Get Involved - Parliament

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026

Published on: May 2026

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-165365

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 13 May 2026.

Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (14:31:52):

On behalf of the New South Wales Opposition, I make a contribution to the second reading debate on the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026. From the outset, I outline that the New South Wales Opposition will not oppose this good character bill that has been introduced to Parliament by the Attorney General. Let me be clear: The Opposition's preferred position to provide the removal of good character as a mitigating factor for sexual assault cases was supported by the Parliament early this month. Had the Government listened to the concerns raised by eminent bodies such as Legal Aid NSW, the NSW Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales and Domestic Violence NSW we perhaps would not find ourselves debating a bill like this for a second time. The Attorney General and the Government need to listen to stakeholders in a genuine manner and not play politics with serious issues. That is why we are back in the Chamber debating a bill again. But I am pleased to say that the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

However, given the Government's position to introduce a new bill, the Opposition does not want to see it tied up unnecessarily in parliamentary process. The Opposition sought further information from the Government about key issues raised by additional stakeholders, including the Aboriginal Legal Service and Domestic Violence NSW. I put on record that the Government has now given assurances that the issue of misidentification—a concern raised by key stakeholders through the independent inquiry process and by the Opposition in Parliament—will now be addressed through a separate process. We welcome that.

I thank Sarah, a young lady from the Central Coast, who reached out to give me her support and to ask that I consider her feelings. Sarah wrote a letter about her husband, Nathan, whom I had the pleasure of meeting in November 2024. She wrote to me, as her local member of Parliament, about protecting the victims of crime. I put on record my thanks to Sarah for her heartfelt correspondence. The Opposition remains steadfastly committed to giving a voice to people ignored by the Government, and trusts that the Government will now work in good faith to address the genuine concerns outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026. The Opposition hopes that, in the future, the Minns Labor Government will leave politics at the door. Given what we saw during today's question time, that probably will not be the case. But we have put the Government on notice. They need to treat serious matters such as this with the respect, dignity and consultation they deserve.

Again, members are back in the Chamber debating a bill because the Government was not listening to key stakeholders such as Legal Aid NSW, the NSW Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales and Domestic Violence NSW. These organisations are key stakeholders and need to be treated with respect. Sadly, the Government did not do that. But I am pleased that, after a short time, the Opposition has decided not to oppose the good character amendment bill brought forward by the Government.

Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee) (14:35:39):

I make a brief contribution to debate on the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026. Before I get into outlining my substantial support for the bill, I state that while I welcome the Opposition's step forward in not opposing the bill, I am pretty gobsmacked that we are again back in the Chamber debating this. I implore the Opposition to support the bill in its entirety. The bill is deeply personal for me. Last year, on 14 December, the eastern suburbs community experienced the worst terrorist attack our country has ever seen. Fifteen people were murdered. Nineteen charges of attempted murder have been laid against the perpetrator. Due to the way the Opposition gutted the first bill—in concert with The Greens and Mark Latham in the upper House—the perpetrator will be able to put forward a good character reference, which I find absolutely deplorable. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vaucluse, to stand with her community in the eastern suburbs. I ask her to support the bill, not to simply oppose it, and to look after the victims and survivors in our community who were brutalised last year. She has an opportunity to do that, and I call on her to do that.

I support the bill because it makes sentencing fairer, clearer and more consistent while recognising the real harm that references to an offender's so-called good character can cause victims. This reform is designed to remove an outdated concept without preventing courts from considering the factors that matter in sentencing, such as a lack of prior convictions, rehabilitation, and the risk of reoffending. Too often, victim-survivors are forced to sit through proceedings where the focus shifts away from the offence and onto the standing, reputation or social respectability of the person who committed a crime. That is not justice. It is not what communities expect from our courts. The problem with good character as a mitigating factor is that it is vague, inconsistently applied and difficult to justify in principle.

The NSW Sentencing Council concluded that good character lacks an empirical foundation and is often conflated with other sentencing considerations that make it redundant and confusing in practice. In plain terms, the law should not reward someone simply because they were seen as a respectable person before they offended. This reform matters because the impact of good character evidence is not abstract. Victims frequently experience such references as retraumatising as they can diminish the seriousness of offending in the eyes of the court and the community. This is particularly stark where there is an abuse of trust, coercion or family violence, and it is why the continued availability of this factor has been troubling to many victim-survivors and advocates.

