Tuesday, 8 September 2026

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:42): I rise to speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. Before I commence I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague and good friend Cindy McLeish, the Shadow Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, who has been working on this area for many, many months and introduced a private members bill. When Jess Wilson first became Leader of the Opposition, the first announcement that Jess made, alongside Cindy, was around the coercive control component and what we would do. Cindy has done a huge amount of work in this area, as I mentioned, and at the time I understand that the government was very critical of her stance and then soon after took up this challenge – and here we are today. We have got this bill before us, and we are debating what could have been done.

I am pleased that the government took note of what Ms McLeish had put forward and the work that she had done. We are leading the agenda on so many things, like the royal commission. There was deep division and deep criticism about a royal commission into the corruption in this state, and yet we have a new Premier, after the last Premier was knifed, and he has decided that, yes, a royal commission is needed, although he stood beside the former Premier and rejected that notion. We are leading the ideas together with other solutions that we have put forward, like fixing the potholes. That seems to be a late epiphany for the Premier as well, that the roads need fixing, even though we have been crying out for years –

Bev McArthur interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: That is true. Ms Terpstra does not think so, Mrs McArthur. She thinks that people do like potholes. She said that, and we have seen it and her ridiculous comments on social media. I think it just shows the extent of the depth of the government and what their views are on important matters that are impacting everyday Victorians. Potholes are dangerous, and they are causing a huge amount of distress and cost when hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles have to run off the road. The machete ban – we have led the way on the machete ban.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Ms Crozier, you do have wide latitude as first speaker, but I would ask you to return to the bill, please.

Georgie CROZIER: I will get to the point. I do take your point, Acting President, but I am just making the point, as Ms McLeish did, that we are leading the way in terms of coercive control, and we are debating this. I was just about to make the point about machete bans and that the government then comes in and says, ‘We need to do that.’ Labor are really struggling. The government is a tired, old, desperate government, and it has run out of steam; that is clear. Nevertheless it is good to see that the issue at hand around this important legislation is being debated today.

What this bill does primarily is prioritise safety for victims of family violence by introducing new crimes, tackling the efficiency of justice processes and holding perpetrators of family violence more effectively to account. Family violence has been a shocking scourge on our society, and far too many women are being horrendously assaulted and murdered across the country. We know it is a massive issue. Daniel Andrews held the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and at that time I was the Shadow Minister for Prevention of Family Violence. I have to say I had an excellent relationship with the former and late minister Fiona Richardson, who did a lot of work in this space. We spoke on and off around the reforms that the government were looking towards achieving at the time. I thought that more could have been done and brought in through the time that I was shadow minister on a number of issues, and I think Ms McLeish has also worked on things around Clare’s law and other issues around family violence. So there is widespread support for ensuring that we do address these issues.

Despite the royal commission, as I said, the statistics are very alarming. In Australia, in 2024–25, 32 women were killed – it is a shocking statistic – by an intimate partner, and in Victoria in 2024–25 there were a record 106,427 incidents of family violence. For 2024–25 we have got the stats, but we do not actually know what happened during lockdown – the lockdowns were shocking – with the family violence and the abuse that occurred when we were locked down. We cannot forget the shocking policy decisions of the Labor government in this state. They will not even mention COVID – you have not heard them mention COVID or the lockdowns at all – but we were the longest locked-down state in the world. We have seen the detrimental impacts of so many of those decisions, which were just shocking. They have led to a large degree of mental illness and economic ruin and a whole range of issues that have accumulated over that time, and one of those that occurred in lockdowns was family violence. We know that, but the government turned a blind eye. They did not want to know about it, because in their hearts –

Members interjecting.

Georgie CROZIER: While I am on COVID, because there are interjections across the chamber, even the former chief health officer has come out and said that things that happened in COVID were not of his direction. They were government direction; they were not based on health advice. It is quite shameful.

This bill, as I said, does follow Ms McLeish’s private members bill to criminalise coercive control, and the government has felt the pressure from what we were putting forward to the community. I think everyone agrees that family violence does not discriminate. It does not matter what age, sexuality, gender or culture you are; it is happening right across society and right across our communities. But in the main women are largely impacted – far too many women are impacted – and, sadly, far too many children. Those who are impacted by family violence too often have to listen in court as their perpetrator is described as being of good character. This bill goes to that point, and I have got some questions I want to raise around this.

I will go back to the main points around coercive control. According to Relationships Australia Victoria, ‘coercive control is a pattern of controlling and manipulative behaviours within a relationship’. There are 12 signs of coercive control:

Isolating you from your support system. –

I am reading this from the website –

An abusive partner will cut you off from friends and family or limit your contact with them so you don’t receive the support you need.

Monitoring your activity throughout the day.

…

Gaslighting, where the abuser makes you doubt your own truth, experience and sanity, by insisting that they are always right, and instils their narrative of a situation even if the evidence points against this. Gaslighting in essence, is based on lies and manipulation …

Name-calling and severe criticism, as well as malicious putdowns, which are all extreme forms of bullying

Limiting access to money and controlling finances. This is a way of restricting your freedom and ability to leave the relationship. Financial abuse is listed above as a specific form of abuse but, within the context of coercive control, financial control is a tactic to keep the person disempowered, by utilising strategies such as:

placing you on a strict budget …

limiting your access to bank accounts

hiding financial resources …

preventing you from having a credit card

rigorously monitoring what you spend

This point is terrible in what happens with elder abuse. I have to say that a lot of this does switch over from family violence. Elder abuse is often part of family violence – just awful behaviours. It goes on to say:

Coercing you, to take care of all the domestic duties …

Turning your children against you. If you have children either with the abuser or someone else, they may try to weaponise the children against you by making comments that are critical of you.

Controlling aspects of your health and your body. The abuser will monitor and control how much you eat, sleep, exercise, or how much time you spend in the bathroom.

These are terrible examples, but I am putting them on the record because of the depth and extent of them. How anyone could do any one of these, let alone a number of them, is beyond me. It goes on:

Making jealous accusations about the time you spend with family or friends, either in person or online, as a way of phasing out all your contact with the external world, except for them.

We have seen the terrible instances, the public instances of some high-profile people where they have been in shocking situations. I do not need to reference it all, but it has made for interesting reading and is still playing out amongst husbands and wives and in certain photographs that end up on the internet for all to see – just shocking behaviour. It goes on:

Regulating your sexual relationship …

Threatening your children or pets as an extreme form of intimidation …

When I was a shadow family minister there was a terrible story, and I will never forget it, of a woman who was quite incredible. She wrote about it; she did her thesis on family violence. She described the violence in her family – about her father and what her father would do abusing their pets, just taunting them with the abuse of their pets. It was just so cruel. I have drawn a blank on her name, but she was from Ballarat and was quite extraordinary. She told her story very publicly. I have never forgotten the terrible situation that she was placed in, with her father taunting them with the abuse of the family pet. He ended up killing the family pet.

I just want to go to some other issues around family violence. It reminds me: I met with Brendan Nottle in the Salvation Army precinct last week. He was talking about the numbers. He was talking about providing 500 or 600 meals a day. A lot of these are for women with children. They are a cohort they have not seen. A lot of these women are also homeless or on the verge of homelessness. Too many of them are fleeing situations where domestic violence is paramount. They are very sad situations indeed. I acknowledge the work of Brendan Nottle and his team in caring for some very disadvantaged Victorians and others.

Another component to the legislation includes good character, and the bill basically stops courts from giving offenders a lighter sentence because of their previous good character while still allowing relevant personal circumstances and criminal history to be considered. It also tightens the rules around character references and applies similar changes to children sentenced under the Youth Justice Act 2024.

With the changes to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, family violence will become a protected attribute under the Equal Opportunity Act to ensure that victim-survivors of family violence should not be disadvantaged because they have taken steps to keep themselves or their families safe, and these changes will make it unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have experienced family violence, whether at work or when seeking accommodation, accessing education or using services.

The personal safety reforms put victim-survivors first by reducing the need to repeatedly return to court and relive the trauma simply to maintain their protection. A stronger aspect of this is looking at where courts will have a greater ability to extend or strengthen intervention orders while taking into account what the victim-survivor believes they need to remain safe. Far too often victims have to go back into court to get those protections in place, and it just makes them relive that trauma. I know that when I had to go to court because I had a stalker, I was sitting in the outer area of the court, and I did not know who the guy was. It really highlighted to me some of those pressures in our courts and the stresses that people have to go through having to understand who the abuser or whoever the individual is. That can be very difficult, particularly for these victims of family violence having to relive that and go through aspects of that just to keep them safe.

On grooming, the bill will also allow personal safety intervention orders to be used against adults engaging in grooming behaviour, helping to protect children and stop predatory behaviour before it escalates to sexual offending. This reminds me of the work that we did – the Parliament did – when I was the chair of the child abuse inquiry under the Baillieu and Napthine governments, and we did significant work on that. The grooming aspect and the grooming of adults have such a damaging ripple effect. Children are so vulnerable, and the modes of what these perpetrators would do and the various lengths that they would go to to groom these innocent children and then abuse them are just quite horrific. It was just so shocking to see exactly how these perpetrators would groom children and use props to get these kids – very vulnerable children – and sometimes the family members were secondary to it. It might have been a mother who was just seeking safety or assurance from some of these hideous people, and they were being groomed too and then that was leading on to this dreadful sexual offending. That grooming behaviour is a very important aspect of this bill.

On the criminal court variations, what the bill does is it introduces own-motion powers and allows, with the consent of the victim, the court to then extend or vary a FVIO, a family violence intervention order. Ordinarily the criminal court does not deal with civil applications, but if a perpetrator is in the criminal court for assault, for example, the judge may see it necessary to extend those intervention orders, and that is what this part of the bill does. I am sure Mr Mulholland will speak to this because he is representing Mr Newbury, but we know that our courts are overflowing. The government has bungled the IT problems – the courts are having IT problems, and they have bungled that as well as bungling many other things. But hopefully this will streamline the process and save victims the time and stress of fronting up to court on multiple occasions or on additional occasions. There are many issues within our court system. There is a real problem with how the government has managed our courts and managed all of these issues. Other areas that this bill goes to are addressing just a few minor things like electronic signatures for intervention orders and the like.

I want to again say that Ms McLeish has been listening to many, many women who have contacted her to share their stories – very dreadful stories, awful stories, heartbreaking stories – and have been calling for the introduction of coercive control as a standalone crime. I want to again place on record my thanks to Ms McLeish for leading the charge in this way and to the government for bringing this bill to the house. I should say I have just listened to Ms Payne with her instruction order too, and I will listen more to what she has to say around her amendments, but the opposition will not be supporting those amendments.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:01): I rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I want to set the scene before I turn to what this bill is about and just remind the chamber and anyone who might be watching along at home that it was the Andrews Labor government that committed to Australia’s first Royal Commission into Family Violence back in 2015. As a consequence of that royal commission there were 227 recommendations. The role of the commission was to find ways to prevent family violence, improve support for victim-survivors and hold perpetrators to account. These amendments and reforms are obviously still part of this Victorian Labor government’s commitment to continuing to work on driving down rates of family violence, because it is really important and it really matters.

I just want to thank Ms Crozier. I listened to her contribution quite closely, and I want to thank her for sharing her personal experience of having to navigate the courts when she had an experience with a stalker. I thank her for that. However, most of everything else she had to say I found pretty underwhelming and really a very poor effort when we are talking about something so important as family violence. I might just point out to this chamber – because people in here try to rewrite history and talk about how people are leading and the like – what Ms Crozier said back in 2018 under the Liberals, when it was Matthew Guy who was their leader. They have had many iterations of leaders, but this was at the time when Matthew Guy was the leader. Ms Crozier was the prevention of family violence spokesperson for the Liberals, and she said the opposition would consider the recommendations’ ‘financial impost’ and whether ‘there are efficiencies that can be realised’:

We need to understand the full detail of those 227 recommendations, understand if there can be efficiencies and improvements.

That was reported in the Herald Sun on 17 October 2018. There you have it. There you have laid bare and in full exposure what the Liberals think family violence is about. Keeping women and children safe is not a financial impost, yet those opposite want to treat this matter as though it is some kind of financial impost on them. We know they have already indicated that they want to cut $40 billion from the Victorian budget, and we know that family violence services will be on the front line of those cuts. This bill is important because it goes to continuing the work on family violence.

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, I believe that the member is knowingly misleading the house, and I would ask you to bring her back to the bill.

Sonja TERPSTRA: On the point of order, Acting President, Dr Heath has been in this chamber long enough to know that she is abusing the standing orders by making frivolous points of order. If she has an allegation to make about a member in this place, she should do so by moving a motion. Otherwise, I should be allowed to continue my contribution, being relevant to this bill, in silence.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): There is no point of order.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I ask you to take note of any frivolous interjections as a mechanism by those opposite to take time away from my clock. If it continues, I will ask to have my clock reset.

I will continue and talk about how important this bill is in the context of the continued work that this Labor government does in driving down rates of family violence. We heard Ms Crozier talk about her shadow minister and the amazing work they have done – no work. It is this government who established Australia’s first Royal Commission into Family Violence. They were nowhere on this. As I said, Ms Crozier, who was the spokesperson at the time, said they wanted to see which efficiencies could be realised out of the recommendations. They see this as a financial impost. It is disgraceful. We know that cuts are in their DNA. We know they will cut $40 billion out of the Victorian budget, and we know frontline family violence prevention services will be first to be cut. We know that.

Let me talk about some of the things that we have funded and continue to fund, because those opposite just see it as a financial impost and a waste of money. Let me talk about this: it is Victorian Labor and the Victorian Labor government that has built the Orange Door service. We delivered 15 crisis accommodation refuges, with more under construction. We have legislated the only information-sharing scheme in Australia so services can track family violence risk and keep perpetrators in view. We also established Respect Victoria, a dedicated organisation for the prevention of family violence and violence against women in Victoria. We also funded the nation’s first saturation model in Ballarat, supporting projects in schools, sporting clubs, early childhood services, new parenting spaces and workplaces to promote respect and equality. We are also funding and teaching Respectful Relationships in schools and in classrooms. We have also committed, at a minimum, 10 per cent of family violence funding to Aboriginal community controlled organisations, and we have also invested over $41 million into men’s behaviour change programs. We have also commenced a landmark perpetrator study and put highly specialised social workers into police units across five locations in Victoria, which is also known as the Alexis model.

I have heard nothing from those opposite about any announcements or plans they have to continue to fund these very important initiatives, which have been spoken about to our government by victim-survivors and driven by the royal commission and the 227 recommendations that were handed down. We have heard nothing from those opposite. There is no commitment. There is nothing other than $40 billion in cuts.

The next term of a re-elected Carroll Labor government will amend the Open Courts Act 2013 to limit the use of suppression orders by convicted rapists. We will give sexual assault complainants the choice to prerecord their evidence so they do not have to wait to give evidence at trial or go through cross-examination in front of the accused. We will strengthen protections so counselling records and health information cannot be used in court without the victim-survivor’s consent. That is important because what it does is give some level of control to victim-survivors in an adversarial court process. That is important, and that is what victim-survivors have told us that they want.

