Get Involved - Parliament

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi’s Law) Bill 2020

Published on: February 2021

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-115663

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi’s Law) Bill 2020

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 11 February 2021.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) (10:39:16):

I continue my contribution to debate on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi's Law) Bill 2020 and pick up where I left off last week in discussing the work that the Government is doing regarding coercive control. The Attorney General has issued a discussion paper on this complex area of domestic violence. It is an area that needs decisive and strong action that has been based upon a significant amount of consultation with key stakeholders and experts in the field. All members ought to be encouraged that a couple of years ago other jurisdictions, as explained by the Attorney General, introduced legislation to address coercive control. That should give us the confidence that there is a pathway forward and that, by working together and in consultation with experts, we can create a significant piece of legislation that addresses the concerns contained in the bill.

The discussion paper touches upon a couple of areas including the definition of coercive control, how coercive and controlling behaviours are currently addressed in New South Wales, the experiences of other jurisdictions in responding to coercive control, how evidence of coercive control is currently considered in New South Wales legal proceedings, the potential benefits and practical challenges associated with criminalising coercive control, the possible elements of an offence of coercive control, other avenues for legislative reform and other related non‑legislative issues. So the discussion paper is quite broad and open in its content. I certainly encourage anyone and everyone who has a concern or interest in this field to participate in this process.

I thank the member for Shellharbour for introducing the bill. Concerns have been expressed in this debate about the unintended consequences of the bill. I understand that those unintended consequences are probably not intended by the member but they are what they are. That is why the Government cannot support the bill in its current state. However, we are taking on this important issue and working towards a piece of legislation—

Ms Anna Watson:

Put amendments up.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES:

I did not interrupt you. We will introduce comprehensive legislation that tackles this very serious issue. There is no debate that coercive control is a fundamental and systemic issue in domestic and family violence cases and situations. It must be confronted head on and the Government is committed to that end. The bill before the House has not benefited from wide consultation or an in‑depth examination of the experiences of other jurisdictions that have introduced laws to address coercive and controlling behaviours. It is imperative that genuine and comprehensive consultation is undertaken with the broader community before reforms on this complex issue are considered further. That concludes my comments about the bill. At this point in time I cannot support the bill.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) (10:43:24):

I speak in support of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi's Law) Bill 2020 introduced by the member for Shellharbour, which is long overdue. It criminalises coercive control and shines a light on this hideous behaviour. The member deserves applause for that. The bill achieves many vital goals, but two in particular. First, it pays tribute to the beautiful Dr Preethi Reddy; and, secondly, it draws a reluctant government to our domestic abuse action table—"action" being the operative word. In his contribution to the debate the Attorney General outlined a well‑written precis of the 80‑page October 2020 "Coercive Control Discussion Paper", which I have read. While the Coalition Government, under the leadership of the first female conservative Premier, makes up its mind, as the Attorney General said, "One woman every nine days is killed by a current or former partner." That is a terrible statistic. Why have there been 10 years of Coalition Government inertia?

The Attorney General repeated his careful words throughout the discussion paper as well as in his contribution to debate on the bill—terms such as "cautious", "careful" and "methodical" are oft used. Of course, I agree with the notion of a methodical approach and comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. I know the member for Shellharbour wants that too. But, along with every other woman in New South Wales, I also want to see actions and decisions—words that have been lacking in the Attorney General's communications. I mentioned the Government's hesitancy; the United Kingdom, which is years ahead of New South Wales and Australia, has accomplished quite the opposite. To give a tangible example of outcomes, laws introduced in England and Wales six years ago freed Sally from an 18‑year murder sentence, which I will briefly outline for the House.

For 20 years Sally endured torment from her husband, Richard, who controlled her finances and movements, gaslighted her, cheated, verbally abused her and fat‑shamed her. Her conviction was thrown out last year after evidence showed that she had been subjected to coercive control for years, which is a criminal offence in the UK. What if Sally had been a New South Wales citizen? She would still be locked up. Currently only Tasmania has laws that seek to respond to coercive and controlling behaviours in Australia. But let us turn briefly to Queensland. Tomorrow is Hannah Clarke's memorial—one year since her horrendous murder. Apart from paying tribute to Hannah, we must remember the incident, not because we want to remember how traumatic or horrific it was but to learn from it. The Queensland Government has learnt from it. It made a commitment before the election that it would take action through implementing a coercive control criminal offence, which it is doing right now. In fact, this week the Queensland Attorney‑General announced that she has made a commitment that the State will have legislation within the next year.

The member for Shellharbour also has goals. We understand the importance of the joint select committee inquiry and I totally support communications and consultation with all the various services, police and the judiciary. They must be communicated with. I understand that the committee will report at the end of June, which is important. I ask the Attorney General to outline what happens next. He can do two things. He can look carefully at the bill before the House and say, "Well, it is not perfect but here are some amendments that I will adopt to make it better according to the Government." That is one step he could take to make a decision and take action right now, which is the option I prefer. The other option would be to say "Okay, it is an Opposition bill"—which he will be partisan about—"and I cannot let a private member's bill from a member of the Labor Opposition get through so I will make sure that I take action soon." So after the report is delivered by the joint select committee at the end of June, the Attorney General could introduce legislation similar to that of the member for Shellharbour. I suspect that might be the outcome, but I say to the Attorney General, "Look at the time. It is important, because every day that you hesitate another woman is being murdered in New South Wales via coercive control." Unlike Sally, women who are forced to take action against their violent partners are thrown in jail.

The member for Shellharbour has goals too. Her bill's goal is to create a broader definition of domestic abuse. I note that in schedule 1 to the bill she takes the time in new section 14A, subsection (2) (a) to (f) to outline, define and explain what coercive control is and what actions will be taken by the police and judiciary if it happens. I like that clarity, because the Attorney General said, "Well, people are confused. They do not know what is going on yet. They need more information." I urge members to read new section 14A, subsection (2) (a) to (f), and they will find some explanations. The next point I make is about the involvement of children. The member's bill states in new section 14A (3):

Conduct may have, or be reasonably likely to have, an effect referred to in subsection (2) on a person even if the conduct is directed at a third person, including a child …

That is important to me. What price do we put on children's wellbeing? What effect will coercive control have on children as they grow up if they have witnessed that kind of abuse from their father or their mother's partner? We cannot ignore the implications, the trauma and the toll on children. The bill highlights how children are involved and what impact such behaviour will have on them. We do not want children to be involved, but they are. The Attorney General talked about being more careful and more timely. I suggest that he look carefully at the bill again, because it contains many answers. We know that last year, while our community supported the 16 days of action against gender‑based violence, for the first time since its inception the Counting Dead Women Australia group recorded three deaths allegedly as a result of domestic violence in just one day.

We must take action, and we must take the people with us. I was going to refer to Jess Hill's book—which, as far as I am concerned, is the gold standard in understanding what domestic abuse and coercive control is all about—but instead I pay tribute to Jess Hill for the wonderful work that she has undertaken. I conclude by saying that it is just not good enough for us to say we must do what we can to prevent and end domestic violence; we must take real action. That is what the member's bill is all about. Support for the bill is clear. Real and clear action must be taken because the current suite of laws is not enough to address domestic violence. I applaud the member for Shellharbour.

Mr TIM CRAKANTHORP (Newcastle) (10:53:32):

Today I speak in support of amending the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act to ensure that the shameful practice of coercive control is properly recognised and punishable under New South Wales law. I commend the member for Shellharbour for bringing the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi's Law) Bill 2020 to this Chamber today. The disgrace that is the perpetuation of domestic and family violence is much more than acts of physical harm, threats of such harm or wilful damage designed to frighten and intimidate. In fact, coercive control is often where it starts and it may be so subtle that it can be unrecognisable. Keeping tabs on someone's movements, comments intended to humiliate, limiting independence—these can all be behaviours that bring a person under the perpetrator's control in order to create complete and utter dependency. The tactic is often a precursor to violence, with a perpetrator needing to escalate in order to maintain that control.

In a domestic violence relationship the signs of coercive control may not be as obvious as aggressive and violent behaviour, but they are no less psychologically damaging. This tactic still creates an environment of fear, destroys self‑confidence and exploits a victim's vulnerabilities. When it goes unchecked it can not only ruin lives but also take them. Of course, that is just part of the picture. Legislation is one thing; ensuring that survivors of domestic and family violence are equipped to break from those relationships and are supported as they emerge on the other side is another. To that end, I acknowledge the work of several Newcastle services that work tirelessly for survivors, including Jenny's Place, Nova for Woman and Children, and the Victims of Crime Assistance League. Their passion for their work, their ongoing advocacy and their commitment to those they support does not go unnoticed. As a result of advocacy from these services and hundreds more around the State, we have been making improvements as lawmakers to support survivors.

While there is still a way to go, recent changes to protocols around court appearances to mitigate the ability of perpetrators to further intimidate their victims and the recognition of the way that animals are threatened and abused to manipulate victims of domestic and family violence have been sorely needed. This bill to criminalise coercive control is another necessary step on this road. It is unlikely that there is one member of this House who has not denounced domestic and family violence. But the reality is that, unless we turn those words into greater consequences for perpetrators and criminalise those seeds of violence, the outcomes will not change. The bill creates real consequences for people who base domestic relationships on control and fear, and I have no doubt that criminalising coercive control will save lives. It is imperative that all members support the bill.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (10:57:24):

I contribute to debate on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi’s Law) Bill 2020. The impact that coercive control has on women, in particular—because, let us be frank, predominantly women are affected and far too many women are still dying at the hands of their intimate partners—continues to concern all those in this place. We know that, as the New South Wales Coroner's review into intimate partner homicides stated, before murdering their partners 99 per cent of perpetrators displayed coercive and controlling behaviours towards the victim. Too many women are being killed and too often it is coercive control, and not other forms of physical violence, that escalates and causes the death of a woman. We are taking action on many fronts in this place. We have the bill introduced by the member for Shellharbour, the Hon. Abigail Boyd's bill in the upper House and a parliamentary inquiry. We have a momentum in New South Wales that we have never seen before.

I welcome that and welcome what I believe is a uniform approach across Parliament to legislate and ensure we introduce laws that address coercive control. I put on record that I genuinely believe we need to legislate to address coercive control. I know some people think that, as of yet, creating an offence relating to coercive control is not necessary, but I believe we need to create such an offence. We have seen significant success in Scotland. We know that in the first year of the legislation in Scotland 1,000 charges were laid and 96 per cent of them were prosecuted. That would be unheard of in New South Wales, and in most other jurisdictions around Australia, because there is not the capacity to charge people for a number of instances of coercive control and abusive behaviour.

We also know that the pointy end—the most extreme end, which is the death of women in our community—is in many ways not the most harmful impact of coercive control. There can be years, and even decades, of manipulation, undermining, financial abuse and psychological abuse. As the member for Newcastle said, it can include threats to pets and to children. It is not just the pointy end of death that we need to focus on. It is the very real lived harm and the experience particularly of women and of children in those families that can go on for years and decades. I want to see us legislate for the appropriate outcome. It is disappointing that we have not yet reached that point and I would like to see much greater momentum. I would like to see us work faster to achieve an outcome with the right legislation. I hope we will see that following the cross-party work that is being done in the parliamentary committee inquiry into this matter.

See What You Made Me Do

I think it is a complex area of law—much law that comes through this place is complex. There continues to be debate amongst the legal fraternity, those involved in policing and domestic violence advocates about the appropriate application of any legislation. It is not simple. I credit the member for Shellharbour with the amount of work that she has put into bringing this legislation forward. She has made a very serious and significant contribution, but I also acknowledge that we do not yet have it right. As the member for Wallsend stated, even Jess Hill's book cautioned about the way we approach this matter. It talked about the fact that the exact wording and drafting of these laws will be crucial to their success. I want to see us introduce this legislation as quickly as humanly possible, but I also want to ensure that it is effective and can make the best possible difference. We need to take that on board and keep working with the process that is underway through the parliamentary inquiry.

Many people in this place will know that in my family, after the breakdown of my parents' marriage and their divorce when I was very young—I was three when they were divorced, with shared custody arrangements—my sisters and I were in an abusive household for many years. Following that, we went through the Family Court system when we were quite young. My lived experience is a little different from that of many other domestic violence survivors because I was incredibly young. I have the fortune of having limited memory of much of that experience. My older sisters, particularly my eldest sister, were not quite so unfortunate. Because of her age she was much more capable of comprehending, understanding and being impacted by that experience.