I also support the bill because it preserves what is genuinely relevant while removing what is not. Courts will still be able to consider evidence relating to lack of previous convictions, prospects of rehabilitation and likelihood of reoffending. They will still be able to assess the whole person. But they will no longer attach special moral weight to a person's reputation in a way that has too often obscured the offence itself. The approach in the bill is both principled and practical. It avoids the inconsistency created by the earlier version of the bill, which removed good character only for sexual offences and left open the possibility of the same harmful narrative surviving in connected offending, including domestic violence assault. This legislation corrects that inconsistency by abolishing good character as a mitigating factor across all offences so victims are not exposed to the same damaging argument depending on how the charge is framed.

I also note the value of the statutory review in two years. That provides a sensible safeguard, particularly in relation to the special rule for child sexual offences and the operation of the reforms in domestic and family violence matters. It means Parliament can monitor the effect of the changes and make adjustments if needed, rather than leaving the issue unresolved or deferred indefinitely. The bill sends a clear message that sentencing should focus on conduct, harm and accountability, not on the status or respectability of a person. It aligns the law with modern community expectations and with the voices of those who have long called for reform. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Ms TAMARA SMITH (Ballina) (14:40:46):

I contribute to debate on the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026. The law as it stands, thanks to The Greens' amendments to the previous bill, strikes the right balance. It protects victim-survivors of sexual crimes from seeing their perpetrators given lesser sentences on the basis of good character, whilst maintaining judicial discretion in other cases. We are disappointed that the New South Wales Opposition leader has completely backflipped on the position her party took just two weeks ago. The bill before us retains a grave risk of criminalising victims of domestic violence, First Nations people, peaceful protesters and other vulnerable people. We are hopeful that the Attorney General is correct in saying that the bill will not impact the ability to prove other mitigating factors in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, and that references can still be put forward to prove other mitigating factors. The Greens' position remains unchanged since the debate on the previous version of this bill passed just two weeks ago. The law as it stands strikes the right balance.

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect) (14:41:48):

I support the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026. Harrison James was 13 years old the first time he was sexually abused. He carried that sentence with him in silence for years. When he came forward, he trusted that the justice system would respond. Of course, it did, with a prosecution and conviction. But then sentencing began. Harrison sat in that courtroom and listened as witnesses told the judges what a good person his abuser was, with his reputation and his community contributions. Under the law, the judge was required to weigh that evidence and even reduce the sentence because of it. Harrison James and Jarad Grice lived through that experience. They turned their pain into purpose and founded the Your Reference Ain't Relevant campaign. Joined by the courageous advocates Martha Jabour and the Homicide Victims Support Group, and Duncan Wakes-Miller and the Road Trauma Support Group, they fought to protect others from the same experience.

The bill amends the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, or the CSPA, to enact the good character reforms introduced to this Parliament in February of this year. On the recommendation of the NSW Sentencing Council, the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character at Sentencing) Bill 2026—the original bill—was put forward by the Government to abolish good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all offences. However, the Legislative Council amended it to remove good character only for sexual offences. The Government did not delay those reforms, which passed Parliament on 7 May 2026. But those reforms, as amended, do not go far enough.

I acknowledge the efforts of the Attorney General to ensure this reform is implemented. I also acknowledge the Hon. Peter McClellan, AM, KC, and the members of the NSW Sentencing Council for their extensive consultation and review of this legislation. Most importantly, I acknowledge the resilience and courage of Harrison James, Jarad Grice, Martha Jabour, Duncan Wakes-Miller and all victim-survivors driving this reform. In August 2023 Harrison submitted a petition to the Legislative Council, seeking to remove good character as a mitigating factor in child sexual offence sentencing. In September 2023 the Attorney General requested the Department of Communities and Justice to undertake a review of the use of good character.

Due to the complexity demonstrated in the submissions to the department's review, on 11 April 2024 the Attorney General tasked the NSW Sentencing Council with a review. The Sentencing Council—an independent body of judges, prosecutors, criminal defence lawyers, victims' advocates, police and community representatives—received 85 preliminary submissions and a further 169 submissions after its consultation paper. It published its final report on 1 February 2026, handing down recommendation 3.1 (1)—to abolish good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all offence types at common law and under statute.

