Page 1200 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They would say that the Liberal Party is not in favour of reciprocal arrangements, or is in favour of domestic violence or something emotive like that. Therefore, we are not going to oppose the legislation before the house today. But I repeat that it is not desirable to be engaged in this process. Those opposite are debasing the process of proper government when they force legislation such as this on the Assembly so quickly.
MS SZUTY (4.06): Madam Speaker, I am sure I echo the sentiments of most women when I applaud the Government for bringing this Bill to the Assembly. I recognise that it is part of a nationwide move to ensure the well-being of victims of domestic violence, particularly those who feel compelled to leave their homes to escape the perpetrators of these crimes. That is what we are talking about here - crimes of domestic violence, as defined under the Crimes Act 1900.
It has always been difficult for victims of domestic violence to come forward and ask for help. In the more violent and repetitious cases, women often despaired when told that they could not escape their perpetrators, as any protection offered within the ACT could not be transported across the border. This has, in the past, been the cause of much hardship, as many women found themselves trapped within the ACT because of the lack of portability of protection orders. The case quoted by the Minister, Mr Connolly, in his speech last week clearly shows that the victims of domestic violence have, until now, been unable even to contemplate interstate holidays, which in Canberra's case sometimes means a two-hour trip to the coast, as they feared that they would leave themselves open to further abuse. As has been demonstrated in far too many cases in recent years, domestic violence can often end in tragedy.
Of major significance is the clause adding to the list of matters which must be explained to the respondent in domestic violence cases. It is important that respondents in these cases understand that domestic violence is not acceptable behaviour. As the result of the passage of this Bill, it will no longer be of consequence whether a person lives here or interstate; a protection order, when registered with the appropriate authorities, gives victims of domestic violence the protection of the courts. All too tragically, this cannot protect all women against the perpetrators of domestic violence; but we need to do all that is within our legislative power to prevent its occurrence.
I am pleased to note that the Federal Government, following the meeting of State and Commonwealth Ministers for the status of women, will produce the first national strategy on violence against women in October 1992. It is well overdue; but I feel that, with the passage of this legislation, we are taking positive steps in signalling to all perpetrators of domestic violence that our society does not accept a person's right to mentally or physically abuse others.
A recent forum which attracted representatives from more than 40 national community organisations has also listed domestic violence among the priorities for the National Agenda for Women. This document, which was first produced in 1988, outlines long- and short-term objectives for policy development. This latest round of consultations will be the basis for policy development and evaluation to the year 2000. Education, employment, income security, the needs of special groups of women, and health are also high on the agenda.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .