Dispossession

The purpose of the Intervention Order in Australian Family Law is simply dispossession.
As has been shown many times, the purpose is not to allow couples to work out their differences as reasonable people. If that were true, then the lawyer would not tell the woman not to discuss the Intervention Order with the man. If that were true, then the lawyer would encourage the couple to talk through their differences and come to a resolution.
Because the lawyers, along with legal and social support agencies, coach the woman on what to say to the court to obtain an Intervention Order, there is little chance for justice or truth to be involved. The court is looking for specific terms and statements, the woman gives those statements, and the force of law in put into effect. Since these statements are most often made ex parte - meaning the woman makes the statements to a magistrate in private - the force of law is put into play without the usual procedures to protect the rights of all involved.
There is no one who denies that ex parte Intervention Orders ignore the legal precept of innocent until proven guilty. Even police officers recognize that Intervention Orders in Australia are a breach of common law and internationally-accepted human and civil rights, yet have no choice in carrying out the orders of the magistrate.

Because Intervention Orders are intuitively illegal, they cause more problems in relationships than they resolve.
However, this fact is twisted in the statistics resulting in ridiculous figures that are self-propogating. For example, it is ludicrous to believe that 8 out of 9 men in relationships in Australia are abusive, yet that is the statistic that has been created. It is taught to all lawyers, social workers and volunteers, and to students.
That this statistic paints a picture of a sick society is hardly questioned. By presenting it as part of the training for these professionals, semi-professionals and volunteers twists the spirit of community and patriotism into a tool for destroying lives and families, yet no political leader will take this stand publicly - the standard of political correctness and the threats from radical women's groups - often well-funded with government funds - prevent leadership from dealing with the facts.

The police in Victoria are under new policy guidelines which illustrate the desperation of these groups to maintain their political influence, and the arrogance of their ability to influence policy makers. Victorian police are ordered to issue Intervention Orders themselves to the man when any evidence of conflict is apparent, even if neither the man nor the woman - or indeed anyone else involved - wants the order.
This amounts to a make-criminal law. From what is usually nothing more than a disagreement that got out of hand, the police have now effectively created a criminal, tried and convicted him of what may be nothing more than taking up police time, and punished him by dispossessing him from his home and family.
The Victorian police have further orders that is the man disagrees with the order - and there is little reason he should agree given the policy - he is to be removed from the premises.
This is not equal protection under the law for many reasons. Legal scholars in Australia have recently confirmed this fact.
Most glaringly, it is because the policy is blatantly discriminatory: it removes the man from his home. Second, it removes him from his home and possessions for no more reason than being difficult with the police. This policy could be called the police annoyance policy. Annoy the police, and you lose your home and possessions.
It is a policy that would do Saddam proud. You cannot help but wonder how Australia can be so concerned that other nations respect human and civil rights?

Habeus corpus is denigrated to nothing more than hearsay and the actions of impatient police.
Equality before the law is ridiculed.
Innocent before proven guilty is now only a catch phrase to be applied as an excuse for the court hearing.

The excuse given for ignoring these principles of common law and international convention is that these hearings are civil matters, and the orders are civil orders. However, the punishments given are more severe than many of the worst criminals in Australian society - or, indeed, around the world - receive.
The man is under threat of police action if he returns to his home or tries to obtain his possessions. In many cases, he has been denied the means to support himself - if his business is in his home. The procedure calls for the police to attend while a man takes his things from a home, but this procedure is simply a joke.

I can speak for myself here, although the experience is shared by many who face similar circumstances.
The police only attend such instances when they get around to it. In my experience in Victoria, the police waited three days to finally attend, then gave less than 10 minutes notice. The notice was inadequate for all concerned.
A second three-day attempt only resulted in the police informing me that they would not attend.
Although the most of the reason for the police not attending was my ex making herself unavailable,the police treat the man as a criminal and constantly seek reason to assault and abuse him verbally.
She had planned with her lawyer to use the prejudices in the Intervention Order process as a means for extortion. The police, Victorian Legal Aid and the court were informed of this fact, but never acted upon it. Even reports to the Attorney-General were pointless.
Such attendance to allow the man a chance to recover some of his possessions is written into the Intervention Order, which should mean the police and courts must enforce it. But that is not the case. The police and courts support the use of Intervention Orders as a means of extortion, with support - if not explicit orders - from higher officials in Victoria.

Criminal punishments curtail the civil and human rights of an individual after a conviction. That is the purpose of law, to ensure that the same rights are protected and available for all, enforced by the courts, police and other agencies. When those civil and human rights are curtailed and limited on nothing more than arbitrary orders and hearsay, without the assumption of innocence and the opportunity to fairly confront the accusers, there is no valid application of the law.
These are precedents which must be overturned and rejected. These are actions which should be prevented. Fair reparations would have to be paid to many men. But the liability of the government if such indecency and inhumanity, discrimination and abuse, were to be admitted is enough to frighten the agents of government away from doing what they know is right.
More than any pretense of broader vision, it is the cost of making right so many years of injustice that prevents the end to such injustice.
(see A View for further discussion of these issues)

Once accused, with nothing more than allegation and no need for substantial proof, the man is faced with institutionalized prejudice and all his civil and human rights removed from him effectively. If there is no means to defend those rights, then he has no rights.
The Australian pronouncements and demands for human and civil rights are at best hypocritical, if not intentionally obscuring the injustices within the country itself.
He is dispossessed as surely, and often with the same procedures, which anyone in a police state could expect - under Saddam.