Page 676 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of the domestic violence order it seems unfair to further penalise him or her, as regularly the initial offence was never proven in legal terms beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent may already have been excluded from his or her home for 12 months and have had no contact with children.
Obviously, circumstances could arise where, at the end of 12 months, the applicant does have real and justifiable concern that violence may occur, especially if divorce proceedings are under way or imminent. It would seem to me that in these cases a longer period than 12 months would be required, which usually, I think, would be obvious when the original order was made. On this basis I believe that the court should have the discretion to provide for a longer period than 12 months in these cases - I think Mr Kaine made some very valid points in this area - but I really do not believe that automatic extensions should be granted with no input at all from the respondent. I really do feel that in each case they vary to a quite substantial degree and therefore the court is the best arbitrator in these circumstances. I also feel that quick and easy access to the court system is a must.
Most of my comments in this speech have been directed to female victims, but the problems of domestic violence will never adequately be addressed unless the needs and concerns of both parties are taken into account - I think that was the point that Ms Szuty was trying to make - not for a moment suggesting that women and children are not the real victims. But unless we take all parties into account in the way we look at the problem we will never solve it. If we totally ignore the rights of the male the problem will inevitably escalate. In whatever legal or social approach we as a community take on domestic violence, it is essential that we seek to balance the rights of both parties and attempt to solve the underlying problems rather than take the sledge-hammer approach, which can only lead to family breakdown and a continued escalation of violence.
MR MOORE (8.38): Madam Speaker, I may reiterate a number of the statistics that have been quoted tonight. I think it is important that they be reiterated again and again in our community in order that people understand the magnitude of the problem that we need to deal with. It is estimated that over 100,000 women each year in Australia are involved in violent domestic relationships. One study found that 42.5 per cent of all homicides were within families or de facto relationships. Aboriginal women have a higher chance of experiencing violence and homicide than non-Aboriginal women. In 1989-90 domestic homicides accounted for 70 per cent of homicides involving Aboriginal victims. A recent New South Wales study found that separation or the threat of it was the precipitating factor in 46 per cent of wife killings. The incidence of violent assault against women in the home is alarming. Australian attitudes to violence against women are even more alarming. The responses to this to date have been totally inadequate.
The ACT Community Law Reform Committee discussion paper is a highly significant document for the ACT in that it raises some practical ways to deal with this frightening phenomenon. Only the naive would believe that one report has all the answers. However, this report is a good start. It has tackled some of the fundamental issues inherent in this behaviour and raises some very important questions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .