Page 1890 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: I beg your pardon!
Ms Ellis: No, Mr De Domenico.
MR MOORE: I apologise and I withdraw that, Madam Speaker.
Mr Berry: It was Jimmy.
MR MOORE: It was a scoffing interjection from Mr De Domenico.
Mr De Domenico: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not mind what Mr Berry calls me. He happened to call me Jimmy then. My name is not Jimmy. Once again, if Mr Berry takes points of order about people calling his statements hypocritical, I will take a point of order every time I am called Jimmy by Mr Berry.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr De Domenico, when Mr Berry addresses you I will ensure that he uses your correct name.
MR MOORE: I will reiterate the sentence that was scoffed at by the most conservative of the Liberals: I stress that these women's fears are very real. They have already been attacked and expect an escalated attack by men whose concepts of relationships with women are confused with notions of ownership and power. That is exactly what the problem is, and it is not something to be scoffed at. They are doubly dangerous when their partners leave because they have dared to assert themselves. Bullies react very dangerously when the object they thought they could own and control not only leaves but also is supported in doing so.
Members may have read with horror an article that appeared in the Canberra Times on 12 August. This article reported on a recent case in the courts relating to the abduction, handcuffing and repeated sexual assault, including rape, by a man on his estranged wife. The defence counsel argued that his client's gaol sentence should be kept to a minimum as, and I quote from the Canberra Times, "the charges relate to his wife, not to strangers. If he had abducted different women, the penalty would be higher". That reflects the very point I was making about confusion between ownership and power, and it is important that that defence counsel be berated, as I am doing now, for that sort of comment. The final penalty given in the case seems to me to reflect that the judge was not swayed by the argument. This treatment, quite rightly, sends alarm bells ringing for women everywhere. It should also alert men to the crux of the problem: Our society suffers from distorted and warped concepts regarding women that are often based on misogyny.
I hope that this is the last of the attacks on these refuges by Mr Cornwell or any other member of this Assembly. Having said that, I do not mean to imply that any organisation using public funds is not to be held accountable. It certainly is. But, here again, the arguments have not been sound. We are asked to compare apples with pears, to compare costs of a men's shelter on a dollar for beds basis with those of a women's refuge, when the women are most likely to have children with them when they flee from violence. A men's shelter, also sadly needed in these days of unemployment and homelessness - I am conscious of that, and Mr Cornwell has raised the issue about Ainslie Village on a number of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .