Mr Wilkinson - You'll be getting a call from Mark Latham soon, won't you.

Members laughing.

Mr Aird - They have performance contracts but I don't know if that means benchmarks.

Mr Wilkinson - It'll be, 'Me and Mark'.

Mr Aird - All I can say is, 'Welcome'.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - I will start again, Mr President. This bill to me is not a lot different to the consent bill because I find the crimes and offences that are so often committed indoors, in the privacy of a home, normally on defenceless women and where young children are witnesses - and in many instances those young children also become victims - committed by, in many respects, cowardly monsters - and I think that is probably being kind to them - as absolutely abhorrent. It is a detestable crime, and that view is, I would suggest, a common one, Mr President, of a very large percentage of the population. Where once it might have been generally accepted - and we are talking about probably 20 or 30 years ago - it is now not accepted, and it must be prevented at all costs.

So I draw that parallel with the consent legislation. If these changes are strong enough, and I think they are, they may deter likely offenders - and I think that is a very important part of any legislation. If people out there are aware of the legislation, it well may be a deterrent to them. I said the same thing about the consent legislation in relation to rape. If it can first of all deter likely would?be offenders from offending, bashing up, in many cases, innocent and defenceless people and, second, if it can help to stop repeat and ongoing assaults in whatever categories, and those assaults might fit a number of categories, I would find it very hard not to support the bill. I believe all other members would probably have a similar position. That is not to say that some rejigging or perhaps some small amendments might not be necessary and that they might not make this bill probably a better bill still. Having said that, I also accept that there is a second party involved here, and accordingly the law must be adequate to protect an innocent person, and I will expand on that point a little further on in my address, Mr President.

I just want to go back to the Longford case. The Longford case was mentioned to us during the briefing, and it is most unfortunate, is it not, that such a dastardly crime as that was committed, where an innocent person's life was taken, and that was at the very end of the spectrum that we spoke about during that briefing. This is the crime that, as I understand it, has brought about the now strong legislation. It is a terrible situation to think that we must have a crime of that degree to make us stand up and look at the legislation again, and make changes. But I guess that will always be the case. It will normally take a horrific crime before we stand up and take a good look at the position to see where we ought to be going from this point on. I think that will always be the case, and I do not think we can do a lot about that.

We can go back further than that, Mr President, to 1983 - and I thank Inspector Paul Gray for that information. I could not quite remember the date, but I was certainly working in the south of the State when it occurred. In 1983 there was a murder in New Town that I think most people here would be well and truly aware of: the Rory Jack Thompson murder, which has been much publicised over a number of years. That really started the tremendous changes that we are now seeing in our position in relation to domestic violence. We know what happened there. The body was dismembered, parts of it were washed through the sewer, other parts, as I recall, were incinerated and other efforts were made to get rid of the other parts of her body. That crime is the one that really started to change things in relation to domestic violence and the track we are going down at this time.

Up until that time - I think it is fair to say this, Mr President, because I was a part of the profession at the time that was responsible for dealing with domestic violence and this type of offence - there was probably scant attention given to domestic violence. It was really considered to be at the very lower end of the scale, and it was not treated in the way that it should have been. It is now. It is a very sad situation, as I said, to think that it takes those violent crimes to have us look at the laws and to make these changes.

I want to now briefly refer to the police. If we were to ask the police out there what the most difficult crime for them to attend to and become involved in is - and I have mentioned this before in this House - I am very confident that 95 per cent, probably even more, of the front-line police would say that domestic disputes are probably the worst thing they have to confront. In almost all cases they are confronted with an unknown position, a position that invariably involves danger to either them or another person or persons present. Many times police will experience a victim turning on them; that is not an uncommon thing at all. Despite evidence showing that a serious disturbance or assault has taken place, they experience the victim and the alleged perpetrator making up there and then, and that happens in many instances. There is protection of the assailant by the victim - and there are many reasons given for that occurring - and then both of those people turn on the police. They experience kids screaming and crying, and particularly so when dad, in many instances, is taken off in handcuffs. Added to that, you often get the screams and horrendous abuse from the victim, who is also screaming as their husband or partner is taken off.

The police do need clear guidelines, they need good laws, they need strong laws to provide them with the mechanisms to quickly fix a problem to provide proper and effective safety to a victim and in many cases to children. And the children, Mr President, in many of these cases are the forgotten people. They are the ones who suffer. They suffer tremendously, and there is a lot of evidence to show that for children who live in violent family situations this has an impact on them for the rest of their lives, and they too are likely to become involved in that type of behaviour. There is a lot of evidence to support that.

