Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1819 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The Bill also contains a new definition of behaviour that under the current Magistrates Court Act provisions could be referred to as "restraining-order-type-violence". This is a bit of a mouthful however, and the Bill uses a new term "personal violence" to describe the behaviour that would be grounds for a restraining order.

Consistently with the approach taken with the domestic violence orders, the orders made in respect of personal violence will be known as "personal protection orders".

Under the Bill, the term "protection order" is a generic term used to refer to both domestic violence orders and personal protection orders.

These changes are not substantive changes. They are simply terminology changes designed to make the Bill more user friendly.

In some of the recent restraining order cases, the Supreme Court identified a number of difficulties with the role of the registrar in restraining order proceedings. The Protection Orders Bill addresses these difficulties by providing a clear statement of the power of the Registrar to conduct a preliminary conference, make a consent order, and adjourn proceedings in specific circumstances.

In response to the Supreme Court decisions, the Bill also clarifies the requirement for a "likelihood of repetition" for a personal protection order.

The Bill includes a clear statement of objects and principles. While the general object of the legislation is to facilitate the safety and protection of all people who experience interpersonal violence, it particularly recognises that domestic violence is a form of interpersonal violence that needs a greater level of protective response.

The statement of principles in the Bill is an articulation of the balancing of rights that is inherent in making a protection order. The protection of the aggrieved person is the paramount consideration. Within this framework, however, any protection order should be the least restrictive of the personal rights and liberties of the respondent while still giving effect to the paramount consideration.

Other provisions of the Protection Orders Bill that I would specifically draw to the attention of members are the provisions relating to personal protection orders in respect of the workplace.

Members will recall that in September 2000, this Assembly passed an amendment to the Magistrates Court Act to allow an employer to make an application for a restraining order on behalf of an employee.

The Bill takes a different approach to the current provisions of the Magistrates Court Act which focus on individual employees as the aggrieved person, with the employer able to make an application on behalf of that employee.

Under the provisions of the Bill, the focus is on the workplace rather than the individual employees, with the employer becoming the aggrieved person for the purpose of making an application.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .