DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL 1999 Second Reading Speech

Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL 1999

(This an uncorrected proof of the daily report. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.)

Bill presented and read a first time.

Mr BURKE (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this bill is to allow the portability of New Zealand protection orders in the Northern Territory, that is to allow New Zealand orders to be registered and enforced here. The bill also requires a Territory court which makes a restraining order to explain to the defendant that the order must be registered and enforceable in other States, Territories or New Zealand without further notice. In addition, it makes a number of minor amendments to the Act to clarify the meaning of various sections.

I turn firstly to the portability of New Zealand protection orders. At the March 1997 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General,. the ministers of each State and Territory save for South Australia which already had such legislation in place, agreed to amend their domestic violence legislation to allow the registration and enforcement of New Zealand protection orders in their respective jurisdictions.

Australian orders from the other Australian jurisdictions have been registerable and enforceable in the Territory since 1994. It is appropriate to extend that portability to New Zealand orders given the priority this government attaches to combating domestic violence, the close relationship between New Zealand and Australia and the considerable movement of persons between the two countries.

New Zealand has recognised restraining orders issued by Australian courts since 1995; this bill will make those arrangements reciprocal. The bill proposes to treat New Zealand orders in a similar manner to interstate orders, however Territory courts will not be permitted to vary the returns of a New Zealand order save for minor modifications to allow its effective operation in the Territory. Further, any variations made by a New Zealand court would not affect the order registered in the Territory. The provisions of the bill are modelled on a model Domestic Violence Law which was launched by Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Commonwealth Minister for Justice in April this year.

In brief, these provisions will allow a victim of domestic violence who has obtained a restraining order from a Court in New Zealand and subsequently moved to the Territory to have that order registered here. If the defendant named in that order breaches the registered order in the Territory then that breach will be enforced by the police in the courts in the same manner as a restraining order made by Territory court.

I now turn to the second matter addressed in the bill. At present there is no requirement to notify the defendant if an application is made to register an interstate restraining order in the Territory. This provision ensures that the defendant is not alerted to the victim’s whereabouts. Similar legislation exists in other Australian jurisdictions and in New Zealand. Given this, it is desirable the courts be required as part of the process of making the order to advise defendants that a restraining orders made in the Territory, may be registered and enforced throughout those jurisdictions without further notice. This is also consistent with the model law.

Finally Mr Speaker, the bill makes a small number of miscellaneous amendments to the act. The amendments are of a minor nature and serve only to clarify the intention of the legislation. I commend the bill to Honourable Members.

Debate adjourned.

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]