The Queensland Law Society expressed its “serious concerns” about the proposed police protection direction provisions at yesterday’s public hearing before the Education, Arts and Communities Committee on the Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.
QLS President Genevieve Dee, QLS Domestic and Family Law Committee member Katherine Manby, QLS Criminal Law Committee Chair Kristy Bell and QLS Special Counsel Legal Policy Hayley Stubbings represented the Society at the Parliament House hearing.
The Bill was introduced into the Queensland Parliament on 30 April and seeks to establish a framework for police protection directions (PPDs) which proposes to empower police officers to administratively issue immediate long-term protection directions without filing an application for a proceeding before a court.
Another of the Bill’s objective is an electronic monitoring pilot for high-risk DFV perpetrators.
President Dee said QLS acknowledged the work done by police across Queensland to assist people experiencing domestic and family violence.
“QLS also acknowledges the extremely difficult task faced by police in responding to the large number of domestic and family violence calls. We understand that police resourcing is not unlimited and that calls for assistance continue to increase,” she said.
“We do not consider it appropriate for police to issue 12-month administrative directions that impact significantly on the rights of the respondent while also replacing the role of the court in crafting a more appropriate, longer order for the safety of persons most in need of protection.
“Like many other submitters, we are gravely concerned about the risk of misidentification. Despite training and goodwill, police will be making quick assessments in difficult circumstances and errors can be made.
“The consequences of being improperly named as the respondent to a police protection direction will be dire. Victims who are misidentified will not have the benefit of protection order and may face consequences relating to their housing situation, employment and contact with their children.
“The availability of administrative review by the police service and court review cannot undo the consequences that may flow where a vulnerable person has been misidentified.”
She said QLS was also concerned that significant ramifications of police protection directions do not appear to have been considered.
“We have identified interactions with the family courts in our submission. Several other submitters have highlighted particular issues relating to First Nations people, including potential impacts on the operation of the Family Responsibilities Commission, visa holders, LGBTI people, and culturally and linguistically diverse community members,” Genevieve said.
“The Law Society urges reconsideration of the police protection direction regime or a substantial narrowing of the length and conditions of the directions that police can make.”
The Member for Pumicestone Ariana Doolan asked if QLS supported the electronic monitoring device pilot and if it would help protect victim-survivors.
“The QLS is supportive of the pilot provided it is properly funded and implemented,” Kristy said. “It is of concern that any GPS tracking structures that are put in place are properly funded and monitored, and there are resources available to act quickly if there is a breach detected.
The Member for Ipswich West Wendy Bourne asked QLS representatives about the reforms’ consequences on victim-survivors.
“I think the big issue is in terms for victim-survivors is having their voice heard in circumstances where they may require further protection or they may not require the intervention at all,” Katherine said.
“And there’s also the ability for everybody to be able to have some access to legal advice which I think is vital in terms of the PPNs or the protection orders we have at the moment. I think removing that will have a great impact on victim-survivors and their access to the ability to be heard.”
The Member for Ipswich West also asked if “it would be fair to say you believe the Bill is not in the best interests of victim-survivors”.
“Yes, in its current form,” Hayley responded. “As the President mentioned if the Bill is to go ahead, we think it should have a very significant narrowing of what could be included in PPDs but on the whole we see PPDs as a regressive step compared to the current system.
“In addition to the concerns mentioned, we think that it may be more difficult for a person experiencing violence to obtain an order from the court after the 12-month PPD if that’s something they still require.”
The committee is due to table its report on Friday 20 June 2025.
Share this article