In terms of this bill, this bill is about listening and responding to the voices of victim-survivors, as I have said. It contains a number of significant reforms to prioritise victim-survivor safety, improve the efficiency of justice processes and ensure perpetrators of all forms of interpersonal violence can be held to account. We are going to criminalise coercive control as a standalone offence. The offence will apply to adults, with a focus on coercive control and intimate partner relationships. These reforms will commence on 1 March 2028 to allow time to educate the community and for family violence response services, including police, to prepare and be ready to implement them. Then, following on, a statutory review of these reforms will also take place to see whether they are working as intended or whether we need to tweak them.

We are also abolishing good character references, because obviously, the concept of good character on its own is generally only about someone’s reputation, and it is really of no relevance to what they may be before the court for. Also, there is going to be reform of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, which will make it unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have experienced or are experiencing family violence. This new protection will apply to areas of public life, including employment, education, provision of goods and services, disposal of land, accommodation, clubs, sport and local government. We are also going to bring in reforms that will allow the criminal court to vary a family violence intervention order on its own motion, which is important. This will assist, with the consent of a victim-survivor, with extending or varying a family violence intervention order when sentencing a perpetrator for relevant family violence offences. And there is more; there is a lot in this. I am probably not going to get through it all, but I know there are other speakers.

Another thing that the bill will also implement is that the courts must ensure that they give more consistent prioritisation to victim-survivor views when extending a family violence intervention order and encourage longer extensions when a perpetrator is serving a term of imprisonment for related family violence offences. The bill will also allow personal safety intervention orders to be expanded to include grooming. This is to protect children and families by enabling these orders to be made against adults engaging in such behaviours. This is important because we do know that perpetrators will often use systems as a means of financial abuse as well. Fines and infringements reforms will mean that anybody who is experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage can be supported. The scheme will expand to include excessive speeding fines so that victim-survivors can access relief in these circumstances. The work and development permit scheme will also expand to apply to court fines where it is currently only available to infringement fines, because we do know that perpetrators will often use financial abuse and these sorts of fines as a further mechanism for inflicting family violence.

There are so many reforms. It is a bit sad that no-one on the opposition benches is here. The care factor over there is probably zero on this, and it is demonstrated by the fact that there is one person on the opposition benches, which is actually disgusting really, because this is such an important bill. As I said, it is only a Carroll Labor government that has consistently demonstrated its commitment to continuing to do important work on reducing rates of family violence against vulnerable Victorians. We know it is not just a financial impost to keep women and children safe; it matters, and it is critically important.

We have done loads of work on this. Contrary to what Ms Crozier said, that someone in the Assembly had done loads of work, they have done no work. For example, I can talk about stakeholder engagement on this. We have done extensive work in talking with stakeholders on this matter. I want to thank all the stakeholders across all aspects of family violence – the services, the sector, the justice sectors and others – for their valued input, and of course victim-survivors.

We acknowledge that there are very understandable concerns around misidentification, particularly misidentification of First Nations women. Consequently, the Attorney-General has set up an expert body to advise on the implementation of this offence in regard to intervention orders and the like and certainly monitoring these risks. The offences focus on intimate partner violence in terms of coercive control as a start, because this is the most well understood area of coercive control. We know that misidentification forms a part of the suite of ways in which perpetrators can try and attack and continue family violence on intimate partners and others. Again, our track record in this area is very long and extensive.

I know there are plenty of other speakers on this bill, but I just want to focus, again, on what would happen in Victoria if we were very unfortunate to have the situation where we had a Liberal–One Nation coalition. We already know what Ms Crozier has said about family violence, but I also know what One Nation has said about family violence. One Nation has basically made comments such as family violence is a ‘two-way street’ and women should ‘just leave’. Those comments are unacceptable. If you combine that comment and the views of One Nation on these matters with the views of Ms Crozier when she was spokesperson for this, which I went into detail about earlier in my contribution, you can see there would be no commitment to family violence prevention in this state by a Liberal–One Nation coalition should they ever have the privilege of being elected.

On the Liberal Party, I have already talked about the $40 billion in cuts that is going to be coming our way. What we know is what they already did. They ripped a billion out of schools and axed the educational maintenance allowance and the School Start bonus. They slashed $1 billion from TAFE – campuses were closed and 2400 teachers were sacked. They cut $1 billion from our hospitals. They hurt patients and doctors. So it was ironic to hear them talking about this today, saying that they have some kind of –

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, it is literally the member that is talking right now that goes on about scope. I would ask you to bring her back to the bill.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Further to the point of order, Acting President, the first speaker was talking about COVID and completely unrelated matters to this. I have a similar right to respond, so I would ask you to dismiss the point of order. Again Dr Heath is standing up with an irrelevant point of order, trying to run my clock down. I would ask you to dismiss the point of order and allow me to continue.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): There is no point of order.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Cutting 400 staff from Victoria Police, including essential forensic experts – again, you can see that that is a critical matter that goes to assisting police with gathering evidence. So we know it will be an utter disaster if a Liberal–One Nation coalition government is ever elected. I commend this bill to the house.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (15:16:48): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This is a substantial omnibus bill, and it contains a number of practical and overdue reforms that respond directly to advocacy from victim-survivors, community legal centres and specialist family violence organisations. I want to recognise that advocacy at the outset, because these changes do not emerge from nowhere. They reflect years of people, particularly victim-survivors and the stakeholders who have worked directly with them, identifying where our laws are failing and proposing practical solutions.

I have a number of comments on the justice elements of this bill, and my colleague Ms Gray-Barberio will speak further about the context of family violence issues in which this bill occurs. The changes to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 are an important example of a practical measure that will improve experiences for those who are escaping family violence. Making subjection to family violence a protected attribute recognises that the consequences of abuse can follow a person into their workplace, into their housing and into other parts of their life. The legal sector has advocated for this change after seeing clients performance managed, denied reasonable adjustments or even losing their jobs after their disclosure of family violence. This is a significant protection, and the Greens are supportive of this move.

The fines reforms contained within this bill are also significant. Community legal centres (CLCs) have particularly welcomed the expansion of the family violence scheme to excessive speed infringements because they regularly see circumstances where a perpetrator has incurred an infringement in someone else’s vehicle and the victim-survivor is too frightened to nominate them. The bill also expands access to work and development permits for court fines. These changes can remove real financial and legal barriers for people trying to escape violence. The Federation of Community Legal Centres has described these as practical reforms that it has long advocated and that will have a meaningful impact. There are other practical improvements, too. Electronic signatures for family violence intervention orders are enabled, and existing intervention orders are to be included on charge sheets. Community legal centres have specifically welcomed both of these changes, subject to appropriate safeguards.

We are also supportive of the way that this bill expands the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 to recognise grooming. Grooming is often gradual and difficult to identify when individual acts are viewed in isolation. Giving the law a clearer capacity to recognise that conduct is welcome, and it is another reform that legal stakeholders have advocated for.

Because this is an omnibus bill, there are also provisions that deserve some scrutiny. I will have questions around these two areas in the committee stage of this bill: the standalone criminal offence of coercive control and own-motion powers. On coercive control I want to be clear: coercive control is real, it is dangerous and it is devastating. The question is not whether the justice system should recognise it; the question that some community legal stakeholders have definitely put forward is whether a new standalone criminal offence is the safest and most effective way to respond to this.

The family violence working group has put its position to us very directly. The group includes Women’s Legal Service Victoria, the Law and Advocacy Centre for Women, Djirra, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Youthlaw, Fitzroy Legal Service and many other organisations working with victim-survivors every day, and they oppose the standalone offence. The concern is that coercive control is highly contextual. It can consist of conduct that appears innocuous or may be lawful individually when looked at one incident at a time but becomes abusive when understood as a pattern of domination over months or years. Our criminal justice system remains heavily incident focused, and the working group says that that makes coercive control inherently difficult to investigate, evidence and prosecute. They also warn that victim-survivors may be required to assemble extensive evidence of a pattern of abuse, endure long investigations and court proceedings and then face the uncertainty of a criminal standard of proof. Where a prosecution fails, is withdrawn or results in an acquittal, that process can itself cause further harm and leave a victim-survivor feeling that they have once again not been believed. I will have questions in committee for the minister about what evidence the government has relied on to conclude that this offence will improve safety outcomes and how it has weighed the concerns of specialist services with frontline experience that could inform the approach to eradicating this insidious behaviour.

I will also have questions around misidentification, which I understand has been a topic that the Attorney-General’s office has received a lot of correspondence on in relation to concerns that advocates have about how this law may be applied. Misidentification is not a hypothetical concern. The legal sector, and community legal centres in particular, have been warning the government for years that victim-survivors are being wrongly identified as predominant aggressors, particularly when they have used force in self-defence or violent resistance when police respond to a single incident without context of the history of the relationship and previous behaviours, or in circumstances where perpetrators are manipulating systems. In their briefing on the previous family violence reforms the CLC family violence working group specifically warned against language and processes which prematurely decide who is the victim and who is the perpetrator before the context of a relationship has been properly assessed, and they pointed out that self-protective actions can be misinterpreted as family violence, particularly in an incident-based pro-arrest and pro-charge policing environment. They also urged much more prescriptive recognition of groups that are disproportionately at risk of misidentification, including women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, LGBTIQA+ people, culturally and linguistically diverse people, people with disability, people with mental illness, temporary visa holders, and children and young people. That matters enormously when a bill is creating a criminal offence that does depend very heavily on context and competing accounts of a relationship. The bill contains a defence where the accused proves that their conduct was reasonable in the context of the relationship as a whole, which may, we acknowledge, be intended in part to protect victim-survivors who have been misidentified. But a basic question is: should a victim-survivor have to be arrested, charged and prosecuted before a system properly understands that their actions have been in self-protection?

The CLC working group argues that Victoria’s existing civil intervention order framework is better equipped to deal with coercive and controlling behaviour. Because it is preventative and safety focused, it can respond earlier and can consider patterns of behaviour without the same evidentiary and procedural barriers as criminal prosecution. I will explore some of this in committee with the minister. I know that there has been discussion with the stakeholders who have been raising these concerns, and I look forward to hearing clarification around the government’s intent and safeguards that are available to address some of these concerns.

I will have questions for the minister about the expert advisory group that has just been referenced in Ms Terpstra’s contribution and the training that will occur before commencement, the role of specialist family violence organisations and Aboriginal organisations in designing that training, and the three-year statutory review. Three years, I just remark, is a long time if the new offence does go to producing unintended harms, so I would like to understand from the minister what monitoring will be occurring, what data will be published and if Parliament and the sector will be able to see rates of charging, withdrawal, acquittal, conviction and misidentification prior to the statutory review.

Turning to other aspects of the bill, the Greens support removing the use of good character references to reduce sentences for sexual offences where a person’s reputation or standing in the community should not be used to diminish the seriousness of the harm that they have caused. However, we do note concerns from the legal sector that extending this restriction across all offences may have unintended consequences, particularly if it limits the court’s ability to properly consider rehabilitation, personal circumstances and prospects of reoffending.

On to another point that I know has been the topic of much discussion between the minister’s office and stakeholders: own-motion powers. There are important changes in this bill to the way family violence intervention orders can be dealt with in criminal proceedings, and I do note that it is an objective worthy of support. However, stakeholders have raised with my office severe reservations around how this will operate in practice. A victim-survivor should not necessarily have to commence another proceeding, return to court and retell their story simply to ensure that an intervention order continues to provide protection. Giving criminal courts greater capacity to deal with an existing FVIO at the conclusion of proceedings has the potential to reduce that burden and provide greater continuity of protection.

However, the proposed own-motion powers do raise some important questions about how those decisions will actually be made. The specialist legal sector has raised a particular concern about proposed section 125F and the information a court can consider when assessing future family violence risk. I will be asking the minister to explain the limits proposed section 125F places on the court in receiving new evidence, including updated risk assessments, safety planning information and other new material that is relevant to current risk levels. The Attorney-General has said that a court may inquire about changed circumstances, such as living arrangements and ongoing family law or child protection proceedings, but it does remain unclear what material the court can actually receive and rely upon when making its decision, which seems particularly important when the court is being asked to make a decision about future risk levels.

Circumstances can change substantially between the offending that gave rise to the criminal proceeding and the point at which that proceeding is finally resolved, so there may have been new threats or behaviour or there may be changes involving children or relevant information arising in family law or child protection proceedings after the criminal offending and proceeding. The government says that where further evidence is required, the court can decline to exercise the own-motion power and leave the matter to a separate civil proceeding, but that raises an obvious question about whether the reform actually achieves its stated purpose of sparing victim-survivors another proceeding. I will be exploring with the minister the policy rationale for restricting the material that can be considered by the court and where the line is drawn between current circumstances the court is permitted to inquire about, the new evidence that proposed section 125F prevents it from receiving and how the court can make a reliable assessment of future risk if relevant contemporary evidence falls on the prohibited side of that line.

There is also a direct connection here with concerns I have already raised about misidentification and systems abuse. One of the lessons that specialist family violence lawyers continue to emphasise is that family violence cannot be safely understood by looking at a single incident or a narrow slice of a relationship. The Attorney-General points to safeguards, including the respondent’s opportunity to be heard and the court’s discretion not to exercise the power if misidentification is raised. But that does again leave a fundamental question: how will a court identify misidentification if nobody raises it and the broader history of the incident was never before the criminal court? The power itself can be exploited by a perpetrator engaging in systems abuse, particularly where the magistrate does not have the full history and current context before them.

This raises a broader implementation issue that runs through both the own-motion provisions and the new coercive control offence, which is capability. I note that the bill provides an 18-month implementation period for the own-motion provisions, specifically so that the operating model can be developed. What this actually involves, though, is significant new responsibilities for different parts of the justice system. They require people to understand patterns of family violence, coercive control, predominant aggressor identification, systems abuse and the particular risks faced by different communities, so I will be asking the minister about the capability uplift that is necessary and whether that is going to be accompanying this legislation.

The purpose of these reforms is a vital one and one the Greens support. If Parliament is giving decision-makers greater powers, it also has an obligation to make sure that they have the information, expertise and safeguards necessary to exercise those powers effectively. The Greens are supporting this bill. As I said, we have heard some of the misgivings that specialist organisations have raised about particular parts of it, and we will be exploring those further in committee.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:30): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. Victim-survivors deserve a justice system that reflects the reality of family violence and sexual offending today and one that gives them greater protection, greater dignity and greater confidence when they engage with courts and justice agencies. The Liberals and Nationals have consistently supported reform that moved Victoria towards a more contemporary justice system, and indeed on coercive control it was the member for Eildon that sought to introduce a private members bill in the other place last year that would have seen action taken almost a year earlier.

I just want to go to the point Ms Terpstra was making with her extraordinary slurs, saying that the member for Eildon and the Liberals and Nationals had done no work on this issue and did not contribute to the coercive control debate at all. I just point to the fact that it was Jess Wilson and the member for Eildon that called for coercive control to be considered a standalone criminal offence. The response at the time – and I can take Ms Terpstra back to some media reporting from her Labor government – was that:

… the government maintained existing legislation included coercive behaviour in its definition of family violence, meaning it already was a criminal offence.

That is what the government said then, but Ms Terpstra just said the opposition did not add to this debate and did not bring forward this debate or have anything to do with it. I would just like to spell out the facts and point out how she was obviously wrong or not paying attention at the time. I will point her towards the headline in the Guardian on 3 December: ‘Victorian Labor to introduce standalone coercive control offence in backflip to match opposition policy’. I would ask Ms Terpstra to perhaps go and have a look at the GuardianAustralia website and that headline to see where she obviously has clearly misled herself in her contribution.

This is because we recognise then, as we do now, that coercive control is a serious and insidious form of family violence and that our laws need to properly recognise the pattern of behaviour that can trap victims in abusive relationships long before physical violence occurs. This bill seeks to prioritise the safety of victim-survivors and improve the efficiency of justice processes. In a number of respects it does that, and the Liberals and Nationals support those measures. The bill makes amendments relating to family violence intervention orders and criminal proceedings. It enables greater information sharing, makes changes to electronic signatures and creates the new offence of coercive control. It also makes changes to the use of good character in sentencing, introduces a number of fines reforms and prohibits discrimination on the basis that a person has been subjected to family violence. I also note the provision that will recognise grooming as a prohibited behaviour, although that reform will not commence until August 2027, a full year after the passage of the legislation.

Although these are worthwhile changes and we do support them, this bill could have been much better. It represents a significant opportunity to deal with a number of serious problems in our justice system that victim-survivors continue to encounter, including reforms that the government itself has previously committed to delivering. Unfortunately, that opportunity has been missed. There is a broader set of changes that needs to occur if we are serious about the experience of victim-survivors and about ensuring our justice system operates in their interests. One of the most pressing is the use of suppression orders. Victoria has become the suppression order capital of Australia, and there are legitimate concerns about the frequency with which they are being made and the circumstances in which they are being used.

For months the Liberals and Nationals have been calling for reform in this area, and eventually the government agreed the system needs to be reviewed. We have committed to ending the abuse of suppression orders because the current system is capable of producing outcomes that are deeply damaging to victims and their families. We have proposed reform that would restrict suppression orders to circumstances where there are genuine physical safety concerns and would severely limit the use of mental health grounds as a broad justification for preventing publication. There will always be circumstances where the suppression is necessary to protect a victim, a witness or another person from genuine harm, and that protection must remain. But suppression should not be easy to achieve. It should certainly not operate in a way that conceals serious offending or prevents victims from speaking openly about what has happened to them, and a Liberals and Nationals government led by Jess Wilson will reform Victoria’s suppression order laws, because this situation cannot continue.

I want to touch on another important topic in this space. Clare’s law was introduced in the United Kingdom following the tragic murder of Clare Wood by a former partner with a history of violence. The principle behind it is straightforward: it gives a person the right to ask police whether their current or former partner has a history of domestic or family violence while also giving police the ability to proactively disclose that information when they identify that a person may be at risk. It is commonly described as ‘Right to ask, right to know’. A version of this scheme is already operating in South Australia, and since its introduction at the end of 2024 thousands of applications have been made and more than a thousand disclosures have occurred. These figures demonstrate the very real demand for this kind of information. People entering relationships should not unknowingly be placed at risk because important information about a violent history is sitting somewhere within a government or police system that cannot be disclosed to them. The Liberals and Nationals have committed to introducing Clare’s law in Victoria, and it is another reform that could have been considered as part of this broader package through legislation.

We have also committed to allowing sexual assault victim-survivors to prerecord their evidence. Giving evidence in a sexual offence proceeding can require a victim to relive the worst experience of their life in an adversarial environment, sometimes years after the offence occurred, so giving victims the option of prerecording their evidence can reduce the trauma while preserving the integrity of the judicial process. After the Liberals and Nationals announced our commitment, the government subsequently matched it, yet the reform has still not been delivered. It could have been introduced as part of this legislation today, but it was not. That delay is causing understandable frustration and distress within the sector, because this is not an abstract policy debate. Every month that reform is delayed is another month in which victims are going through the existing system. I would just say we, the Liberals and Nationals, have taken leadership, and I have walked people through it on a number of these issues. Despite what Ms Terpstra was claiming earlier, we are clearly taking a leadership role in these matters, and we are serious about implementing them in government where this current government has failed.

There are other issues worthy of consideration. A recent University of Melbourne round table raised concerns about pseudonym or concealment orders, which while technically distinct from suppression orders, can operate as de facto suppression orders. There is also legitimate concern about whether courts should be required to publish reasons when suppression orders are made. Greater transparency would allow the public, the media, legal practitioners and legislators to better understand how these powers are being exercised and whether the law is operating as Parliament intended. There are also questions about access to court documents and whether Victoria can learn from approaches taken in other jurisdictions, including Queensland, where there are legislative provisions dealing with access to certain court materials.

Further issues remain with the operation of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, including questions around victim consent and the interaction of intervention orders in circumstances where an adult victim remains in a relationship with the respondent. There can be situations where the operation of the law produces unintended consequences for the very person against whom an order has been made. Those are difficult legal questions, but they are precisely the sorts of questions Parliament should be prepared to confront when we are undertaking a substantial reform of family violence law. I also want to acknowledge the recommendations made by the victims of crime commissioner in September last year concerning safety within our courts. Court safety is fundamental. A victim-survivor should not come to court seeking protection or justice only to find themselves exposed to further intimidation, fear or confrontation within the justice system itself. All of these come back to the same principle: victim-survivors deserve a justice system that is modern, responsive and built around their safety and dignity.

The measures contained in this bill are important, and that is why the Liberals and Nationals support them. We supported action on coercive control before the legislation was introduced, while the Labor government was still saying that coercive behaviours were already part of the Crimes Act 1958 and coercive control did not need to be a standalone offence. I know those on the crossbench remember a time when the Attorney-General was still saying that coercive behaviour was already part of the Crimes Act and coercive control did not need to be considered as a standalone offence. We knew that it needed to be, which is why we took the leadership on this issue, and I want to acknowledge Cindy McLeish and Jess Wilson. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge my friend the member for Mildura for her very raw and real contribution in the lower house.

As I mentioned, there was an opportunity to go further. There was an opportunity to deal with suppression orders, to introduce Clare’s law, to finally deliver prerecorded evidence for sexual assault victim-survivors and to address other outstanding problems that continue to undermine our justice system. Some of those reforms have already been promised by this tired government with only a few sitting days left, and others have been put forward by the Liberals and Nationals and subsequently matched by this Labor government. But no legislation will be introduced by the end of the term. Jess Wilson is serious about this policy area. We as the Liberals and Nationals are serious about this policy area, and as I mentioned in my contribution, we will introduce a number of measures in government in this space. This bill takes some worthwhile steps. It leaves others unfinished. The Liberals and Nationals believe Victoria can and should have a more contemporary justice system – one that protects victims, gives them a stronger voice and ensures our laws reflect the reality of the violence and abuse they have experienced. That is the standard we should be working towards, and it is a standard a Jess Wilson–led Liberals and Nationals government will deliver.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (15:44): I too rise to speak in support of this bill before us today. It is an enormous bill with several significant and complex reforms. It is going to be a challenge to speak about each of them, but I want to cover off my views on a few of them and then speak about something very important at the end. Many people have spoken about the criminalisation of coercive control in this piece of legislation. Coercive control is a defining feature of family violence, and I am grateful to hear the conversation that we have been having about the impact that it has on so many people’s lives. Coercive control involves patterns of behaviour that intend to isolate, dominate, control and instil fear in another person, often over extended periods of time, causing profound and often lifelong harm. There is truly no denying that this is a fact, and this is a reality for so many people not just across our state but across our country. But there have been a few of us – well, many of us in fact, including many stakeholders – who have questioned whether criminalisation of coercive control is actually the right response. That is not because people do not need protection from coercive control; it is about whether criminalisation of coercive control and defining it in legislation is the best way to protect people from this very serious form of harm.

The Federation of Community Legal Centres has said:

A standalone coercive control offence is a blunt instrument for responding to a complex and highly contextual form of family violence.

I understand that there is a view that criminalising things, in this case coercive control, sends a message to victims and perpetrators, but it is important for the government and for all politicians in this chamber to know that it is questionable whether this reform will be effective in serving its purpose, particularly because many people who participate in coercive control do not know that they are participating in coercive control. Sending a message about a new crime to people who have been participating in such a slow and perverse form of violence and harm is not going to make them heed those warning signs. But there are a range of other ways that unintended risks can come with this and be created for survivors. These include the way in which evidence is collected to present to police, noting that there are concerns around privacy when it comes to that as well. Misidentification is the really big one, and a coercive control offence is particularly vulnerable to this because allegations of coercive control depend heavily on interpretation, context and the competing narratives that exist within relationships.

Experience both in Australia and internationally shows that criminal coercive control offences produce relatively low charge and conviction rates. However, they can result in really high rates of misidentification. When prosecutions fail, are withdrawn or result in acquittals, victim-survivors can be left also feeling disbelieved when they have in fact experienced family violence. Any of these would obviously result in further traumatisation as victim-survivors are harmed by the system that they turned to for protection. When we look at the ways in which we can reform our family violence laws and better protect victim-survivors, one of the things we need to focus really heavily on is not just preventing family violence but protecting those who have experienced it from retraumatisation, which is a very common story – far too common a story – for so many who do report their experiences.

The family violence intervention order system is civil, preventative and focused on safety. Unlike the criminal law, it is designed to respond to patterns of behaviour, intervene earlier and prioritise protection rather than punishment. There are also incredibly different perspectives among victim-survivors. Some do not want to engage with the criminal system in any way whatsoever, while some do, and it is important to remember that we need to build a system that everyone feels they have a way to engage with. Building on the effectiveness of the current system and ensuring it actually responds to those experiencing coercive control would probably have far better outcomes. We need to take initial concerns and breaches of FVIOs seriously, even when those are not necessarily violent, and importantly focus on ensuring that this does not happen in the first place. I have really great concerns about the effort that we are putting into prevention in this state, which I will speak to more later on, but investing in supports to address these underlying behaviours creates a situation where we do not have to address the problem and create new crimes in the first place, because we can change the attitudes and the culture that exist within our country that are resulting in so much violence, largely against women and girls, particularly, and even more so from marginalised communities.

This bill also creates own-motion powers, a new power allowing courts to extend or vary family violence intervention orders on their own motion in criminal proceedings at the point of sentencing. This is another reform which, although being based in a commendable goal, just like stopping coercive control – to simplify the process of extending an intervention order – many fear could lead to the opposite of that. We have heard that it is likely to generate additional hearings, adjournments, appeals and procedural complexity while offering limited practical benefit over existing extension mechanisms.

As I have already mentioned, Victoria’s civil family violence system responds to risk in a very complex way, but it is a complexity many have fought very hard for as it lays the foundation of our attempt to recognise the complexities of family violence within the law. Judges will be asked to grant an extension to an order made by another magistrate who had all of the information presented to them. There is a clear risk of either the court not engaging with this or inaccurate orders being made. It relies on the police to be the key mechanism to represent the interests of victims, and victims will be forced to consider the serious ramifications of extending an FVIO on the fly at plea. It also seems the government, in their attempt to address again what is a real problem, have set up a system that some have said could be difficult and complicated in terms of an appeal mechanism.

This bill also does something that a friend of mine has worked on for quite some time now, and that is ending good character references. I want to acknowledge the tireless work of my friend Harrison James for his really inspiring work behind the Your Reference Ain’t Relevant campaign. I was so proud to stand with Harrison a few years ago when he shared his story of childhood sexual abuse to launch a report alongside me and Emma Hakansson from the Australian Childhood Foundation. He turned his experience into a national campaign to abolish good character references in the sentencing of crimes such as rape or assault. We all know that people who commit sexual violence are not good people and we know that rapists are not good people, and the fact that these references could be used in proceedings to lessen penalties or sentences is not only galling and unacceptable to the community but incredibly traumatising to the victims that are part of this process. Hearing someone that has caused such significant harm that can potentially affect you for the entirety of your life being described as someone who is good and someone who deserves to have a reduction in whatever the outcome is of the case is incredibly upsetting.

In speaking to this, I want to acknowledge all of the many people across our state who have gone through this experience and who have heard the people who have harmed them and been violent to them be described as of good character. I am pleased to see that this will no longer be the case for so many people moving forward, which will again play a part in reducing some retraumatisation. These character references were largely used by people in a position of privilege, largely men, to demonstrate their standing in society to get away with or reduce their sentences for not just crimes but serious crimes.

This change here in Victoria has followed on from reform in New South Wales, the ACT, Tasmania and Western Australia. It has been really inspiring to watch Harry do this incredible work and hear him find his voice and speak truth to power and take what was once one of the hardest and darkest parts of himself and tell his story to change the future for other people. In speaking to the success of his work, I want to acknowledge and congratulate Harry for a really exciting part of his life. He and his partner Bella are expecting a baby within the next few weeks. So it has been an incredibly exciting time for him with his advocacy and also for his family.

This bill will also make some changes in relation to fines – really welcome and important changes – including adding excessive speed infringements to the family violence scheme in the Fines Reform Act 2014. This means that victim-survivors, who are often unfairly penalised for excessive speeding offences that they did not commit and are unable to nominate the driver for due to fear of violence or retaliation, will be addressed. Notably, however, this bill does not resolve the impending issue of imprisonment for unpaid fines, which is why I will be supporting Ms Payne’s amendment relating to imprisonment because of unpaid infringement notices and fines and, similarly, supporting her amendment to decriminalise begging. These laws are very literally designed to punish those who are struggling and need our help the most. Putting financial pressures and excessive fines onto a person who is already experiencing significant hardship often results in the very opposite of what is desired to be achieved. The people most affected by these laws – those with mental ill health and those facing hardship – are the people that this bill aims to help, the victim-survivors of family violence, and the concept that while we are passing legislation to better protect them they could still go to prison for begging or not paying fines is pretty disheartening and pretty sad, particularly when the department already have significant powers to collect unpaid fines. I am hopeful that others too will see the strong link to reducing pressures, stress and traumatisation for victim-survivors of family violence and will also support Ms Payne’s very sensible amendments.

