Page 1208 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Domestic Violence Crisis Service immediate approval and recognition under the Act. Its record of confidentiality is reported to be of the highest order, and warrants its inclusion as a provider of crisis support.
I now turn to the amendments proposed to the Crimes Act. I am pleased that we are now taking steps to ensure that weapons are removed from the homes and surroundings of alleged offenders. Unfortunately, efforts to date to ensure that alleged offenders do not have access to weapons have been proven to have some loopholes, and it is pleasing that these are now being addressed. It has been of concern to many of us that the New South Wales police force has been advertising on television, indicating the fact that weapons are seized as a result of a call relating to domestic violence incidents. These amendments will mean that there is no confusion in this aspect of the policing of domestic violence incidents.
I do not profess to fully understand the New South Wales legislation. However, I am aware that there are differences. I am sure that the Minister, Mr Connolly, will assure us that the ACT is in fact leading the way in addressing these issues. What will become the norm after these amendments are passed is that the impression given by the police advertisements in New South Wales will also be a reality in Canberra, with the added bonus that police will be able to search for weapons if they believe that the alleged offender has them anywhere on the premises.
Power already exists under the Weapons Act 1991 for the registrar to refuse a weapons licence to people subject to a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act. The registrar also, under section 51 of the Weapons Act, can cancel a licence once he or she is satisfied that a ground exists in relation to the licensee on which the registrar may refuse to grant a licence. Clearly, the Government's intention when this law was passed was to take weapons out of the hands of people who are subject to court protection orders. While this was a laudable aim, it fell short. As we all know, many people do not agree with gun licences and the non-existence of a licence does not guarantee that a weapon does not exist.
I am pleased to support these amendments to the Crimes Act. I applaud this Government for its recognition of what is a significant problem and for taking another step towards making the ACT a safer place for women, children and all those who are affected by domestic violence.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.38): Madam Speaker, I will not repeat the comments I made earlier this afternoon. I think they should have sunk in by now. On my cursory examination of this legislation, a couple of comments spring to mind. The Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill appears to be a reasonable and sensible extension of the power for the police to notify certain organisations of an impending or just completed act of domestic violence. Although that is a compromise with the principle that people are entitled to a certain degree of privacy, it is probably not a compromise which is unwarranted in the circumstances. There will, of course, be complaints in due course. Information will be conveyed that someone does not wish to have conveyed and there will be somebody who does not wish to be considered a client of a domestic crisis organisation. There will be hiccups such as that, but we hope that those sorts of cases are far outweighed by the number of people who achieve something positive and get benefit from this kind of provision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .