Page 1160 - Week 04 - Thursday, 17 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
shadow attorney moves his amendment, but I have indicated in the speech I have just given the bases on which we support the extension of the legislation to cover personal injury and the extension of the definition of “personal injury” to cover psychological harm. I think the case is well made.
I note also from comments made by Mrs Dunne in the debate that the Liberal Party is expressing concern about the process or the mechanism by which a protection or domestic violence order is obtained and has expressed concern that there are opportunities for unscrupulous people to seek through that process a domestic violence or protection order, restraining orders broadly, and the potential for abuse of that system.
I know that it is a broad area, that domestic relationships, particularly when they do involve a breakdown in the relationship, do from time to time spawn responses that are perhaps inappropriate and that there is from time to time in failed domestic relationships a desire to hurt or to harm one’s partner or past partner. The issue is, of course, and has always been in the minds of those that have seen to ensure that our domestic violence and our protection orders legislation or regime is balanced and appropriate. In my opinion, this is a balanced and appropriate response to that most insidious of crimes, domestic or family violence.
It is a difficult balancing act. At the end of the day, however, I think it behoves legislators to put in place a regime to ensure that there is a range of appropriate checks and balances. It is my contention that this legislation, with the amendments being pursued today, does create a regime in which those checks and balances will be there which, at their heart, are fundamentally designed to protect family members from violence. There is an overarching responsibility on government and on communities to protect all members of the community from violence.
It is a fact, and it is not being sexist to assert it, that it is women and children that suffer in the majority of cases from family violence. It is important, having regard to the nature of the distribution of power within relationships, that governments acknowledge that. This is legislation designed in the main to protect women, girls and children. Whilst one might from time to time have a private concern or express a concern that the legislation in relation to domestic violence orders or restraining orders is used for an inappropriate purpose, designed more for some tactical advantage in a family court matter, as explained by Mrs Dunne when she foreshadowed Liberal amendments to the domestic violence and protection orders regime, there is a requirement that orders must be sought in a court of law, that the issue be tested and that the potential for a response be provided.
It seems to me that, with the arrangement that is involved, the need for the order to be supported and granted by a magistrate essentially involves a check and a balance or a regime that ensures that we meet our fundamental responsibility to protect people within this community from violence whilst at the same time ensuring procedural fairness for those that might be the subject of such an order or at least an application. I thank members for their support of the legislation.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .