Garrett David: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
Garrett David: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6741] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I am happy to say that ACT members fully support this bill and that we will be voting for it right through. This bill is another tool in the Police’s kit for dealing with serious offenders. Let us be clear that when we are dealing with domestic violence every offender is a serious one. 
In my short time here I have tried hard and until my naivety and greenness go I will continue to try to find something to agree on with speakers on the other side of the House. I came into the House to hear Ms Moroney’s speech and it is not hard to agree with something that she said: the ability to issue on-the-spot protection orders will be a godsend to victims of abuse. Sadly though I do have to disagree with Ms Moroney to an extent in that she focused very much on violence against women and suggested I think that it was always a male on female thing. 
In my first speech on this bill I touched on my own family situation and I thought long and hard about whether to do that again and I decided that I would. My own family situation was one in which there was very little violence but the violence that there was was from my mother. I recently saw a poster at my daughter’s school. I cannot remember the exact wording but the gist of it was that psychological abuse is abuse too. If something like this bill had been in place in 1973 it would have been my mother who would be removed from the home and who would be subject to on-the-spot protection orders. 
I can recall as a child the police being called to the house quite frequently normally by my mother. The police would get there and listen to the sorry story while the children were sadly also listening. The police never arrested my father; it would have been an injustice if they had done so. I say that now as a man of 51 but it was obvious to me then as a young child of 8 or 9. My mother was an evil toxic woman. She subjected my siblings to a toxic environment that continues to affect all of us to this day to some degree or other. Sadly I have very personal knowledge of the reality that abuse as a broad term is not always a male on female thing. 
This bill gives the police more flexibility to deal with those crimes or those situations through the issuing of on-the-spot protection orders. As I said in my first reading speech a police officer on the scene—as I saw as a child—will often be a better judge of a situation than a judge hearing an affidavit written by lawyers who have been coaching the deponent. Anyone in this House who is a lawyer who has practised in a firm that has a family law department will know very well the truth of what I am saying. Frequently affidavits not only by women contain words that the deponent cannot pronounce let alone spell. Allowing a qualified constable to assess a situation to determine whether there is a threat to someone’s safety and to act to mitigate that threat cannot be other than a good thing. 
I agree that today my own situation would still be a minority and that sadly it is probably mostly men who are guilty of this behaviour. They say there are two sides to every story and perhaps in some situations an order that requires either party but usually the male to be absent from the house for a while would be a better way of handling it than an arrest. I think in the last 20 years the police have moved very strongly and firmly to a situation where if there is any real damage done particularly physical damage arrests are made and I do not think anyone would or should disagree with that. 
I note that electronic messages are also included in protection orders and that has to be a good thing also. It removes the ability of offenders to exploit a loophole and harass their victims through mediums that are becoming more and more mainstream. Just in the very short time I have been in this House I have heard of Twitter which thankfully I have no knowledge of how to use and I do not intend to try but it is an illustration of how things are moving in that regard. 
Another important change that ACT firmly supports is the widening of the scope of the bill to include partners from previous relationships. Sometimes breaking up with someone does not put an end to the violence and abuse and I am glad that the bill now provides protection from those who simply will not let go. In a similar vein being able to issue on-the-spot protection orders without the consent of the victim is another necessary and positive amendment and there I think the speakers from the other side of the House epitomised by Ms Moroney have it 100 percent right. Sadly the victims who are intimidated whether emotionally or physically into forgiving the abuser are probably mostly if not always women. From the outside looking in it may make no logical sense but clearly often it is too easy for the victim to be intimidated or emotionally blackmailed into allowing violence and abuse to continue. 
I am disappointed though that the police are still not allowed to issue protection orders against children. I was reading my first reading speech this morning and noted a line in it that may have been thought to be facetious. I said that many of my 16-year-old Tongan relatives are larger than me and that is just the female ones. But that is in fact correct. “Children” these days can be pretty darned big. In my youth the word “child” conjured up images of meekness and innocence. Of course that is not true in all cases—perhaps then and certainly not now. It is a sad reality that teachers now report children of 15 or 16 coming up to them “in their face” as the youth say and saying: “You can’t hit me but I can hit you.” and normally adding an epithet at the end. This kind of bullying happens in the home also and I find it strange that both Labour and National have been eager to ban light smacking but will not do anything to protect parents from being hit themselves. 
Overall though both I personally and the ACT Party are pleased to vote for this bill and its provisions. As I have said it gives the police greater ability and power to deal with serious issues of domestic violence—and they are serious. In turn I hope this will give greater ability and power to victims to get away and to offenders to break their offending cycle. Thank you.