Queensland's legal bodies and domestic violence services have lined up against a state government bill that would let police issue domestic violence directions lasting three years without a court ever examining them, according to submissions published this week by a parliamentary committee.
The Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, introduced on 17 September, would make police protection directions the main police response to domestic violence. The directions, served on the spot and enforceable immediately, began statewide on 1 January and now last 12 months. The bill extends them to three years, removes the existing limits on when police can issue one, allows them to name children and abolishes the notices that currently send a matter to court automatically.
The government's own explanatory notes concede the trade-off. Without the court-bound notices, a respondent's chance of a hearing "will depend on the respondent initiating a review", the notes say, and "the rights of the individual are arguably less secure as there is not automatic reconsideration of police officers' decisions by a judicial officer".
The Queensland Law Society told the committee that "a police-issued direction should not continue for three years without mandatory judicial consideration". It said a wrongly identified respondent could live under restrictions for that long "without a court ever considering the factual basis for the direction unless a review is actively sought". Legal Aid Queensland put it more plainly: a person could be issued a direction, breach it, be arrested and face jail "without ever going before a court".
The penalties rise at the same time. The bill creates an offence of breaching an order or direction three times in 28 days, carrying up to five years' jail. "There is an inherent tension in expanding criminal liability arising from the breach of PPDs while simultaneously reducing the degree of automatic judicial oversight attached to those directions," the Law Society said.
Misidentification, where the person most at risk is named as the respondent, is the concern raised most often. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service called it "the most common concern" and said the change would turn frontline police into "quasi-judicial officers with none of the usual legal protections". The bill lets police decline to name a person in custody as a respondent if they judge that person to be the one most in need of protection.
The Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Alliance, whose members include DV Connect, said the expansion had been "fast-tracked before a statutory review of the existing scheme can be completed". Its chief executive, Melanie Arnost, told the ABC members wanted evaluations "delivered before we go about expanding something that we're not sure works".
The evidence so far is thin. Preliminary police figures tabled in parliament show 862 directions were issued between January and May, about 19 per cent of them naming women as respondents. The Queensland Police Service told the committee on 30 September it had no analysis comparing outcomes under directions with the older notices.
The government says speed is the point. "These nation-leading laws mean police can issue on-the-spot, legally binding directions for immediate protection, without waiting for an initial court hearing," Acting Minister Ann Leahy said when the bill was introduced. Police Minister Dan Purdie said it would protect "more victims sooner". The Queensland Police Union backs the bill but wants officers protected from personal liability.
The Education, Arts and Communities Committee holds its first public hearing in Brisbane on 14 October, with regional hearings in Rockhampton, Toowoomba and Loganholme later that month. Its report is due on 6 November.
