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

by leave—I move Democrat amendments R(4), R(26) (27) and (28):

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

family violence means one of the following acts that a person commits against another person with whom he or she is in a family and domestic relationship:

             (a)    assaulting or causing personal injury to the person;

             (b)    kidnapping or depriving the person of his or her liberty;

             (c)    damaging the person’s property, including the injury or death of an animal that is the person’s property;

             (d)    behaving in an ongoing manner that is intimidating, offensive or emotionally abusive towards the person;

             (e)    causing the person or a third person to be pursued:

                   (i)    with intent to intimidate the person; or

                  (ii)    in a manner that could reasonably be expected to intimidate, and that does in fact intimidate, the person;

              (f)    threatening to commit any act described in paragraphs (a) to (c) against the person.

R(26) Schedule 6, item 1, page 136 (line 19), omit paragraph 68N(b).

(27)   Schedule 6, item 1, page 140 (lines 6 to 9), omit paragraph 68R(3)(b).

(28)   Schedule 6, item 1, page 140 (after line 19), after paragraph 68R(5)(b), insert:

                (ba)    have regard to the need to protect all family members from family violence and the threat of family violence and, subject to that, to the child’s right to spend time and communicate with both parents and other people significant to the child’s care, welfare and development, provided it is not contrary to the best interests of the child; and

These amendments relate to the issue we have been discussing—the definition of family violence. The first amendment, R(4), proposes an alternative definition of family violence modelled on a definition from the Western Australian legislation. They have domestic violence legislation that has been updated and removes the objective assessment that is currently in this legislation, and it includes a range of prohibited behaviours. So the definition includes assault, kidnapping, property damage including the injury or death of an animal that belongs to the victim, intimidating, offensive or emotionally abusive behaviour, or threatening to commit any of these acts.

Amendment R(26) is designed to strengthen the operation of section 68N. It removes paragraph (b) to avoid the risk that referring to the objects and principles as they are currently drafted will expose people to family violence.

Amendments (27) and (28) amend section 68R of the bill which deals with the power of the court in making a family violence order in order to revive, vary, discharge or suspend an existing order, injunction or arrangement under the Family Law Act. Amendment (27) omits paragraph 68R(3)(b). The Democrats believe this provision is unnecessary. The paragraph requires the provision of new material to a state court before it can change a family law order. The Democrats believe that this may operate to obscure a history of family violence and this, in turn, means that the new incident will not be seen in the context of that history. The Democrats believe that all evidence should be able to be adduced so that a court may understand the very complete nature of the relevant violent relationship. Amendment (28) adds paragraph (ba) to subsection (5) of section 68R. This subsection deals with the relevant considerations that the court must have regard to in exercising the power under this section. The text of paragraph (ba) makes the reason for its inclusion quite obvious. It says that the court must:

have regard to the need to protect all family members from family violence and the threat of family violence and, subject to that, to the child’s right to spend time and communicate with both parents and other people significant to the child’s care, welfare and development, provided it is not contrary to the best interests of the child; ...

This paragraph clearly provides a further safeguard for children and I hope that it will be supported by the Senate.