Page 681 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (8.55), in reply: Madam Speaker, briefly, in closing this debate I would like to thank those members who spoke most eloquently about the problem of domestic violence in our community. Members from all sides made eloquent and intelligent contributions, and Mr Stevenson delivered a tirade against feminism, the Family Law Act, alcohol, the demise of the family and every other ratbag right-wing view rolled into one. His suggestion that domestic violence displays anti-male bias, a feminist bias, just confirms all the prejudices of those hardline, right-wing misogynists out there who are dedicated to overturning domestic violence laws.
Mr Stevenson asked me why I did not attend a particular meeting. I did not attend the meeting because the "invitation" for me to attend the meeting was in fact a demand that I immediately repeal the domestic violence laws in this Territory or face a High Court challenge to demonstrate their illegality and, by the way, would I like to come to this meeting and explain why I failed to repeal them. When I get that sort of extremist ratbaggery directed to me I politely decline the invitation. I am sure that Liberal members who attended that meeting, and Mr Moore, would have been horrified at hearing that, because I am sure that they attended in good faith. My letter to the person who invited me made it very clear that we would not be repealing these laws; that we would look forward to any such legal challenge, which we would be confident we would win; and that, rather than attending their meeting to talk about domestic violence, we preferred that they take part in the public consultation that is at the heart of this document.
The other extraordinary statement from Mr Stevenson was that there is a higher rate of domestic violence amongst de factos than amongst married people. The authority for this is a statement in some Sydney suburban throwaway - a very appropriate way to conduct scientific research, pandering to that prejudice that back in the good old days before the decline in the family there was no domestic violence. We know that that is not the case. This has been a problem for decades in Australia and we are just starting to come to grips with it.
I would like to commend Mr Kaine for his impassioned statement. When a Leader of the Opposition refers to a problem, quoting Mr Kaine, as "disturbing and outrageous", normally one would expect that he is running a political attack on the Government and that the Government would respond in kind. The Government was encouraged to hear the words of the Leader of the Opposition describing the situation prevailing in relation to domestic violence as disturbing and outrageous. We would endorse those views. Mr Stevenson presumably takes a different perspective. One of the most disturbing things about it, perhaps, Mr Kaine, is that, while we recognise the faults in our system, in other parts of Australia they actually look to the Canberra system as a model for domestic violence laws. Our laws continue to be in advance of the situation in other parts of Australia.
Mr Moore said that perhaps we should have a specialist AFP domestic violence unit. Some States have done that, one could say, more perhaps by way of window dressing than anything else, rather than making sure that every unit, every mobile patrol, is educated because it is such a widespread problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .