Get Involved - Parliament

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Published on: September 2024

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-145446

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 17 September 2024.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS (Wahroonga) (14:31:18):

I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. It is important to acknowledge at the beginning that domestic violence is a scourge on our society. Governments of all persuasions need to take all necessary steps to prevent it and provide victims with appropriate support. In that regard, the Opposition supports the Government's initiatives within the bill, but there are a couple of matters that require addressing.

The current penalty for the breach of an apprehended domestic violence order [ADVO] is two years imprisonment, a $5,500 fine or both. The bill will introduce two more serious offences. The first offence, under new section 14 (1A), being a breach of an ADVO with intent to cause physical or mental harm, will have a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment, an $11,000 fine or both. The second new offence, under new section 14 (1C), being a persistent breach of an ADVO, will have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, a $16,500 fine or both. It is desirable, as the Government has done, to recognise different severities of offence and to penalise them accordingly with the increased maximum penalties. The Opposition supports those measures. They are encouraging and good developments.

The second major reform is the creation of serious domestic abuse prevention orders. Those prevention orders follow on from the serious crime prevention orders that the Coalition introduced in 2016. At the time, there was commentary and concern that they somehow offended the rule of law. Those orders are made by a court when parties have due process to make submissions on whether it is appropriate to make the orders and to make submissions on the form of the orders. The same goes for the serious domestic abuse prevention orders. I have never understood the argument about how their structure somehow offends the rule of law, and I am certainly not suggesting that the provisions proposed in the bill offend the rule of law at all.

The features of the serious domestic abuse prevention orders created by the bill are that they will apply where a person is over the age of 18 years, has convictions or charges of a serious nature within the past 10 years and where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would protect the former, current or potential partners of a person from domestic abuse. As I have indicated, the orders will be tailored by the courts. They can contain a number of different matters, all directed towards applying to high-risk offenders and protecting victims. The maximum penalty for a breach of a serious domestic abuse prevention order will be five years imprisonment, a $33,000 fine or both. The making of an order will have immediate impacts on licences under the Firearms Act 1996 and the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, similar to the making of an ADVO, which is also appropriate. The bill also introduces an expanded definition of stalking under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 to include electronic monitoring or tracking of a person's activities, communications or movements. Again, that is a modernisation of the definition of stalking and is most appropriate.

One matter of concern, however, is that the bill does not have a definite commencement date. Previously, when bills have been passed by the Minns Government without a definite commencement date, the Government has been very slow to commence their operation. The Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2024, which was passed in June and provides for important matters like electronic monitoring and registrars not deciding bail matters, has not commenced operation yet. The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) and Other Legislation Amendment (Knife Crime) Act 2024, which was also passed in June this year and which was known as Jack's law, has not commenced operation yet. The Opposition is so concerned with the delays in the commencement of operation of the Government's legislation related to law and order that it will move an amendment to the bill to require it to commence on or before 1 December 2024.

I point out a few other matters as to why the Opposition is concerned about the bill. Equally as bad as the Jack's law bill not having commenced is the fact that in budget estimates on 30 August 2024, before Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Justice and Communities, the following evidence was given. On page 62 of the transcript, in response to a question asking when Jack's law would commence, Mr Peter Thurtell said:

I can't tell you that exactly. What I can tell you is if we are commencing a trial in December or November—whenever it is—then I'm not going to turn around and say that we'll be fully operational by January. However, I would suggest in the second half of 2025 it is more realistic that we have much more capability.

That is clear evidence to the Parliament, as recorded by Hansard, that Jack's law will not be fully operational until the second half of next year. We were told that all was okay with the Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2024 and that it was comprehensive. However, this bill directly impacts on domestic violence matters and those June bail amendments in two ways. Firstly, the bill allows for an accused person not to be before a magistrate physically so that audiovisual links can be used for remote bail hearings. Secondly, the bill requires that, if electronic monitoring is ordered, the accused may not leave custody until the electronic monitor is fitted. Those are commonsense amendments, but the question is why were they not included in the original bill when it was introduced to the Parliament?

It is of great concern that magistrates are not yet making all bail decisions. There is still no clear timeline for when those measurers will be implemented and magistrates, not registrars, will be deciding bail. It is not as if we have not tried to assist the Government on those matters. We introduced a bail bill that identified that bail decisions should be taken away from registrars in remote local courts and given exclusively to magistrates, over audiovisual links if necessary. When the Government did not include a provision of that kind in its bail bill, the Opposition raised the issue in question time. On 16 May 2024 the member for Miranda said:

My question is directed to the Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. The Minister's joint media release on Tuesday said that new bail laws would "ensure weekend bail decisions are made by magistrates". But this has been quietly left out of the bill and the second reading speech. Does the Minister support this omission?

The Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault answered:

I thank the member for Miranda for her question and for her colours today, recognising that today is the day to wear orange for the SES. I appreciate the work emergency services do. What a great Minister we have. Turning to the question, I point out to the member for Miranda that there is no need to put that into legislation.

The Speaker then called the Leader of The Nationals and the Premier to order. The Minister continued:

We are absolutely committed to doing that. We do not need legislation to do it and we are working through those issues. The Attorney General has the lead on that. I totally back in what has already been said in that media release and in this place. I have no doubt whatsoever about the fact that in this place we are going to keep women and children safe and hold perpetrators to account.

But the reality is that the bail bill passed in June did not do what the Minister informed the House it would do. In fact, the bill before the House now introduces two provisions to do what the Minister said had already been covered off in the earlier bill. Clearly, that was not just a matter of administration and it did require legislation. That is part of a series of missteps. For example, in 12 months there has not been one prosecution under the Government's 2023 knife crime law that doubled penalties for knife crime—the Criminal Legislation Amendment (Knife Crimes) Bill 2023, which is not Jack's law from this year—in which the new maximum penalty could have been imposed. That is because all of the prosecutions were commenced in the Local Court, under the old maximum penalty, and not in the District Court, where the new maximum penalty could have been imposed.

The Attorney General in budget estimates and in repeated press releases stated that this legislation sends an important message. But what is the message that is being sent if the new legislation is never used in a practical sense? The Opposition most sincerely wants our community, particularly women, to be better protected from domestic violence. But our State needs a government that is serious about implementing its legislation. Unfortunately, I have been able to draw the attention of the House to a number of instances where matters of law and order have not been implemented in a timely fashion by this Government. We need the bill and the measures contained within it to be implemented appropriately and with reasonable expedition. Accordingly, we will support the bill but we will move an amendment to ensure that those changes commence on or before 1 December 2024.

Ms JODIE HARRISON (CharlestownMinister for Women, Minister for Seniors, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault) (14:45:38):

— I contribute to debate on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Earlier this year, when I delivered a ministerial statement in the Chamber on this Government's efforts to address domestic, family and sexual violence, I spoke of the devastating and indelible impact of that violence, particularly when it reaches a horrific peak when a woman is killed by a current or former intimate partner. That is felt first and foremost by victim‑survivors but it is also felt by their families, their friends and the broader community. I spoke of the grief, the rage, the horror and the understandable frustration—frustration that I am sure every member in this place, above politics, shares—felt towards the seemingly intractable nature of this issue.

We know how stubbornly prevalent domestic violence has remained in our society. We have all seen the statistics—after the age of 18, one in four women and one in eight men have experienced violence from an intimate partner or family member. We have seen the harrowing accounting from the Domestic Violence Death Review Team that one-third of the homicides in this State between 2000 and 2022 were domestic violence related. We have heard the testimonies of victim‑survivors—the firsthand accounts of lived experience. In the face of that frustration and those deeply troubling statistics, the temptation to rush through half‑baked and ill-considered reforms is incredibly strong. I said earlier this year that we cannot afford to give in to that temptation and that we need to take the time to get reforms right. In that light, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill.

The bill is a considered step forward in strengthening our State's systemic responses to domestic and family violence and is a signal of our support of victim-survivors. In May, when I spoke about this Government's emergency package, I said that this State needed more and that we needed different. We need more funding for services and more funding for workers but, crucially, different approaches to the prevention of domestic and family violence. That is what the bill delivers. It provides important legislative tools so that we can mitigate the dangers posed by high-risk domestic and family violence perpetrators. It allows us to tailor responses so that we can better hold perpetrators to account. Most importantly, it allows us to better meet the needs of victim-survivors.

In that light, I emphasise the bill's amendment to the definition of "stalking" under section 8 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. The proposed definition makes it clear that monitoring or tracking a person's activities, communications or movements could constitute stalking whether or not the alleged perpetrator contacts or approaches the victim. That amendment brings the statutory definition of stalking closer in line with the lived experiences of victim-survivors in the increasingly online twenty-first century. With that amendment, technology-facilitated tracking and monitoring may also form the basis for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order [ADVO]. As it stands, the maximum penalty for breaching an apprehended violence order [AVO] stands at two years imprisonment, a fine of 50 penalty units, or both. The bill introduces two new aggravated breach offences, carrying higher maximum penalties that are aimed at discouraging and punishing serious breaches which indicate a high risk of potential harm to the protected person.

The offences proposed by the bill will apply only to breaches of an apprehended domestic violence order, reflecting the legislation's effort to specifically target high-risk domestic violence offenders: first, an intentional breach offence for serious or harmful breaches of an ADVO's order; and, second, a persistent breach offence for repeated breaches of an ADVO over a short period of time, reflecting an offender's disregard for the conditions placed on them by the order and, indeed, for the safety of the protected person. In the case of an intentional breach, the accused must have knowingly contravened a prohibition or restriction in an ADVO made against them, and must have intended to cause or have known that their conduct was likely to cause physical or mental harm to the protected person, or cause the protected person to fear for the safety of themselves or others. There is no requirement to prove that the harm or fear was actually caused.

The maximum penalty set out in the bill is three years imprisonment, 100 penalty units, or both. In the case of a persistent breach, the accused must have knowingly contravened an ADVO and have done so on two or more other occasions in the preceding 28 days. The maximum penalty is five years imprisonment, 150 penalty units, or both. I welcome these reforms of the apprehended violence order scheme. It is a clear sign to perpetrators that this Government takes the safety of protected persons very seriously. In that vein, I turn my attention to the proposed introduction of a serious domestic abuse prevention order scheme.

A serious crime prevention order is currently one of the most powerful tools in the State's legal arsenal to prevent or disrupt involvement in organised crime or terrorism. Serious crime prevention orders have been handed down against alleged members of underworld groups, such as the Brothers 4 Life gang and the Rebels motorcycle gang. The proposed scheme builds on the serious crime prevention order framework to target serious or serial domestic violence perpetrators. Under the provisions of the bill the order can be sought against a person who is over the age of 18 years and who, within the past 10 years, has been convicted of two or more domestic violence offences, applying to any domestic relationship, with maximum penalties of seven years imprisonment or more; or has been involved in serious domestic abuse activity.

An order may be sought by the Commissioner of Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions. To grant such an order, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would protect relatives of the offender, former, current or, importantly, potential intimate partners of the offender or, indeed, anyone who has a domestic relationship with that partner by preventing abuse. This marks a difference from an AVO or ADVO, which is targeted towards specific persons.

The application for an order will be heard in the Local Court if the offender has been convicted of at least two domestic violence offences, or in the Supreme Court if the grounds for seeking the order is serious domestic abuse activity. "Serious domestic abuse activity" is defined as "where a person has been charged with an offence that is a "serious domestic violence offence", which is to say an offence under part 3 of the Crimes Act committed against a relative or intimate partner and which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years or more, regardless of whether that person has been tried, acquitted or convicted, including where a conviction is quashed or set aside.

A serious domestic abuse prevention order may impose any condition the court satisfied is reasonable and appropriate in preventing the offender from engaging in domestic abuse. This may include but is not limited to restrictions or prohibitions, such as on the use of social media and dating apps, or the purchase and use of tracking devices. It may also include requirements to notify authorities about a change of circumstances, such as a new residential address or the start of an intimate partner relationship; requirements to report to a police station at certain times; and the imposition of electronic monitoring conditions.

The orders may be imposed for a maximum duration of five years, though there is no barrier to making consecutive serious domestic abuse prevention orders, and the order may be appealed, varied or revoked. Contravening the directions of an order would carry a maximum penalty in line with the contravention of a serious crime prevention order, which is five years imprisonment, 300 penalty units or both. I can certainly think of no stronger signal of how this Government approaches the seriousness of domestic and family violence offences.

I told this place that the emergency package did not represent the culmination of this Government's efforts to address domestic and family violence. I said that the package was the first step on a long journey and that there would be many more steps to come. This bill is one of those steps. As the Attorney General said in his second reading speech, "There will always be work to be done to guard against domestic and family violence." There are no easy solutions. There is no simple fix. There is only progress—progress towards a society where victim‑survivors never have to live in fear in their own homes; progress towards a society where everyone has the ability to leave a bad situation if they need to; and progress towards a society where domestic and family violence is a thing of the past.

I will not stop working to achieve that progress. The Attorney General will not stop working towards it, this Government will not stop working towards it, and I know with absolute certainty that the many thousands of courageous and tireless advocates and practitioners will not stop working towards it. I thank them for their hard work, for the bravery they show every day in telling their stories and for driving change. There is certainly more work to do, and this Government will do that work. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs WENDY TUCKERMAN (Goulburn) (14:55:42):

I make a contribution to debate on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The bill is important, and it is important that the New South Wales Government produces a workable solution to the scourge that is domestic violence in our communities. While I support the bill and the intent behind the bill, I must detail that while this bill fixes problems with the Government's earlier domestic violence legislation, passed in June this year, it may explain why the Government has failed to implement bail decisions by magistrates or electronic monitoring for perpetrators on bail.

In New South Wales alone, approximately 2,500 domestic violence incidents are reported to police every month. However, the issue is not limited to the reporting of incidents because, shockingly, according to Domestic Violence NSW [DVNSW], those numbers likely represent only 40 per cent of actual incidents, due to under‑reporting. These are not just statistics; a report of domestic violence is often the last cry for help from women—our mothers, daughters, sisters and friends. In the Goulburn electorate women contact my office as a last resort, or their friends or family call my office because they desperately want to help women in those situations.

I have been told stories from local women that include ongoing harassment from perpetrators, despite police intervention, women experiencing threats that are worded just so that it does not breach court orders, and even examples of perpetrators who will stand just metres away from an area of an apprehended violence order [AVO] or commandeer public areas such as an entry to a grocery store or car park at a child's soccer game. I have been told personal stories of fear of not knowing where a perpetrator is and without means for authorities to find out the information. Women will flee their homes with just the clothes on their back. These are a few brief reasons that I fully support any measure that seeks to enhance protections for those suffering from domestic abuse. However, it is crucial that the Opposition scrutinises these proposals to ensure that they are not just symbolic gestures but are meaningful and workable changes that will generally enhance the safety and security of those who are at risk.

The bill introduces two new aggravated offences for breaches of apprehended domestic violence orders [ADVO], carrying increased penalties aimed at deterring and punishing those who flagrantly disregard court orders. Specifically, the bill proposes increasing the current maximum penalty for breaching an ADVO to two years in prison, or a $5,500 fine, with a new offence under new section 14 (1A) for breaching ADVOs with the intent to cause harm, which will carry a maximum penalty of three years in prison, a fine of up to $11,000, or both. It also introduces a new offence under new section 14 (1C) for the persistent breach of an ADVO, targeting individuals who show a repeat pattern of violating these orders with a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a fine of up to $16,500, or both.

These are significant penalties. On the surface, they appear to be a strong step forward in protecting victims of domestic violence. However, the reality is far more complicated and less encouraging. Both of the new offences are classified as table 2 offences under the Criminal Procedure Act. That means they will typically be tried summarily in the Local Court unless the prosecution elects to proceed by way of indictment to the District Court. The practical effect of the classification is that the maximum penalty a Local Court can impose is only two years in prison, regardless of the higher penalties legislated. That means that unless prosecutors actively choose to escalate such cases to the District Court, the Government's higher penalties will be effectively false.

