Clearly, the point is being missed or, rather, it’s being avoided. The issue is about the person who the EPO is issued against. That person has been accused falsely in this circumstance. The Minister knows very well of this example. The issue is it’s not about the person who lied. The person who lied, the process is correct, as he’s highlighted. How does the person who has been accused, who has now become the victim of the circumstance, get the EPO removed? They have to take it to court and it costs $5,000 in this particular example. There is no relief mechanism built into the process when it’s recognized it’s been issued in error. That is the problem. Would the Minister be willing to ask the department to have a look to see what to do or what can be done to provide relief to those who have been falsely accused and issued an EPO against?
Robert Hawkins on Question 14-17(1): Emergency Protection Orders
In the Legislative Assembly on December 7th, 2011. See this statement in context.
Question 14-17(1): Emergency Protection Orders
Oral Questions
December 6th, 2011
See context to find out what was said next.