In some small way, I feel the fear and disappointment that particularly women and families have about not having somewhere to go, someone to protect them or something that will help them. So many people need our help. So far, as a society we have failed at all levels to ensure that we can protect not only their lives but also their safety, security and freedoms for the many years and decades leading up to what could be—but is not always—a potential loss of life. I hope we can all come together with those with lived experiences and work to make sure that we get the right outcome when we are representing the people in our community who continue to be impacted on a daily basis by coercive control.

There is merit in the bills of both the member for Shellharbour and Ms Abigail Boyd in the upper House. Both come from a very well-informed and well-intentioned background, so I know that we have good content to work with. I make a couple of observations about some changes or things that I would like to see in final legislation on top of what has been presented already. As I mentioned, Jess Hill has been quite impactful in her ability to cut through as a journalist. Instead of being more academic or research oriented, she is very relatable when she speaks with people and presents her content and analysis. Broad-ranging literature and research recognises that patterns of non‑physical behaviour and/or acts of physical violence that are experienced over time need to be taken into consideration as a whole experience. They cannot be seen as individual instances. Undertaking that analysis is not uncomplicated for policing or for the justice system.

We need to focus on the course of conduct. We need to focus on patterns of behaviour and not look at individual incidents, because sometimes those incidents can appear to be quite trivial. We need a significant shift in the way our criminal justice system operates and observes those patterns of behaviour between individuals. To be effective, we need to implement a whole pile of quite comprehensive practice changes to alter the way we address this issue. They will include training for police, legal practitioners, the judiciary and the services sector. We also need to make sure that consultation is deep and broad in order for it to be effective and well operationalised. While there is a lot of merit in the bill from the member for Shellharbour, this particular shift is not recognised within the legislation. I would like to see it taken into account as we progress towards legislating for this conduct.

Extension of time

The shift that investigation of coercive control requires is from an incident-based approach to a more holistic assessment of a relationship. It will impact on the entire service system, which means that we need frontline service providers—often the people whom victims will turn to in the first place—to be included in any reform process. We also need to give consideration to how we can best address gaps in existing frameworks and systems, thinking carefully about what is working now and how we can enhance such features in response to coercive control in a way that best meets the needs of victims and survivors and addresses the accountability of perpetrators. The best way for us to do that is to learn from the experience of frontline responders across all our sectors, to draw on their specialist knowledge and expertise. I seek an extension of time. []

We also need to make sure that we have workforce development, capacity building and response capability for our supporting service providers. We cannot introduce something like this without enabling them to do their jobs in this environment. I know that the joint select committee is currently considering those intersecting issues and I have faith in the work that it will do in making appropriate recommendations for our next steps. I would like to see law reform implemented once those deliberations have concluded so that we do not pre‑empt the outcome of that work, but we also need to raise awareness in our communities and continue to look at attitudes towards women and respectful relationships. It has been quite a concerning week for us when we think about the treatment of women in workplaces and environments like our own and the attitudes that can perpetuate those kinds of behaviours both inside and outside the home.

We know that coercive control can be very nuanced and difficult to identify. In some circumstances, victims often have problems naming what is occurring to them and what they are experiencing. Their friends, families and colleagues may also not recognise the subtle signs of coercive control. It is likely that we also need to continue to invest in education, support and awareness campaigns to ensure that people understand and can identify exactly what coercive control behaviour is and know how to get support. At the end of the day, a lot of people do not really feel that what is happening to them is wrong. That is often because of patterns of behaviour that have convinced them, potentially through gaslighting, that nothing is being perpetrated against them. We need to ensure that we inform and empower people to understand what is actually occurring.

I would like to see the joint select committee come to an outcome promptly and work with the member for Shellharbour and Ms Abigail Boyd in the other place to make sure that we get the right legislation through this House and this Parliament. I know it is incredibly complex but, as I said at the outset, not only are too many women dying but also too many women are living lives of abuse, day in and day out. We cannot shy away from that. It happens in every postcode and every suburb. It happens regardless of one's job, family background or how much money one has. It happens everywhere.

It could be happening to your next-door neighbour, a family member or a close friend. When I think about the people who are suffering day in, day out it puts fear into my heart and causes a significant amount of sadness. In my opinion we have an obligation to act as quickly as possible and know that the work of the member for Shellharbour and Ms Abigail Boyd in the Legislative Council will contribute to the best outcome. I know that the Attorney General takes this issue very seriously.

In the past the Attorney General has referred to coercive control as an example of slavery, which is very strong language when we think about the way in which he views the impact, particularly on women, of coercive control. I also acknowledge the member for Wallsend and what she has been doing in her role as the New South Wales representative on the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians steering committee in bringing Jess Hill into our Parliament and for constantly sending out information to members in this place to make sure that we are actually aware of the bodies of literature out there. It is very easy for these insidious wicked problems that occur in people's homes to go underneath the radar and to not have the constant focus we need to get the momentum to ensure we have change.

I acknowledge the Liberal Women's Council of which I was the President for a number of years. Mary‑Lou Jarvis is now the President and she also provided a submission to the joint select committee in support of addressing coercive control. Even within my own party we have voices of women who are pushing for this momentum and for an outcome. I know that with the work of all those people, together we will see a positive outcome at the end of this process. I just hope it comes very soon. I thank the member for Shellharbour for putting forward this bill.

Ms JANELLE SAFFIN (Lismore) (11:11:36):

I acknowledge the thoughtful contribution of the member for North Shore and the sharing of her lived experience as a child. The member for North Shore referred to the need to make coercive control part of the law, and about education and preparedness, which I understand, but more compelling is to take advantage of this opportunity to pass the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi's Law) Bill 2020. I thank my colleague, the member for Shellharbour and Opposition Whip in this place for bringing this long overdue bill to the House. This bill gives full expression to the entire range of controlling and crippling behaviours that constitute domestic violence.

The legal definition of domestic violence covers the physical aspects, well known to all of us, but the law to date has not included the sinister behaviours that constitute control over someone's life. That control deprives a person of free will, volition and agency about their daily lives, which is what we refer to when we talk about coercive control. Women who have lived through coercive control—and sadly some have not lived through it—are told how to dress, how to talk, how to walk, how to smile or not smile or when to smile, how to parent or not parent, what to eat, what to buy, who to ring, who to talk to, who to visit and the list is endless, but the result is the same. The result is that the person is being subjugated and they become a shell of themselves.

