This submission is brief and to the point, because it is accompanied by two relevant background papers of mine:

• The Influence of Non-Legal Research on Legal Approaches to Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protection Orders; and

• Sexual bias, fathers’ rights, domestic violence, and the Family Court – a reply to Wendy Davis.

It is my assumption that the article entitled Access to justice for victims of domestic violence, published in the Wellington District Law Society's Council Brief in September 2005 (confusingly misprinted as "August" on the page concerned), and apparently written by the Wellington Community Law Centre, sets forth the concerns that have sparked the Review to which I am now submitting my comments.

I must point out immediately that the "Community" in the name of that organisation is a community of women that is patently waging a sexist war on men -- and it is a law centre that does not understand the first principles of the Law. These two facts are demonstrated by the following two points:

1. It is waging a sexist war on men, because it quotes from a report written for the National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges, an organisation which openly ignores women's violence against men as if it did not exist, and it quotes from no academic research or men's group's views on Domestic Violence -- it also ignores the viewpoint of the potential Respondent of a Protection Order;

2. It does not understand the first principles of the Law -- and I refer here to Natural Justice, audi alteram partem, and the principle that one is innocent until proved guilty -- because it refers throughout to "victims of violence", whereas what it is actually talking about is applicants for Protection Orders. A person is not a victim, in Law, until they have been proved to have been a victim -- because if they are a victim before having been proved to be one, that implies that some other party (e.g. the potential Respondent) is necessarily guilty of the accusations levelled at them prior to having been proved to be so -- whereas the accusation could be entirely false.

Since that is the approach of the Wellington Community Law Centre's article, it is inevitable that it would come to unwarranted conclusions, and so it did.

• The article states that "the incidence of family violence appears to have remained constant, or even to have increased slightly," but it gives no data or source to support this statement. I doubt that any investigations of the incidence of family violence that is carried out under the auspices of Government, the Wellington Community Law Centre , or the National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges can come up with a realistic quantification, because -- under the influence of the Power and Control fantasy (or model), it is bound to downplay or ignore female violence and exaggerate male violence.

• The article's most blatant and crucial lie is the following: "There is ample research evidence to show that when a family violence offender's authority is challenged, that (sic) this can be the most dangerous time for victims." Not a single item from this so-called "ample research" is cited to back up this lie. The reason it is a lie is that any such so-called "research" necessarily involves man-hating Feminists imputing motives to males that fit in with the pre-conceived "Power and Control" fantasy (model) of Domestic Violence. I invite the Ministry of Justice, if it has access to a database of so-called "wife-batterers", to let me interview them, in order to determine their motives, their actions, their partners' actions, and their partners' motives -- from the men's perspective.

• I surmise that it is quite correct to suppose that a woman is at greatest risk of violence from her male partner when she has applied for a Protection Order -- especially Ex Parte -- against him. The reason for this is not, in most cases, that his authority is being challenged. The reason is that she has probably committed psychological and physical violence against him, but he does not have the option of complaining about her violence. Not only is it contrary to his self-image to complain about violence by a woman, but he anticipates that any such complaint by him would not be taken seriously. She, on the other hand, can get away with testifying to mere psychological states, as opposed to facts (s13(2) of the Act), and thereby get him barred from his home and his children. If she manages to get an Order imposed without his being able to give his side of the story, and if this makes him angry, the only appropriate response from the State should be to give him a medal! Faced with an Ex Parte Protection Order as a prospect or as a reality, violence from the man amounts to a revolt against tyranny by the State.

• The following crucial sentence from the article is incoherent: "Accordingly, it is vitally important that the victims are able to get temporary protection orders granted without notice, thereby affording them legal protection if the order is defended." A hearing can be held urgently without being on an Ex Parte basis. If necessary, the Act could be amended, so that a Notice of Application for a Protection Order would automatically involve a temporary Protection Order lasting only until the urgent hearing has been held. In ordinary Civil courts -- far from the world of the Family Court, infected as it is by anti-male propaganda -- Ex Parte orders are regarded as a rare and extreme measure, because of the demands of Natural Justice. Yet the Wellington Community Law Centre article actually complains that only two-thirds of Protection Orders are imposed Ex Parte ! If a defended Application for a Protection Order fails, that must surely mean that there is no need for one. If the Police and the Courts are trained to treat men and women equally sensitively, there will be no need for men to feel that these State bodies are automatically lined up with women against men in these sorts of situations.