Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

My concern also extends to the use of the word ‘reasonable’. I cannot quote this directly because I am remembering off the top of my head, but evidence was given at the committee hearing around the issue of reasonableness. One of the examples given was of the situation in which an ex-partner had harmed the family cat in quite a distressing manner which was clearly intended to intimidate. The point that was made later on was that, when the partner was about to go into Family Court, they were sent a card with a kitten on it. Any reasonable person may think, ‘What a nice gesture; they got a card with a kitten on it,’ whereas the person who got the card from their ex-partner knew the message that was being sent and responded in fear. I ask whose version of reasonable we are talking about. If you saw that, on the face of it you might think that was a nice reconciliation gesture, but the person receiving the card knew the message that was intended. The point I am trying to make is that it is not objective; it is subjective, and it is relative to the case. While I do acknowledge that it is an attempt to deal with the issue, I do not believe that the amendment that the government is moving meets those requirements.