Page 668 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
justified because of some intimate or biological relationship, it becomes a much harder task to reduce the level of violence in our society than by simply legislating. This is where I see the Community Law Reform Committee's discussion paper as being crucial in our bid to lessen the incidence of domestic violence.
Evidence suggests that, while domestic violence legislation has given a courtroom solution to part of the problem, the remedy has highlighted even more dilemmas. What is more, it seems that the laws have not achieved what many envisaged they would; that is, safety and security for victims of domestic violence. Seven years after the introduction of the legislation we have a list of 11 issues that need to be addressed. The issues are very diverse and include the duration of protection orders, arrest and detention of perpetrators, statistics gathering, training of magistrates, sentencing and, in general, ways of dealing with offenders and victims.
What needs to be kept uppermost in mind when these issues are decided upon and paths chosen is that there needs to be a determination and an understanding of the result we want to achieve as a society to ensure that the changes we propose are effective. Seven years ago it was thought that by setting out in the law that victims did not have to lay charges in domestic violence cases we would solve the problem. This has proven not to be the case. We have police officers unwilling to expose themselves to charges of false arrest, although the discussion paper points out that they are not as cautious in other areas of their policing duties. It is also based on the fact that police officers do not like going into court with a witness who may not testify. This is one of the many areas where firm decisions on arresting and charging have to be made and, as I stated earlier, we need to be very clear about the outcome we want.
In my estimation the outcome wanted by most people at this time in our community is for domestic violence to be seen as unacceptable, to provide for the safety of women and children, and to deal expediently with perpetrators. In this we need to remember that we are not dealing with statistics, numbers on a page or names on pieces of paper. We are dealing with people and human relationships, which should indicate that the system needs to be as flexible as possible, to allow victims and potential victims to feel empowered by the process.
Suggestions have been put forward to lower the acceptance of domestic violence in the same way as we have established the non-acceptance of drink-driving. The aim is indeed worthwhile as long as we recognise the differences in the two problems addressed. The fact that society recognised drink-driving as a problem long before it acknowledged domestic violence as a problem shows that we still have a long way to go and that the issue is fraught with the inconsistencies of human relationships. Where sensible drinking behaviour is still possible, domestic violence cannot to any degree be condoned. It is not the combination of violence and other actions that is unacceptable; the violence is the problem which we, as a society, must work to remove. Any education campaign that is needed must start with those in a position to make a difference.
Despite what certain judges in South Australia may think, it should not be acceptable to use force against a partner or, extending that, another family member. The judiciary have an unequalled power in these matters. Police will not prosecute when they do not feel that a conviction is possible. And on what do they base this view? The past judgments of magistrates and judges.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .