Page 1157 - Week 04 - Thursday, 17 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think that it is important to note that this bill has been fairly significantly redrafted since it was first proposed by the ACT government shortly before the election last year. By the time the bill was brought forward, I presume that the government argued it had done the necessary consultation. There were some fairly emphatic responses to the bill when tabled, however, and it was not debated. I note that there was a fairly extensive round of discussion with pertinent community-based agencies before this bill was tabled and, as a result, I do believe that we have a much improved product. The point here is that, while consultation cycles can seem to go on and on and be quite irritating to government at times, the outcomes are greatly improved if all parties persist.
The changes and improvements that we can see in this legislation include a more sophisticated definition of “relative”, allowing the term to reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kinships and other cultural groupings. We can see that the notion of an intimate relationship has been included, taking account of the fact that women can be vulnerable to domestic violence even when the relationship is a fairly recent development, that is, even in fairly new relationships that do not yet fit the definition of de facto relationships.
The recognition of harassment as a potential form of domestic violence and the use of psychological violence extending to violence and abuse of pets, which is recognised now as a way in which partners can get at other partners, are important refinements. I have some reservations about the severity of the penalties in this bill in relation to crimes against pets as against the existing penalties for crimes against persons, but I concede that I am currently too naive in my understanding of these matters for me to pursue them today.
The definition of who is a relevant person has been improved. It can include a domestic partner, a relative, a child of the partner, or a parent or child of the accused person. One concern of ours which is perhaps not appreciated by government is with the capacity of the registrar to recommend mediation to the parties—proposed new section 18A. It is clear that the mediation is only recommended, but people who work with victims of domestic violence would argue that those women can be in a vulnerable state, severely lacking in confidence, might not see that they had a choice in the face of such a recommendation and may find themselves pushed backwards into danger or distress by the process. By the same token, the Women’s Legal Centre has done a lot of work with chief mediators such as Relationships Australia and the Conflict Resolution Service, advising that mediation is not appropriate in a domestic violence context. We must hope that, even if such recommendations are made, the mediators will screen out people with issues of domestic violence.
I agree with Mr Stefaniak and Mrs Dunne that we all need to watch how this legislation works in practice, but the issue that we need to look for is whether the legislation does protect the weaker parties. This criterion is crucial. Of course, as some have mentioned, there is often debate as well as to who are the weaker parties. Changing the law is one method of working to reduce domestic violence, but it is a rough and approximate tool that is constantly being refined to reflect the mores of society of the time. Changing the culture in which domestic violence is seen by some sections of our community as normal is equally important. We still live in a society where violence is tolerated by some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .