A flawed image

Press, 31 August 1977, Page 25

A flawed image

By

A. K. GRANT

D e i r d r e McCartin’s series, “Women,” in which women speak of the conditions of their lives in New Zealand, got away to a promising if blemished start on Monday night with a programme in which four women, victims of marital violence, spoke of the manner in which they coped with this ugly and wide-spread problem.

It is certainly a problem which needs to be kept, as they say, constantly under review, and new methods of dealing with it, such as the non-molestation order first introduced in 1968, need to be tested from time to time.

Although the markers of the programme would probably take the view that the problem can fundamentally be dealt with only by fundamental changes of attitude on the part of both husbands and their wives, they no doubt hope that their programme may do its bit towards changing those attitudes, as well it may. But mention of the nonmolestation order brings me to my first criticism of the programme — its lack of specificity. To be sure, we saw four actual women talking about their actual experiences. But general allegations were tossed around about the obstructive slowness of solicitors in getting non-molestation orders. Now these allegations may be perfectly well-founded, but there is no way of telling unless we are given concrete examples. A non-molestation order, after all, is not something you get merely by filling out a form. Applications are often defended, (quite properly, since the orders can have criminal consequences for the persons against whom they are made), and are sometimes refused.

Delays in obtaining an order may be caused by all sorts of reasons besides the chauvinist indifference of solicitors: pressure of work on the courts or the provisions of the Domestic Proceedings Act itself. I am not leaping to the defence of all solicitors in all cir-

cumstances; merely pointing out that serious allegations should be properly substantiated, not merely dropped into a programme for effect. Another example of rather bland ignorance of what the law actually says was the complaint that when a woman finally screws up her courage to seek advice she is often urged by her solicitor or other counsellor to con-

sider whether she should remain in the marriage or bring it to an end — the implication being that solicitors and counsellors, mostly male, act to preserve the status quo by trying to trap women in their marriages. Well, without wishing to be snide about it, I direct Ms McCartin’s attention to Section 13 of the Domestic Proceedings Act, which says:

“In all proceedings under this act between a husband and wife it shall be the duty of the court and of every solicitor or counsel acting for the husband or wife to give consideration from time to time to the possibility of a reconciliation of the

parties, and to take all such proper steps as in its or his opinion may assist in effecting a reconciliation.”

Now that is fairly clear, and it is equally clear, therefore, that any solicitor who merely accepts a wife’s instructions to commence proceedings for separation, non-molesta-tion,

or other orders without at least canvassing the prospect of reconciliation is in breach of the law. Consequently, when the distressed wife pours out her tale of woe and her lawyer asks about reconciliation, he is not being indifferent, patronising, hypocritical or just plain stupid. He is doing what the act says he has to do, and the suggestion that he is merely patting the little woman on the head in a supercilious, chauvinist way is utterly unfair. These grizzles aside, I thought the programme was well made and full of promise. Less time, perhaps, could have been given to Mrs Iris Thiessen, who stems to have become TVl’s house D.P. beneficiary (she was on “Fair Go” last week). The other women were impressive and the material on Half Way House was of much interest.