Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

The government opposes this for a number of reasons. Firstly, the definition that we have is rather prescriptive. I can appreciate what Senator Stott Despoja is trying to drive that here, but we believe that you need a compendious definition which is capable of absorbing the varying human circumstances that one comes across in family law. Having practised in family law to some degree, I must say that you are always amazed at the different circumstances you do come across.

I will give you one example from this definition. It says:

damaging the person’s property, including the injury or death of an animal that is the person’s property;

You can instil fear in someone without injuring an animal owned by them. I certainly could imagine circumstances where you could inflict injury or even worse on an animal and display it in such a fashion as to instil fear in someone. I think the film The Godfather did that very well with a horse’s head. That just demonstrates how, when you have such a prescriptive definition, you can distinguish things and say, ‘This is in and that is out.’ By having a prescriptive list you can exclude things. I just think that it is unwise to do so. We have taken on board the recommendations of both the Senate and the House of Representatives committees. I think that it is an appropriate response from the government. For those reasons, albeit I can understand Senator Stott Despoja’s line of argument, we believe that our definition is more appropriate.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Stott Despoja’s) be agreed to.

Question negatived.