I rise to speak on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing
Safety) Bill, and I am very pleased to speak on this bill as
my first duty since I gave my maiden speech last night. In that speech
I said we needed a revolution to repair our broken justice system. I
wish to put on record on behalf of both the ACT Party and me personally
that any perception coming from abroad that we think society’s
violence problem is confined to the streets is completely wrong. Yes,
as a country we have become much more violent on the street, and, yes,
aggravated robberies, beatings, and homicides have increased on the
street, but a great deal of the violence problem comes from the home.
I wish I could wholeheartedly agree with the previous speaker from
the Greens, but I need to point out that a couple of things Ms Kedgley
said were not correct. Firstly, it is not 50 percent but 39 percent
of homicides that occur in the home. Secondly, until the very last couple
of minutes of her speech, Ms Kedgley referred exclusively to “the
woman” and “her children”. Sadly, the problem is not
exclusively limited to women. The figures in front of me show that one
in four women and one in five men will be a victim of domestic violence.
The domestic violence I witnessed as a child was
perpetrated exclusively by my mother. My sad, wimpy father took
it and never retaliated, and of course in those days he did not call
the police, either. I think it is quite important to realise and acknowledge
that this problem is not limited exclusively to men on women. Men suffer
from it as well. I was also interested to hear references from members
opposite to psychological violence, and I think that is something that
certainly should properly be raised at the select committee.
I looked at new Part 6A, and I thought that it had a great deal of
merit and that a great deal of thought had clearly been put into it.
Of course, the primary purpose of this bill is to allow police to issue
on-the-spot protection orders. I think that is a very good thing, perhaps
for reasons that are somewhat different from those given by members
opposite. As a lawyer, albeit not one practising in family law, I am
aware, as every other lawyer in this House will be, that there are cases
where protection orders are issued on the basis of affidavits that are,
to put it mildly, embroidered somewhat with the assistance of lawyers.
I think it was Ms Pillay who made the point very well, and I agree with
her, that a police officer who is on the spot is better able to judge
what has gone on than a court can 5 days later. I say that for reasons
that are somewhat different from Ms Pillay’s. The court hears
an affidavit and sees both parties on their best behaviour. The police
officer, on the other hand, is there on the spot seeing broken furniture
and a split lip, and although I am not naive enough to think the police
always get it right, I would say that perhaps they might get it right
more often in those particular instances.
However, I noted a couple of things about the provisions on police
orders. In particular, one was the proposed provision precluding police
from issuing orders against a child. I wonder why that provision is
there. Members may think I am being a little facetious when I point
out that children of 16 can be 6-foot tall. Some of my Tongan relatives
of 16 are considerably bigger than me, and I am talking only about the
female ones. I think that is something that could be looked at, as well.
One hears of children terrorising their parents, and I wonder whether
that is an area that could be looked at by the select committee.
As I have said, I agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel that police are
often better placed to judge circumstances, but I also point out—and
again, I think this is something that should be canvassed before the
select committee—that in my local area alone
I am aware of two instances involving male acquaintances, not friends,
where allegations were made against them and were accepted without any
evidence, at all. Both of those men spent a couple of days in
jail, as both incidents happened to occur on a Friday. I think the standard
of proof and evidence required in such cases needs to be looked at more
closely as well, both for police orders and for protection orders generally.
I am not saying for a moment that I would wish to reduce or blunt the
protection offered to women, but it is not a one-sided picture, as the
figure of one in four for women and one in five for men that I mentioned
earlier bears out. Having said all of that, the ACT Party and I personally
are very happy to support this bill.