The police need to make a quick decision, a quick judgment, a quick risk assessment. They do not have the time available to them that is available to the armchair critics or, for that matter, a court that might have to hear the charges sometime in the future. I identify the member for Nelson here, who has weeks and months to determine just what was an appropriate action in those circumstances. We get so many people sitting back, with time to spare, making judgment on what a police officer does at the time, and it is a completely different situation, Mr President, to be confronted with a violent situation and have to make split-second decisions. That is what happens with police in many of these cases. They do not have the time to go outside and think about their actions for an hour or two, to take further advice on it. They need to act quickly and they need to ensure that there is no continuation of violence or whatever other activity might be taking place.

I now want to turn to some of the issues raised in the briefing, which I thought was extremely well presented. It was a professional briefing, Mr President, and the video clip I think was very graphic and clearly identified to us the types of situations that do occur in the home, and that is not an unreal situation. The situation shown in the video happens on many occasions, but situations far worse than that also happen, and I quipped across the table to Inspector Gray at the time that I would have liked that to have been the position of some of the domestic assaults that I have attended. A lot of them, unfortunately, were far more horrific than that.

I refer now to the matter of bail, and that was raised in the briefing, Mr President. The matter of bail is always a difficult one for police and the courts because it is known that a person's liberty is at stake, and the responsibility for depriving a person of that right is enormous and weighs heavily on those very professional people who have the legislated and sworn right to do that, to take the liberty of a person. But it is a difficult decision for them. The position put by some is to presume - and this does annoy me - that police, without any investigation of the facts, without any inquiry, without good grounds, are likely to detain people in custody unnecessarily. It just does not happen that way. So those people who put up those types of scenarios do not understand the position, Mr President. They do not understand how police operate.

Mr Martin - It is not giving police credit for their sense.

Mr DEAN - That is right. It is not. It is attacking the intelligence of police, who are probably the most trained, the most professional people that we have. The amount of training they go through is not just through the academy. They continually attend training, year in, year out.

This position does not change with regard to bail in any case. That is, if police arrest a person for whatever reason - stealing, assault, it does not matter what it is - there must always be evidence available prima facie to demonstrate that a crime has been committed; also that the evidence is likely to show guilt at the end of the day. So that is a judgment the police have to make at the time, Mr President. It is not just a matter of getting in there and taking a person out. They have to be able, at the end of the day, to prove a case for whatever purpose it might be: to go through a court, to take out a restraining order, or whatever it might be.

Before bail is given, the police must direct their attention to many issues. They must look at the seriousness of the crime or offence. Is the offender likely to reoffend? That is a very important part of considering whether bail should be given or not. Is the offender likely to reoffend? What is the strength of the case? Is there a risk to other people? The demeanour of the arrested person is another very important part of considering whether bail should be given, and any other pertinent issues that may have some impact on that decision to bail or not.

So you see, Mr President, that is not a dissimilar situation confronting police when determining whether bail should be granted to a person arrested for an offence involving domestic violence. It has been tightened up. We had that risk assessment, which is a very good thing, but the ingredients are still there for police when they are determining whether or not bail should be provided. There are safety mechanisms built into the process and of course, at the end of the day, if it is believed that a police officer has erred, there is a right of those people then to go before a court or to another person. That court can then intervene in the process and then the police in the same instance would give consideration to those points that I have referred to. That would exercise on their judgment, at the end of the day, as to whether or not bail should be given.

The vexatious issues and some of the scenarios put up in regard to that also annoy me. As the member for Elwick quite properly said, to suggest that the police would operate and take somebody's liberty in some of those very trivial situations that are often put up is a direct attack on the intelligence of police; a direct attack on those people who are involved in these domestic violence matters. That is what that is. It does not matter what they say, it is an attack on their professionalism and their ability. They will not act on an airy-fairy type of complaint and it is a nonsense to suggest that they will.

I want to touch briefly on false reports. That was also mentioned. By legislation, people can be and are charged with making false reports to police. A person taking out a restraint order can be in breach of their own order. Some people taking out restraint orders are not really aware of that situation. But clearly the police would, I think, in all cases point that out to them. Because you take out a restraint order does not mean that you can then go off and make contact with the person whom you have sought protection against. You cannot do that. You would be breaching your own restraint order at the end of the day and charges have been made against people in some of those situations. So it is not an unreal situation.

