Coroners Amendment (Domestic Violence Death Review Team) Bill 2010
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [10.49 p.m.]: I speak on behalf Families First on the Coroners Amendment (Domestic Violence Death Review Team) Bill 2010. The object of this bill is to amend the Coroners Act 2009 to establish a statutory framework to support the Domestic Violence Death Review Team and to provide for the team’s membership and functions, which include the review of selected deaths occurring in the content of domestic violence. I do not use the term “domestic violence” because I believe we are talking simply about violence against another person. Because it happens within a relationship does not make it more acceptable or less violent. We diminish its impact by referring to it as domestic violence. But for the sake of this bill I will refer to it, even though I personally do not like using the term.
The bill also amends the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 to enable the Child Death Review Team to exercise functions relating to information sharing about child deaths that may be the subject of review by the Domestic Violence Death Review Team. During my 27 years of leadership at Wesley Mission I saw our children’s homes expand the taking in of children whose parents were unable to care for them from 104 per year to over 4,000 per year. One of our centres was open all night with staff prepared for police to arrive with crying children. Usually—almost every night of the week—the story was that police had been called to the home to find the mother murdered or badly injured, the children crying and the father handcuffed and being taken away. In that one never-to-be-forgotten hour the children frequently lost their mother, their father, their home and all of their security. I worked very hard to find a foster family to all of the children, keeping them together. We never separated those children because they needed each other then more than ever.
I recall the case of 29-year-old Melissa Cook in 2008 who, after ending her troubled marriage, was forced to take out an apprehended violence order to keep her former husband away from her due to her fear of him and his threats, but he was able to get a gun anyway, went to her workplace and shot her in the chest. We have to wonder how a man who was subject to an apprehended violence order could so readily get hold of a gun. How able is society really to adequately protect women such as Melissa? These cases are so tragic. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the men involved will be respectful of orders of the court and we simply cannot assume that an apprehended violence order is going to protect women and children from someone intent on violence.
The statistics are appalling. The National Homicide Monitoring Program has found that 40 per cent of homicide victims are killed by a family member, and in about one-quarter their partners or ex-partners are involved. All of the experts warn, however, that the actual rates of such murders are even higher than we realise because of the flaws in the way homicide data is collected. The team that this bill sets up will be reviewing cases of domestic violence deaths, analysing data and making recommendations regarding legislation, policies, practices and services for preventing or reducing domestic violence.
I understand from my contacts in the domestic violence sector that they do not all agree that the team, as constituted under this bill, will be as effective as they had hoped. They pointed out to me that every piece of advice in line with international best practice that was offered by the expert Domestic Violence Homicide Advisory Panel was rejected by the Government in its drafting of the bill. Particularly, the members of the expert panel strongly felt that the Domestic Violence Death Review Team should be established in the New South Wales Ombudsman’s office to take advantage of the depth of experience they have had in conducting child death reviews.
One of the specific drawbacks they see in having the team in the Coroner’s office is that deaths will not even be reviewable until dealt with by the Coroner and the case is closed. That means any criminal proceedings, including any appeals, will have been fully determined, and that might be three or four years after the death. How will the death review team be able to make appropriate recommendations quickly enough to have any meaning if they are not even starting to look at cases until years later? If the team were placed at the Ombudsman’s office, the overlap between functions of the Coroner would be avoided and the team could start their review of deaths in a more timely fashion, perhaps even in the same year, which would be much more useful in practical terms.
Another problem that I note with the bill is that there are no research bodies participating in the team, despite research being one of the roles assigned to it, and there should be expert representatives from non-governmental organisations that have domestic violence expertise. These also seem to be lacking. Another peculiarity of the bill is part 9A.3, which allows the Domestic Violence Death Review Team to select those deaths that are to be subject to their review based on information provided by medical practitioners, welfare agencies and governmental agencies. However, I believe that every domestic violence death deserves review. The Child Death Review Team, which is thought to be the ideal model for the new team to follow, is required to review all child deaths in the State. Similarly, all domestic violence deaths should be reviewed by the new Domestic Violence Death Review Team, and the bill should specify that clearly. Another potential weakness of the bill is that there is no clear process for implementing the team’s recommendations and no mechanism for enacting any reforms.
Family First NSW will support this bill, but I do think serious attention is needed to address some of the problems I have pointed out. Then ideally the Domestic Violence Death Review Team will be able to effectively protect women and children still alive and not yet facing domestic risk with their research, insights and findings presented in reports with succinct recommendations that will be quickly enacted throughout the State. With those reservations, I will support the bill.