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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3201 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

There are disadvantages, clearly - and I think most of us would be conscious of this - because there are some odd circumstances where, with the transfer of power, which this legislation provides and which Ms Tucker's amendment enhances, away from the males to the women and children, there is a problem created for some men. Interestingly enough, from my own perception, the reason why a problem is created there is that the relationship is invariably one that is about power in the first place; it is about who should be boss and who should be saying what somebody else should be doing, rather than a relationship that is based on understanding, tolerance and the things that make the vast majority of relationships in our community work extremely well.

Mr Speaker, therefore, it is with pleasure that I support the legislation that Ms Tucker has brought to this Assembly to enhance the Domestic Violence Act 1986. I am very pleased to hear that the Attorney-General is also supporting the legislation. It is interesting that, in dealing with the matters that need to be taken into account for a protection order, Ms Tucker has chosen to provide that the court should take other matters into account. I think it is important that we understand that already paragraph 10(1)(f) of the Act allows to be taken into account any other matters that, in the circumstances of the case, the court considers relevant. The court actually has the power to take such matters into account already. But there is an important issue here that Ms Tucker has brought to a head, and that is that there are certain matters the court should take into account. That is the import of what she has done by her clause 6.

If the respondent has previously engaged in conduct that constitutes a domestic violence offence, an actual offence, then the court should take that into account. I think we can all see the rationale behind that. If a protection order has been made in relation to the respondent at any time, particulars of that order can be taken into account. If the respondent has contravened a protection order made in relation to him or her, particulars of the way it was contravened and the need to ensure that property is protected from damage can be taken into account.

Importantly, those first three matters that Ms Tucker deals with are, I think, fundamental to issues that the court really must take into account. If you are giving a brand-new protection order and the respondent in this particular case has ignored orders before, or the orders have been made in a very strict way, then I think the court should understand that and should know that; otherwise, those who are most vulnerable in this situation, usually the women and children, are potentially at greater risk. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the most fundamental issue that is dealt with in all this amending legislation that Ms Tucker has put up is the further protection, the appropriate protection, of women and children. Occasionally, the protection will apply to men. But it is only occasionally and it is only the one case in 20 - perhaps the one case in 30 - where the shoe is on the other foot.

Mr Speaker, I must say that there have been many reports on violence in Australia that attempt to come to grips with how we can go about changing the sorts of situations we have with domestic violence. In the good old days - and we know many people look back on the good old days when these things were not an issue, and there was no legislation

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