On 4 February 2026 the Government introduced the original bill, which this House passed on 10 February. On the same day, the original bill was referred by the Legislative Council to an inquiry by Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Justice and Communities. The committee's only recommendation was that the Legislative Council proceed to debate the bill. The original bill passed Parliament on 12 May 2026 with substantial amendments. Chiefly, those amendments confined the reform to sexual offences, leaving good character available for murderers, domestic abusers and dangerous drivers who kill. That was not good enough. Our Government introduced this legislation to override most of the measures in the amended version of the original bill and abolish good character as a mitigating factor for all offences. Today the Liberals and The Nationals have abandoned their position. They have backflipped—better late than never, but victim-survivors should not have been made to wait.

Ryan v The Queen

A mitigating factor is something a court must weigh in an offender's favour when deciding on an appropriate sentence. The NSW Sentencing Council found that "good character" is inherently subjective and uncertain, and that there is no settled definition of what good character is. However, under section 21A (3) (f) of the CSPA, courts are required to treat an offender's good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing. That principle is embedded in the common law, confirmed by the High Court of  [2001] HCA 21. In the case of Ryan, the High Court held that if an offender is found to be otherwise of good character, the sentencing judge is bound to take it into account. Ryan was a priest who committed serial sexual abuse against boys in his parish. His standing as a man of faith gave him access to his victims and silenced them. At sentencing, he sought to deploy that same standing to reduce his penalty. The High Court divided sharply on how much weight that standing should carry, and the very fact that the question was live at all illustrates how the law is failing victim‑survivors.

The Sentencing Council identified five grounds for the abolition of good character. Firstly, the concept is vague, inherently subjective and inconsistently applied. Secondly, mitigating a sentence on the offender's perceived moral worth is not justified. Sentencing should focus on the nature of the offending, the harm caused and assessments of future risk to our community. Thirdly, there is no reliable empirical evidence that good character can predict rehabilitation and risk of reoffending. Fourthly, it causes re-traumatisation of victim‑survivors. Fifthly, it entrenches structural inequality. It is more readily available to those with professional connections and social capital, meaning sentencing may be influenced by factors that have nothing to do with the criminal offending.

The Coalition argued that confining the reform to sexual offences was proportionate. It was not. Sexual offences are frequently committed alongside domestic violence offences. Under the amended original bill, good character is abolished for the sexual assault charge but remains available for the accompanying domestic violence assault. That would result in inconsistent sentencing outcomes and expose the victim to re-traumatisation. The victim would still have to hear their perpetrator's standing used in the person's defence: that how their abuser hurt them matters a little bit less because they were a principal solicitor or donated to charity. That is not proportionate.

A perpetrator of domestic violence and coercive control presents a public face that conceals their true character. Under the old law, that public face was precisely what good character evidence captured and placed before the court. The Sentencing Council found that good character in domestic violence cases can reinstate the power imbalances that existed within the relationship. It does not just re-traumatise; it re-enacts the dynamic of the offending itself. One woman who fled domestic violence put it plainly in her submission. From the moment she first spoke to police, she knew her abuser's good character would dominate formal proceedings. She said:

pillarothecommunity facade would have been paramount to

His … -f--painting the picture he was a loving and caring partner. Whilst who he truly is behind closed doors would not be considered or believed.

Extension of time

I now address key amendments in the bill. Schedule 1 [3], [4], [6] and [7] repeal the reforms made by the original bill, which confined the abolishment of good character to sexual offences. Item [3] specifically repeals section 21A (3) (f) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, including the amendments made by the original bill. In effect, this abolishes good character as a mitigating factor that the court must consider. It also repeals section 21A (3A) inserted by the original bill, which gave courts a discretion to give good character no weight, an approach the Sentencing Council identified as completely inadequate. []

Ryan v R

Item [6] inserts new section 21A (5D) to expressly abolish the common-law principle affirmed in the High Court case of , removing good character as a mitigating factor. It also inserts new sections 21A (5E) and (5F) to clarify that while courts cannot consider evidence adduced solely to establish good character, they may consider relevant evidence for other sentencing purposes. This may include lack of prior convictions under section 21A (3) (e), likelihood of reoffending under section 21A (3) (g) and prospects of rehabilitation under section 21A (3) (h). This ensures courts retain the ability to assess the whole person without the moral weighting good character carries.

R v Kennedy

What Harrison experienced is not unique. The Sentencing Council heard from another victim-survivor who described hearing references to her perpetrator's good character as extremely traumatising, especially after her own character had been challenged by the defence. The courts could see the problem. In , the Court of Criminal Appeal held that little or no weight should be given to good character where an offender's community standing helped facilitate the offence. The bill codifies that discretion.

Prospect is one of the most diverse electorates in the State. We represent communities where cultural expectations often demand silence, where a family's honour and shame can make it harder for a victim of crime to come forward, where a victim is often already doubted and where an offender's standing in a community or history of good deeds can carry enormous weight. Under the old law, that standing could enable a person to walk into a courtroom and have their sentenced softened. Sentencing is not a form of social accounting. The bill provides a balanced end to that.

In conclusion, the journey of this reform—a petition in 2023, a referral to the Sentencing Council, an exhaustive review, and legislation that was introduced and then watered down by the upper House before being reintroduced—reflects the persistence of victim-survivors who refused to accept a system that valued an offender's reputation over the suffering of a survivor. No convicted offender in New South Wales should be able to stand in a sentencing courtroom and use their community standing to reduce the consequence of the harm they caused. I urge every member in this place and the other place to act with that in mind today. Once again, I commend the courage of Jarad, Harrison, Martha, Duncan and all who have endured good-character sentencing. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms KAREN McKEOWN (Penrith) (14:54:46):

I feel compelled to speak in strong support of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about fairness, integrity in sentencing and—above all—about listening to victim-survivors. For too long, our justice system has allowed an offender's so-called good character to operate as a mitigating factor in a way that can diminish the lived reality of serious harm. Sentencing should turn on the offence, the harm done and the purposes of justice, not on reputation, status or whether an offender can attract impressive character references. The reform is necessary, principled and long overdue. The concept of good character is not only vague; it is uneven in its operation and unfair in its effect. It can favour those with social standing, professional status or community influence while doing little to advance the real task of sentencing. It risks elevating perceptions of respectability above the actual circumstances of offending. That undermines confidence in equal justice.

In a fair system, a sentence should not be more lenient because an offender is well regarded, articulate or able to call on influential supporters. Justice must be equal in substance, not merely equal in theory. Most importantly, we must confront the harm this concept can cause to victim-survivors. In cases involving sexual violence, child sexual abuse, domestic and family violence and abuse of trust, hearing an offender described in court as a person of "good character" can be profoundly re-traumatising. It can feel as though the system is asking victim-survivors to sit silently while the person who harmed them is praised. It can minimise the seriousness of the offending, obscure the abuse of power that often lies at its heart and leave victim-survivors feeling unseen by the very system meant to deliver justice.

This Parliament should not accept a framework that deepens that pain. We should be building a justice system that recognises harm clearly, treats victim-survivors with dignity and avoids compounding trauma through outdated sentencing concepts. Importantly, the bill does not ask courts to ignore relevant evidence, nor does it weaken the proper exercise of judicial discretion. Courts will still be able to consider a lack of previous convictions, the likelihood of reoffending, prospects of rehabilitation and other matters directly relevant to sentencing. What the bill does is remove the distinct and problematic proposition that moral reputation, standing or perceived decency should itself reduce penalty. That is a careful reform. It preserves what is genuinely relevant, while removing what is unjust, uncertain and too often harmful and re-traumatising. The bill is also stronger because it applies across all offences. That is the coherent and honest approach.

The harm caused by the use of good character is not confined to one offence category, and victim‑survivors do not experience trauma in neat legislative silos. In many matters, particularly those involving domestic and family violence, sexual offending may occur alongside other offences. If good character remained available for some offences but not others, victim‑survivors could still be subjected to the same distressing narrative that their perpetrator is somehow—even though convicted—a good person. The bill addresses that problem directly. It promotes consistency in sentencing law and sends a clear message that reputation must not outweigh harm.

The bill also includes an important statutory review to commence two years after the reforms begin. That safeguard is significant. It will allow careful examination of how the changes operate in practice, including in domestic and family violence matters and in relation to the continuing operation of the special rule concerning lack of previous convictions in child sexual offence cases. That review reflects a sensible approach: determined reform, but also accountable reform. It ensures that as we improve the law for victim‑survivors and strengthen confidence in sentencing, we also remain attentive to how the changes are working in practice.

The bill is the result of substantial consultation, independent review and sustained advocacy, including from victim‑survivors who have spoken with courage about the way the issue has impacted and affected them. Their voices matter, and this reform answers them. It will make sentencing in New South Wales fairer, clearer and more principled. More than that, it will help ensure that our laws do not add to the burden carried by those who have already suffered serious harm. This Parliament should be clear about where it stands: with equal justice, with victim‑survivors and with a sentencing framework that reflects the seriousness of offending rather than the status of the offender. I thank the Attorney General for bringing the legislation back before House. I support the bill wholeheartedly, and I commend it to the House.

