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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2036 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I would like to read from the report. It puts the problem with decontextualising the conduct in this way very well. It reads:

There is a risk that the outcome of applying an "objective" test will be a tendency to minimise and trivialise the conduct. One of the central features of domestic violence is the fact that it generally occurs in private and the victim is peculiarly vulnerable both in terms of accessibility to the perpetrator and the consequences of undue pressure and intimidation, through the use of a variety of methods and tactics aimed at exerting power, and to attain or maintain control. These tactics can include impugning the victim's reactions - that is, that ... the victim is crazy, that the victim is vindictive, that the victim is actually the perpetrator or that the victim is equally "to blame".

The report also found that the interpretation which has been used by the courts is also out of step with the intent of the legislation, which is to curb not just criminal violence but also other forms of violence which have traditionally fallen outside the scope of the criminal law.

The third set of amendments are in relation to the matters to be taken into account in determining an application for a protection order. These amendments are contained in clause 6 of the Bill. The Greens are proposing that, in considering an application for a protection order, the court should have regard to any history of domestic violence and also the need to protect property from damage. Given that the power to grant protection orders is discretionary and will depend on the facts of a particular case, this will enable the court to have regard to any history of domestic violence, including the details and circumstances of any previous protection order in any jurisdiction, and also the circumstances of any breaches of a previous order.

Mr Speaker, there are a number of other important issues raised by the Community Law Reform Committee in its report that are worthy of consideration. However, I think the measures I have highlighted will ensure that the protective regime is improved, hopefully in the very near future, for victims of domestic violence. I would also like to stress that changing legislation is not enough, and I think other members of this Assembly also recognise this as a very important issue. The key to prevention of domestic violence - and at the end of the day that is what we all hopefully see as the priority - is a coordinated response across all government and non-government agencies working in this area. This is obviously one of the reasons that I and other members of the Assembly have seen the domestic violence project coordinator as a very important part of reform in this area to achieve a multisystems approach. Having said that legislation alone is not the answer, it is very important that this Assembly recognise that reforms and cultural change are still needed in our society to send the message that violence in private lives and inside people's homes is as unacceptable as any other form of violence. As I said last week in the in-principle debate on the Bill establishing the Domestic Violence Prevention Council, we do unfortunately still live in a culture where violence, if it occurs in relationships, is seen as somehow different from other forms of violence. It is time this changed. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

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