Page 3680 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is a highly likely implication of a breach of a domestic violence order, however minor that breach might be. If the police feel sufficiently that the evidence points to a breach having occurred and they feel inclined to lay charges, then that is what a person in that position can expect. The message from the community to those who breach those orders is that the community views this as being of the utmost seriousness and activities of this kind will be little tolerated.
I note from the Attorney's presentation speech last night that the Community Law Reform Commission is presently reviewing domestic violence legislation and is considering the very question of more stringent provisions for persons who breach domestic violence protection orders and restraining orders. It may be, Madam Speaker, that the Bill I present today has to some extent pre-empted that review and, in those circumstances, I am prepared to see what is going on with the Community Law Reform Committee's work and, indeed, even to wait a little while to see what emerges from that process, although that does not mean that I will put it on the backburner indefinitely. The situation is a little unclear in that respect and I hope to be able to discuss this matter with the Attorney in due course. If it is the view of all concerned that this matter should be debated sooner rather than later, I would hope that we could talk about having a cognate debate on this matter and the matter which the Minister laid on the table last night.
To sum up, Madam Speaker, this is a measure to protect the community, particularly women in the community. I believe that it strengthens the affront that the community places to those who choose to commit acts of domestic violence and I hope, in that sense, that it will be supported by members of the Assembly who wish to make sure that the message to such people is quite unmistakable.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1992
MR HUMPHRIES (10.52): Madam Speaker, I present the Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1992.
Title read by Clerk.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Members may be aware that at present under the law in the Territory it is an offence to ride a bicycle within 10 metres of a shop during shopping hours. Perhaps members are not aware of that. I am not sure that the law is terribly strictly enforced and I am not sure how many of us ride bicycles; but that is the fact. The law does state that and I think, to some extent, it is enforced in certain circumstances.
What this Bill does, Madam Speaker, is extend that particular provision - that is, section 8C of the Traffic Act - in two ways. First of all, it extends the prohibition on the riding of a bicycle in those places to the using of skateboards, roller-skates or rollerblades. The second extension is that it provides that bus interchanges are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .