Proposed laws expanding the power of police responding to domestic and family violence in Queensland have caused concern among advocates over a shift away from the court system.
The sweeping changes would grant the police the power to issue a three-year on-the-spot protection directive, an expansion of the 12-month directions that came into effect in January.
The legislation also establishes new offences for the repeated contravention of a police protection direction or domestic violence order, and raises the maximum penalty for contravention of a direction to five years.
The Queensland Police Union has been advocating for the changes, which it says will ensure protection can be delivered more quickly to victim-survivors and will reduce "unnecessary administrative processes" for officers.
Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Alliance chief executive Melanie Arnost said while its members were supportive of measures that hold offenders to account, some opposed police protection directions altogether.
She said advocates held concerns that the untested potential for police efficiency was being prioritised over the safety of victim-survivors before a review into its effectiveness is conducted.
"They don't believe that they're effective and they would really like to see those evaluations delivered before we go about expanding something that we're not sure works," she said.
In its submission on the bill, the Queensland Law Society (QLS) said a police-issued direction should not continue for three years "without mandatory judicial consideration".
The North Queensland Women's Service raised similar concerns and said it did not accept the issue would be addressed by requiring police to file a direction in high-risk and complex matters to the court.
"In our experience, high-risk and complex matters are often not identified at the time of the incident but only once the story and circumstances have been unpacked during an appointment with a specialist domestic violence duty lawyer or support worker," it said.
The North Queensland Women's Legal Service said, taking into account its experience with domestic violence, it did not believe people subject to restrictive conditions would understand they could seek a court review or have the resources, knowledge, or capacity to do so.
Ms Arnost said support services had also expressed concern that work related to domestic and family violence was being redirected to police rather than specialist courts.
"Our members hold concerns that when victim-survivors are not going through the court system that they might be missed completely and not access the support that's available to them," she said.
While supportive of the bill, the Queensland Police Union has called for it to be amended to ensure that officers who exercise their powers in good faith would not "incur personal liability" for decisions.
"Officers should not be judged with the benefit of hindsight simply because later events reveal information that was not available at the time a decision was made," the union submitted.
Police Minister Dan Purdie said the government is "protecting more victims of domestic and family violence sooner and holding perpetrators to account by delivering nation-leading domestic and family violence reforms".
Under the legislation, electronic monitoring of high-risk domestic violence offenders would be expanded statewide, and courts would need to consider a monitoring device condition as part of a domestic violence order.
It also clarifies the process related to restricting cross-examination of victim-survivors in court and how sensitive material is viewed, obtained or copied during and after civil domestic and family violence proceedings.
A public hearing on the bill will be held in Brisbane next week, with dates also set for Rockhampton, Toowoomba and Logan later this month.