We need to only look at the Government's track record to see the flaws in that approach. Take the knife crime laws passed in June 2023, which also promised higher penalties for certain offences. In the year since, not a single case has been prosecuted under the more severe provisions because they, too, require the same decision to proceed. It demonstrates a pattern of introducing tougher penalties on paper without the necessary follow‑through to ensure that they are applied in practice. If the Government is serious about using higher penalties as a deterrent, it must ensure that the cases are consistently escalated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Otherwise, the measures will remain nothing more than hollow promises and headlines.

The bill also introduces a new civil protection order scheme for serious domestic abuse prevention orders modelled on serious crime prevention orders. The measure allows the courts to impose a range of conditions to prevent future domestic violence abuse, including requiring positive actions from the individual subject to the order. It is a more flexible and forward‑looking approach compared to ADVOs, which are a reactive focus on preventing specific actions against known individuals. The proposed scheme could potentially offer greater protection by targeting persons who are at high risk of committing domestic abuse even if they have not been convicted of an offence.

However, I must raise the real and significant concerns about the breadth and application of the scheme. Under the proposed legislation, a serious domestic abuse prevention order can be made not only where there have been relevant convictions in the past seven years but also where there have been charges that did not result in a conviction or even where the accused has been acquitted. That broad application risks imposing severe restrictions on individuals based on unproven allegations. We must be vigilant in ensuring that it does not lead to injustices or the criminalisation of individuals without sufficient evidence.

Moreover, while the orders are designed to protect current, former and potential partners or family members from future domestic abuse, they also raise questions about enforcement. For the orders to be effective, the police must have adequate resources to monitor compliance and respond swiftly to any breaches. Without the necessary resourcing, the scheme could become another well‑intentioned but underfunded initiative that fails to deliver real safety for those at risk. It is also worth noting that breaches of serious domestic abuse protection orders will carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison or $33,000, or both. But, once again, it is a table 1 offence, meaning that, unless the prosecution elects otherwise, any breach will be tried in the Local Court, where the maximum penalty is just two years. It is yet another example of the Government promising tough penalties that may not ever be realised in practice.

The proposed legislation is also supposed to address issues with the Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2024, passed just a few months ago. The earlier Act introduced important measures such as electronic monitoring for those granted bail and the requirement that bail decisions in domestic violence cases be made by magistrates. However, none of the measures have been implemented yet. The Government has cited the need for training and education as reasons for the delay, but it is now clear that the delays were due to flaws in the legislation itself. The new amendments are meant to fix those problems, but we are still left wondering why the issues were not identified and addressed from the outset.

It is deeply troubling that, despite the urgency of those reforms, we have no clear timeline for when they will be implemented. Victims of domestic violence cannot afford to wait while the Government works out the kinks in its legislation. We need protections in place now, not at some unspecified future date. We have to ask ourselves whether the Government truly committed to making its laws operational. We have seen time and again that legislation is passed with much fanfare but then left to languish without being brought into effect. We need to only look at Jack's law, passed in June, which still has not commenced. The same is true for the domestic violence bail laws passed earlier this year. It is not enough to simply pass legislation; the Government must be held accountable for ensuring that laws are implemented and enforced.

The bill is a step in the right direction, but it is only the beginning. If we are to truly protect women and families from the devastating impact of domestic violence, we must ensure that laws are not just words on paper but are fully implemented and enforced. We must provide the police and the courts with the resources they need to hold perpetrators accountable and to keep victims safe. We must remain vigilant in our oversight of those measures to ensure that they are delivering the protections that have been promised. I support the bill because members in this House cannot afford to do nothing in the face of a crisis. That is what our nation is facing and our constituents are demanding serious action. I urge the Government to follow through and implement these laws without delay. Anything less would be unacceptable and a betrayal of the people of New South Wales.

Ms ANNA WATSON (Shellharbour) (15:05:05):

I speak in favour of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Members of this House would know that I am a strong advocate around issues of family and domestic violence. I have been for over 12 years now. Not a week goes past when I do not have one, two or three victims come to my electorate office to see me—from not only my electorate but also neighbouring and other electorates. I give a shout-out to the electorate office [EO] staff who deal with family and domestic violence matters within our offices. It is not easy to listen to those stories, given the magnitude of perpetrators and their relentlessness in perpetrating such crimes. I also give a shout‑out to the people in my office—Dionne Garcia, Jack Rankin and Rob Cummins—who always stand by me when we are dealing with these issues. I again give a shout‑out to every EO across New South Wales because I know they are not easy stories to listen to. But we must act.

The bill marks the next step in our Government's continued commitment to addressing the scourge of domestic and family violence in New South Wales. It strengthens our legislative framework to better protect victim‑survivors, hold perpetrators accountable and ensure that our laws are responsive to the evolving nature of those crimes. The bill seeks to enhance protections for those at risk of family and domestic violence and to ensure that the most dangerous offenders are effectively managed. It builds upon prior reforms such as the Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2024. The bill focuses on strengthening responses to high‑risk domestic violence perpetrators and repeat offenders to address the ongoing risks to victim‑survivors.

At the core of the bill are amendments to the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 introducing two new aggravated offences for breaches of apprehended domestic violence orders, or ADVOs. The new offences are vital to addressing the persistent and intentional violations of ADVOs. The first offence is knowingly contravening an ADVO, which will apply where the breach is intended to cause harm or instil fear. It is punishable by up to three years imprisonment or a fine of $11,000. The second offence is persistent breach of an ADVO. It targets repeated breaches within a short time frame, signalling escalating dangerous behaviour. If an individual contravenes an ADVO three or more times within a 28-day period, they will face up to five years imprisonment or a $16,500 fine.

The penalties reflect the increased risk to victim-survivors posed by individuals who repeatedly ignore the protections of ADVOs. I note the Premier's words calling those perpetrators cowards. That is appropriate because that is exactly what they are: cowards. Additionally, the bill introduces serious domestic abuse prevention orders. Modelled on the laws addressing organised crime, those civil orders allow courts to impose strict conditions on high‑risk offenders—those convicted of multiple domestic violence offences or involved in serious abuse. That will enable targeted intervention, including requirements imposed by the court, such as the requirement to inform police of any dating profiles that the person may create or use.

In today's digital age, the methods of domestic abuse have evolved and our laws must keep pace. The bill modernises the definition of "stalking" to explicitly cover technology-facilitated tracking and monitoring. By expanding the definition, the legislation acknowledges the growing use of GPS trackers, spyware and online surveillance to harass and control victims, ensuring that these tactics are criminalised under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. The bill also addresses a significant issue faced by many victim‑survivors seeking to protect themselves and their children from abusers. We cannot forget the children. We have victims and we have children, and in my view they must be separated. Children face their own trauma in instances of family and domestic violence, and that should be treated as a separate issue specific to young children. If a mother is not well or is not coping, then her children will not either, and that will become a generational problem—members know that.

Current laws around changing a child's name can unintentionally place victims at risk by requiring the involvement of the other parent. The bill will amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to allow a sole parent with court-granted responsibility to change their child's name without further legal action, ensuring a safer and more streamlined process. I am dealing with a victim-survivor at the moment who had to change her whole identity, including her name, her date of birth and her parents' names—everything was changed. She can no longer have contact with her adult children because of what she went through. I would like to see those processes streamlined and made easier. Victim-survivors constantly tell me that our systems do not always work, and many of those doors are shut before they receive the help they need. As the member for Goulburn said in her contribution, there is much more to do. I hope we can do as much as we possibly can in the shortest possible time.

The bill clarifies provisions around electronic monitoring for individuals granted bail for serious domestic violence offences, and prevents registrars from making bail decisions. To me, one of the most outstanding legislative amendments we have made is ensuring that registrars cannot make those decisions. Those offenders must not be released until their monitoring device is properly fitted, preventing gaps in enforcement and ensuring that victim-survivors are protected during this critical period. Recently a domestic violence survivor came to me for assistance, fearful for her safety. She had to change her name and was forced to change location on a number of occasions due to the constant fear of the perpetrator finding her. That is one of many cases in my electorate.

