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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3824 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The answer might be found in what the Women's Legal Centre had to say about the bill. They said that the statement that the bill is merely a technical rewrite "seems to gloss over the reality that the Supreme Court decisions have effectively necessitated a review, rather than a mere rewrite, of court practice and procedure". I repeat, Mr Speaker, "a review of court practice and procedure". The Women's Legal Centre went on to say:

There are a number of reform initiatives taken in this Bill which represent a significant departure from the initial Government Response to ACT Community Law Reform Committee recommendations on civil issues in domestic violence passed in 1998.

Contrast that statement by the Women's Legal Centre with the Attorney's presentation speech and the letter to me in which he asserts that there has been no specific policy change. His letter says:

The closest the Bill comes to a substantive policy change is in the new provisions dealing with the workplace.

Well, whom are we to believe here, Mr Speaker? The Attorney, who wants us to pass his bill, or the Women's Legal Centre, who will be required to work with this law every day?

There is no suggestion by the Women's Legal Centre that the law was in such disarray it needed review. The Supreme Court did not criticise the substantive or technical law. However, it did criticise Magistrates Court practice and procedures. In Barkovic's case, Mr Justice Higgins concluded his reasons for the decision, which enumerated many administrative failings, by saying:

The history of this matter, regrettably, reflects little credit on the administration of the Magistrates Court.

One has to ask why was it necessary for this bill to be dealt with in this way at this time?

Mr Speaker, since their introduction, protection orders have been proven to be a necessary and useful innovation for the prevention of interpersonal violence. To cut to the position that the Labor Party takes in relation to this legislation tonight, the Women's Legal Centre and the Domestic Violence Crisis Service say that they have not been adequately consulted on this bill. There have been discussions, I understand, by the Attorney with those organisations-I think in the last two weeks-when the Attorney became aware of the positions which the Labor Party and the Greens have taken in respect to this bill. The Greens have also consulted now with those organisations, as has my office.

The position that continues to be put to me by both the Domestic Violence Crisis Service and the Women's Legal Centre is that they have not been availed of an appropriate opportunity to be consulted or to consult with their stakeholders in relation to this legislation. They remain of the view that those issues in this bill that go, in particular, to the way in which domestic violence orders are treated is unacceptable. It represents a significant and, in their view, a major change of policy and focus that they do not accept. They wish to consult with their client group and their stakeholders, and they want an opportunity to have meaningful input into the legislation.

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