The member for Newcastle talked about women living through coercive control losing self-confidence. They are a mere shell of themselves and they live in a constant state of apprehension and fear. Generally, it is women who are subject to coercive control and their minds are always focussing on: What will he do? What is going to happen? They have real fear when their partner comes home. We have to recognise those behaviours as criminal because they are part of a pattern of domestic violence, which, as we know, often starts by the belittling of a person or circumlocution, as we say, and a whole range of behaviours in that spectrum that can end up with murder. In a formal sense, it is circumlocution to extermination. They are terrible words, but that is the hierarchy of it. No-one should have to live like that and this is an opportunity to do something about it.

I mentioned that the law does not include coercive control. As law-makers, legislators and community representatives it is our obligation to address this gap in the law. We know that statistically 99 per cent of perpetrators who murder their partner in domestic violence situations had engaged in coercive control. That is a fact. We know that every nine days one woman is murdered in domestic violence circumstances, so we have an obligation to act as quickly as we can. We should not shirk that obligation, even though it is difficult and there might be debate around how to describe "coercive control" and we have to list the elements, because we do that all the time with many laws. I have seen many laws passed here—some almost overnight—when something has become an issue in the community. I will turn now to the four key objects that the bill intends to change to provide better protection for victims, women, when they are subject to coercive controlling behaviours. The bill sets out the four offences. Schedule 1 to the bill, section 14A states:

A person must not engage in conduct that constitutes the coercive control of another person with whom the person has, or has had, a domestic relationship.

Maximum penalty—Imprisonment for 5 years or 50 penalty units, or both.

The bill then walks through the elements of coercive control. We have seen this law implemented in other jurisdictions, most notably Scotland which has been mentioned by most members who have contributed to this debate. Scotland seems to have got it right and is a good model for us to look at. I am sure that the select committee is looking at that now. The elements of coercive control are to make the other person dependent on, or subordinate to, the person. "Dependent on" does not mean a relationship with an interdependency that is healthy and fine, but a dependency and a subordination that totally subjugates that person until they have no agency. Coercive control isolates, controls, regulates, monitors and deprives the person of their freedom and access to other services, such as health and legal practitioners and what we need to maintain a healthy life. That abuse also flows on to the children in those family relationships in order to frighten, humiliate, degrade or punish the other person, which constitutes cruel and inhumane behaviour by one person against another. The bill also addresses aggravated coercive control at new section 14B, which states:

(1)A person who engages in conduct that constitutes the coercive control of another person with whom the person has, or has had, a domestic relationship in circumstances of aggravation is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty—Imprisonment for 10 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

It continues:

circumstances of aggravation

(2)A person commits an offence in —

Extension of time

The bill then addresses children—not only children, but children in particular. Quite frequently that is part of the whole package of coercive control behaviours. Abuse is also directed at children and the bill clearly addresses that. Geographical application at 14C is another new section, which sets out that wherever an offence occurs it is still considered an offence under our law in New South Wales and a prosecution can take place within the State. The bill then turns to the defence of reasonableness at new section 14D, which is important because we have a rule of law jurisdiction; our State institutions are based on the rule of law and we must always have within our laws the defence of innocent until proven guilty. New section 14D sets out that defence of reasonableness in the bill. I seek an extension of time. []

I thank members for their indulgence. There will be a lot of debate about the defence of reasonableness but the member for Shellharbour in her second reading speech set out what that defence means. I will repeat her words in order to illustrate that defence. She said:

In criminal proceedings brought against a person for an offence under proposed sections 14A and 14B, it is a defence that the conduct was reasonable in the particular circumstances. A reasonable person test is a standard used to measure or determine something that a person has done who has an ordinary degree of care, prudence, foresight, or intelligence, and whose conduct, conclusion, or expectation in relation to a particular circumstance or fact is used as an objective standard.

The reasonable person test that the member for Shellharbour cites is not a new test; that ancient common law test has stood the test of time. It is well known and it is used daily by the courts. I forget the exact percentage, but about 98 per cent of all matters are heard in the Magistrates Court, which deals with that test all the time. Given that there is a defence of reasonableness in the bill, which speaks to the reasonable person test, there is no reason at all to delay. Magistrates, jurors and everybody knows exactly what that means, so we can get it right. I will make two more comments on the bill. I note that the Legislation Review Committee commented on the defence of reasonableness in the bill, which is why I felt it important to put on record. The committee stated:

The Committee acknowledges that proposed section 14D creates a defence of reasonableness to the new offences, and the Bill aims to reduce rates of domestic abuse.

That committee has referred the bill to the Parliament to consider whether the "broadly defined new offences would impact unduly on principles of legal certainty." That is another obligation members in this place have in our rule of law jurisdiction. There is no reason that debate cannot be had today while the bill is before us. If amendments are required I am sure the member for Shellharbour, the mover of the bill, will engage in that debate and accept some of those amendments.

Ms Anna Watson:

I have offered.

Ms JANELLE SAFFIN:

The member for Shellharbour just stated, in her timely interjection, that she has offered. So there is no reason that cannot be done. The Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control has slowed down the process. Meanwhile, the bill before the House could be passed today to provide that protection, particularly to the majority of victims who are women, but also to every other victim of coercive control—we could do that now. I say to the members of that joint select committee: Be as quick as you can because you have the power to give that protection, to prevent coercive control and, in passing a law, to prevent another woman who has been subjected to domestic violence from being murdered. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee) (11:26:12):

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the incredibly important Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control – Preethi's Law) Bill 2020, which was brought before this place by my colleague the member for Shellharbour. Domestic abuse and violence is a horrific scourge that impacts all aspects of our society—it impacts each and every electorate in New South Wales and, indeed, electorates across the country. The statistics are shameful. They have been repeated time and time again in this place, yet nothing has been done. In Australia one woman every week is murdered by a current or former partner. One in four women from the age of 15 has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner. Intimate partner violence is a leading contributor to illness, disability and premature death for women aged between 18 and 44. Figures released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that hospitalisations due to domestic, family and sexual violence are increasing at an alarming rate—and my own community in the eastern suburbs is no exception.

One domestic violence counselling service in the eastern suburbs has reported a 110 per cent increase in demand in the past 12 months—that is a sobering statistic and the fact is nothing is being done to address it. Domestic violence liaison officers from both Waverley and Randwick, with whom I speak to regularly on the matter, advise me that it is incredibly rare that a single shift goes by without at least one call-out to address domestic violence or abuse, and often there are multiple call-outs. Along with physical threats, police report psychological abuse. Coercive control legislation would provide greater scope to address that abuse. Indeed, my own electorate office has seen an alarming increase in the number of people reaching out in search of assistance.

