Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 315 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

I turn to the particular legislation which we have before us, presented by Mr Humphries. It does seem to me to make some sensible provisions for better meshing our domestic violence legislation with the family law legislation, which is of course a Commonwealth matter. The legislation which Mr Humphries has put before us, first of all, makes the Family Court consider a history of family violence or any existing family violence orders. That is a provision which is very much needed. I think it would be very regrettable if any action that the Family Court took actually exposed people to violence which they had otherwise sought to be protected from. That is a sensible provision requiring the Family Court to take those measures into account.

The Bill before us also says that the Family Court must make orders that are consistent with family violence orders or, if it does not, then it must explain its reasons for making an inconsistent order. Again, Mr Speaker, I think it is very important that the protection offered by domestic violence orders be mirrored in the Family Court. I believe that this is therefore a very sensible provision and one which is necessary.

The other division which Mr Humphries seeks to amend is Division 11. Again, it provides that contact orders must not expose people to violence, whilst respecting the right of the child to have contact with both parents. I believe, Mr Speaker, that in making contact orders the Family Court would be expected to consider at all times what is in the best interests of the child. The court, under Mr Humphries's Bill, must explain its reasons when it makes a contact order that differs from an existing family violence order. That, of course, is in order to protect the best interests of the children and to ensure that children are not exposed to violence because of any inconsistency between the Family Law Act and the domestic violence legislation.

Mr Speaker, the Bill that Mr Humphries has brought forward provides that, when there is an existing family violence order which is inconsistent with any new contact order made by the Family Court, the new contact order does prevail over the family violence order; but, as I have said, the violence order must be taken into consideration and the court must explain if there is an inconsistency between the two orders. Mr Speaker, I believe that the legislation we have before us is a necessary step. I would like to see it as extending the protection offered by domestic violence legislation to people while they are in hearings in the Family Court. I am aware that that is certainly Mr Humphries's intention in bringing it forward and certainly the intention of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in recommending this legislative reform.

However, Mr Speaker, I realise that the Assembly has before it a very major and worthwhile report on domestic violence. That is the Community Law Reform Committee of the Australian Capital Territory Report No. 9. I realise that that report will be coming up for detailed debate at some stage in the Assembly's sittings. I look forward to that debate. It is my view, as I have said before, that domestic violence still does not have the recognition it deserves; that it is a very serious crime. In the ACT alone it has been

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .