View a video recording of the speech here
Record of Proceedings, 27 August 2025
In making a brief contribution to the bill, I want to commend the minister for swiftly bringing forward this reform to the parliament so early on in the term of the new government. It deals with some matters which have been raised many times over the last several years as there has been a greater and greater focus on the scourge of domestic and family violence in Queensland. The main issue I would like to speak about relates to the establishment of police protection directions—PPDs—but before I do that, I also want to thank the committee that undertook the consideration of this bill, in particular the member for Nicklin who undertook to substitute for me on a number of occasions during that process and used his extensive experience as a police officer in helping the committee to be informed about the provisions of this bill. That was in relation to public hearings in Mackay and Cairns, and also the committee visited the parliament of Tasmania and consulted with stakeholders in Tasmania where these very initiatives have been put in place, and the member for Nicklin was able to assist with that as well.
The establishment of a framework for police protection directions—PPDs—without filing an application before the court deals with an issue that has been raised many times with me in my time in this place, and that is the inability often on the part of police to immediately protect a victim of domestic or family violence. The PPD framework will provide immediate and ongoing protection for a victim-survivor upon its being issued. It informs the perpetrator of the consequences associated with breaching the protective conditions of the PPD.
Very early on in my time as a member here, there were serious concerns raised by police in Beaudesert, where I represent, that the system for domestic violence orders and enabling protection for victims was completely inadequate to enable immediate protection, and the main reason for that was that police were unable to act without actually receiving a complaint from victims. One of the ways that police at that time were seeking to remedy that was to make domestic violence a specific criminal offence. We have gone a long way down the road since then and we now do have a criminal offence for coercive control which goes one part of the way to dealing with that issue. However, these immediate PPDs also enable greater, swifter action to provide immediate protection for victims. We welcome that. It will last for a period of 12 months, not going before a court before that period expires unless it is
challenged.
I want to touch on the issue that was always raised back then and that was the fear of victims of domestic and family violence about making complaints to police to enable protection orders to be given. The police did not actually have the power to do it immediately, but even in terms of going to court, there was a great fear—and still is, I am sure—on the part of victims in terms of being able to give evidence to police or to the court to enable an order to be made.
In the bill there are considerations that police need to heed before they issue a PPD. They include: the principles of administering the domestic violence act, that is, the safety, protection and wellbeing of people who fear or experience domestic violence including children; the criminal and domestic violence history of both parties; whether the respondent may cause serious harm to the aggrieved or a named person if the respondent commits further domestic violence; whether a court ordered protection order may be better in the circumstances; whether either party has a conviction for a domestic violence offence; and whether a respondent is not present at the same location as the police officer. Importantly, any views or wishes expressed by the aggrieved have to be considered by police before the issuing of a PPD. In addition to that, officers who issue PPDs must also obtain approval from a supervising officer who must be authorised to approve PPDs.
I want to go back to one consideration that must be taken heed of—that is, the views or wishes expressed by the aggrieved. I have heard members from the opposition speak about how there must be consent for these orders to be given. When you consider that police need to consider the views of the aggrieved in that situation and that the intent of the bill is to provide immediate protection in circumstances where there may be coercive control, and because of that there may not be the ability for the aggrieved to actually give consent, we are going as far as we can not only to enable the wishes of the aggrieved to be taken into account but also to achieve the overriding aim of seeking to give immediate protection to the aggrieved and people who may be impacted by domestic violence and who may benefit from the issuing of a PPD. Members should not buy into the argument that consent is not considered at all in this bill. It is something that needs to be taken into account by police when they are considering making a PPD.
The last thing I want to speak about is the proposed amendments to the videorecorded evidence framework. The proposed amendments are intended to minimise the distress and trauma experienced by victim-survivors when repeatedly speaking about their experience. The amendments to the Evidence Act will achieve that. They received broad support and I think that is another good step along the way to supporting victims in some of their lowest hours. I know that we have moved a long way in the last decade in terms of dealing with these matters, especially when it comes to how they are dealt with in the courtroom and the judicial system. This is another positive step along the way. I want to commend the minister again for bringing this bill to the parliament so quickly in the term of a new government. I thank the committee for their consideration. I give my support to the bill.