Mr TONY SMITH(10.35 p.m.) —Senator Crowley thinks I need counselling for daring to suggest that the misnamed domestic violence orders were issued like confetti in Queensland. I stand by those comments. Indeed, I go further. They are more often than not obtained in circumstances amounting to an abuse of process. They can have a devastating effect on the lives and reputations of those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end. Those orders can last for 2½ years. The whole system is in desperate need of reform.

If a person assaults his or her spouse, he or she is subject to the criminal law as much as anyone else. They can be arrested, they are placed on bail conditions and can be found guilty and punished if the court considers that a charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. All that is out the window in a domes tic violence `law'. As solicitor Tim Mazzoletti recently wrote:

Domestic violence orders are notoriously easy to obtain and are often granted in the absence of the respondent and on evidence that would not be admissible in any other type of application or court proceeding. The allegations used to support some applications are based on old and often trivial incidents sensationalised to the point of absurdity.

So where all that is required is harassment to be branded as a person subject to a domestic violence order, with all the stigmatisation and consequences that follow, you would ordinarily expect a particularised charge, proper admissible evidence and an onus of proof more than just more probable than not. In my own case, an order was made not for violence but for saying that life was not worth living if I could not have access to my two sons.

But, if my views are such that I am in need of counselling, apart from the solicitor I have just mentioned, what about some counselling for Mr Justice Moss of the Family Court and Dr Pat O'Shane, a prominent New South Wales magistrate? His honour said that `examples abounded' of the misuse of these orders in New South Wales. He said that couples were using them as weapons in divorce courts with spurned wives taking them out as vengeance against their husbands. The orders originally meant to protect victims of domestic violence had been expanded to cover so many areas that they were open to abuse and the laws needed to be changed. Dr O'Shane said:

Without a doubt, in some instances the resort to AVOs is wholly justified, but in an increasing number of cases, women in particular have taken out AVOs against their former spouse or de facto in order to prevent his getting access to children of the relationship, very often in vengeance at having left, especially to form another relationship.

Justice Moss said that in divorce proceedings one or both sides obtained them against each other as a way to further their case in the Family Court. In other cases one side would agree to an order with no evidence simply because it was cheaper than fighting it because they were already facing substantial legal bills for their divorce proceedings.

As I said, the consequences can be horrendous. Take the case of Tim Garvey, a senior constable of police, a person who works in my electorate in a police station at Ferny Grove. His wife walked out on him with their nine-week-old baby after 12 months of marriage in April 1996. In October 1996 he was served with an interim order at his place of work. The application contains the flimsiest allegations—no physical violence, mind you—and some of the evidence demonstrates untruthfulness, sensationalism and hyperbole on the wife's part.

Garvey appeared for himself; his wife was represented by legal aid. There was a particularly ordinary decision by the magistrate. The magistrate failed to particularise an act of domestic violence in his judgment or anything to suggest that such acts of domestic violence would occur in the future. What were the consequences? He had to notify his superior and surrender his firearm, regardless of whether the court made an order allowing him to retain a weapon at work and detail all of the circumstances. He is confined to a desk as a clerk in uniform until March 1999, 2½ years later. He cannot work overtime, he is stigmatised by his peers, people wonder if he is corrupt or a psycho and he cannot be promoted.

If he had had the fortune to be charged with the criminal offence of assault or even assault occasioning bodily harm, he would have had the following rights: particulars of the precise charge he was facing; strict adherence to the rules of evidence, no hearsay; the onus of proof on the prosecution; the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; and competent legal representation through his union. If found guilty of a criminal act, he would in all probability not receive a conviction; he might be discharged absolutely and he could even carry on in the police force as if nothing happened. Even if there was bodily harm, there have been cases where police officers have been convicted, not dismissed and go on as if nothing happened. This is a real injustice and, in the words of Pat O'Shane, Justice Moss and many others, the system needs to be reformed.