Page 1210 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The matter of domestic violence was referred to the committee by this Government late last year. I received a letter from the chair of the committee, Justice Kelly, saying that the committee had identified two specific problems which they thought required urgent attention. The first was the privacy issue. Yes, I agree that Mr Humphries makes a point that there are privacy considerations here, but he agrees with us that, on balance, it is acceptable that we favour the potential victim of domestic violence. I think the whole issue of domestic violence and privacy is one about which we have correctly turned full circle. Only a decade ago domestic violence was seen as a private problem - something that happened behind closed doors - and society did not intervene. Quite properly, now we intervene strongly to protect women who are subject to domestic violence, and I am quite comfortable with the privacy aspects.
The weapons aspect is a specific response. I fully expect that when we get the report of the Community Law Reform Committee we will be looking more broadly at other aspects of seizure and control of weapons which may go along the path of the New South Wales legislation referred to by Ms Szuty or even other paths.
Mr Humphries said that we are giving the police broad discretion here when we are otherwise nervous about giving them such discretion. I am quite happy to say that yes, generally speaking, I do have some nervousness about broad discretion for police officers. I think a society ruled by law likes to have its law enforcement officers under fairly tight statutory guidelines. But, because of the potential harm to be done and because of the proven link between so-called sporting firearms and victims of domestic violence, it is appropriate to give these broad powers. I am pleased again that, despite some reservations, all members who have spoken support these reforms, which, as I say, implement the Law Reform Committee's recommendations for urgent action.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1992
Debate resumed from 18 June 1992, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .