Page 1150 - Week 04 - Thursday, 17 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
out. Indeed, there are often threats made in relation to loved pets and animals, in relation to burglary, and in relation to damaging and destroying property. In Australia, sadly, about 40 to 50 per cent of all marriages end in divorce, and some of those divorces are quite acrimonious in relation to both parties. Indeed, a number of domestic violence issues arise in relation to divorce.
Clause 8 also recognises that a person’s behaviour will be domestic violence if it causes personal injury, not just physical injury, to someone. That brings in the element of mental injury. We have an amendment to that and I will speak more about it at that point in time.
Clause 16 is another clause that may be a problem. Clause 16 outlines the steps required of a respondent seeking amendment or revocation of a protection order. It inserts a new step in the process in the use of a preliminary ex parte hearing to determine the merits of an application to amend or revoke an order. The intention behind this provision is to prevent a respondent from bringing repeated and unmeritorious applications before the court and reduce the exposure of an aggrieved person to unnecessary distressing hearings.
These matters are distressing to all concerned. A preliminary ex parte hearing may well assist, may well be a good thing, just like I think that the addition of threats to property, pets, et cetera, is most likely a good thing because, from my experience, that does happen. A problem that has been pointed out to the opposition is the potential there, apart from the ex parte hearing, to restrict the rights of a respondent to go back before a court. I suppose we will need to see how that pans out.
It is interesting to look at clause 20, which is the penalty provision, and reflect upon the seriousness of contravening a protection order. Yes, it is a serious matter. The clause provides that a person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct that contravenes a condition of a protection order. The penalty is to go up to 500 penalty units or imprisonment for five years, or both. Currently, the penalty for a first offence is 50 penalty units or, I think, two years imprisonment and it is 50 penalty units or five years imprisonment for a second offence, so the increase is significant. It does reflect the gravity of these offences.
It is interesting that, with this provision, the government is proposing a penalty of 500 penalty units and/or five years imprisonment for breaching a protection order and such a breach now might well be someone threatening to kill Fluffy the family dog, having a protection order taken out against them and going back and killing the family dog. That person would then be liable to a penalty of 500 penalty units or imprisonment for five years, or both. Under the Animal Welfare Act, the maximum penalty at present is only 100 penalty units and one year’s imprisonment for a similar act. Members will have an opportunity later to rectify this anomaly, should they wish, in relation to a bill before the Assembly. I will not anticipate debate on that, but I do make that point in relation to the penalties here.
There is concern in some circles about clause 21, which imposes a requirement on the court where the original order is a DV order, on application, to amend that order by extending it for a stated period, unless satisfied that it is no longer necessary to protect the aggrieved person. Currently, the order would last for one year, and this provision
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .