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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 316 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

responsible for 13 homicides. I am sure members realise that homicide is not a common occurrence in our community. The fact that there have been 13 homicides under circumstances of domestic violence is a matter of the gravest concern to me and, I am sure, to all members of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, the Opposition will be supporting Mr Humphries's legislation. We would, indeed, support any legislation that seeks to extend further protection, predominantly to women and children, from what is a very serious crime in our community.

MR MOORE (12.26): Mr Speaker, I hear Ms Follett talking correctly about the crime of domestic violence. When I hear people talking in this way, I feel that the word "domestic" takes away from the seriousness of the crime. We are talking about the crime of violence. Adding the word "domestic" seems to take away from the seriousness. In lots of ways I think our community should see it the other way round. The word "domestic" should signify a more serious crime.

We all recognise that domestic violence is seen as being on many different levels in our society and within families. As Ms Follett pointed out, in lots of situations domestic violence is simply not reported. That reflects the complexity of the issues and the relationships involved. For me, the most significant community value that underlies domestic violence is the value of ownership. Ms Follett pointed out that in the vast majority of cases - I am sure that it is over 95 per cent of cases - domestic violence is committed by men on women or children. Underlying the violence is a perceived sense of ownership. Certainly, until recent times almost all of our laws have reflected that that has been the case. That is something that is changing and is becoming entirely unacceptable.

I remember prior to the last election and on a number of other occasions speaking to various community groups who have argued that there is violence by women against men. Indeed, that does happen. When I have responded to them, I have said, "If I could find a way to deal with that situation in the law - and hopefully we will try to find ways to do that - it would be appropriate that we deal with it, but for the time being it is far better for us to try to protect the 95 per cent and to look after those people who constitute the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence, namely, children and women". Mr Speaker, we should still search for ways to improve the law to do that. The legislation before us today seeks to improve the law by addressing a conflict between two pieces of legislation - the Federal Act and the Territory Act. I am pleased that the Minister has been able to bring this Bill before us. Not only this Minister but also his predecessor have brought us to this point of being able to work together with the Federal Government and the States in order to clarify the legislation and by so doing to improve protection for the victims of this crime of violence that occurs in the home.

Mr Speaker, it therefore gives me pleasure to support this legislation. I hope that it will be just another small step in improving the situation in our community. I think it is also appropriate to remind members that change in the community does not come with just a change in law. It comes with a change of attitude. It is that change of attitude that all members of the community need to work on by frowning on the notion of violence in the home and by ensuring that the notion that one person effectively owns another person has no place in our society.

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