The final reform that I want to speak to is one that I am incredibly excited about and very pleased to see in this bill, and there is a bit of a story as to how we got here today. I was contacted by the community legal centre Westjustice, who are watching the debate in the gallery, and they spoke to me about the problem of discrimination against victim-survivors of family violence and a gap or loophole that existed in our laws. They reached out to me at the very start of this year. Westjustice were dealing with far too many clients who had experienced real and significant discrimination in the workplace but could not seek claims under the Fair Work Act 2009. This is because while protections exist within our federal laws, they do not exist within our state laws, meaning that victim-survivors of family violence have been legally sacked for disclosing or sharing their experience or asking for accommodations because of their experience. Not only could that happen in theory, it has happened in reality, and Westjustice really saw this up close. I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been for them to look at someone and tell them that there was nothing that could be done to help them because of a loophole that existed in our state laws, despite having a protection within our federal legislation. In my adjournment in March I spoke about the story of K, who worked alongside her previous partner, and after disclosing her experience of family violence and asking for adjustments in the workplace to ensure that she would not be subject to ongoing violence and harm she was told that she should find somewhere else to work.

There was also the story of Lee. Lee had been working for her employer for five years, and over the course of her employment Lee consistently received positive feedback about her work and about her output. But after several years of employment Lee told her manager that she had been a victim of severe family violence and had been required to spend some time in the hospital. Shortly after notifying her manager of this experience and the impacts of it, Lee’s manager started to performance manage her and started picking on Lee in the workplace. Her manager directed her to complete an independent medical assessment because of her disclosure of family violence and the impacts that came from it. Lee was then directed to take unpaid leave. She felt threatened by her manager’s behaviour and understood that the reason she was suddenly being performance managed was because her work perceived her to be a problem in the workplace due to her experience of family violence. Lee’s experience also shows some of the complexities of how discrimination against those with experience of family violence can present. In order to simply explain the issue, we focus on the very real issue of workers being sacked for disclosing their experiences, alongside the advocacy and case studies from Westjustice. But the truth is discrimination in one way or another is sadly an incredibly, I guess, normal, if you can say that, part of the victim-survivor experience.

We cannot legislate prejudice away in its entirety, but this reform is an incredibly significant and meaningful step that will also have real, positive implications on the lives of so many. These protections, importantly, do apply not just to the workplace but to all areas of publicly protected life, in housing, in education and in the provision of goods and services. Equal Opportunity SA, where this protection already exists, has published some examples of what discrimination can look like in other aspects of life, which I am going to very briefly touch on. In education it could be when a school required both parents to agree for a child to attend school camp. Student A experienced domestic abuse committed by one of their parents, and they have no contact with this parent for their safety. Student A could not get permission from this parent to attend camp, so the school refused to allow them to attend. Accommodation: person A needed to find accommodation due to domestic violence and applied for a rental property. The property manager became aware that person A was receiving money for a bond from a charitable organisation that assists victims of domestic violence. Their application was rejected, and when questioned, the property manager said that person A would not be a reliable tenant. Person B was subject to domestic abuse in their home, which resulted in some damage being caused to their rental property. As the lease was in person B’s name, the landlord listed person B’s details on a tenant blacklist. When person B applied for subsequent rental properties, the applications were rejected due to their rental history. For goods and services, person A left a financially abusive relationship and discovered their partner had accrued debts in person A’s name. When they went to the bank to try and rectify the situation the bank refused to provide information or otherwise deal with person A as they did not know the passwords or other security information relating to the accounts.

These are some examples that are forms of discrimination that could have previously occurred in our state and will now be protected as an attribute under these important reforms in the bill today. The implications of that are really significant. Just as has been the goal for so many recent reforms, protecting victim-survivors against discrimination helps to alleviate the very real fears surrounding leaving a violent situation. Knowing that you can be discriminated against while also applying for housing or sharing your experience in the workplace only exacerbates that. Nobody should fear systemic discrimination because of leaving or disclosing their experiences. In fact it should be the very opposite: they should be receiving as much support as can be given to them. By enshrining subjection to family violence as a protected attribute under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, as this bill does, not only does it provide protections against discrimination, it also means the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission will be able to ensure workplaces are adequately preventing discrimination in the first place and that the public is aware of the intricacies of how discrimination can actually present.

I really want to thank the incredible crew at Westjustice for first coming to us with this and putting their trust in us to work on this reform and advocate to the government for the change. It is such an incredibly important piece of reform that we became very, very committed to and very determined to see in this piece of legislation, particularly my adviser Ethan, who just would not take no for an answer, and I just really want to thank him for his hard work and advocacy on my behalf and for speaking to so many stakeholders to show the importance of this reform and to get their support so that we could communicate that message and ultimately get to see it in the bill today. I also want to acknowledge the Working Women’s Centre Victoria, the Women’s Legal Service Victoria and so many others who have been advocating for this change because they have seen it in real time, up close, being applied, with no ability to intervene. It is through all of their incredible work that they will finally be able to ensure real support for their clients but also for all victim-survivors of family violence.

In closing, I just want to touch on a few things. I know that it has already been spoken about in this debate, but I want to put on the record that the government has made some really important commitments in the justice space that are not seen in this bill today. In speaking to this I want to acknowledge my good friend Brittany Higgins and her advocacy to secure a commitment off the government to see prerecorded evidence and protections around victim-survivors, confidential communications and counselling notes. This reform was not in this bill, and I think it is really great. I appreciate that the government have reiterated their support for these reforms and certainly that the opposition have signalled their support for prerecorded evidence once again, as they previously committed to.

These reforms in sexual violence cases are so incredibly important, and they cannot wait. The fact that so many victim-survivors are having to front up to a courtroom and face their abuser and tell their story all over again or that victim-survivors are having their counselling records and private conversations subpoenaed as part of a case when they often do not know when they report that this is even possible is incredibly distressing, and it is contributing to retraumatisation in a really big way. While I understand that there is a huge workload ahead of the government, I call on whoever is in government post November to make sure that this work is prioritised, because there are far too many people who will still be experiencing real harms without this change in policy and without seeing it in this legislation. I am grateful that the Attorney-General and the Shadow Attorney have committed to seeing it through, but now we need to see that work prioritised and we need to see it legislated. That commitment from both parties has been a public commitment, and the work needs to get underway. I really want to reiterate the work of not just Britt but also the many different stakeholders, including Fair Agenda and Sexual Assault Services Victoria, who have worked really hard to see this commitment and are dedicated to seeing the reform through the Parliament and prioritised and in effect as soon as possible. I really encourage, in the lead-up to the election and after the election, all MPs from all parties to continue to engage with these stakeholders because their lived experience is the best way to shape this policy, to ensure that it is done right and to ensure that we create a justice system that actually does that – serves justice to survivors and ensures that they are the ones supported and protected, not the perpetrators of abuse or the people that have caused them harm.

I also just want to touch on the importance, when making these changes, of adequately supporting and funding the people who then deal with these changes. It of course is often our community legal centres who do so much heavy lifting, not just in consulting and engaging on legislation before it comes to this place but also in supporting clients who come through their doors and require assistance and help. They need secure ongoing funding for their services – not one-year funding, not two-year funding, but four- to five-year funding that allows them to plan and that allows them to know that they can take on cases which can often go over a significant period of time and that they can support the people who need them and continue their important work.

The government must also not follow through with their commitment to abolishing the victims of crime commissioner but rather in fact strengthen its role and deliver an updated victims charter of rights. We are doing so much work to protect victim-survivors and to ensure that they feel safe and supported in our state, and the commissioner is a really, really important part of that.

When faced with a problem like family violence, it can be tempting to want to conduct further inquiries, try new things or send big messages, but we actually know what works. We have heard from the experts; we have heard the evidence. Often it just requires the political will, it requires the funding and it requires acting on recommendations that already exist, and I am glad to see a number of those in this bill today. But more broadly, we are facing a really big problem in our country where we are having to pass laws and reforms like this to address a worsening problem where women and girls do not feel safe, whether that be in public or within their homes. I do have a great fear that, while we of course need to implement legislation or update legislation for when crimes occur, we need to be putting so much more into prevention. The rise of the manosphere and the really harmful attitudes that are coming through, even in kindergartens and primary schools, of young boys and men about women’s and girls’ place in the world and the roles that they should hold and the relationships that men and boys have with them, is a critical part of the equation. This problem that we are trying to address today is only going to worsen unless we shift those attitudes – unless we create a culture where men and boys see women and girls as equals. Certainly everyone has an important role to play in that, but being very heavily engaged in the sector, when it comes to family violence or sexual violence or gender equality, it is largely women doing that work, and it is not just our problem to solve. We need to see more blokes, more men, more boys speaking out against the harmful attitudes that are gripping our country, the ones that we are not addressing quickly enough, which will result in a crisis, if in fact it is not already a crisis. The state government and federal government have a really important role to play in that. The federal government made an important announcement today in relation to our algorithms and the feeds that we see. But there is so much more that needs to be done. I am hopeful that we reach a period where we no longer have to change these laws because we have addressed the problem in the first place, but until then I commend the bill to the house.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:14): I am very pleased to rise to speak to this very important bill before us today – that is, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. There are a number of things I would like to touch on in my contribution, the first of which in many ways actually dovetails with where Ms Purcell ended.

I have been reflecting, in sitting and listening to this debate, on why these reforms are so critically important but also reflecting on the fact that they do address one perspective. They address the legal consequence side, which is very important to do. I will touch on in a bit more detail what some of those legislative changes are and how they will actually make a difference, but the bill does also leave open the question of what you could call the cultural element – the very need for these laws in the first place. In an ideal society of course we would not have that need. We have come a long way in our journey of responding to and adequately dealing with family violence in this country and in particular in this state, with the trailblazing royal commission and all the various reforms and recommendations enacted through that. But as far as we have come, it is blindingly, painfully obvious that we have so much more to do. The fact that we cannot go a few days in this country without seeing the latest victim of family violence, almost always a woman or often children, murdered at the hands of the people who are supposed to love them the most shows us that we still have a very long way to go.

Legislative reform is critical, and I will touch in more detail on it momentarily, but I do also want to touch on the cultural reform that we need to collectively, as a society, undertake. That is not something that any one legislature in any one jurisdiction can fully achieve. It is something that we need to work on as a community and as a society, and it needs to come in at every level. It needs to be considered at our sporting clubs, in our community spaces and in our cultural and religious spaces, where we gather and connect as communities. It does need to be an essential element of our education system as well.

That is why, in talking about some of the behaviours that Ms Purcell was referring to in those earlier years, programs such as Respectful Relationships are so critically important, because they are about teaching respect. Many, and I dare say most, parents raise their children to have and to show respect and to display that in society. But we do have this issue, and there is a critical need to have this apply and to be taught to as many young children and young people as possible. Respectful Relationships is really about those age-appropriate lessons in understanding consent for oneself and understanding respectful behaviours towards others, and in a graduated way it escalates in accordance with the age that they are at. It is especially important when we consider some of the things in the toxic online environment. Mr McCracken, some others and I had a discussion earlier today in relation to our tabled inquiry report into anti-LGBTIQA+ hate crimes. It is the same toxic source that drives some of these attitudes, particularly in terms of the way that some men think about women. It starts from a young age, and it is why those interventions are so important. This government will always continue to support that, always continue to invest in that and always fight against any efforts to undermine or undercut those really effective and powerful programs.

This bill addresses a number of areas of our justice system as they relate to victim-survivors of family violence. The bill includes coercive control by listing it as a standalone criminal offence. This will apply to adults, with a focus on coercive control where it operates within intimate partner relationships, and it has a commencement date of March 2028, in order to allow appropriate time for the police, the judicial system and of course for others in the sector such as the community legal sector to be fully prepared and resourced in order to respond in this way. It is important to start in a relatively focused sphere and in a space such as intimate partner relationships, where we know the greatest amount of harm is occurring. There will be a statutory review as part of this bill within three years of its commencement, which will then evaluate the bill, evaluate these measures and see what needs to be reformed and improved upon and how it can be most appropriately expanded to other types of family violence situations.

This bill will also abolish good character references. This is something that I have put notices of motion in the notice paper on and have spoken about previously in this place. It is an important thing because it is something quite inconceivable to imagine – to go through a horrific assault, sexual assault or another horrific act of violence against your person and then to have to sit in court and listen to all the subjective virtues of the person who attacked you. What is more, we know that the information that is provided in a good character reference has very little if any relation to that offender’s prospects of rehabilitation or reform. I could perhaps reluctantly understand an argument for keeping the references if there was that nexus and if there was that relationship that you could demonstrate, but there is no demonstrable relationship between someone having good character references and reform. That is what the data shows us, and that is also what guides this reform today.

It will, as Ms Purcell has also covered off in her contribution, make it unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have experienced or are experiencing family violence, and that is through amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. I do wish to acknowledge Westjustice, Ms Purcell and indeed Ethan from Ms Purcell’s office for their advocacy on this matter. I also do wish to note that, as she outlined, this was raised in an adjournment matter in March. We are now here in September, six months later, and I do wish to acknowledge the very rapid way in which the Attorney-General and her office have taken this issue, have considered it, have evaluated it and have responded. That short timeframe alone underscores the sincerity and the passion of our Attorney-General and of this government more broadly in doing what we can to ensure that all victim-survivors of family violence are given the best possible supports.

That is the guiding principle of course that underlies all of the reforms in this bill, including the variations of family violence intervention orders, allowing criminal courts to do them of their own motion and the requirement for courts to consider the victims in family violence intervention order proceedings – which sounds, as a matter of fact, obvious, but is something that does need to be clarified for those few cases where victim-survivors have found themselves falling through the cracks of the justice system. Indeed there is also the expansion, as others have talked about, of personal safety intervention orders to include grooming. This does fit within the broader framework of personal violence protections that this government has been focusing on, whether the workplace protection orders that we debated and passed in this place last week or these very important reforms regarding those intimate relationships today. As well, there are reforms to fines and infringements, which will support people who are going through extreme circumstances so that as much as possible they will not have to find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

I have had the benefit of being in the chamber for all of this debate so far, and I have appreciated the contributions of each speaker. I do reflect on the fact that success – or in this case successful reform – does indeed have many parents. In acknowledging all of the members across both sides of the aisle and across both chambers who have spoken so passionately over a period of years and who have genuinely cared about and raised these issues over a number of years, I do acknowledge each and every member from every party who has raised this, because it is an important thing for us to be united on. I also acknowledge the tireless dedication of the Attorney-General Minister Kilkenny and her team in acknowledging and taking the laws which did already cover coercive control in a number of ways and finding, through the reforms before us today, ways in which we can improve them through the explicit criminalisation of coercive control from March 2028.

It does tie in with other measures as well, like the Orange Door. Those prevention and response measures – it is so important that they are well resourced and funded too. I think of not just the Orange Door in Dandenong in my electorate but the one in Cranbourne as well, opened under this government, and how we are expanding those services because, very regrettably, there is that increasing demand. This of course takes me back to the very start – to the cultural aspects that we still as a government, as a Parliament, as a state, as a nation and as a society have so much more work to do on. There is so much more work to do to address that cultural element. But as we do that, and as we cannot let that go, we must also continue the work in the legislative space. That is exactly what this bill before us does today and why I commend it to the house.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:24): I am just going to start by talking about this important bill, which criminalises coercive control, speaks about family violence and talks about good character references, risk assessment and other matters. But I am going to start by saying Ms Terpstra made some pretty wildly inaccurate claims, and ones that I believe are dangerous. The truth actually matters, and it matters most when we are in a crisis like we are today. Let me read you a few headlines that we have seen this year. Here is one from 21 July: ‘Every 11 days a woman in Australia is killed by someone she trusted’. That is unbelievable. Here is another one: ‘4 women and girls gone in 4 days. 3 men and 1 boy charged with murder’. Here is the description of these people: Layla Jeffery, 13 years old; an unnamed 17-year-old young girl; Lavanya Chappa, 39 years old and a mother of two; and Jana Armstrong, 30 years old and a new mum. This is unbelievable. We are at a crisis point.

There are so many things that I want to talk about, so I am going to try to keep this in a linear and organised way, but we have to be careful that we do not just come in here and spread misinformation like ‘The Liberals and the Nationals are going to cut this’. That is absolute rubbish. I am proud of our leader, a 36-year-old female whose very first act as the Leader of the Opposition was to stand with Cindy McLeish and say that we are going to make coercive control a standalone offence. This is something that we are serious about, and I will not let the likes of Ms Terpstra say otherwise, because it is quite frankly wrong. The truth matters, and coercive control matters. In New South Wales there was a review into domestic violence that leads to death.

There are some little ears in here, so maybe I will go to a different area while they are in here. What this bill does is it stops the courts giving offenders a lighter sentence because of their previous good character. I wonder if there is a way to communicate that maybe there is a nicer bill somewhere else. Is there is a text somebody can send? I want to speak about this, but –

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, just given the very delicate nature of the subject matter here this afternoon, which is talking about some environments and concerns that may give rise to worry or anxiety for anyone in the gallery, I was just wondering if perhaps there might be any messages that can be conveyed by the attendants for the purpose of some guidance there.

They are leaving now.

Renee HEATH: Wonderful. The reason I brought this up – and thank you very much for understanding – is I want to talk about this honestly, and I do not want any little ears hurt.

In New South Wales there was a review into domestic violence, and it found that coercive control precedes roughly 97 to 99 per cent of intimate partner homicides. So there is a clear pipeline that starts with coercive control – it could be intimidation, it could be belittling, it could be that degrading away of who that person is – and it can end up in the most bloody and violent murders that we see reported, like these ones. So it is not a time for scare campaigns and sledging, it is an absolute time for action. And that is not just pointing the finger at one person. All of us as legislators must realise that when we are faced with a crisis we must make sure that we face up to the facts and we are not just talking about the good things that we are doing but the fact that we are here because there is an absolute crisis in this state. Every 11 days a woman in Australia is killed by somebody she trusted.

There are programs in schools that I think are so important, but there are also some other things I want to talk about that were raised by other members in here. One was about men and boys. Men and boys need to see women as equals – yes, that is absolutely correct – but we also have to face up to the point that all of this education in schools that could be perceived as anti-men and anti-boys could be fuelling this fire. Good men have been told to back off so many times, and because of that they have left a vacuum and there are boys that are now looking to guys like the Tate brothers as an example. That is something that we need to realise. There have to be good men that are good role models for young children so they can model respect. You can have a program at school – that is one thing – but the environment at home is going to have the biggest impact on kids’ lives. We have to be able to realise that there are some differences between the sexes and that is not always a bad thing. Men are physically stronger, so why isn’t it okay and why is it frowned upon if men are then told, ‘Well, maybe that means that you have a particular strength, and you can be a protector, you can be an agent of change for good’? These things I think need to be accepted mindsets and accepted thought patterns in a modern society, because otherwise we are going to be left in a position where these things get worse and worse.

Cindy McLeish has done some incredible work on this. It is not performative; she is genuinely passionate and genuinely leading change in this area. On 3 December 2025 – Jess Wilson had been the Leader of the Opposition for a couple of weeks; her first announcement was on the criminalisation of coercive control – Cindy introduced a private members bill which had support from many on the crossbench here, and she is really confident that it is that work that has led us to this position.

We also must realise that in Victoria we are really far behind, because in the UK the Home Secretary – who happened to be Theresa May, by the way – in December 2014, almost 12 years ago, announced plans for new criminal offences targeting coercive control. At the end of 2015 it became law, and they have been leading the way for decades. But here in Australia, somewhere where we should be miles ahead, across this nation it is estimated that around 42 to 45 women and girls will be killed by a male partner or by an intimate partner this year.

I would also like to shout out to Jade Benham, who I just think is incredibly gutsy. She has stood up and has been incredibly vulnerable but she has led on this with such strength and such compassion. She also in her speech said that in her first act as Leader of the Opposition Jess Wilson promised that she would introduce criminalisation of coercive control in a standalone bill, which we tried to do. I am very proud of the women in our coalition party that have led the way in this.

I just want to go to the second-reading speech of the member of the government, and I want to point out some things which I find upsetting. If I find it upsetting, I wonder how the family of people that have lost daughters and mums would feel about this. She said:

This Government has done more than any other Government in history to better protect women and children, and hold perpetrators to account.

That is just not true. It has been for over a decade that in the UK coercive control has been a standalone crime. Also, she failed to mention that she rejected entirely the private members bill that was put forward by the coalition, particularly Ms McLeish, in this area. She said:

This Bill is about listening and responding to the voices of victim-survivors.

That is just not true, because I have sat with many victim-survivors who have spoken about how they have felt so disregarded.

I will once again raise the story of Katie Haley, because it directly corresponds to this bill. She was killed by a very coercively controlling partner. This had been going on for a long time. When women leave relationships, that is the most dangerous time for them in their life, and Katie Haley did not survive this. She said to her partner that she was leaving. Their little, beautiful girl Indie, who is the most outstanding young little girl – just a fantastic little girl, who is 10 years old now – was sleeping in the bed there as Shane, Indie’s dad, bashed Katie, Indie’s mum, to death with a barbell in the room next door. This has been extremely, extremely traumatic for the family because this guy has got 427 days off his prison sentence – despite the court saying he has a very low chance of rehabilitation and is probably at high risk of reoffending – because he was locked up during COVID. That is not listening to and responding to the voices of victim-survivors, because if you were listening and responding to the voices of victim-survivors, when we amended that piece of legislation just a few weeks ago, you would have gotten rid of that. We would have gotten rid of the ability for violent and high-risk offenders to receive these discounts, yet we did not.

This is another thing from the minister’s second-reading speech:

Currently, there is no criminal justice response available for victim-survivors of coercive control unless there is a family violence intervention order … in place or a physical criminal offence has taken place, like assault or a sexual offence.

This could have been a standalone offence months and months ago. She went on to talk about how:

The Bill will abolish the concept of good character, including its use as a mitigating factor, at sentencing for all offences.

Currently, victim-survivors are having to sit in court and hear that the person who harmed them is a person of ‘good character’. This can compound the trauma and diminish their experience.

That is so true, what Minister Kilkenny said. I want to take that further. One area we absolutely must see change in in this state for both the perpetrator and the victim is around victim impact statements. I have spoken to many, many mums – it actually has all been mums that I have spoken to about this – about when it has come their time in court to talk about the impact that the offending of these murderers has had on them, they have had most of it struck out. I will give you an example of that. If somebody has a home invasion and there is, for instance, a child sleeping in the next room, the mother or the father – but for the sake of the argument we will say the mother – can be so terrified that that person inside the house is going to find their child that they have trauma afterwards. They have nightmares. They cannot sleep because they were worried that that person was going to get their child. It is a possibility that when they write their victim impact statement and they talk about that psychological trauma, that is struck out because it did not happen and therefore it is not relevant to the case.

This, in my opinion, does two things. The first thing is the victim is never heard. The victim never has the ability to talk about it, and being heard is a bigger part of healing than the financial compensation and these things. Most of these mums say to me, ‘I want the law changed so it will never happen to another person.’ The next thing they say is, ‘I wanted to be heard. I wanted the true impact of this crime to be heard so that person understood.’ It is like their healing stops there because it never happens. That is a tragedy. The second reason is because it is not good for the rehabilitation of the perpetrator. I love reading all the interviews and the podcasts that that young guy Judo gives. His was the classic school-to-prison pipeline. First it started with disengagement from school. Then he just started mucking around and nothing was done. Then he started pushing over kids his age on the street, then it was petty theft, then it was robberies, then it was carjackings and then it was home invasions. He said the moment that it actually hit home for him and he realised that there was a way out was when somebody sat with him and said, ‘Get your act together. You are better than this. You’ve got people at home that love you, and you can do more with your life.’ He actually had to sit there and visualise, yes, what it was like for him doing the home invasion. Then he had to do an exercise where he imagined what it was like for the person in the home, and then he had to sit there and imagine what it was like for his mum hearing about these things – the impact of that crime and how it affected other people. That was the one of the first steps in him getting free and having a path to a different life.

If we want to have true safety in our community and true rehabilitation for the people that perpetrate and the people that are at risk of perpetrating, there has to be some honesty. I believe one of the best places to start with that is the impact statements of victims and making sure that they are uninhibited, they are truthful and they talk about the true impact of offending.

I think that it is wonderful that we are finally getting rid of the good character references, because I think this acknowledges that groomers and people that perpetrate this sort of violence are often expert manipulators: they can come across very well, they can spin a very good story and they can then wriggle their way out of responsibility.

I think that, and everybody has acknowledged it, there is so much more to be done on this. There need to be more victim-centric approaches and processes across law and order in general in the state of Victoria, but I think this is a fantastic start. I wish it had been done months ago. In closing, I just want to commend Cindy McLeish, Jess Wilson, Jade Benham and everyone who has – (Time expired)

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:41): I also would like to say a few words on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I will start by saying that the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill. However, I do have some concerns about it.

This bill is seeking to address something that is absolutely a real problem in Australia, and that is around family violence. Among other things, it addresses the issue, which has been spoken about, of coercive control, which is a real issue, but for a long time it has been a problem to legislate on because of its complex nature. Coercive control in the bill is defined as an offence where someone is an adult, they are in a relationship with an intimate partner, they engage in a course of conduct – on more than one occasion or where there is protracted specified conduct with a continuity of purpose – they intend by that course to coerce or control person B and ought to understand in all the particular circumstances that the course will probably cause harm to B.

Libertarians have a clear view on coercion – that coercion is wrong – and therefore this is definitely something that we want to stop. However, I do recognise one thing that does concern me about this: ‘harm’ is not very clearly defined here. Indeed there would be many cases where the government would have a definition of ‘harm’ that is very different to what I would consider harm. Nevertheless, I do note that the government has acknowledged the complexity in introducing this sort of legislation with the very long introduction period, which I think is necessary in the case of laws like this, because it is so complex. I do have real concerns about the enforceability of this and the amount of work and trauma that may be required to actually prove criminality in cases like this, because it is not just a one-off thing – a pattern of conduct needs to be demonstrated in order for a criminal offence to be committed. It means that a large amount of evidence would be required for this sort of thing, and that would be difficult, I would imagine, considering the circumstances under which that evidence would be obtained and presented before a court. So I do have concerns about the enforceability of this. I note that creating the laws is one thing; implementing them and making them effective is another thing altogether. As far as the law is concerned here, in this particular case, although I do have some concerns about the coercive control component and I think there is a real problem, I do acknowledge that the government is trying to do something about it here, and I hope that it works the way that the government intends it to work. That is what I would say on that.

Another thing that this bill does is abolish character references. I have heard arguments from both sides on this, but I do acknowledge that this can be a very traumatic thing for people. There are some carve-outs here that the government has catered for for specific purposes, so despite my concerns with that, I do not see that that is something that is a red line that would cause me to necessarily oppose it. Similarly, with the intervention order changes, again there are things here that seem very good in theory and good things that the government may be trying to do. I have very serious concerns about how they might be implemented. Again, it is going to require some very, very careful work by the department to implement this successfully and actually have it result in the changes that the government is hoping for.

I have got some other concerns which I will raise in committee, some questions about the bill, but suffice to say that I do acknowledge that this is trying to address a real problem and that the government is trying to address that problem through this legislation. My main concern here is not necessarily about the laws but the implementation of these laws and the unintended consequences of some of these laws. I am concerned about that. I am happy that the government is taking its time with the implementation. I think that that will be necessary, and I am concerned about whether or not these laws will ever result in prosecutions. I hope that there are legitimate cases where they are used to good effect, but the amount of work that would be required to result in some sort of prosecution does concern me. Maybe the existence of the laws in itself will have some effect in discouraging this type of behaviour. But nevertheless I know from talking to people in my own electorate that family violence and the sorts of things that surround it are a very, very serious problem. It is not just a problem for society. It is a problem for the police, it is a problem for our justice system and it is a problem for this Parliament, frankly. We have to do our best to try and make the laws and to scrutinise the laws that the government is coming up with on whether or not in our judgement they will result in something that we think is going to be of benefit and actually help the situation.

As I said, I hope that these laws work the way that the government intends. I do have some scepticism about how they might be implemented and will work in practice. Too many times in this place I have seen things work in theory and not work in practice, and that is what I have concerns and severe hesitation about. But on principle I do not see a reason to oppose this bill in its entirety.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:48): I am pleased to speak on this bill, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I will make only some brief remarks. I have spoken in this chamber on many occasions about the need to address family violence and sexual assault, and it does remain the single most common crime in Victoria. I do not think our society has really calibrated itself to recognise that – certainly not in media reporting.

Our Labor government has led the nation in its response to family violence. In our most recent budget we have provided $100 million for prevention of and response to sexual assault and family violence, building on $3.8 billion invested since the Royal Commission into Family Violence, which we initiated. Just to give a little summary of what we have delivered, Labor has delivered trauma-informed counselling; referral services – the Orange Door; legal assistance for victim-survivors; a landmark study on perpetrators to find the most effective interventions; stronger laws against stalking; streamlined family violence intervention orders; specific funding for Aboriginal community controlled organisations; $41 million invested in men’s behaviour change; and specialist family violence investigation units and training, technology and risk assessment tools to support Victoria Police to respond appropriately. Certainly community feedback is really positive in the Victoria Police space around their sensitivity and the actions that they take in that space. We have done this in consultation with victims and survivors and those that support them.

This bill continues that work, and it responds to key areas of concern that have been raised by victim-survivors. As all of my colleagues in this chamber have already raised, the bill introduces a new standalone criminal offence of coercive control. Coercive control is an insidious form of abuse used to intimidate, humiliate, surveil, gaslight or isolate another person and strip them of their sense of autonomy and self-worth so as to have control over them. This can have devastating impacts. It increases the risk of victims becoming homeless, suicidal or unwell, sliding into poverty and committing offences themselves. The new offence of coercive control covers physical, sexual, economic and emotional or psychological abuse or threats, and it also captures any other conduct that coerces or controls an intimate partner and causes them to feel fear for their or another person’s safety or wellbeing. Unfortunately, the data shows it is still the case in relation to family violence and also in relation to coercive control that a large proportion of the perpetrators are male and the victims are usually female, so this is a gender issue as well. We cannot pretend otherwise.

