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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4900 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

This Bill also amends existing legislation to broaden the scope of the restrictions and prohibitions that are made by the court. The amendment enables the court to make such orders as it thinks fit, rather than being restricted to the finite list of prohibitions currently set out in section 9 of the Act. The integrity of the Act has also been enhanced by making the protection afforded by the Act more accessible for people who are unlikely to obtain protection without special assistance.

Provision has been made in this Act and the Magistrates Court Act to enable the Community Advocate to apply for protective orders on behalf of those who are unable to represent themselves either because of legal incapacity or mental incapacity. There are safeguards in the legislation to ensure that the Community Advocate is an appropriate person to make an application on the person's behalf in the circumstances.

A provision has also been inserted into both Acts to provide that, where the applicant is the Community Advocate, the person for whom protection is sought shall be a party to the proceedings. The benefit of having this provision is that it will enable the protected person to make an application to vary or revoke existing orders on behalf of the person where circumstances have changed.

This Bill is also aimed at improving the efficiency of court procedure and practice in relation to the timeframes required for the listing of an application for hearing and for the service of interim protection orders and protection orders on a respondent. The legislation, as it currently stands, requires that an application for a protection order be listed within two days of the date on which the application is filed. The legislation has been amended to allow for a more flexible timeframe of up to 21 days in situations where an applicant is not seeking an ex parte order and may know that the two-day period will not be sufficient for the respondent to be served with an application. This avoids the necessity for an applicant to come back to the court and apply for an extension.

A similar problem has been identified in relation to the duration allowed for interim protection orders. Under the existing legislation, an initial protection order remains in force for a period not exceeding 10 days. This Bill enables a court to grant an interim protection order for more than 10 days where the court is satisfied that it is likely that the 10-day period would not be sufficient for the respondent to be served with an initial interim order or the application for the protection order.

This Bill also seeks to improve the efficiency of court procedure and practice relating to consent orders and variations or revocation orders made by a magistrate. The Bill enables the court to make an interim protection order or vary such an order in particular circumstances where a respondent has not been served with an application. Because we are mindful of the need to ensure an appropriate balance in the process for both applicants and respondents, the respondent is also able to make an application to vary the interim variation order.

A provision has been inserted in the Act to enable the court to order a party to compensate another party if satisfied that the conduct of the party has been frivolous or vexatious or has not been in good faith. I believe, Mr Speaker, that the inclusion of this provision may go some way towards reassuring those who see protection order legislation as enabling an abuse of process.

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