Hansard debates

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (15:14): I will take up from where the member for Eltham was – those who are perpetrators of domestic violence should be bloody punished. It is as simple as that.

Here we are speaking about the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023, which we have referred to as ‘Joy’s law’. Before I go into the details of this legislation in front of us, I want to put on record my thanks for trusting me to Les and Renee, who I met with to discuss what happened to Joy Rowley back in 2011. They went through hell and back in 2011 when Renee lost her mother – and there were two other children, Aaron and Nadine. In those conversations, as you would understand, it is quite emotional, because they are not speaking about legislation the same way we do in here, they are speaking about it in real life, in real terms – how and who does it impact? I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for giving me that trust when we started having discussions many months ago. I do not often do so in here, but I would also like to thank Ashley in my office who has been working very closely with the family in a very sensitive manner. When things were coming out in the media and when discussions were happening anywhere in here, we were trying to let them know as soon as possible, because it could have been – and was at times – a trigger for the family. We wanted to make sure that they were heard along the way.

The purpose of this bill is to make non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member a standalone offence. As we have said, it is very sad that we have to be here discussing this today. A few members have spoken about domestic violence and the amount of deaths we have had. I was just looking it up before: 49 people have died at the hands of their partner in Australia this year – that is one every five days. Sometimes there are things in life that you cannot understand and kind of just make you sick. Recently we lost an actor from the Friends show, and I have never, ever had so much come through on my social media to remind me of a comedian that was on TV for a period of time. At the same time, for this entire year I have not had one bit of social media come through to talk about the 49 people who have lost their lives at the hands of their partner. That is the conversation that we should be having.

Domestic violence is not new. It has been around for a long period of time. It has been around, I would probably have to say without knowing the records, forever. My family is one of those who have been victims of domestic violence. On domestic violence – I am going to say in words and not so much the actual crimes – the attitude of the community has changed, and it is these pieces of legislation that start conversations to make that change. My grandfather was very violent. This has had an impact that still goes through our family today. This was back in the day when an assault would happen to my grandmother and the police would turn up, but they would not defend her. They would tell her to get back inside, because that was the responsible thing to do, to be inside. Over time attitudes have changed in the community and they have changed in Victoria Police – and to a positive degree. It does not mean they get it perfect. It is from circumstances like this where in 2011 Joy went to the police and said there were domestic violence issues at home – she had been strangled to a stage of being unconscious, and she had made complaints to Victoria Police – and it took an inquest for the police to come out and apologise for what had happened in 2011.

We cannot change what happened in 2011. I have spoken about that with the family. But what we can change is what happens in the future and the attitude to how this changes. Someone mentioned females in this place. I say to every male in this house and every male in my local community: it is our responsibility to call it out. It is our responsibility to make sure that we do not stand aside whilst someone is insulted, assaulted or taken advantage of. That becomes our responsibility. I have always said that the standard you walk past is the one you accept. This is never more important than when we are talking about homicide in the home.

Considerable input for the introduction of this bill came from, as I said, the death in 2011 of Rye mother Joy Rowley. Joy was smothered to death in her home by a former partner. He was sentenced to 19 years in jail in 2012. The family came forward at that time and said there had to be an investigation of the circumstances that happened around that death – not just the criminal aspect of it – to find out why there were failures in the system along the way. This family then fought against all odds to continue to push, until a review came through that captured what was happening, particularly around some of those reports. It eventually got to the stage that Victoria Police admitted that there were errors, after the inquest. Judge Sara Hinchley, on 2 August 2018, handed down her findings into the murder of 60-year-old Joy Rowley, who was killed in 2011. In that inquest it was found there were many mistakes. During that it was moved that in February the attacker was choking and threatening and in October he strangled her until such time as she had passed away. Assistant commissioner Dean McWhirter apologised to the family, accepting there had been failures. Judge Hinchey, while commending the police efforts to improve their systems, said the lack of a review was a lost opportunity, and we still say that today – it was a lost opportunity to ensure that from then it could have changed what was happening.

One of the recommendations from that report was to bring out legislation so that we could protect against this, and that is what this legislation is today. Timing is of the essence, and yes, we support the concept of the bill. I know that the member for Malvern, who I appreciate has worked with the family and has kept in contact with me as well so we can ensure that we have had our views put forward on this, has made an amendment to ensure that in two years time there is a report back to this place to see that this legislation is working. I support that amendment, but I also do support the concept of this bill. I think it is so important so we can get that change that we need moving forward.

The family of Joy have continued to call out what needs to be changed. They started this process with the government back in 2018 and 2019. I note that the government is saying certain things take time. There have been a couple of attorneys-general during this time that effectively failed to act to get this into place. It could have been well and truly done during the last term of Parliament. I am not sure why and I will not question the motives at the time, but there is no reason in my mind why this was delayed to such a degree and it has been brought forward now.

I will say when I was working with the family – and the government was aware I was working with the family – we went through the stage of putting together a private members bill to introduce in here because we knew, and we still know, it is just too important to continue delaying and pushing down the road. The family was, at that stage, having trouble getting contact with the government. When we started talking about that private members bill with the family, we were not hiding it. We were not trying to make it a secret. We worked with them closely. That would have obviously been mentioned back to the government, and that was when the government acted. Can I say to the government: it should not take that. It should not take the opposition starting to do the work on this for actions like this to happen. They are just far too important. We say in circumstances like this: this place should be above politics when it comes to domestic violence. This is not the first time. We have got another bill coming before the house during this week in similar circumstances, where the government sat idle until such time as the opposition did something. We say to the government: approach us. We are happy to sit down and talk about this.

Members interjecting.

Brad BATTIN: I note laughing on the other side. When I met with the family, they could not get a response from the government until such time as we acted. I say if the Attorney-General at any stage would have liked to come to us and have this discussion, we were open to discussion, exactly as we have been with the legislation coming through later this week. This is all about ensuring, at the end, the best outcome, and if the government had come to us and taken out any of the politics in it, we could have worked together a lot sooner, probably in the last term of Parliament, to ensure this legislation could have gone through. It is too important to ensure –

Michaela Settle interjected.

Brad BATTIN: Were you even listening to the start of the speech about when I met with the family? Do not sit there –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Through the Chair. The member for Eureka will let the member –

Brad BATTIN: What a disgrace to sit there and say you are calling out for the family whilst you failed to bring in this legislation. Therefore more people are at risk. It is important that people are –

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, using the word ‘you’ is an insult to the Chair.

Brad BATTIN: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I cannot believe a government member would want to stand up in the middle of this particular debate around domestic violence, with a mother who has died, when I have sat there and spoken with that family –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Berwick will sit down.

Brad BATTIN: I am still on the point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Yes, and I will be ruling on that point of order. Your time has expired anyway. I had already flagged that you needed to speak towards, to and through the Chair.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Order! The member’s time has expired.