It is not innocuous at all. It is very very serious for self-represented people. The reason people self-represent is that they cannot afford up to 15k a day for a lawyer and barrister in a final hearing. Well, except me, I can't afford it but I enjoy self representing.
There are people who are in the middle of getting clarification on three things. These people work and have been working for years on getting serious amendments though to change the system.
1: Does just charges, unproven and unconvicted, make the other party a protected witness, as this is how it reads " (i) either party has been convicted of, or is charged with, an offence involving violence, or a threat of violence, to the other party;"? Note the word "or".
2: In the legislation draft it says, "any of the following are satisfied" before the above and urgent clarification is being sought as to if this does indeed mean any of the things listed or is it an oversight in the legislation and it should actually say all?
3: There is also clarification being sought as to the nature of the screen or video type evidence proposed, when it would occur (what variables) and of course... Who pays?
I know someone who is on top of contacting the actual legislators (amongst others) for this clarification, as the word "or" and "any" make this legislation very scary indeed. Imagine, three weeks before a final hearing someone makes a false complaint, you are charged, you are self represented and then you cannot question the other side. Lawyers and especially Barristers will hardly ever take on a brief at such short notice from a self represented person.
This is very dangerous legislation. As it reads right now and if you add it to the other new legislation where Judges might well get power to just tell people they have no chance of winning a case and dismissing it at any stage self represented people are getting a hammering. Not the time to be consenting to any protection orders.