The new laws against coercive control will apply to adults who engage in a course of conduct against their current or former intimate partner, who intend to coerce or control the victim and who ought to understand that the course of conduct will probably cause harm to the victim. The offence focuses on intimate partner relationships as a start, because this is the most well understood area of coercive control. Thank you to those victim-survivors who have advocated for this change. The Carroll Labor government is listening and acting. We acknowledge the very understandable concerns about misidentification, particularly of Aboriginal women, and the Attorney-General has set up an expert body to advise on the implementation of the offence, including monitoring the risks.

I will just make a couple of remarks about good character references. This bill also abolishes the use of good character references for all criminal offences. My experience of the use of these was as a sexual assault counsellor, mostly, but of course it is broader than that in this bill. In my regional community, where I worked, I had a client whose father was the founder of a very, very well known, regionwide, almost statewide-known community initiative, I will call it. During her counselling with me she was very distressed by the impact of so much adulation of her father for the good charitable work that he was involved in when she was seeking assistance for being a victim of his sexual assault. If her case had gone to court, you could imagine the impact that a good character reference might have had on her as a client. It would have been incredibly distressing. If you are guilty of an offence, you are not of good character. The law should not mitigate punishment just because the person who committed it is charming or has a history of donating to charity or can call upon people in high office to provide references. None of these things are predictive of an offender’s prospects of rehabilitation or risk of reoffending, which was mentioned by my colleague Mr Galea. And victim-survivors should not have to sit in court and listen to the person who harmed them being praised during a sentencing process.

The bill will enable families to take out intervention orders against adults engaged in grooming behaviours. It makes other procedural improvements to family violence intervention orders as well, and it improves supports for vulnerable people who are facing fines.

I just want to close by expressing some concern about One Nation’s position in relation to family violence. These reforms and all the work and investment that have come before them reflect what Victorians expect from their justice system. Victorians want to know that they and their loved ones are safe from the devastating impacts of sexual and family violence, and they want to be confident that the police and court systems are there to support them should the worst happen. Victorians need to know all of this – everything that we have been able to achieve working with and listening to the victims of family violence. One Nation have been very clear about their cynicism in relation to family violence. Comments that family violence is a ‘two-way street’ and women should ‘just leave’ are unacceptable, and they take us backwards. They do not reflect the current laws in this state. They do not reflect the current sentencing requirements in this state. They do not reflect the values of the community in this state. So I would just express extreme caution in relation to trusting One Nation in this space. I will leave my contribution there.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:58): I also rise to speak briefly on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. From the outset I do note that we will not be opposing this bill. We realise that there is a lot more work to be done and that this is a huge change. Despite the fact that there has been a Royal Commission into Family Violence and a lot of money has been invested in this particular field, we are well aware that the statistics continually show us that we are not making the groundwork that we need to make.

I continually get messages, visits and contact from people in situations of domestic violence. In fact I have one here that is recent from a mother of four who speaks about coercive control and the desperate need that they have for accommodation. Even though they are in contact with places like Wayss and the Orange Door, we still have a shortfall of accommodation for women with children. That makes it very difficult for a lot of people who are seeking a safe place of refuge.

The bill of course is addressing the issue of coercive control, and I thought that I would make sure that I got to speak so that I could speak up and advocate for people like this lady, who I will call Jane – that is not her real name – who is unable to secure a safe place for her family and has had to deal with coercive control and was not even aware that she was in a situation of coercive control until an ambulance worker that came out to the home was able to speak to her and explain that that was the situation that she was in. I think so often people that live in those very controlling environments, which can be very abusive, do not always realise, one, that that is not okay and not normal and do not realise that in many cases, as we have already heard today, it can actually end up leading to one partner no longer being alive.

I know we have heard these stats before – 32 women killed in the 2024–25 year across Australia through domestic violence and family violence in particular. I represent a region that includes places like Clyde North, where the call-outs have been very significant, and at times we have had some of the highest call-outs for domestic violence in the country. I think the statistics just do not lie in terms of the fact that police out in the south-east have to prioritise domestic violence. It is important that they do because they could be saving a life. But of course when a police unit is called out to domestic violence – and it could take the whole shift; they could be there 2 hours, 5 hours or more – that is a unit that is not able to respond somewhere else. So we need to find ways not just to be legislating but also to be looking at prevention, because we have soaring statistics in the area of family violence.

In Victoria in 2024–25 there were a record 106,427 family violence incidents. That is up 8 per cent in five years. We know that there have been breaches of family violence orders and that those have risen and increased by almost 17 per cent to 64,713. I know these figures have been shared already here, but I think it is important to continue to remember that one in four family violence incidents can end up in an intervention order. I need to add, though, on top of this, that whilst I am a huge advocate for these women – and I have met so many women running away from situations or caught in situations that are just horrific – the south-east has a lot of financial issues. People are struggling, and financial pressures can change circumstances in homes as well, so I think that there is an awful lot that needs to be done in support services and also in education.

As has been noted, sometimes the person that is thought to be the perpetrator is actually the victim, and sometimes the person that is thought to be the victim is actually the perpetrator. That mistake can also happen. It is not always the woman who is the victim, but more often than not it is. In some situations – and this is where it can be really tricky – we have a matter that is misidentified, and that can be a big concern for the sector. But having said that, this is such an important situation that it has become necessary – and the advice has been taken from the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council – to look at having coercive control as a standalone crime. That is what brings us here today to discuss this matter. I just want to put it on record because I have heard from both men and women. I have situations where I hear from men who are in tears, unable to access or see their children or their families and that feel that they have been victims, put on intervention orders when in actual fact they feel that they have been tricked into situations, and I have women who are clearly in very serious situations which could end up being lethal for them or for their children or both. So this is a very complex situation. I do feel that it is really important for us to be able to address these issues and make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect women so that no woman – or man – has to die in a situation where they are constantly under threat because of coercive control.

I still remember very clearly an incident in a local supermarket in Berwick. I had never seen such an aggressive man come in with his wife and daughter. It was before I was in Parliament. It was just one of those incidents that you never forget and you go back over in your mind and think, ‘I should’ve done something different. Why didn’t I do more?’ I remember the wife and the daughter moving away from this man as he was raging through the supermarket. Everybody was terrified of him. They were clearly there to get something, and they were terrified of making a mistake. They were not in the supermarket for very long and they all left together, and I wondered what on earth it would be like to be in a car with a man that was so angry and so violent and so out of control. They were clearly at risk, and I just wish that, more than a whisper, I had done more and perhaps even called the police or done something. We were all terrified, in the supermarket, of this man, and I just cannot imagine what it would be like to get back into the car with somebody so controlling and so clearly outraged and able to manipulate, not just with his sheer size but with the way he talked.

It is important that we look at some of the aspects in this bill. The bill stops courts from giving offenders a lighter sentence because of their previous good character. I will say that if you are guilty, I do not think it matters whether you have got good character or not; you should be having some consequences for your actions. I did hear the speeches before saying, ‘It doesn’t matter who you know or where you get your references from; if you’re guilty, you should feel the full force of the law.’ I agree with that, but I do think that there are times when there might be a one-off situation that is coercive, or seen to be, and you would have a person that may have good character but under certain circumstances is failing. I think that we also need to remember the importance of support. These are very severe penalties, and I do want to see women and men protected in their homes, and their children as well and their neighbours, but I would hate to think we are going to have any injustices take place, so I do hope that all of this will be taken into consideration, along with support services being provided to support both partners in an act so there is an opportunity for change in the lives of everybody.

I think everybody deserves to feel safe. Everybody deserves to be able to go through life thinking that they are safe in their own home and knowing what safety means and what it means to be a victim of coercive control. I think that that comes through education, so I do hope that this will make a positive change in the community, knowing that this bill is aiming to strengthen how organisations and professionals assess family violence risk and how they share the information too. I hope that it will help services better protect victim-survivors and hold perpetrators to account. On that, I will finish up, but I just wanted to share those little bits and pieces, particularly because I had such a recent incident sent to me from a local constituent about coercive control. I just want to thank everybody for bringing this bill before the house to try to make some difference in the lives of those who desperately need it.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:09): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. Family violence is an epidemic in Australia. Intimate partner violence is the leading contributor to ill health and premature death for women in Australia. This year more than one woman a week has been murdered by a current partner or ex-partner in Australia. For every single one of those women and their children harmed by family and intimate partner violence, I would like to say: you matter just as much as anyone else. Behind every statistic is a person whose life was tragically cut short.

One such life was that of Jessica Geddes, who was just 27 when she was murdered by her abusive partner. She was a bright young woman who dreamed of studying medicine and taught herself to play guitar and piano. I have spoken in this chamber about Jessica’s story many times, most recently in October last year, but I believe it is a story that deserves to be heard again. Jessica was experiencing housing instability and was subject to coercive control and physical, emotional and financial abuse. She was forced to beg for food, cigarettes and money, telling neighbours that her partner Robert would beat her if she did not return without what he wanted. Despite this, police received 36 public order reports relating to Jessica. Most of them concerned her begging.

As part of this justice bill I am reintroducing my amendment to repeal the relevant provisions of the Summary Offences Act 1966 to decriminalise begging in Victoria. I will speak to this further in the committee stage of this bill. Despite being decriminalised in Western Australia, New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania, begging remains an offence in Victoria, punishable by a fine or, worse, imprisonment. For vulnerable women like Jessica Geddes, decriminalising begging could have made a life-changing difference. It could have shifted the focus from punishing her for begging to recognising that she was a woman experiencing abuse and in desperate need of help and potentially helping her connect with the support and safety that she desperately needed.

Importantly, as this bill recognises, family violence and its impacts are not always visible. It can take many forms, including physical and sexual violence, emotional abuse, coercive control, intimidation and financial abuse. This bill contains some important reforms that prioritise the safety of victim-survivors and improve the efficiency of our justice system. Those reforms are welcome, and in some respects they represent meaningful progress in Victoria for victim-survivors.

Progress must be tempered with consideration of unintended and uneven consequences when safety is at stake. Firstly, as many stakeholders have pointed out, the criminalisation of coercive control is real progress, but if it is enacted through a standalone coercive control offence, it may be difficult to apply it effectively; coercive control often involves subtle patterns of behaviour that are difficult to identify, investigate and prove in court. Moreover, this offence may be weaponised by perpetrators. The powerful almost always use the system to their benefit, and there are very real risks that this could be what happens here. First Nations women, women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and other marginalised women are at a real risk of being on the receiving end of these reforms, unfairly and unequally. The justice system does marginalised women no favours, and protections must be put in place for them. There are very real risks that the system could be gamed by perpetrators with power and privilege.

Another thing to note is that Victoria already has tools to respond to coercive and controlling behaviour through the family violence intervention order, or FVIO, system. Unlike the criminal justice system, FVIOs are focused on preventing harm, protecting victim-survivors and responding to patterns of behaviour before violence escalates. We all know FVIOs are imperfect, but we also know that a tougher, punishment-focused approach to family violence could have unintended consequences. Being tough on crime sounds good, but it almost always results in worse outcomes. These include increased stress, fear and retraumatisation for victim-survivors, particularly where criminal prosecutions are unsuccessful.

Victoria’s family violence, health and community legal centres have been calling for something broader for decades: whole-of-system reform. We cannot do this with one piece of legislation. Whether a new criminal offence is introduced or not, we need to fundamentally strengthen how coercive control is identified, prevented and responded to across Victoria’s family violence and legal systems. A stronger focus on early intervention, safety and support is essential to better outcomes for victim-survivors, and this will not be achieved by the introduction of a new law. In other words, sadly, this bill simply does not go far enough. It falls short of delivering the victim-centred justice system that victim-survivors deserve.

I am reminded now of the issue of good character reforms. In December last year I raised this issue in this chamber, asking the Attorney-General to investigate banning good character references in child sexual abuse cases. I argued then and I would argue again that no-one convicted of sexual abuse can be considered a good bloke. Sentencing should reflect the harm caused by the crime and not the public face – the reputation a perpetrator has deliberately and carefully built, in part to protect themselves. People with good character do not enact patterns of violence, coercion, intimidation and control. As with sexual abuse, when sentencing for family violence crimes, the focus should be on the harm caused and the victim’s safety, not on what the perpetrator’s friends, family, teammates or anyone else thinks of them. They did the crime; that is their character. Removing good character references is essential for victim-survivors of family violence. These changes have already been introduced in New South Wales, and Victoria is now following suit. I welcome this.

We also need protections for victim-survivors against discrimination. One thing we forget in the headlines and the news cycle, which moves so fast, is that family violence affects every part of a person’s life: work, recreation, health, parenting, family, friendships, haircuts, dentist appointments, housing, play dates – all of it. A woman who has experienced family violence should never face discrimination because of what has happened to her. If she is brave enough to tell an employer that she is experiencing family violence, she must not be penalised. If she discloses to the school, her children must be helped and not judged. If a landlord finds out, they must not evict or punish her. These things happen all too often. Any discrimination of this sort must be outlawed, and I would like to congratulate and acknowledge my friend Georgie Purcell in this chamber for the work that she has done in this space to make these laws come into effect in this bill. Making it unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have experienced or are experiencing family violence recognises that victim-survivors face disadvantage not only because of the violence itself but also because of how others respond to their circumstances.

The new protection in this bill will apply to important areas of everyday life, including employment, education, housing, access to goods and services, clubs, sport and local government. It will provide legal recourse to a woman who is treated unfairly at work if she needs time away to attend court or access support services or if she is denied accommodation or treated differently when accessing essential services. Family violence can leave women financially insecure, isolated and vulnerable to homelessness. If women are then discriminated against while trying to find employment, secure housing or access education and services, it can make it much harder for them to leave an abusive relationship and rebuild their lives. This bill sends a clear message: women who are experiencing or have experienced family violence should not be disadvantaged because of someone else’s crime. Victim-survivors should be supported, not judged.

Another positive reform in this bill is the expansion of fines relief and exemptions for victim-survivors, a significant and long-called-for reform. This change recognises a simple but critical reality: people experiencing family violence should not be further burdened by financial penalties arising from circumstances beyond their control. Often fines are actively used by perpetrators to entrench disadvantage and punish victim-survivors. Perpetrators will literally accrue fines in their victims’ names to stop them rebuilding their lives. In other cases, the stress and chaos of surviving leads to the accumulation of fines. What may have started as a relatively small infringement – theirs or the perpetrator’s – can and does become a much larger problem when a person experiencing family violence cannot afford to pay. Additional costs and enforcement measures can lead to debt and that debt growing, creating a cycle that is particularly difficult to escape for people experiencing family violence. Expanding the family violence scheme to include fines will remove another barrier victim-survivors of family violence face to both leaving and starting again. Fines reform will help ensure our legal system supports victim-survivors to escape the violence rather than creating further obstacles or financial burden. Similarly, expanding the family violence scheme to include excessive speeding fines will allow eligible victim-survivors to seek relief from fines connected to their circumstances. The reforms represent an important step towards supporting victim-survivors to rebuild their lives with greater safety, stability and independence, not punishment.

