Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

For the benefit of those who are following the proceedings, we will be moving a number of amendments, a number on which we will be dividing and a number on which we will not. I move amendment (1):

(1)     Schedule 3, item 1, page 4 (lines 18-22), omit the definition of family violence, substitute

family violence means:

(a)     conduct, whether actual or threatened, by a person towards, or towards property of, a member of the person’s family that causes that or any other member of that person’s family to fear for, or to be apprehensive about, his or her personal well being or safety, or

(b)     conduct, witnessed by a child, in which a person intentionally causes physical or psychological harm to a member of the person’s family.

Amendment (1) is a critical issue of difference between the government and the Labor Party. It does not go to the wide-ranging aspects of the bill which, as the Attorney mentioned in his summing up, the Labor Party is very supportive of, but it does go to a critical issue where we think the government is taking us down the wrong path—that is, the definition being used for family violence. This amendment would keep the definition of family violence in its current form in one part and in another part would ensure that ‘conduct, witnessed by a child, in which a person intentionally causes physical or psychological harm to a member of the person’s family’ would be included in the definition of family violence.

We think it is incredibly important that, if you are going to change the definition of violence, you are sure that you are changing it in a way that will provide more protection, not less, to people who are in very difficult circumstances. We do not believe that sufficient work has been done to insert ‘reasonable’ before ‘apprehension’ in this provision. Although the Attorney-General puts considerable weight on the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I think all of the people on that committee would agree that we were put under a very tight timetable by the minister—six weeks. We did not have any expert advice from the department or others relating to family violence and the consequence of changing this definition. That is no criticism of the department; it is because it was a change that was thought up, with good will, by committee members but without there being a clear understanding of the wide range of implications that could flow from it.

I might say that there is the potential—as the Attorney would know and other speakers might have referred to—to change the definition of violence to one that might be better if there is a concern that using this subjective definition disadvantages people against whom an allegation is made. In fact, all of the states have definitions which focus on the conduct of the party, not the impact on a victim, although some have a combined test with both objective and subjective components. Sufficient work was not done on this area. A proposal has not been made that has been thoroughly thought through. We do not believe it is appropriate in those circumstances to change the definition; therefore, our first amendment proposes to keep the definition in its current form, with the addition of making sure that ‘conduct, witnessed by a child’ is included in the definition.

We believe this is an area where the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, having been set up with the agreement of the government, could potentially take the time to consider the options that apply in different states. Certainly the Labor Party has an open mind about that, but we strongly feel that it is not appropriate to change the definition without understanding the consequences it might have and putting families that are in a vulnerable position at risk. That is why we feel so strongly about this particular issue. It is no disrespect to the other members of the LACA committee, who really were not given sufficient time by the government nor the resources that would have been necessary for us to really be sure that this change will not harm people.

I am very wary in this House that many speakers said that they are not 100 per cent convinced about the direction in which the bill is going but that they think it is a good change because people are not happy with the system as it is. I think the members for Denison and Lindsay and a number of others basically summed up their position as, ‘Let’s suck it and see whether these changes are going to work.’ I think that is a respectable position to put in a lot of the other areas where we know there are social changes and where there has been significant debate over the direction we are taking. I am not prepared to suck it and see when the consequences on the issue of violence could be so severe. We do not lose anything by taking a little more care in keeping the current definition in place and only changing it when we are satisfied that the definitions are workable. That argument might more easily be made if we were adopting a state definition or some combination of objective and subjective tests, but that is not happening. We feel very strongly that it is our obligation in the parliament not to change the law in a way which might make vulnerable people even more vulnerable. It is for that reason that I have moved amendment (1).

See this speech in context