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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1559 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Speaker, it is now time for a major overhaul of that piece of legislation, and an overhaul of systems responses and delivery of services for domestic violence victims. As the CLRC report said, despite the extensive activity which is under way, the ACT is now behind developments in other Australian jurisdictions in relation to the development of a strategic plan for a multisystems response to domestic violence. Reforms to the law must be supported and parallelled by activities in other relevant areas, and all activities must be coordinated. I would support Mr Wood's statements about the need for a stand-alone coordinator.

The CLRC reports have made a number of recommendations to update and reform domestic violence responses and legislation in the ACT. One of the pieces of legislation before us today is implementing a recommendation of the CLRC report. That is the Bail (Amendment) Bill, which removes a presumption in favour of police bail when a person is charged with a domestic violence offence. Bail is therefore to be provided only when a police officer is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is no danger to the alleged victim or an associated person. The intention of the Bill is to reinforce police awareness about the risks of domestic violence. The Government has also tabled the Bill to establish the Domestic Violence Protection Council and we will be looking at it over the next few weeks.

Mr Speaker, we have to make sure that the very good recommendations of the CLRC do not just remain on paper. I am also concerned about the speed, or lack of it, with which many of the recommendations are being implemented. I did prepare amendments in relation to the issue of domestic violence which, for a range of reasons, have not yet been completed by the drafters. I will, therefore, be putting them forward as a private members Bill, hopefully within the very near future. I have discussed this with Mr Humphries and I look forward to the Government's support.

Briefly, the purpose of the amendments I will be putting forward is to extend the duration of protection orders, which Mr Wood just raised, and to remove the requirement for an applicant for a protection order to prove that they fear for their safety or that the respondent is likely to engage in a further domestic violence offence. Legislation which I am foreshadowing will also amend the Domestic Violence Act to require the court, in determining an application for a protection order, to have regard to any history of domestic violence, including the details and circumstances of any previous protection order. Obviously the legal response is only one aspect of domestic violence measures. A system-wide response is also necessary, and obviously it is critical that we do not focus just on improving legislation in this area.

MS REILLY (6.47): This is important legislation and I support the words said by the previous speakers. I think it is important that we look to improving the legislation and the way in which it could be better integrated. The saddest thing is that domestic violence is not decreasing or diminishing in our society. I think the need for this legislation is ongoing within our community. I think we are all very pleased with the legislation on guns that was introduced last year following the events at Port Arthur. In Australia, nationally, in any year, more than 52 women or children are killed in domestic violence incidents, but we do not seem to be able to make the same major response to domestic violence as we do to one incident on one day in Tasmania. It is not just crime, it is not just guns; what we are talking about is an imbalance of power within our community.

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