I would like to take the opportunity to speak to our amendments on the Fines Reform Act 2014. Our amendments would cancel old imprisonment warrants issued for unpaid fines under the former fines enforcement regime, before the safeguards introduced by the Fines Reform Act 2014 came into effect on 31 December 2017. This would ensure that people are not imprisoned today under outdated laws and practices that have since been recognised as requiring reform. The amendment would also resolve imprisonment as an enforcement option for unpaid fines by repealing the relevant provisions of the Fines Reform Act. No vulnerable person should face imprisonment simply because they are unable to pay a fine.

I would like to acknowledge the stakeholders that have advocated tirelessly for these reforms, including the infringements working group, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, Financial Counselling Victoria, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Inner Melbourne Community Legal and Justice Connect. However, it is important to remember that legislation alone cannot end family violence. Ultimately, the goal must be not only to respond to violence but to stop it in the first place. We must pause and ask: what on earth is going on when women are more at risk in their homes than on the streets?

Over the last couple of months, I have been calling for the Carroll government to support the extension of the Alexis family violence response model statewide. The Alexis model is something we can do right now. It provides an important early intervention approach that places specialist family violence workers in all police units. It supports the identification of family violence and enables timely, coordinated responses before risk escalates. It has been successfully trialled in three locations and has led to an 85 per cent reduction in recidivism. This is the goal: stop it before it starts, prevent it from happening again and prevent it from getting worse. The Alexis model is tested, and in dollar terms, it is actually really affordable. Incredibly, I had the Parliamentary Budget Office cost a statewide expansion and it would cost just over $10 million per year to be implemented across Victoria. Supporting the Alexis family violence model is an investment in prevention, early intervention, safer families and communities and a more responsive family violence system for Victoria.

These reforms are welcome and represent meaningful progress for victim-survivors. But when safety is at stake, we must also consider their unintended and uneven consequences. We must continue investing in early intervention and prevention, particularly for people who are most vulnerable, so that we can address risk before it escalates into harm. On behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria, we support this bill, and I request that my amendments be circulated.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:24): I rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I would like to thank the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence for her important advocacy on this issue. This piece of legislation is about listening and responding to the voices of victim-survivors and giving them the support that they deserve. In doing so, this bill seeks to bring reform across key areas of the justice system when responding to sexual and family violence. It aims to protect victim-survivors from further harm through improving court processes to make perpetrators more accountable for their actions. A priority of the Carroll Labor government is a commitment to justice and fairness, and this legislation delivers victim-survivors of sexual and family violence more support as they navigate this. With more support, we should not expect victim-survivors to have to face additional forms of harm after leaving violence, and they deserve to have a justice system that listens, believes and protects them. Equally, perpetrators of this violence should be held accountable for their actions.

Not all forms of violence are physical, and victim-survivors should not have to suffer because of a lack of legislation. This bill will introduce a new offence of coercive control, which will protect the rights of victim-survivors from this form of abuse by current and former intimate partners. Creating a new offence of coercive control will assist both police and the justice system in prosecuting perpetrators for this sort of conduct or behaviour which is so harmful to victim-survivors. Coercive control captures a form of abuse that may otherwise go unnoticed and unpunished and thus allow perpetrators to advance their offending at the expense of victim-survivors. It covers behaviours that include physical, sexual, economic, emotional and physical abuse that causes victims to fear for their safety. It will recognise the collective harm of coercive control and the seriousness of this type of offending, with coercive control often escalating into physical abuse as well. This means the perpetrators are punished accordingly and will face accountability for their actions. The new offence protects victim-survivors’ right to privacy and punishes perpetrators who violate this right and infringe on someone’s freedom. The reform also acknowledges the effect on victim-survivors and the importance of understanding all types of abuse that occur, not just the physical side. Coercive control can be degrading and cruel, and this amendment aims to address this fact.

Another reform this bill introduces is the removal of good character references as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Perpetrators of family violence should be punished regardless of who they are, their stature or their connections. However, good character references have historically been used by perpetrators to shirk any punishment or accountability for their actions and conduct. Particularly in cases of sexual and family violence, these references provide an escape from punishment in a scenario where justice is just so crucial. Abolishing the concept of good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing is a step towards justice for all victim-survivors and will stop offenders from benefiting from a vague practice. The current use of good character creates a disparity in treatment of offenders in sentencing by the courts due to the inherent subjectivity of the matter. Punishment for offences should be equal, regardless of how good your friends think you are. If you commit a serious crime, you should face the consequences and should not be able to benefit from such a privilege.

These changes also protect victim-survivors, reducing the harmful impact of an offender being described as of good character. A statement like this can lead to distress and retraumatisation for victim-survivors, who should have a justice system that listens to them and does not trivialise their experiences. This ensures that no matter a person’s position within the community, they will face accountability for their actions. It also ensures that victim-survivors are more likely to disclose offences and receive justice that is fair.

Protecting victim-survivors and their families is an important part of the justice system, and we need to reinforce mechanisms that allow for this. Intervention orders exist to protect victim-survivors from offenders, keeping them safe from harm. The proposed improvements to family violence intervention orders exist to achieve the goal of aiding victim-survivors and putting their wellbeing first. The new changes will allow courts to strengthen or extend a family violence intervention order after a clear risk of further family violence against the victim-survivors. Victim-survivors must have their concerns and opinions heard by others, and this legislation achieves that. Courts must now consider the views of victim-survivors when determining the application to extend an FVIO, making sure victim-survivors voices are heard and listened to. This change makes sure that protections given to victim-survivors work for their needs.

Trauma associated with the court system should also never be a barrier to achieving justice and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. These changes are aimed at reducing the amount of trauma that victim-survivors experience when seeking stronger or longer orders, which is of the utmost importance. Supporting victim-survivors is non-negotiable, and these changes are a step towards accomplishing that for them. Part of this change includes introducing a default extension length for family violence intervention orders so that protection for victim-survivors extends past an offender’s release date. We are extending protections for victim-survivors through a period of heightened risk, ensuring their safety and security. They will prohibit where offenders may move, protecting the right to privacy for victim-survivors and their families.

The current Labor government also understands the need for the protection and safeguarding of children and how additional measures are needed to do that. Therefore these amendments to the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 seek to provide more protection for children under the age of 16, including from grooming, under this act. Grooming is the practice of building an emotional connection or trust with a vulnerable person and then manipulating this trust to abuse this person. Grooming is a precursor to abuse and should be treated as such with prohibition and punishment to match. The changes to this act allow courts and the justice system to stop this predatory behaviour and intervene before other sexual offending occurs. By recognising grooming as a prohibited behaviour under this act, it protects children and families from these perpetrators. This also places grooming in the same category as other serious offences such as assault and harassment. This allows for the courts to make personal safety intervention orders, stopping a perpetrator before any sexual offending takes place. These reforms protect the rights and liberties of the child, thus protecting the family unit as a whole. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (17:32): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This bill comes at the height of a family, domestic and sexual violence epidemic spreading like wildfire all across the state and the country. If you are a young girl or a woman, your levels of hypervigilance and awareness are going off the charts all the time. I cannot blame women for feeling this heightened level of watchfulness. This year to date, as of 8 September, 49 women have been recorded dying at the hands of male violence by Australian Femicide Watch, with 15 women and children from Melbourne. These deaths we know are the most devastating manifestation of a much broader reality: that thousands of women and children across Victoria are simply not safe right now. There is a whole lot of under-reporting of violence because women do not feel safe to report because the systems are not equipped to guarantee or maintain their safety. For every woman whose life is tragically cut short, there are many more women and children living with physical violence, sexual violence, psychological abuse, financial abuse and coercive control, and overwhelmingly that violence is perpetrated by men. So when we stand here and debate another family violence reform bill, we need to ask ourselves: are we actually changing the conditions that allow men’s violence against women to continue or are we simply responding after the violence has already happened?

That question has been particularly difficult to avoid in recent weeks. The allegations involving players from the Sydney Swans AFL team have prompted a national conversation about sexual violence and the normalisation of misogyny and male entitlement within the elite sporting class. In this whole debacle, rather than centring on victim-survivors or the club taking accountability, the whole media discussion was focused on careers, contracts, whether they would make it to the grand final and how inconvenient the timing of all of it was. It is absolutely shameful. What does this tell women and girls across Australia? What does it tell a woman who experiences sexual or domestic violence about whose career and reputation will be protected? What does it tell a woman about whether she will be believed if she speaks out? What does it tell men about what behaviour their peers will tolerate, excuse or defend? And what does it tell all of us in this place about the work that still needs to be done to prevent violence before it ever occurs in the first place?

Victoria recorded 106,430 family violence incidents in 2024–25, an all-time high. Specialist services continue to tell us demand is significantly outpacing supply. In other words, they do not have the staff and the resources to meet the need and demand for safety and security for those seeking it. Who knows where these women and children are going? The refuges are full. We are in a housing crisis. Homelessness is on the rise.

The Council to Homeless Persons, in conjunction with Safe and Equal, published the Bridging the Gap Between Homelessness and Family Violence Services report in 2025. They found that one in five women, young people and children who are experiencing family violence and homelessness who present to either a specialist housing service or a specialist family violence service are ultimately referred out to another sector before being referred back to the initial intake point, without having received the crisis accommodation they seek. This is a sign of a broken system that was provided over a long period of time with underfunding and chronic underinvestment in social housing and a lack of information-sharing between systems.

This Labor government does not get it. Family, domestic and sexual violence happen, and the response cannot just be from one government department alone. It has to be a whole-of-government approach. This year this Victorian Labor government allocated just 2.9 per cent of the family violence budget to primary prevention – just $25.4 million, down from $26.3 million last year. Equity Economics argue that to fully meet the demand government funding for the sector needs to increase to $487 million in 2026–27. That is a 62 per cent increase from the $300 million expected to be spent in the current funding trajectory. At the same time, the current waitlist for people fleeing family violence to access housing is 18.6 months, an increase of 1.3 months from the year before. Equity Economics estimate that each year 3750 victim-survivors seeking help from specialist family violence services will be unable to receive support. When demand goes unmet it is the women and children whose lives are at risk, and this is such an unacceptable reality.

Safe and Equal’s 2026–27 budget submission identified $118 million in family violence funding at risk of being lost. But this Victorian Labor government delivered under $100 million, leaving a shortfall of approximately $18 million. I am not sure how this adds up. How do this Labor government expect the sector, victim-survivors, their families and their community to believe anything they have to say when all they do is cut funding at a time when they are on their knees? The sector is expected to perform miracles while this government cuts its funding, which they know it absolutely needs. This is the same government that gives $100 million in government subsidies to the Australian Grand Prix Corporation and the same government that sold all 44 public housing towers to private developers in secrecy. Meanwhile the social housing waitlist is at more than 60,000 people.

Let us talk about the fact, when we talk about who is on the front line of the family violence sector and what they do, that they do more than just help women and children escape violence. They help them get back on their feet and get back on track. They help them with case management, with counselling, with brokerage funding and with legal advice. There is so much that the sector have to do, and they are completely overwhelmed and completely strained, and what does this government do? It continues to take away. This is not okay.

I am going to talk about the bill in relation to the domestic and sexual violence reforms – and keep in mind that legislation must be matched with investment given the scale of this crisis. This bill does contain long-overdue reforms that respond to calls from victim-survivors, community legal centres, Aboriginal legal services and specialist family violence organisations.

First, the bill makes changes to family violence intervention orders and risk assessments. When an adult has been found guilty of relevant family violence offending, a criminal court will be able to extend or vary an existing family violence intervention order when future family violence is likely. The Greens support reforms that reduce the need for victim-survivors to repeatedly return to court simply to maintain their protection and safety. Someone who has already experienced violence should not have to repeatedly navigate the justice system simply to remain safe but also have to retell their traumatic experiences. There are, however, process concerns. My colleague Ms Copsey will have a number of questions for the minister during the committee stage and hopefully gain some clarity on how those concerns will be addressed during implementation.

Second, the bill removes the ability for a court to reduce a sentence on the basis of an adult’s or child’s previous good character, reputation, community standing or good deeds. At the same time, the bill preserves the ability for courts to consider matters such as the absence of prior convictions, rehabilitation and the risk of reoffending.

Third, the bill strengthens protections for children by making grooming prohibited behaviour under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010. This will allow protective orders to be made to prevent grooming associated with sexual offending against children. The Greens are supportive of legislation providing a pathway for early intervention to protect children from harmful behaviour. Our laws need to be capable of intervening before grooming behaviours lead to abuse. Fourth, the bill makes important reforms to fines that have long been called for by the sector.

Further to this, the bill recognises family violence as a form of discrimination. Being subjected to family violence will become a protected attribute under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, including in employment, education, accommodation, goods and services and sport. No-one should be discriminated against because they are a victim of family violence.

The bill also clarifies and strengthens timely family violence information sharing – once again, long-overdue reforms after tireless calls from the sector. The Greens are, however, concerned, following advice from Women’s Legal Service Victoria, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, Safe and Equal and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, that this bill brings the potential risk of more victim-survivors being misidentified as perpetrators and Aboriginal and migrant refugee women being on the front line of further criminalisation. This also includes other vulnerable communities failed by the current system, like women with disabilities, LGBTQIA+ women and women in regional and rural areas. It is so important now more than ever that intersectional feminist principles must be at the heart of how we deal with these structural issues.

The Greens are calling on this government to invest in the things that actually prevent family, domestic and sexual violence. They include primary prevention, early intervention and education that addresses the harms faced by young people today with online algorithms. We heard just in the past week that there were education cabinet ministers from across the country reviewing Respectful Relationships, and I think this is very, very timely, because the issues and the challenges that young people face right now are of epic proportions and also present a lot of risk and threats to their safety. We are talking about AI, we are talking about the manosphere, we are talking about misogyny. There is so much more that our young people need right now, and education is such a big portion of that. It is very clear that Respectful Relationships is not meeting the benchmark of what our young people need in schools. As part of this, the Greens are sponsoring a petition calling on the Minister for Education to review the current situation of Respectful Relationships to ensure that it does provide comprehensive tools for young people to be able to deal with the harms, norms and attitudes being spread widely and only being made worse and intensified by social media. The Greens are calling on the government to invest in these sorts of things. It is so important for our young people. It is also important that the government funds specialist family violence and sexual assault services, safe and affordable housing and support for children. Not only are children seeing the violence in their homes, they are actually experiencing the violence. They too are victim-survivors in their own right.