Mr MICHAEL KEMP (Oxley) (15:01:37):

I contribute to debate on the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026. I am glad that we have landed where we have. If someone commits a crime, they are accountable under the law. No amount of prior good deeds, community involvement or perceived moral standing should ever be used to soften the consequences of that offending. It has an effect on the victim. Good character is not a shield. It is not a shortcut. It should not result in leniency or act as a get‑out‑of‑jail card. If a person is found guilty, are we actually talking about good character?

The bill removes good character as a mitigating factor in sentencing by amending the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and abolishing the common law principle that has allowed it to be used in that way. In my opinion, the change is well overdue. For too long we have had a system where the focus drifts away from the victim and back onto the offender's reputation. What about the victim's reputation? An offender's good standing in the community cannot somehow balance out a serious criminal act. That is just not possible. For victims, it can be confronting and at times insulting to sit in a courtroom and hear the person who has harmed them described as having a good character. We then forget how much harm has been done to the victim. I do not want to stand by while that harm is minimised. It undermines confidence that the justice system is focused on what it is named for: justice.

Victims should not have to sit through proceedings where a person's reputation is used to soften the consequences of their offending. Offenders are sentenced for what they did and how they did it, not for how they were perceived before they did it. The Sentencing Council report recommended that good character be abolished as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all offences. Several concerns have been raised. I agree that the concept of good character is inherently vague. It is subjective and difficult to determine. There is no evidence that good character reliably predicts rehabilitation or a reduced risk of reoffending. I focus on that.

A person can make a mistake in doing something that is against the law. That is classified as an offence. They should not escape the prescribed punishment for that offence just because they were of good character in the past. There is increased harm to victims who have to hear how good the perpetrator was and how minimal the offence was. The potential for inequality during sentencing is another major point. Some people have more access to good character references than others. Plenty of people in my electorate come from a low socio‑economic environment and have less easy access to good character references. It advantages those with higher social standing or perceived respectability.

The legislation is not about removing fairness from either the court process or sentencing. Courts will still consider everything that actually matters in determining a just sentence: whether someone has prior convictions, whether they are likely to reoffend, whether they have genuine prospects of rehabilitation and all relevant personal circumstances. Nothing in the bill stops a court from doing its job properly, which is really important. However, it stops good character being used as a vague, catch‑all reason to reduce the accountability of a person who has offended and been found guilty.

I note the concerns raised by the Aboriginal Legal Service and Domestic Violence NSW, particularly around domestic and family violence and the risk of misidentifying the perpetrator. Those are serious concerns. My electorate has a high rate of domestic violence. Misidentification is not theoretical; it is real and can have real consequences. That is why it is critical that those issues are addressed properly through separate processes and are not blurred into the sentencing reform, where they do not belong. The Government has indicated that work will continue in that space, and it must follow through with that commitment. We cannot afford a system where the wrong person is blamed or where sentencing principles unintentionally add to harm. We also cannot maintain a system where an offender's reputation is allowed to soften the response to serious criminal conduct.

This reform is needed because it draws a clear line. Sentencing is actually about the conduct, the consequences of the action and the harm, not the offender's reputation. If someone commits a crime, they face the consequences. Those consequences should reflect what was actually done, not how someone was seen in their community beforehand. Good character does not undo the harm. It does not lessen the pain—if anything, it actually enforces it. It should not reduce accountability. The bill strengthens clarity and consistency in sentencing. It ensures that the focus stays where it belongs: on the offence and on the victim. For those reasons, I do not oppose the bill.

Ms JACQUI SCRUBY (Pittwater) (15:07:42):

The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026 amends the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to prevent good character from being taken into account as a mitigating factor in determining sentences for offences and related purposes. I acknowledge, as the Attorney General outlined in his second reading speech, that the earlier Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character at Sentencing) Bill 2026 was restricted in the other place to apply only to sentencing in relation to sexual offences, along with other amendments. This bill removes good character as a mitigating factor for more offences.

I acknowledge and accept the recommendations of the Sentencing Council, which go beyond sexual offences. Good character is recognised as a vague concept. I go further and call it arcane and institutionalised privilege. Take the example of X, who commits a break and enter offence and also commits a domestic violence offence in the process. X heads over to his lawyer and is told to get some references from family and friends to say that he is a good bloke. That is just not acceptable. It does not have the support of the public—which this bill does. An exception to the concept of good character was made in 2008 to exclude child sexual offences. The Government's earlier bill addressed sexual assault. I acknowledge today the advocacy of Harrison James, Jarad Grice and the Your Reference Ain't Relevant campaign, and I recognise all of the work they have done to get the bill to this point. The bill takes the rationale to its logical conclusion to ensure that good character cannot be used as a tool in sentencing for other serious offences, such as murder and domestic violence offences. Victims of all serious crimes that this bill addresses, not just sexual and child sexual assault crimes, must be acknowledged and heard.

Good character at sentencing report

I take a moment to appreciate chapter 4 of the  and the dissenting opinion. I acknowledge there are genuine concerns in relation to lower moral culpability, encouragement of rehabilitation, proportionality and individualised sentencing; that good character may suggest a reduced risk of reoffending or rehabilitation; and other considerations outlined on pages 57 to 61 of the report. However, the Attorney General has assured this House that the bill will not stop the courts considering an offender's life, trauma or disadvantage and that it will not stop the courts from considering all other relevant factors. I reinforce the original sentencing report I mentioned, and the Government should monitor this.

The bill provides consistency for the courts in their approach to all offences. I also acknowledge, from the point of view of my electorate, that the Attorney General made observations about the rise of domestic violence across the State. Domestic violence and related offences are trending up on the northern beaches, and they are higher than they were in 2016. Stable is not a good trend for those crimes, and the count is up from 337 from January 2024 to January 2025 to 443 domestic violence related assault offences from January 2025 to December 2025. Sexual assaults on the northern beaches are also up by 9.1 per cent over 10 years.

No-one, especially victims, wants to hear about how good a bloke or person someone found guilty of these offences is. I also acknowledge the submissions read by the Attorney General in his second reading speech, particularly that of the Community Restorative Centre, which observed that, in its experience, this special consideration generally benefits middle-class white men. It is a privilege factor that cannot be underestimated, as noted by members of this Houses and others who have made submissions or contributions to the debate over time, including the NSW Aboriginal Women's Advisory Network and the Victims of Crime Assistance League. We know that narcissists, sociopaths and many other offenders purposely cover their offences or behaviours by acting in a way that makes people perceive them as good blokes, further undermining the use of good character references. The bill addresses the power imbalance while supporting victims who should not have to hear how about good their abuser is during sentencing. The bill also now covers other offences, particularly domestic violence and other violent and serious crimes. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (15:12:24):

I contribute to debate on the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026, considering the legislation before the House today and also reflecting on the legislation that passed the Legislative Council on 12 May 2026. I acknowledge from the outset that the individuals who experience the trauma of being a victim and going through the justice system deserve the significant respect and consideration of this House. We need to make good decisions on their behalf. We must ensure that the primacy of justice for victims is at the heart of our justice system, but we acknowledge that it is an incredibly complex system. When we think about the ways in which those who have perpetrated crimes come to that position, particularly considering their histories, their socio-economic backgrounds and the antecedents that have led them to that point, we need to ensure the system considers the whole person.

The Opposition supported the legislation that passed Legislative Council on 12 May 2026 to ensure that good character references are removed from all sexual offences but there is judicial discretion for any other cases. We did so following the advice that came not just out of the Sentencing Council but from a range of different stakeholders and groups that were concerned about whether or not the bill would extend to other parts of our society. I refer in particular to two of those groups today. Obviously, we should think about the impact on Aboriginal people, who are already over-represented in our judicial systems and corrections centres. I reflect on some advice from the Aboriginal Legal Service and from Domestic Violence NSW, two stakeholders whose caution I wanted to put on record. I note that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation before the House today, but I want to ensure that the voices of those who have expressed their concerns to us are reflected in this House so that, when we think about the way in which we deal with our justice system, we reflect on the voices of those who are most involved in it.

Victim-survivors have run an incredibly powerful campaign that we are all aware of. The Your Reference Ain't Relevant campaign has ensured that we understand how perpetrators can often feel praised while victims can be left to feel minimised or invisible. The Opposition fundamentally agrees with that proposition, and we acknowledge that victim-survivors of domestic and family violence and also sexual violence often experience a lack of power in the justice system. They experience the system as being very slow, distressing and minimising of their experience. We want to ensure that changes to the judicial system reflect their experiences as well. I note that Domestic Violence NSW, in its submissions to the Sentencing Council's work, noted that perpetrators of domestic violence frequently publicly present as good guys. Members have heard that they can be narcissistic personalities who maybe surround themselves with individuals who will never believe what happens behind closed doors, and hearing good character material in court can undermine a victim-survivor's experience and minimise the harms suffered. Those are serious concerns.

We want to ensure that courts are not blind to an offender's background and circumstances, but we also want to ensure that good character is not a vague, moralised or sometimes even offensive label that can be used to suggest that a person's reputation, perceived by certain people in their lives, should outweigh the harm that they have inflicted. Our courts need to be able to make sure that they can consider matters that are relevant to sentencing, including an offender's prospect of rehabilitation. That will include things like their personal history and the context of their offending, and courts should ensure sentencing is always individualised and proportionate to reflect the crime that has been committed and its impacts. But we also need to ensure that the circumstances of the offender are incorporated in decision-making.

The legislation seeks to preserve that principle. It will ensure courts cannot consider evidence that is adduced solely for the purpose of establishing good character, but courts can still consider such evidence for broader sentencing or another purpose or principle. That is the right intent, and we need to ensure that intent is lived out in the way this legislation is played out in our judicial system. In my role as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I look to the words of the Aboriginal Legal Service, and it has been quite clear in its concerns about the way this will impact Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal Legal Service of New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory cautioned against any reforms that would unduly restrict judicial discretion. It warned that there are potentially disproportionate impacts on Aboriginal people who are already within the criminal justice system or who will appear in the future. Its submission to the Sentencing Council argued that good character evidence can be interwoven with other sentencing considerations, and any blanket restrictions may have unintended consequences. The Aboriginal Legal Service provided further advice following the legislation that was passed on the 12 May. In its view:

The new bill disregards the concerns raised by the ALS and numerous other expert stakeholders with frontline expertise, including Domestic Violence NSW, the Aboriginal Women's Advisory Network, Legal Aid NSW, the Public Defenders and the NSW Bar Association.

The concerns it has outlined are not only about the impacts of the bill. They outline concerns that the stakeholders who have the most experience in the judicial system have not been consulted. It is the responsibility of the Attorney General and this Government to ensure, particularly when they are making such profound changes, that they engage with those stakeholders to ensure that they shape legislation that is appropriate for New South Wales. The Aboriginal Legal Service goes on to say:

If passed, the new bill would prevent any person from relying on evidence that their conduct was out of character or incongruous with their level of service or contributions to their community. This would apply even in less serious matters falling into the category of 'survival crime', such as shoplifting food, or charges related to a person's experiences of homelessness or poverty, such as trespassing to find a safe place to sleep, public urination, fare evasion, or driving with a suspended licence.

All members came to an agreement regarding sexual assault and sexual violence trials. The issue is whether or not good character should be applied to minor offences, which may see the further incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are already grossly over-represented in the criminal justice system. I want to ensure that this principle raised by the Aboriginal Legal Service is on the record in considering this legislation.

I note that the bill allows for a statutory review, so I encourage the Aboriginal Legal Service to continue to make representations to the Attorney General and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty. I will also continue to listen to, and work with, the Aboriginal Legal Service. One of the concerns it highlighted is that the client cohorts of Aboriginal people are not distinct. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research data shows that 85 per cent of Aboriginal women charged with domestic and family violence offences have previously been identified by police as victim‑survivors of DFV. The Opposition notes that the top five offences with which New South Wales police charge Aboriginal women represented by the Aboriginal Legal Service are all domestic and family violence offences. When thinking about whether or not the system ensures that alleged perpetrators are not victims, we need to reflect on and consider the person's whole context and the consequences of their circumstances.

I encourage the Government to reach out and engage with relevant organisations to ensure that when the statutory review comes around, the evidence and advice of those at the coalface of the incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are incorporated—particularly Aboriginal women, who are grossly over-represented when it comes to domestic and family violence charges. That being said, as has already been noted, the Opposition will not frustrate the passing of the bill through this House. While the Opposition is disappointed that Government members did not get this legislation right—that is the job of a government, after all—we encourage them to reflect on this and legislate better when bringing bills to this House in the future, particularly when looking at significant multi-century statute and common-law principles, such as the way sentencing is undertaken.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (MaroubraAttorney General) (15:22:01):

— In reply: I thank the following members for their contributions to the debate: the member for Coogee, the member for Prospect, the member for Penrith, the member for Terrigal, the member for Ballina, the member for Oxley, the member for Pittwater and the member for North Shore. The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character) Bill 2026 removes good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all offences. The Government has made it clear that it considers that reforms to abolish good character as a mitigating factor for only sexual offences do not go far enough. Abolishing good character references for all offences responds to the recommendations of the NSW Sentencing Council, which found that it is not justifiable for good character to mitigate a sentence for any offence in New South Wales today. It also ensures that victim-survivors and their families are spared the trauma of hearing about how their perpetrators are good people.

