasons, and in order for the Parliament to deal with the bill, we have moved it to be the first item of business today. This was pre-empted by the Attorney General in his second reading speech last week, when he alluded to the fact that he would be bringing this motion to declare the bill urgent, and requesting that the chamber deal with it, for the reasons given. MR P.A. KATSAMBANIS (Hillarys) [4.05 pm]: The opposition agrees that domestic violence is an extremely important topic, and the creation of a national recognition scheme for domestic violence orders, through the passage of the Domestic Violence Orders (National Recognition) Bill 2017, is important. As much as this is urgent, it is also very important to get these matters right. The history of this proposal is littered with good intent and the pushing back of dates. It was originally proposed to be introduced way back in December 2015, and then the agreement referred to by the Attorney General, made in December 2015—it was not an intergovernmental agreement; I think it was an agreement of good intent—was that it be introduced by November 2016. The dates keep getting pushed back. Be that as it may, there is currently an intent that this scheme start running nationally by November 2017, but already, one state, Victoria, has indicated that it is highly unlikely to be either ready for or happy with that commencement date, and it may just sit back and watch what happens with its introduction in the other states. There are question marks about funding and the actual mechanics of the scheme. A word used a couple of times in the Attorney General’s second reading speech related to the operationalisation of the scheme—in other words, the mechanics of the scheme. There are still significant question marks about that, and concerns about how we move from the ad hoc state-based systems today to an interim solution in November 2017, and a supposedly better system, hopefully, by 2019. In relation to urgency, I would say it is just as important to get it right as it is to get it through urgently. Irrespective of that, the opposition recognises that there is significant goodwill in getting some scheme ready by November 2017. It recognises that, in order to do so, we need this bill to be passed. The mechanics of the other place may mean that it needs to take a bit of time in the other place, perhaps being considered by a parliamentary committee, looking at this national scheme legislation. We understand that there is some level of urgency. To indicate good faith, however, both sides of the house have to actually treat this as an urgent bill, once we start debating it urgently. From the opposition’s perspective we are proposing, in good faith to the government, that we have one speaker on the bill. The government has already had the Attorney General speak to the bill, and perhaps it will have one or two other speakers. The National Party may wish to speak as well. Rather than delay this bill through the process of the house, let us get it into consideration in detail as soon as we can. There are a few questions we would like to have clarified, [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 15 August 2017] p2783d-2822a Mr John Quigley; Mr Sean L'Estrange; Mr David Templeman; Mr Peter Katsambanis; Dr Tony Buti; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Terry Redman; Mr Simon Millman; Mrs Liza Harvey; Ms Libby Mettam; Mr Mark Folkard; Mr Kyran O'Donnell; Ms Emily Hamilton; Mr Terry Healy; Mr Donald Punch; Mrs Lisa O'Malley; Ms Sabine Winton; Ms Janine Freeman; Mr Matthew Hughes and then we can move it on. If it is truly urgent, let us demonstrate that in the way that it is debated in the house. If that is the case, let us show good faith. Obviously, the opposition does not have the capacity to mandate that, but we are putting it to the government in good faith. The government says that this bill is urgent. We accept that there is a level of urgency around this if it is to be ready by 25 November, so let us not delay it any further. Let us have a debate that is comprehensive yet quick, rather than a dragged-out debate, and let us get it to the other place today. DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [4.09 pm]: I would like to contribute to the debate on the motion to declare the Domestic Violence Orders (National Recognition) Bill 2017 an urgent bill. In regard to what the member for Hillarys stated, the declaration of the bill as urgent should not deny the right of members to speak on a very important issue. I know the trick that the member is playing; it is not very transparent, actually. Many members on this side of the house have a great interest in this issue, and may want to make a contribution to the debate. It is interesting that the member for Hillarys talks about urgency and what is urgent. We are seeking to make this an urgent bill so that we can catch up with the other states that have already agreed to the national scheme. It is also important that we pass this legislation in time for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, which coincides with national White Ribbon Day. We are considering this bill very seriously. The Attorney General has brought this on as an urgent bill because he sees the need for it to be passed as soon as possible. But that does not deny the right of members to speak on it. We are not denying the right of the opposition to speak on this bill. Obviously, I am not sure how many people on the opposition side are interested in this bill, but if they are interested and want to speak, I am sure that the government is prepared to allow them to speak. Mr P.A. Katsambanis: You’re better than this. Do not verbal people on this side. Dr A.D. BUTI: How could I verbal opposition members when I did not say anything about them? This bill does three key things. It defines the orders that are recognised under this bill that relate to domestic and family violence. It does not relate to all restraining orders, but to those that are granted in the context of family and domestic violence. The bill sets out the legal consequences of that recognition and, importantly, provides for the sharing of information between jurisdictions. As we all know, we live in a federation and, as a result, each state has a right to enact laws in the criminal and civil justice systems.