Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

The government is the first to concede that a child witnessing violence is totally undesirable; it is appalling that a child should be in those circumstances. But, as Senator Stott Despoja said, we should look at this in a dispassionate manner and look at a definition which will serve the interests of justice. That demands that we get definitions right. No-one who goes into the Family Court has a mortgage on right or wrong. We who stand outside and look in are lucky to be in that position, if I can put it that way. Certainly, my experience has been that you can never prejudge matters where you have human affairs involved, being as they are. So I would not seek to prejudge any particular group of people or in any way make an assessment as to where the rights and wrongs lie in relationships between husbands and wives. But I do say that we should have a definition which works.

We believe that the opposition’s proposal is unnecessary. This was a matter which was considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. They did not see any merit in adding this clause to the definition. The government’s existing definition would cover a situation where witnessing violence causes a child to fear or be apprehensive for their own safety. I stress that. The government’s definition allows for a history of violence to be taken into account. We are saying that once you get into a listing of circumstances you do so at your peril to the extent that you become prescriptive in your definition. We have a definition—with a note which hopefully will be passed and attached—which can stand the test of time and the administration of justice.

I believe that the concern that the opposition has is a legitimate one, and Senator Ludwig put his point clearly. But we have already accommodated for that in the broad definition that we have in the bill and also in the note that I will move at a later stage. I repeat that, in the government’s definition, a situation where witnessing violence causes a child to fear or to be apprehensive for their own safety would be covered. Furthermore, the government’s definition would allow a person’s circumstances, including a history of violence, to be taken into account. It is for that reason that the government does not support the amendment sought by the opposition. I stress that, whilst there is a great deal of concern for women and children and the position they can find themselves in, there are also men who are in the family law system. They should be remembered as well. We as a government have a duty to make sure that our definitions apply to all Australians, be they young, old or of whichever sex, and that they will serve the administration of justice in a manner which works and is fair.

Question negatived.