Questions and Answers

Mr Temporary Speaker, I have no doubt that you can tell how strongly I feel about this issue. That is why, among other initiatives, I am working on a project with Domestic Violence NSW and Dom Svejkar, a strategic designer in social innovation at the UTS Design Innovation Research Centre, to design culturally appropriate communications strategies, not only for victims and survivors of domestic abuse but also for perpetrators. I acknowledge that the Department of Justice has funded that project. The combination of a strong legal framework and the provision of robust social services is key to properly addressing domestic violence and abuse in Australia. Along with the introduction of new legal protections, the legislation looks to amend the way that our society thinks and acts on those types of controlling behaviours. If we needed any more proof of the virtue of the legislation, consider that currently no statistics are kept in New South Wales on incidents of coercive control in domestic relationships. Indeed, until now there has been no working definition of coercive control within the New South Wales justice system, with "coercive control" being referred to in a paper of this House as follows:

… a broad term … not covered by a specific offence in New South Wales …

We currently find ourselves in a legislative environment that is not fit for purpose, and is continually letting down vulnerable women and children across the State. That is why we are here today. That is why the member for Shellharbour drafted this legislation and brought it forward. The creation of the bill and the eventual implementation of the law would provide notice to the community that we as a society do not accept this behaviour as part of our story.

We stand here today to create law that will protect our current and future generations of women and children. We know that in most cases violent behaviour is part of a range of tactics to exercise power and control over women and their children. It is domestic terrorism. We know that domestic abuse being experienced by victims can include a wide range of controlling behaviours, such as control of finances, isolation from family and friends, continued humiliation, threats against children, threats of injury or death, and threats towards pets and animals. But at this point the NSW Police Force can only intervene and prosecute under New South Wales law in the case of physical assault, stalking and harassment, or under Commonwealth legislation for the use of telecommunications devices to threaten or intimidate.

There is no scope for early intervention or to address the coexisting elements of domestic and family violence and abuse. There is no scope to protect women and children from harm—only to protect them from further or subsequent harm. We know that intervention too often comes too late. By criminalising those abusive behaviours this legislation will finally enable the justice system and police to embark on early intervention. The legislation will demonstrate our strongest denunciation of those behaviours and will validate the long‑held beliefs of victims that the abuse and controlling behaviour they had been subjected to was wrong, extremely dangerous and should be illegal. The bill will also help equip our communities with a shared language and understanding.

The language brought forward in the bill will assist in educating our community and growing our understanding of what coercive control looks like and the devastating impacts it can have, as well as the precipitating effects it has on devastating physical violence. If the bill can provide our communities with a shared understanding and condemnation of the impact of coercive control, we know that we can change behaviour. If the bill can equip our communities with the skills to identify, understand and provide support to women who are being coercively controlled, then we can bring this curse out of the shadows. With a robust and shared understanding we can create a robust and shared response, we will be closer to preventing harm and we will be able to save more lives.

Opponents to the legislation will argue that it is too pre-emptive, that we do not know enough and that it may do more harm than good. That is incorrect. As usual, the Government has been slow to identify the issues and even slower to act. In 2015 England and Wales were the first nations to outlaw coercive control. Scotland followed suit with similar legislation in May 2019 and Ireland in 2020. As far back as 2004 the Tasmanian State Government was identifying and illegalising elements of coercive control through the Family Violence Act, further strengthened by several amendments in the years since. Just yesterday the Queensland Government announced that by the end of this year it will likely have legislation to address coercive control. The proper time to act was long ago. The opportunity to make progress is here and the bill that will do so is on the table. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PHILIP DONATO (Orange) (11:34:11):

I speak to the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control–Preethi's Law) Bill 2020, introduced as a private member's bill by the member for Shellharbour. Domestic violence is a scourge in our community. It is reported that Orange has twice the State average of domestic violence incidents. That is a concerning statistic and one that we should not be proud of. On average across Australia, one woman dies every nine days as result of domestic violence and one man dies every month. Those statistics, along with other reliable data, reveal that domestic violence is an issue across all communities, cultures, demographics, and the length and breadth of our State and nation. No community is immune. As a Parliament and as legislators, the onus is on us to continually look at ways to drive down this scourge.

The bill is well intentioned and I acknowledge the Member for Shellharbour for her interest in tackling domestic violence, but it is a bill that I am unable to support in its current form. I will turn to the reasons for that decision shortly. I agree that at some point we need to look at introducing legislation to tackle coercive control, but the policy and legal framework needs to be properly considered, structured and implemented. I am aware of the fact that coercive control may be a precursor to other forms of domestic violence and I am interested to see the results from the joint select committee that is considering that very issue as we debate the bill before the House. I have closely considered the bill and read both the second reading speech of the member for Shellharbour and the contribution of the Attorney General.

In considering the legislation I have had reason to research other jurisdictions wherein coercive control legislation has been introduced, to see how successful or otherwise it has been since its introduction and if there were any policy implementation issues. There are a number of jurisdictions that have legislation about coercive and controlling behaviour, including England, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Tasmania. In 2015 England and Wales introduced legislation aimed at tackling a range of behaviours, including controlling victims through social media, spying on them online, and stopping a person from socialising with friends and family. It includes emotional, financial and psychological abuse, and can include both intimate and family relationships. Data reveals that since the introduction of the legislation there have been approximately 9,000 offences reported annually, leading to 1,000 prosecutions and about 200 convictions.

That equates to a prosecution rate of about 11 per cent and a conviction rate of just over 2 per cent relative to the number of offences reported. In 2018 Scotland introduced legislation to criminalise abusive behaviour, which came into force in April 2019. Scotland's approach is seen as the gold standard across the planet for that type of legislation. The Scottish Legislature describes abusive behaviour as including making a partner or ex‑partner dependant or subordinate to the perpetrator; isolating a partner or ex‑partner from friends, relatives or other sources of support; controlling, regulating or monitoring the day‑to‑day activities of a partner or ex‑partner; depriving a partner or ex‑partner of, or restricting, their freedom of action; and frightening, humiliating, degrading or punishing a partner or ex‑partner.