The Honourable Mr Lowe - and the honourable member for Montgomery mentioned this - raised the issue of introducing an amendment to provide some greater protection for an innocent person. The suggested amendment is on the premise that if that amendment became a part of the bill it would likely deter false allegations being made. I think that is the premise on which Mr Lowe puts that amendment forward. I am not so sure that it necessarily would be a deterrent because complaints in domestic violence cases or in any other case of violence, even where the case is made up, are normally made in the heat of the moment and without too much thought to the consequences. There would be very few complaints made up, I would suggest, where the person making up that story would think of the consequences. I doubt that that would happen because the law is already there, and we heard that. There is an offence of making a false complaint to police and it is acted on. If you read the media, you will frequently see where people have been charged with an offence involving the making of a false report to police. So that offence is there and it will normally incur a penalty involving the cost associated with that investigation - that is normally a part of the penalty, plus any other penalty on top of that, that the court may think is necessary in the circumstances. But on top of that you also have the charge of perjury, which is a crime if they want to continue on with that and if they give false evidence in a court under oath. There is also that mechanism there to prevent false reporting. Most people are aware of the crime of perjury.

Mr Martin - I always thought it was the intelligence and training of police officers.

Mr DEAN - Absolutely. I am very pleased that you raised that point. Police can normally identify if a complaint is false; they are trained to look at evidence. They are trained to look at whether or not a situation that has been put to them is right. They have the ability to do that. It is the same as when you go through a university degree course or whatever it might be, you are trained in certain areas; you are trained very well in those areas and your teachings are very strong.

Mr Wilkinson - Some are trained better than others and in every profession you get some people good, some people bad.

Mr DEAN - Of course, and I accept that. We have read the papers, we are not blind. Every now and again a police officer does go off the rails and I do not think anybody would hide that. But if you look at the percentage where that happens, it is very small indeed. Of a force of about 1 170-odd - I am not quite sure what it is - to have one or two go off the rails every now and again I would suggest is probably better than we would find with lawyers and solicitors, now that the member for Nelson has raised it. We need to be realistic about this; we need to get it in its right perspective and look at it fairly.

I can assure members that police are not likely to use domestic violence as a means of gathering other evidence. That was the matter mentioned by the member for Rosevears. He indicated that the police may use the position of domestic violence, as I recall, to go into a home for the purposes of gathering evidence on another crime or for another offence. It concerns me when statements like that are made. I can assure people that the police are not likely to use domestic violence as that type of lever, but that is not to say that where police do attend a domestic violence situation they might identify property on a premises that could be related to another crime. That is possible and that does happen.

I want to conclude with a brief summation of a position given to me by a lady who was talking to me about a domestic violence case. This is a very well-to-do lady who lived with domestic violence for about 10 to 12 years. During that relationship there were two children born, and she said that she had put up with being bashed and beaten for almost that whole time. She said the violence commenced not long after they were married. She put up with it simply for the sake of the two children. She could not leave that relationship because she said that she felt that she owed it to the children for the children to have a father and to live with their father. But she said it reached such a stage where she knew that her life was at stake, so she made the move and did move out. She sought help, as did the partner in this instance, and as a result of seeking that help and in particular the help that the partner received, that relationship is now back together, it is now a very strong, loving relationship and the children are still within that family.

I just want to relate the further ordeal that this lady went through. I am not attacking any profession when I do this, Mr President, but this lady, as she was telling the story to me, said she would never forget when she sought some very professional help and when the person talking to her said to her, 'You should feel happy that he would want to carry out his violence on you'. That is what she was told, and when she said that to me, I just could not really give an answer to it. I do not know really what prompted that.

That is the advice she was given by this very professional person. I have the name of the person and I am not going to go into that because I do not think it is right at this stage that I do so, but that is the comment this lady made. As a result of that, she sought no further support from the professional bodies at all; she just moved completely away from it. But the professional help that her partner received did work. He is still under anger management control and assistance in that regard. To me that was just another thing that this lady had to go through after what she had suffered for so long, but it was a good ending to that situation, Mr President. As I said, they are now together and have been together now for some long time, it is a very loving relationship and the children are doing very well indeed. So, Mr President, I will be supporting the bill.