As I have highlighted previously, the Sentencing Council is an independent advisory body made up of 16 members, including retired judicial officers, members with experience in criminal law or sentencing, a member with expertise or experience in Aboriginal justice matters, a member with experience in matters associated with victims of crime, community members, a member with expertise or experience in juvenile justice, and a member with relevant academic or research experience or expertise. After an extensive review, including multiple rounds of consultation with a diverse range of stakeholders, the majority of the Sentencing Council reached the conclusion that good character should no longer be a mitigating factor at sentencing. Two members dissented, and the Government has spoken extensively about the issues they raised. But a decision of the majority of the Sentencing Council is a decision of the Sentencing Council, and all remaining members of the council agreed with the ultimate conclusion that good character should be abolished as a mitigating factor at sentencing.

The Sentencing Council found that the concept of good character is inherently subjective, vague and uncertain, and relies on notions of reputation and moral standing that should have no bearing on the sentence that is imposed for an offence. There is no reliable evidence that an offender's prior good character has predictive value for their prospects of rehabilitation and whether they will reoffend. Further, many victims and victims groups have highlighted that the use of good character evidence at sentencing is re-traumatising, minimises their experience and perpetuates systemic harms. While this is a significant issue for victims of sexual offences, it can also be deeply traumatic for the victims of other offences and their families, like victim-survivors of domestic abuse and the families of victims of horrific offences like homicide and dangerous driving offences that cause death. This bill will ensure that they are also spared this trauma.

I respond to some matters raised by the Legislation Review Committee in its most recent digest of 26 May 2026. Firstly, I note that the committee commented on the fact that the bill makes amendments to an Act that has not yet commenced and that this may create uncertainty about the legal effect of the amendments. However, as the committee concluded, the Government has expressed a clear intent to enact the reforms under the amending Act and to expand the reforms to all offences, and that the bill and the amending Act would both commence on proclamation, giving the Executive flexibility in timing the commencement to ensure that the effect of the amendments is clear to individuals.

Secondly, the committee commented that the bill may impose constraints on judicial discretion. I note that the member for North Shore made a similar point when she referred to stakeholders, including the Aboriginal Legal Service. The bill makes it clear that although an offender can no longer rely on good character to mitigate their sentence, evidence of their subjective case would remain admissible if it is relevant to another sentencing consideration. This evidence will continue to provide the courts with a framework for assessing individualised justice, without recourse to the problematic moral and reputational weighing traditionally associated with good character.

Thirdly, the committee commented on the retrospectivity of the reforms. However, it appropriately acknowledged that the retrospective application of laws, as proposed in the bill, is consistent with the general rule that offenders must be sentenced in accordance with the sentencing practices and patterns at the time of sentencing. Finally, the committee commented on the bill commencing on proclamation. This is critical to ensure that implementation measures, including training, can be progressed prior to this reform commencing—something that has been raised as an important factor by a number of stakeholders, including in the domestic and family violence sector.

The member for Terrigal suggested that the Government had failed to engage in meaningful stakeholder consultation—incredible!—and had not listened to stakeholders on the bill. Let me be very clear that the bill was subject to full public consultation. The Sentencing Council received and published 169 submissions. The entire rationale and evidence base for the bill was made publicly available in the Sentencing Council report. The Government, along with the Sentencing Council, took into account the views of all stakeholders in developing these reforms and has engaged, and will continue to engage, with stakeholders as these reforms are implemented. I also note that issues raised by stakeholders, including misidentification, were addressed by the Government at length in the course of the debate on the original bill.

I spoke about misidentification in my second reading speech for the original bill and the Government addressed it during debate in the other place, and we have said a number of times that we will continue to work with stakeholders to address the issue more broadly. We mean what we say in this regard, and that work has already begun. The Government takes this reform incredibly seriously because it is serious. We made the extensive evidence base publicly available and answered question after question from anyone who had one—or more—about why this reform mattered and what it would do. We never wavered on this reform. Our position has been clear from the minute we introduced the bill. I am glad that the Liberals and The Nationals have finally decided to listen to stakeholders—including, critically, victim-survivors—and are now supporting this important legislation.

Transcription in progress…