Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that undertaking. While I think everyone agrees that the notion of continuous review and assessment is a good thing, of course that is not actually enshrined in legislation specifically dealing with these changes. So, nonetheless, I thank the minister for that undertaking in this public forum. I hope that that will be a public and independent review that will, of course, be tabled in the parliament and indeed, the Democrats would have been prepared to support Senator Fielding’s amendment as a backup. Having said that, I thought that his amendment was somewhat more narrow than the Australian Democrats’ amendment. Nonetheless, I understand the numbers in this place and I think our views are made clear.

Question negatived.

The Democrats oppose item 3 of schedule 1 in the following terms:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 16 to 22), TO BE OPPOSED.

In relation to this schedule dealing with family violence, the Australian Democrats have made clear in our second reading contributions—and, indeed, in our Senate committee report—that we believe that the proposed introduction of a new definition of family violence is problematic. We would go so far as to suggest that the new definition will potentially do more harm than good. We believe that it may actually have an opposite effect: it may actually deter victims from alleging violence if they feel that they are unable to prove it.

We also find the proposal of a so-called objective definition a little extraordinary when it is clear from many studies and research into domestic violence that victims are usually in the best position to identify risks to themselves or to children. Mr Temporary Chairman, you may be aware that the Democrats disagreed with the chair’s report in relation to the legislation—the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s report—over this provision, as we believed it would definitely be preferable to not implement a definition before examining the issue in depth and coordinating a national and uniform approach so that federal, state and territory laws can achieve consistency.

I think you will find that in upcoming amendments we deal with some of these issues but, at this stage, we do not support the proposed new definition of family violence. I think someone made a comment the other day after I had given my second reading speech that perhaps a better definition is ‘criminal assault in the home’. I do not know if we treat even the term ‘family violence’ differently from the way we treat other forms of violence and abuse. Nonetheless, I do not agree with the current provision in the legislation and I would hope that it would be opposed.