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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2835 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is interesting to know now, as we do, that the stakeholders referred to in this letter did not include any specialist domestic violence or women's services. This is like the debate we just finished. Mr Humphries continued:

It is important that there is a high degree of confidence in the efficacy of the new legislation and this takes time.

I absolutely agree with this, and that is why I hope that we will take the time to get this bill right.

Mr Stefaniak has explained, in a letter circulated perhaps to all members yesterday, that several legal bodies were consulted in the development of this new bill-the Magistrates Court, the DPP, the Legal Aid Office, the Victims of Crime Coordinator and the Community Advocate. My motion to defer this bill for more work is in no way criticism of their input or their knowledge. However, services which work specifically with victims of domestic violence were not consulted on the changes, and nor was the Women's Legal Centre, also a specialist.

It is not only the absence of this specialist input that motivates my motion today; it is the fact that some of these services, now that they have had a preliminary look at the bill, have raised serious concerns about the impact of some of the changes. They have indicated that the bill will remove parts of the legislation away from the approach recommended, and implemented following the extensive CLRC review of civil aspects of legislation concerning domestic violence. This is serious stuff for anyone who cares about domestic violence legislation.

The Domestic Violence Crisis Service said:

Although we think some of the changes are positive and will enhance the current domestic violence legislation specifically, there are proposed changes of substantial concern.

The preliminary comments by these experts in responses to domestic violence and the impact of these proceedings on victims of domestic violence indicate that the bill makes changes to the process of obtaining interim protection for domestic violence victims, reduces some of the flexibility of interim protection order conditions and length, and, importantly-Mr Moore, you will be interested in this-has apparently changed the test to determine the need in applications to extend domestic violence protection orders.

The government may well put the case that this bill is urgent, as it is designed to prevent invalid orders from being made, but the criticisms were made in 1999 and 2000.

You are usually very good at keeping the place in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you do not seem to be at the moment.

The magistrates courts themselves have responded to the Supreme Court's criticisms, which seems much more appropriate and what you would expect from a professional organisation. I understand that the court has increased training for all their deputy registrars, prepared a manual which sets out clearly their responsibilities and duties in

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