It is only reasonable that police be able to act as a third party in opposing the turning over of these police family violence orders, in my view. The police know in many instances that as soon as the order is lifted there is either going to be further violence in that family or violence is imminent, at one end or the other. Police know these families and they are dealing with these families, unfortunately, on a fairly regular basis and they know the situation very well.

It is a fairly common practice, Mr President, the offer of a night out - people being dined out for the night or given a nice bottle of perfume - and the problem is fixed for a very short time, and that is not an unlikely situation either. Then there is an application by the victim, of course, for that order to be turned over and for it to be removed. It is just a situation that occurs and it is there for a very important position. I think the police do have a say in those situations when they arise and to me it is quite farcical that it has been occurring in the way that it has and that the police have not been able to intervene in those sorts of situations.

The member for Nelson gave the reason behind this bill coming before the Council. When one looks at that case, it is really quite farcical when you think that the police were involved in the arrest and involved in the taking out of the order, but they had no say in what was going to happen.

Mr Parkinson - Particularly when the original bill intended them to have a say.

Mr DEAN - That is right. Very clearly, that was the way the bill was intended in the first instance.

Mr Wilkinson - If people want that to occur now, they go before a counsellor or mediator who is within the court. They will go off with that person and discuss whether it should or should not proceed or whether certain orders should or should not be there and they will come back to the court. There is always that intermediary which they now go through before they come back to court with matters like that.

Mr DEAN - In that infamous case, and I do not need to go into any detail on it, the judge could see that there were going to be continuing problems if that relationship continued. I think the judge was making it very clear; perhaps the words used may not have been the most appropriate but I think he was making it clear the way he saw that situation.

Mr President, in support of the member for Nelson in relation to the difficulties with bail, I think it is far wider spread than this Government might think. I can give a very good recent example of where a person of absolutely sound repute was arrested on the say-so of his partner, or his wife in this instance, and was detained overnight. To a person who has never ever conflicted with the law before in his life, that is absolutely devastating. As he said when he came into my office with tears rolling down his face, 'What could I do? I pleaded my innocence. I didn't do anything', and it was a really sad situation. So that is a matter that will find its way to the honourable member for Nelson for him to include in his file in relation to this matter. There are cases out there that provide very clear evidence, in my view, of there being inherent problems in the existing legislation concerning bail, and that person would be a very good example. He is of Dutch origin and, as I say, devastated; he is saying his life is ruined on the evidence that was provided to police and the action taken by police.

I just wanted to raise those couple of points, Mr President. I will be supporting the bill because I believe it is necessary and the police do need a say in any of these orders that might be going to be lifted by a third party or by a victim.