We also need to tackle the broader conditions that enable violence, including gender inequality, misogyny, as I said before, and the harms associated with alcohol and gambling. My colleague Dr Sarah Mansfield introduced an important private members bill not too long ago for the government to review and investigate the proliferation of availability of alcohol across families, because that too is increasing the risk of family violence in families and communities. Violence against women and children is not inevitable; it is completely preventable. Every woman and child hurt or killed by violence matters. Their lives matter. We need right now this new Carroll government to be courageous and do the right thing, to be courageous and be the leader in the country when it comes to prevention of family violence, because legislation without sustainable funding investment is akin to handing out broken oxygen masks – destined to fail.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) incorporated the following:

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026 will make important reforms to the law regarding domestic violence and the treatment of offenders and victim-survivors.

It is disappointing that the reforms have taken so long to come to parliament. When Jess Wilson became leader of the Opposition in December 2025, she announced that the Liberals would criminalise coercive control, and the Member for Eildon Cindy McLeish then introduced a private members bill to implement our policy – which was then voted down by the Labor party.

I commend my colleague Cindy McLeish for her hard work in this policy area, and her diligence in continuing to push for these reforms.

This legislation could have been brought into effect much earlier, but it is good that we are finally here, and the Liberals will support this bill even though it is a missed opportunity to take the reforms further.

We know that intimate partner violence and family violence is not only carried out by men against women – violence is also perpetrated by women against men, women against women, and men against men.

Yet the large majority of intimate partner violence is committed by men against their female partners, and to combat this violence we must have regard to those gender dynamics.

It is estimated that around 45 women and girls will be killed by a male or intimate partner this year. That is a horrendous number, and society cannot accept this continuing.

Every woman who dies at the hands of an intimate partner is one woman too many, and all in this place agree that to protect women in Victoria we need a more robust system of support and legal tools to intervene at different stages.

This bill will make several changes to the law to protect victim-survivors and hold perpetrators of family violence to account.

The bill will amend the Sentencing Act 1991 and the Youth Justice Act 2024 to abolish the concept of “good character” during sentencing, including its use as a mitigating factor.

It will amend the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 to class grooming as a prohibited behaviour so that courts can make a personal safety intervention order against an adult if that person is found to have committed grooming.

It will amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of subjection to family violence.

It will amend the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to allow for the extension of family violence intervention orders during criminal proceedings against the offender, so that victim-survivors do not have to return again to court.

And, perhaps most importantly, this bill will amend the Crimes Act 1958 to create a new offence of exercising coercive control over an intimate partner.

Fatal violence against a woman rarely comes entirely out of the blue. It is usually preceded by a history of physical violence as well as emotional manipulation, intimidation, threats, and isolation – in short, what we now call coercive control.

Making coercive control an offence will allow victim-survivors to take early action against a domineering and controlling partner before it reaches the stage of physical violence.

Statistics show that more needs to be done. In Victoria there were a record 106,427 call-outs for family violence incidents last year, up 8 per cent in five years.

Rates are particularly high in my electorate which has many small rural communities, as well as new housing estates in growth suburbs.

In both of these places, families are often isolated and find it more difficult to get the support they need to resist a coercive partner, or to stop domestic violence.

I recently met with Mitchell Shire councillors who said that domestic violence was a growing problem in their municipality.

Crimes statistics agency data shows that in 2024–25, the rate of family violence in Mitchell Shire was 55% higher than Victoria’s average rate.

Council officers also told me that in Beveridge in particular, domestic violence was up to four times higher than the state average.

That is unacceptable and more must be done to address the distinct factors that drive family violence in small towns and new estates, where there is often a lack of services, and car-dependent suburbs trap family members at home, unable to access support.

While the Liberals support this bill, it is a missed opportunity to make further reforms.

The Member for Eildon Cindy McLeish has been outstanding in pushing for the implementation of Clare’s Law.

This law was introduced in the UK, and named after Clare Wood who was murdered by a former partner.

The law gives individuals the right to ask, and the right to know.

It allows people to request information about a partner’s history of violence if they are concerned for their safety, and it puts an onus on police to inform someone if they identify a risk to them.

South Australia brought in this law in December 2024, and since then there have been 2500 applications, and 1064 disclosures.

That is over a thousand people who have been able to access highly relevant information about a partner in order to make an informed decision about their safety in the relationship.

It is impossible to quantify how many lives this has saved, but I am certain it has saved at least one person.

It is a shame that the Carroll Labor government has been unwilling to get on board with this vital reform.

Victorians should know that an elected Jess Wilson Liberal government will take the important step of implementing Clare’s Law in our state.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

Feeling safe should not be a luxury.

But for some Victorians, it feels completely out of reach.

Across Victoria, family violence is destroying lives, harming children across generations and destabilising homes, communities and our broader society.

The 2021–22 Personal Safety Survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 1 in 5 adults – 20% of adults – have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from a partner or family member.

This horrifying statistic underlines the importance of improving justice system responses to sexual and family violence.

Whilst we understand more needs to be done to prevent family violence, victims already in the system deserve better.

They deserve the most supported justice process possible, and further protections to ensure they never experience the same violence again.

This bill does exactly that.

This bill is about listening and responding to the voices of victim-survivors, improving our justice system responses, and strengthening accountability for perpetrators.

To ensure perpetrators of all forms of interpersonal violence can be held to account, this bill will criminalise coercive control as a standalone offence by amending the Crimes Act 1958 to include coercive control as an offence.

This offence will ensure adults who use coercive control within intimate partner relationships will be held accountable.

There is currently no criminal justice response for coercive control, unless there is a Family Violence Intervention Order already in place.

We know family violence looks different for every victim, and that it is not always physical or sexual assault.

We know that abuse can come in the form of intimidation, humiliation, surveillance, or isolation.

Coercive control can have devastating impacts, increasing the risk of homelessness, poor health outcomes, poverty, and suicide for victims and their children.

So, this bill ensures these examples of coercive control will be criminalised, and that perpetrators cannot continue to cause harm.

To further support victims of family violence, this bill will expand Personal Safety Intervention Orders to include grooming through an amendment to the Personal Safety Intervention Act 2010.

This will strengthen protections for children and families, enabling PSIOs to be made against adults engaging in ‘grooming behaviour’.

The harsh reality is that children are often unable to identify inappropriate behaviours, so including ‘grooming behaviour’ under PSIO’s will ensure no sort of family violence goes unjustified.

To ensure victim-survivors wellbeing is prioritised, and the justice process is accurate, this bill will abolish the concept of good character by amending the Sentencing Act 1991 and Youth Justice Act 2024.

This will not only protect victim-survivors from the compounded trauma of hearing that a person who harmed them is a person of ‘good character’ but also seeks to ensure that courts no longer receive or consider vague, subjective opinions about an offenders supposed moral worth.

This bill also ensures the protection of victims of family violence through several other amendments.

These include; amending the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (PSIOA), Infringements Act 2006, Fines Reform Act 2014, Roads Safety Act 1986, and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

Victoria is leading the nation when it comes to preventing and responding to violence against women and girls.

In the years after the 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence, I worked as an Executive Director on the Family Violence Response Taskforce in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, a role that allowed me to help formulate the government’s response to the 227 recommendations.

This position gave me insight into the immense impact that family violence has on families.

It showed me the tremendous bravery of every victim-survivor who committed themselves to preventing family violence by supporting other victims.

Their advocacy for the exact reforms that are contained in this bill will not be forgotten and I thank them deeply for their contribution.

We listened to the recommendations of the Royal Commission and built the Orange Door; a support network for adults, children and young people who are experiencing family violence.

We have delivered 15 crisis accommodation refuges with more on the way, currently under construction.

We have invested over $41 million into men’s behavioural change programs, because we know that investing in the prevention of violence is the only way to stop it.

We have committed at minimum a 10% of family violence funding to Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, because we know Indigenous Australians are more at risk of family violence.

Labor is steadfast in supporting victim-survivors of family violence while holding perpetrators accountable and keeping women and children safe by stopping violence before it starts.

Victorians deserve better. Women and children deserve better. Victim-survivors deserve better.

And that’s what this bill will provide.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (17:46): Thank you to all of the speakers on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026. These are topics that I know a lot of members are very passionate about and have made strong representations about in relation to stakeholders, individuals and community members that have vested interest in our continued advancements and improvements in policy and lawmaking in this space. We know that across Victoria and across the country family violence is the number one law and order issue that is destroying lives, harming children, causing generational damage and destabilising homes and communities, and this has ramifications for broader society, cohesion, the economy – the damage goes on. Listening to and centring the experiences and voices of victim-survivors and doing the work that is critical to changing harmful laws, practices and culture are what this bill is about. The bill contains a number of significant reforms to prioritise victim-survivor safety, improve the efficiency of justice processes and ensure perpetrators of all forms of interpersonal violence can be held to account.

Coercive control is an insidious form of abuse. It is used to intimidate, degrade, surveil, gaslight, control or isolate another person and strip them of their sense of autonomy and self-worth, all in order to exert control over them. We know the devastating impacts that this can have: increasing the risk of victims becoming homeless or suicidal, having poor health outcomes, sliding into poverty or committing offences themselves. This is an area of law reform that has been discussed, considered and debated for many years. Here in Victoria we were at the forefront of legislation and legal protections for victims of family violence, dating back almost 20 years. Coercive control has always been a part of our family violence definitions. It has always been something that we consider insidious and something that we want to make sure is picked up by modern laws. There have been mixed views on a standalone offence for many years, and with the system maturing we believe we are at a time when we want to ensure that at the forefront we are seeing, hearing and ensuring that the system is on the side of victims.

I want to thank those who have been providing ongoing advice to government, particularly those who are members of the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council. That is a valuable committee that has an ability to speak directly to government ministers, advisers and departments in relation to their experiences, and to workshop and go backwards and forwards in relation to how particular laws would operate here in Victoria, drawing on experiences from other jurisdictions and the like.

I want to touch on the good character amendments in this bill. The bill abolishes the concept of good character, including its use as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all offences. The concept of good character on its own is generally only about someone’s reputation, community standing or their past good deeds. It is not an accurate way at all to predict an offender’s prospects of rehabilitation or risk of reoffending and without doubt causes trauma to victim-survivors. Thank you in particular to Harrison James and his advocacy through his Your Reference Ain’t Relevant campaign.

In relation to discrimination reforms, it is, I think, a unanimous view of this chamber, but obviously the government is passionate about the fact that no victim-survivor should lose a promotion, be performance managed, have to relocate, be denied a rental or lose other opportunities, particularly in relation to accessing support, merely by being a victim-survivor. In fact the opposite should be true. The bill will make it unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have experienced or are experiencing family violence. Thank you to Westjustice for their advocacy on this reform and their work with Ms Purcell in particular.

In relation to other reforms in this bill, I would point to the criminal court’s ability to vary a family violence intervention order on its own motion. Reforms in this bill will allow a criminal court on its own motion and with the consent of the victim-survivor to extend or vary a family violence intervention order when sentencing a perpetrator for relevant family violence offences. To encourage earlier consideration of whether stronger protections are needed, the bill will require police to indicate if there is a family violence intervention order in place and if an application to extend or vary that order will be made when filing a charge sheet for a related family violence offence.

Courts must consider victims’ views in family violence intervention order proceedings. The bill will also ensure that courts more consistently prioritise consideration of victim-survivor views when extending a family violence intervention order and encourage longer extensions when a perpetrator is serving a term of imprisonment for a family-related violence offence to avoid victim-survivors needing to return to court multiple times. This comes from direct feedback of victim-survivors who have experienced the impact of having to be in court multiple times in relation to facing their offender and talking about their need to feel safe.

The bill is also expanding the personal safety intervention orders to include grooming. We will strengthen the protections for children and families by enabling personal safety intervention orders to be made against adults engaging in grooming behaviours.

In relation to fines and infringement reforms, the bill will strengthen supports for fine recipients experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage, and the family violence scheme will be expanded to include excessive speeding fines so that victim-survivors can access relief in these circumstances. When we talk about this particular measure, we have for some time in Victoria had the ability for victims of family violence to make representations that they should not be responsible for fines that have been racked up by their perpetrator because they are in a family violence relationship. This is, unfortunately, quite a common incidence, and it compounds the devastation that victims have already suffered with potential financial concerns. It has not included excessive speeding fines in the past, but again, this is a system of policy that has matured, and we believe it is time to expand to that cohort of fine to make sure that it is treated equitably with the other circumstances.

Something that perhaps goes a little underrated is the work and development permit scheme. This will be expanded to apply to court fines. Currently, it is only available with infringement fines. This is a program that is particularly beneficial for people who have received fines, but also a lot of community groups benefit from the interaction with people who have perhaps found themselves in difficult circumstances. It goes without saying that a lot of people who rack up fines find themselves in a difficult situation. They are often feeling quite stressed and are not sure how to manage it, and it can be quite a relief at the point in time when the law catches up with them, because it is an opportunity to deal with those fines and in this instance be able to access the work and development permit scheme where appropriate. This is effectively the ability to work off your unpaid fines. There are host employers and organisations who are happy to work with people who have found themselves in this predicament. A lot of programs, such as gardening programs, and some racecourses around the state offer opportunities for people to work off their fines in that regard. It is multibeneficial, and I have spoken to participants in this permit scheme in the past, and that sense of self-worth and the ability to give back and restore the community’s faith in you through this system is something that cannot be underestimated. It is not just about clearing your fines and moving on with your life; it often provides the ability to interact in a way that means you can gain skills and work experience. For people that may have had difficulty accessing career paths and the like in the past it is actually a positive intervention at a point in time in their life when they are able to move on and create some opportunities in that regard.

Also, in relation to this bill we will be clarifying some information-sharing obligations under the family violence information-sharing scheme, which we know was a really important focus of the royal commission. We know – and I know through my interactions with Rosie Batty, in particular – that the way there was potential for victims to be put in danger was to do with the fact that systems did not talk to each other or there were particular elements of government services or agencies that had information about somebody’s level of risk and the fact that they could cause quite a lot of harm if not supported or put in contact with the right people. That is something that we have continued to improve. We know that information sharing is a way to protect victims because that way there is a clearer picture of those risks that can be responded to. In this bill in particular, ensuring that we are streamlining reporting obligations under the family violence multi-agency risk assessment and management framework, known as MARAM, is an important improvement in a really good area of family violence policy.

Again, this is a piece of legislation that is made up of a range of amendments and changes which are all off the back of interactions with stakeholders. Considerable work has gone into developing the work, and we thank all the stakeholders across the family violence service sector and the justice sectors for their views and valuable input. We acknowledge the very understandable concerns around misidentification, which I am sure we can address in the committee stage. I thank the Attorney-General for her commitment to this area of policy and commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora) (18:01): I have considered the amendments on sheet RP25C circulated by Ms Payne, and in my view they are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. I remind the house that an instruction to committee is a procedural motion.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:01): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments and a new clause to amend the Summary Offences Act 1966 to repeal the offence of begging or gathering alms.

Motion agreed to.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (18:01): I move:

That the bill be committed to a committee of the whole later this day.

Motion agreed to.