Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I thank the minister for bringing the member for Clark, Kristie Johnston’s, bill to this place. It is true that, on this issue, there can be no politics. When we respond to the scourge and the devastating toll of domestic and family violence, we have to be united and remove all politics from the debate. Victim-survivors, women and children, deserve nothing less. On this bill, it is refreshing that this is something we can all agree on.
Of course, the Greens will be supporting this bill that makes two fairly straightforward amendments to the Family Violence Act 2004 relating to the extension of orders and formalising how costs are awarded.
I want to acknowledge victim-survivors of family violence and sexual assault. I want to acknowledge the devastating toll that this can have on women and children, and people in same‑sex partnerships. The evidence tells us that in three‑quarters of all reported domestic violence matters, the perpetrator is a man. In 25 per cent, however, the perpetrator is a woman.
While I am saying this, I want to apologise to my colleague, Mr Gaffney, for my thoughtless interjection yesterday during his state of the state speech and acknowledge the truth of what he was saying.
Domestic violence and gender inequality are vexing and wicked issues that affect us all. They also have an effect on frontline workers in community services. They put pressure on our housing and homelessness system, our mental health, and health and wellbeing systems. As we know, it is children who often experience the most profound and lifelong trauma impacts of growing up in households where violence, coercive control, emotional and psychological abuse were just part of the day, and often part of the night, too.
The amendments are overdue. I want to thank Tasmanian Legal Aid for coming forward and advocating for these two critical amendments to the Family Violence Act 2004, based on their deep understanding of what is happening in the community, particularly to women and children.
I am very thankful for the briefing that we received this morning and some of the information that was provided to us. Where a police family violence order or a court family violence order has been handed down, according to the briefing that we received this morning, 75 per cent of women do not seek an extension of that order. It is based on the fact that there is potential terror that is associated with that, there is the threat of costs hanging over their head, and there is the current provision in the act that requires there to have been some sort of incident or changed circumstances in the 12 months that the order was in place.
As Ms Johnston points out in her second reading speech, the fact that there has not been an incident during the course of that 12-month order is proof that they can work. We know they are imperfect. We know that there are perpetrators for whom the provisions of a police family violence order or court family violence order mean nothing. We know that, and we heard compelling case studies from Legal Aid this morning of how far some perpetrators can go to continue their intimidation and their coercive behaviours. We also heard in devastating detail the impact of that on victims, the impact it can have on children at critical and vulnerable times of their lives.
In our briefing this morning, we heard what we know ‑ that court processes, whether they are in the Supreme Court or the Magistrates Court, can be extensively drawn out, which prolongs not only the stress to victims and survivors but the risk. In the Supreme Court it can take up to eight months for a family violence matter to reach trial. In the Magistrates Court, in 22 per cent of cases it takes more than 12 months, according to the information we were provided with this morning.
If an alleged victim reports a sexual assault, but not in the immediate time after the assault, we were told it can take more than 12 months for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether or not to press charges. During that period, the victim and their children, if they have them, will be under enormous stress and under considerable risk. The removal of the substantial change provision under the extension of family violence clauses in the principal act is very welcome, as is the clarification around costs.
I note the member for Murchison, who always makes a really good contribution on these matters, talked about how these changes can make women and children feel safe. They will also, arguably, make women and children more safe. That is why this amendment bill has received such strong support in the other place ‑ tripartisan, multi‑partisan, all across politics ‑ because we know these changes are necessary and important.
I recognise that there is a broader suite of changes to the Family Violence Act 2004 that needs to be made. There is a review process. In submissions that came forward over the summer break, there are some very constructive proposals about how you might modernise an act that is now 21 years old. We very much look forward to contributing towards that review.
As a woman in this place, it is important we acknowledge the work of our predecessors, wherever they came from in politics. In 2004, again, it was a tripartisan approach of women in the House led by then‑Attorney‑General Judy Jackson, who introduced this landmark legislation that created a safe‑at‑home framework that was arguably, at the time, nation leading. It was strongly supported by Liberal women, Greens women.
Another one of those examples of where tripartisanship can have such profound, positive outcomes in dealing with some of the wicked problems that vex our society. When I say wicked problems, they are not unsolvable problems, but they are complex. In Tasmania in some parts they are cultural. Whether you are from Stanley, Smithton, Mount Stuart or Sandy Bay domestic and family violence happens across demographics. There are women, children, trans people, people in same-sex partnerships right now who are being subjected to violence, psychological emotional abuse, coercive control – across our communities in every one of our constituencies. I am sure we are all holding them in our hearts today during this debate and that we collectively resolve on this issue.
We will be a constructive part of modernising the Family Violence Act, so it continues to do its best as much as any legislation can to prevent a domestic family violence and sexual assault and keep people, women and children safe. I too support the bill and commend it to the House.
