Queensland plans to extend domestic violence police orders to three years; advocacy groups and legal sector warn of "expand powers first, evaluate later"

According to ABC News, Queensland's proposed legislation would give police the power to issue three-year immediate protection orders, a substantial extension from the twelve-month orders that only came into effect in January this year. It would also create new offences for repeated breaches of police protection orders or domestic violence orders, raising the maximum penalty for breaches to five years' imprisonment.

The police union has been pushing this reform direction for years, arguing it would allow police to protect victims more quickly and reduce "unnecessary administrative procedures." However, positions among domestic violence advocacy organisations and the legal sector show clear tension.

Melanie Arnost, chief executive of the Queensland Family and Domestic Violence Coalition, told ABC News that some of its members have reservations about the effectiveness of police protection orders themselves — these orders have been in force for less than a year and have not been formally evaluated. "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," Arnost said.

Arnost further pointed out that when victims are kept out of the court system, the network of support normally built around the trial process may "completely miss" them. Her concerns point to a shift in the centre of gravity of power implicit in the legislation — the review and assistance responsibilities originally borne by specialist courts are quietly being handed over to law enforcement agencies.

The objections at the legal level are more direct. The Queensland Law Society stated clearly in its submission that police-issued orders should not remain in force for three years without mandatory judicial review. The North Queensland Women's Service, drawing on practical frontline experience, rebutted the proposed amendment approach of "submitting high-risk complex cases to the court after the fact," arguing that such cases often cannot be identified at the scene and can only be sorted out after communication with domestic violence lawyers or support workers. The North Queensland Women's Legal Service added that a party subject to restrictive conditions may neither know that they can apply for court review nor have the resources, knowledge or capacity to act.

However, police themselves also have concerns. The Queensland Police Union broadly supports the legislation, but has called for additional clauses to prevent officers who act in "good faith" from being held personally liable because of information that only came to light afterwards. "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 wrote in its submission.

Minister responsible for police matters Dan Purdie told ABC News that the government is acting to "protect more domestic violence victims earlier and hold perpetrators to account through nation-leading domestic violence reform."

The legislation also provides for the statewide expansion of electronic monitoring for high-risk domestic violence offenders, and makes the consideration of monitoring devices a mandatory step when courts make domestic violence orders. The provisions also adjust procedures for restricting cross-examination of victims in court hearings, as well as the rules for accessing, obtaining and copying sensitive material in civil domestic violence proceedings.

ABC News noted that public hearings on the bill will be held in Brisbane next week, with hearing dates in Rockhampton, Toowoomba and Logan scheduled for later this month; the final provisions remain subject to change.