Scotland's approach was backed by a substantial training program for police. The statistics revealed that in the first few months police received approximately 400 reports and referred 190 matters for prosecution, of which there were 13 convictions at a conviction rate of about 3.25 per cent. Tasmania introduced sections 8 and 9 of the Family Violence Act 2004, which criminalise economic and emotional abuse. I am advised that eight people have been convicted in the 10 years since the introduction of those sections. The lack of use of the legislation has been attributed to the vagueness in the statutory interpretation of the offences, along with some overlap with existing traditional domestic violence offences like stalking, intimidation and breaching a domestic violence order.

I turn now to the bill before the House. The amendment proposes to include new sections 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D under part 3 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, which is titled "Domestic violence and other offences". New section 14A (2) (a) to (f) outlines a list of certain types of behaviour or conduct that constitute the coercive control of another person. It is an objective test that often relies on a subjective interpretation. That is something that, from experience and analysis of other jurisdictions, has proven problematic and no doubt helps to explain the very low rates of successful prosecution.

I share some of the concerns raised by the Attorney in his contribution. This legislation must be carefully crafted and stakeholders should be widely consulted, including the NSW Bar Association and the NSW Police Force, to name a few. Some of these patterns of behaviour in the bill would duplicate existing legislative provisions. The offences of stalking and intimidation under section 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 may also be relevant to conduct covered by the bill. Sections 7 and 8 of that Act define "intimidation" and "stalking" respectively. Section 7 (1) provides that "intimidation" of a person means:

conduct (including cyberbullying) amounting to harassment or molestation of the person, or

an approach made to the person by any means (including by telephone, telephone text messaging, e-mailing and other technologically assisted means) that causes the person to fear for his or her safety, or

any conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of injury to a person or to a person with whom he or she has a domestic relationship, or of violence or damage to any person or property.

Section 7 (2) provides:

(2)For the purpose of determining whether a person's conduct amounts to intimidation, a court may have regard to any pattern of violence (especially violence constituting a domestic violence offence) in the person's behaviour.

Section 8 (1) of the Act states:

stalking

(1)In this Act, includes the following—

(a)the following of a person about,

(b)the watching or frequenting of the vicinity of, or an approach to, a person's place of residence, business or work or any place that a person frequents for the purposes of any social or leisure activity,

(c)contacting or otherwise approaching a person using the internet or any other technologically assisted means.

(2)For the purpose of determining whether a person's conduct amounts to stalking, a court may have regard to any pattern of violence (especially violence constituting a domestic violence offence) in the person's behaviour.

I appreciate that with the increase of technology, prevalence of social media and other digital platforms, legislation must keep pace with technology. That is not lost on me. I do not want legislation that is cumbersome and raises difficulties of proof. Further time is needed to consider the bill properly, engage community stakeholders and ensure that the legislation is efficient, effective and robust, and ensures the protection of victims. The fact that other jurisdictions already have legislation in this area lends strong weight to my opinion that we need to get this right. I concur with the comments of the Attorney‑General on that issue. For those reasons I will not be supporting the bill.

Ms LIESL TESCH (Gosford) (11:42:15):

The impact of domestic violence is deep and long‑lasting, and perpetration rates remain high. Awareness campaigns are still not cutting through. The United Nations continues to say that the most dangerous place for a woman is her own home. I thank Jess Hill for her book that peeled open my brain to coercive control, as it did for many others in this place and across our State, our country and our world. I thank the member for Wallsend for inviting Jess to speak to us in the Parliament. I also thank the many progressive people working in the public sector to educate and raise awareness not only about domestic violence but also about coercive control. I thank everyone involved in reframing police education and police responses to domestic violence to ensure that all victims are heard, supported, and believed.

A number of things must change to make sure that people know what to look out for and that they realise that domestic violence is not only about physical violence. Non‑physical aspects of domestic violence are not always obvious. They are often publicly invisible forms of violence. As legislators, our responsibility is to shine the spotlight on that in legislation. Gaps in the legislation continue to put people in danger. I acknowledge my friend and the member for Shellharbour for her work in this place. I told her that she should have been doing this years ago. When we surveyed domestic abuse victims and survivors, and asked them what they wanted to change, 98 per cent of victims said that law reform was needed and 97 per cent of professionals said that coercive control should be recognised in law. Therefore, supporting legislative change around coercive control is urgent and important. Coercive control is abusive behaviour that dominates, manipulates, and micromanages many aspects, and sometimes every aspect, of a victim's life. It might be restricting access to bank accounts, isolating the person from friends and family, or monitoring phone conversations and Facebook messages. I am aware of one circumstance where it involved monitoring food in the fridge. It is a horrible space for someone to live in.

COVID has made the situation worse with a number of coercive behaviours increasing during lockdowns, which involved social isolation, financial stressors, job insecurity and more time spent alone with perpetrators. This behaviour is domestic terrorism towards victims, including women, children and also pets. The physical and psychological wellbeing of women and men must be protected by legislation. Tasmania is the only State to recognise coercive control as a crime. In other parts of our country these behaviours are punishable only when a domestic violence order is violated. South Australia is considering legislation that would mean offenders could receive up to seven years in jail if convicted of coercive control. Fear should never be part of a healthy relationship. Supportive reporting structures are vital to enable victims to overcome their fear and come forward to ensure that the full spectrum of abuse is exposed. Police must know what to look for to identify coercive and controlling behaviours and how to get the right information from the victim and for the victim.

As kids, we walked on eggshells in fear of my alcoholic father. Maybe it made me tougher, but it sure as hell destroyed part of the innocence of my childhood. I want to ensure that I am in this place to stop that happening to others. I was secondary fallout. My mum was the victim of my father. It is so sad. As so many women in our communities do, my mum lived every day and every hour on eggshells, whilst delivering her utmost in her role as a mum, a wife, an employee, a canteen volunteer, an artist, a community member and so much more. In my electorate and in every one of our electorates, women are living in exactly that space. As legislators, it is our responsibility to walk forward. It is too late for what occurred 20, 30 or 40 years ago, but it is time we took action.

In 2015 England and Wales became the first nations in the world to criminalise such controlling behaviour in relationships, making coercive control punishable by up to five years' jail. In 2018 Scotland and Ireland followed. In New South Wales we must improve community education and extend support structures to stop the harm that is occurring. In 2017, not long after I was elected, Blair Dalton was killed by her partner in an act of domestic violence that rocked our community to the core. I acknowledge Blair's family and friends as we work towards creating a framework to improve outcomes for victims and build stronger structures to hold perpetrators to account. Sadly for Blair, this comes too late. Coercive control is an indicator of domestic homicide. Domestic homicide numbers are not going down, so we, as a Parliament and as a society, must do so much more.

I refer to the king‑hit death that shut down Sydney's nightlife, and I ask this chauvinistic Government: Where are the protections and equitable responses to protect the women who we know are at risk? I encourage the few women who are on the other side of the Chamber to stand up and shout loud as we push for legislative change to protect women from domestic violence. Domestic violence is a national crime in Australia, with physical injury resulting in hospitalisation at an alarming rate. Hospitalisation evidence does not take into account the harm caused by coercive control. Homicide is the last step. Evidence supporting the inclusion of coercive control in our legislation is overwhelming, and we as legislators must take action.

I credit the work of Destroy the Joint, which is also Counting Dead Women Australia. It is painful to my heart that that organisation needs to exist to remind us, as legislators, of the issue. In January this year we lost four women due to violence in the home by their partners. New South Wales should be a safe State for all of us. I thank everyone involved in the NSW Women's Alliance for their efforts in promoting a State free of sexual, domestic and family violence. I thank our non‑government sector, our police, our educators and our communities for their amazing work in this sector, and for their support of victims and survivors. I acknowledge the role of teachers in supporting students and families across the State because we do not have sufficient protections in place. Teachers are seeing harm that is disrupting the education and future of our kids.

I also thank all community members who have communicated with their elected representatives in Parliament about their concerns regarding domestic violence and the lack of support that is available to them. It is important that they contact us so we can help magnify their voices and get them the support they need. I thank Domestic Violence NSW and all peak organisations and statewide service providers responding to and working to prevent sexual, domestic and family violence. In particular, I thank the fabulous women's health centres on the Central Coast, as well as our community centres, which often provide an important drop‑in location and information space to connect women to many other services and support them escaping domestic violence.

I also thank all those who form part of the Central Coast Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service, and our police domestic violence liaison officers, for their leadership and support of victims of domestic violence in an overstretched system. I thank the Central Coast Community Legal Centre, Pacific Link Housing, BaptistCare, Vinnies, Peninsula Lighthouse, our GPs, and our talented and aware police, who provide important support and safe spaces for women and people escaping domestic violence across communities on the coast. I really believe pushing this legislation through the New South Wales Parliament relies on more women being elected to this place. I once again thank the member for Shellharbour for bringing the bill to the House. I also thank the shadow Minister for women and member for Blue Mountains for her long‑term advocacy and support of organisations across New South Wales that support women, and for supporting this important bill. Labor supports legislation to criminalise coercive control.

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) (11:51:10):

From the outset, I say that I welcome the opportunity to speak in debate on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi's Law) Bill 2020. I congratulate my colleague the member for Shellharbour on doing what local members of Parliament are elected to do: try to improve legislation in this place to help people in the community, particularly those who are vulnerable. That is our job. It is not to get scripts from Ministers and read them in this place; it is to look at how we can modernise legislation and make it better by listening to the community and putting that before the House. On behalf of my community, I acknowledge the work of the member for Shellharbour, who has been a tireless advocate in this space. As the member for Gosford said, she has worked closely with the member for Blue Mountains as the shadow Minister to advocate an important change in legislation. It is a long time coming and should be part of our legislature going forward.

I have watched carefully and it has frustrated me that on multiple occasions the member for Shellharbour has said to the Government that there is an opportunity to amend her bill. She approached the Government in an open and transparent way. Unlike a lot of Government members, she did not present the bill and say "This is the bill, too bad if you do not like it", and move on. She has been open to improvements and changes. I note what the member for Orange said earlier, but there has been and still is an opportunity to act. Surely in this day and age we can understand that this legislation is keeping up with the way in which domestic violence is inflicted and impacts people in our communities. The bill has coercive control at its heart and at its core. To be quite blunt, we should have been dealing with this legislation quite a long time ago. There is an opportunity for all of us in this place to come together and say, "We have a problem. This is a part of the issues we dealing with in domestic violence."

I am glad that groups in my area, such as Supported Accommodation and Homelessness Services Shoalhaven Illawarra and the team led by Kathy Colyer, are doing fantastic work. But they tell us that for a lot of people this issue can be out of sight and out of mind. Many members in this place, including the member for Gosford in her contribution, have told personal and heartbreaking stories about the impact that domestic violence has had on people. Every member in this place knows women, families and children who are impacted by it every day. It is not a Labor or a Liberal issue; it is a community issue. Surely in the oldest Parliament in this country we can sit down, come together and work through amendments and improvements to the bill. The member for Shellharbour has been the first to say she is happy to sit down and do that, but the delay has been really frustrating. I put that out there from the very beginning. As I said earlier, when we come to this place we have a duty to ensure that we have the best possible criminal justice system in place for our families and the people we represent.

It is vitally important we tackle the domestic violence crisis that we are facing. In recent years a light has been shone on this area of public policy, legislation and criminality. But the light needs to continue to shine bright and, as legislators, we must continue to do more to make sure that our laws are modernised in a way that reflects some of the challenges and impacts for victims. Family, domestic and sexual violence is a major social issue, but it is also a significant health issue. It is an issue that is often brought to my attention as the shadow Minister for Health. It directly impacts on people's health outcomes—both psychologically and, obviously, physically— particularly if it is physical and sexual violence. It occurs across all ages and does not discriminate socioeconomically or by demographic. But it mainly affects women and children.

Family and domestic violence can have far‑reaching consequences, which the member for Shellharbour outlined in her second reading speech, the member for Blue Mountains raised in her inaugural speech in this place and the member for Gosford outlined to this Parliament during her contribution to debate. One of the first families I helped when I became the member for Keira was a mum. Her story has stayed with me for a long time. I have been in this place now for 10 years and I will never forget it. To protect her identity I will call her Amy—and I always respectfully do that. She suffered horrendously at the hands of her husband. I remember receiving an urgent message from her teenage daughter saying that she was frightened and scared of her father. She sent me that message. Amy and her children were not just being harmed physically; they were financially and emotionally abused and controlled by someone who was supposed to help protect them as part of their family structure. The years of abuse and torment that that family endured has sadly left its mark not only on Amy but also on her three children.

They are resilient kids but they are not without their wounds and scars. The difficulties they faced in the court system were incomprehensible. They knew that the non‑physical abuse was not taken as seriously because the legislation was not there for them. The laws were not built strong enough to help and support them. We were able to help them but the law did not protect or assist them. I am frequently in contact with that family and have remained so over the past 10 years. It is an important story because it highlights why a bill such as this should be treated by this Parliament in the spirit in which the member for Shellharbour introduced it, rather than with political ideology—Labor, good; Liberal, bad. We must understand that the member has a long and extensive history of interactions with stakeholders and with victims and their families, who have brought to her attention the need for this Parliament to change the legislation.

They have not said that Labor or Liberal must do it; just that this place must do it. So I say to the Attorney General: There is an opportunity today to work with the member for Shellharbour to produce a piece of legislation that not only all of us in this place can be proud of but also protects people like Amy and her family, families that are in all of our communities. I thank the member for Shellharbour for her advocacy on behalf of women and children, who are predominantly impacted by domestic violence. I look forward to working with her at a local level to make sure that communities in the Illawarra are provided with the best possible protection against the scourge of domestic violence. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STEPHEN BALI (Blacktown) (11:59:39):

I thank the member for Shellharbour for bringing the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi's Law) Bill 2020 to the House for consideration. Out of all those who contributed to the debate, the last two raised concerns about issues that are happening in their electorate, obviously focusing on domestic violence. The member for Gosford brought her personal account. This reinforced to me and also to everyone that domestic violence is not that far from anyone—anyone might know someone who has been impacted. The member for Keira relayed one of his constituent's stories. Many of us may have been associated with or tried to support people who have been experiencing domestic violence. As most people know around here, I am first and always talking about the city of Blacktown, its importance and how we are sometimes underrated. But unfortunately when it comes domestic violence I cannot hide behind the fact of our averages. We are below average as far as domestic violence is concerned.

Among people with financial stresses in lower socio-economic areas or even among people in high‑paid jobs, there is never, ever an excuse for domestic violence. People are at breaking point. We need to have laws like this that send a clear signal to the public that, whether it is physical, subliminal or emotional abuse, it is not accepted and it is seen and treated as the same. I understand that the Government, as the member for Keira was saying earlier, may introduce its own bill and the other place is undertaking an inquiry. I think the member for Shellharbour is putting out an olive leaf. Let us get this bill passed as soon as possible. Let us deal with the more difficult—I know and understand that dealing with coercive control is a difficult issue. The bill provides for the judicial system to give some weight of evidence to coercive control rather than discard it or attribute to it a higher standard of proof than physical abuse. Too many times we have seen the statistics say coercive control actually leads to physical abuse. They are the early signals and the only signs that we often do not look at.

We have seen many examples of coercive control starting to take control of a relationship. People have highlighted many examples of where this could happen—trying to isolate a person and saying things about the in‑laws. It could simply start off as a joke; we often make jokes about the in-laws, "Do you have to go and see the mother-in-law?" I can understand that as a joke. I will not comment on my mother-in-law, who was wonderful, God rest her soul. I think I have the best mother-in-law now. I might be giving away some personal stuff here. It may be something that is said or done as a joke in a normal relationship. I never would have contemplated saying to my wife, "No, you cannot see her", or reduce her opportunities to access and see her family. The early signs of coercive control are when the relationship starts to impact on who a person can and cannot see. Controlling a person's day-to-day activities, taking away their decision‑making power, depriving them of their fundamental rights, reducing or stopping them from seeing health professionals or other professionals, frightening or degrading them in front of their family and friends may start off as a joke, but end up as being physical abuse.

The unintended consequences of putting coercive control into the legislation are often raised here. I am pretty sure that the police will not drag these matters to court if they are without substantial proof or long‑term problems. We need to send a strong signal, as representatives of the New South Wales Parliament, to the public that coercive control in any of its forms is not acceptable. It is fundamentally wrong. If it looks and feels wrong, then it is wrong. Unfortunately these laws are dragging way behind societal changes. The world of social media and the internet have changed the array of communication and how we deal with people. People are using phone apps to track where others go. People will say, "Oh, this coercive control bill will stop you finding out where your kids are." Finding out where your kids are late at night as a safety issue is one thing. Even your employer tracking you seems to be totally acceptable these days—I fought employers following workers when I was a union official—but if someone is tracking, disciplining and attacking people where they are, that is coercive control.

Sometimes we get caught up too much in the legislation and having a fundamental, all‑inclusive and non‑defeatable paragraph that can be defended at all times in the law but, as we all know, a lot of the laws that we pass are sending signals. For example, we have seen so often that it is up to the police as to whether they prosecute the law of trespass. It is a simple fact that any customer can go into any shop to buy something, but the moment the shopkeeper says, "No, I do not want you here" because of whatever problem the customer is causing, that person is trespassing. But no police officer will ever enforce the law of trespass unless the person causing the problem starts throwing things and commits other crimes, such as physical violence. Hence, the coercive control bill is really important in sending the right signal and giving police substantial ability to send a signal to the person that coercive control is wrong.

In the Blacktown area, we have the Blacktown Women's and Girl's Health Centre led by Jhan Leach. It is a wonderful community‑based, not‑for‑profit women's centre that provides health and wellbeing services for women and girls, networking opportunities, workshops and legal counselling services, but more importantly it focuses on domestic violence support. I talked to them and they raised lots of issues on coercive control. For example, a relationship could be going through its good phase where partners may be taking photos in interesting positions or in various layers of clothing—I am not suggesting that I would ever do this. That may be great when you are together, but when the relationship breaks down those photos are being used as revenge porn. The husband—it is usually the husband—is tracking, stalking, looking at and actually providing personal information—phone numbers and addresses, et cetera—on social media. And then there is identity theft. Once again, all that stuff comes about through the coercive control measures that could have been stopped.

Extension of time not granted

Imagine knowing that your phone number has been published all over the place. When your phone rings you do not know whether it is a family member or friend, or one of those pesky telemarketers. It might actually be a stalker or a friend of the person you have the issue with: They are all try to back each other or they publish it on the web. Unfortunately there are too many strange websites that gangs or groups use to attack people. It causes havoc in a person's life. Social cohesion is important. Anyone caught in such a situation has to change their phone number constantly. Every time you change your phone number you have to let people know, and you sometimes lose contacts with family and friends. Control of bank accounts or other financial decision‑making is another form of coercive control. You may want to work together with the family, and the credit card— [.]