I give a shout-out to the Illawarra Women's Trauma Recovery Centre, the first of its kind in the world. Former health Minister Brad Hazzard provided a $50,000 grant to create a business case to build the first trauma recovery centre not just in New South Wales or Australia but in the world. From that business case, we established a committee attended by professors from the University of Sydney, victim-survivors and the chair of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. The business case took 18 months to create. From there, we secured Federal and State money to build the first trauma recovery centre. I do not see that centre as a pilot; I see it as a blueprint. I would like to see trauma recovery centres in all of our communities. Just as we have libraries, I would like to see trauma recovery centres as normal government buildings. That would send a strong message to the community about how governments deal with family and domestic violence.

We must take more significant steps towards a safer New South Wales. I am proud of the Minns Labor Government not only for getting on with the job of raising awareness about family and domestic violence but also for acting on combating family and domestic violence. The reforms introduced in the bill, alongside ongoing stakeholder consultation, reflect the gravity of domestic violence and the urgent need to address it head-on. These laws are tough but necessary. Together we must ensure that New South Wales leads the way in protecting vulnerable individuals and families. I commend the bill to the House. I urge members to ensure its swift passage through Parliament so we can continue to strengthen the protections for those who most need it.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (15:14:20):

I contribute to debate on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Every member in this place knows that domestic and family violence remains a serious and pervasive issue in New South Wales, as it does across all of Australia. It is a hidden epidemic that leaves lasting physical and emotional scars, and devastates lives. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, women are more than three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner. In New South Wales there are around 2,500 reports of domestic violence to police every month, but this likely only represents about 40 per cent of actual crime levels due to under‑reporting, according to the NSW Council of Social Services. The bill seeks to strengthen our existing laws by closing gaps in the legal framework, providing greater protections to victims and enhancing the tools available to law enforcement and the courts.

The bill introduces two new aggregated offences for certain breaches of an apprehended violence order, or ADVO. This will include a new offence of knowingly breaching an ADVO with intent to cause harm or fear, and a new offence for repeated breaches of an ADVO. The bill will also introduce a serious domestic abuse prevention order for the worst alleged offenders, modelled on laws used for notorious gangsters and organised crime. This will apply where a person is over the age of 18 years, has a conviction or charges within the past 10 years of a serious nature, and there are reasonable grounds to believe an order would protect current, former or potential partners from domestic abuse. The making of a serious domestic abuse prevention order would have an immediate impact on licences under the firearms and weapons prohibition Acts.

I note that the bill seeks to modernise the definition of "stalking" and that it will be amended to more clearly cover technology-facilitated tracking or monitoring conduct. We know that stalking is a prevalent component of domestic and family violence. It is insidious, and often victims do not even realise they are being stalked through technology at the time of it occurring. This is one of the areas where coercive control can be incredibly powerful. It prevents people from seeking help, particularly women, and it prevents people from accessing support services. I will recognise the services in my own community that have advocated for these changes. I will also talk about some of the ways in which they support women to access help. I am conscious of the fact that lot of the ways we support women to access help are secretive, because women must be secretive when they are trying to free themselves from oppressive relationships. They exist in a state of fear.

The riskiest time for a woman experiencing violence, even if it is emotional or psychological abuse, is when they try to leave a relationship and find safety and freedom. That risk is incredibly heightened. That is often when we see it escalate to physical violence, and particularly homicide or the death of women. Some of my local organisations have initiated different types of activities to ensure that women can seek help. It might be that they have installed computers and phone lines in regular community environments so that women who are victims of domestic violence can access the internet on safe browsers or phone lines to make calls to support services, to plan their exit, to organise support services for their children, or even to connect with their families and tell them about the violence they have experienced. Those types of services are crucial.

The challenge for us is ensuring that not too many people know about the support services so that they become unsafe for the people trying to access them, but also that they are well known enough that the people who need the support services know they exist. I give a shout-out to the Daisy Centre in particular. Mary's House is a community‑initiated refuge in my community. It takes women and families—so women with children—into its refuge. A number of years after forming the refuge, Mary's House founded the Daisy Centre, which is a non‑residential centre and organisation that helps women planning an escape from these environments and women who have already achieved that escape. There is access to support services and connections, counselling, community, fellowship, group sessions and support. The centre provides people with support to fill out application forms for grants and housing.

Transcription in progress…