Page 675 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
could only compound that problem. With the tension and the frustration that inevitably result, it is understandable that the result is sometimes a violent situation - understandable, but certainly not acceptable. Governments should ensure that the resources for these services are properly provided. I believe that counselling at the earliest possible time is absolutely vital. I therefore feel that the discussion paper possibly should have taken into consideration and fully addressed this issue. With marriage guidance counselling and other associated counselling, surely, as a community, we can do better than an eight-week wait.
The Domestic Violence Crisis Service does a great job - a job which is carried out in very stressful circumstances, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is not easy and they provide a much needed service. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Domestic Violence Crisis Service to arrange counselling of the two parties at the interim protection order stage. The current 10-day order may, in some circumstances, actually inflame an already unfortunate circumstance, particularly when an ouster order is involved and no actual violence has taken place. Is it possible? Surely in papers like this and in the community that we have, with a very real problem, we should look at all the possibilities.
My second point is the target groups identified in the paper. The discussion paper rightly mentions particular groups of women who have special problems - Aboriginal women, Torres Strait Islanders, non-English-speaking women and handicapped women. One of the reasons given for these special problems was the reluctance of these women to use women's refuges, particularly amongst non-English-speaking women, because the refuges are based on feminist philosophy which is often alien to some of these women.
There is another group of women who have been overlooked in the discussion paper. These are women who are the wives or partners of senior businessmen, professional men, senior public servants - women who are perceived to have money or to be privileged. In many cases they have no money of their own because their spouse or partner controls the purse strings. These women are isolated from general community assistance because they are trapped through the intimidation of the social circle in which their husbands move. They regularly have no way of supporting themselves or their children, and therefore feel that they cannot leave the family home. These women, certainly in my experience, have great difficulty in seeking assistance from women's refuges. They really are a forgotten group of women in Canberra, and I think they are a growing group. These women, together with other groups which have been identified, I think, make up the majority of the unreported cases, yet they really have been overlooked. Their needs also need consideration and help, and it is certainly not an easy problem.
My third point - one that I think Mr Kaine brought up - is whether the current effectiveness of domestic violence orders in regard to the time limitations imposed and the procedures on expiration of the orders is adequate. This, like restraining orders, I think, requires the wisdom of Solomon to protect the applicant, and in some cases the rights of the respondent need to be looked at as well. My view on the suggested options - I give you only my view - is that extending the current 12-month period has some very real problems in terms of the rights of the respondent. If the respondent has complied with the provisions
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .