Are we to believe that, when this Attorney General introduces a bill or this Government enacts legislation, "it's as good as done" and no implementation is required? Unfortunately for this Government, and for the women of New South Wales, we do not live in the land of musical theatre. We live in the real world and we expect the Government to govern. We are looking for more than words. We are looking for implementation and follow‑through. We are looking for action to protect women—the action that we have not seen in relation to the Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2024.

That Act, passed by this House on the anniversary of D-day this year, was sadly not the springboard for the sort of positive action of 60 years earlier. The Act, the Government's direct response to the sad circumstances of the death of Molly Ticehurst, made three main changes designed to protect women: It tightened the bail threshold, it mandated electronic monitoring for those accused of serious domestic violence but who are granted bail, and it required bail decisions to be made by magistrates rather than registrars. However, only one of those three key changes has been introduced, the changes to the bail threshold. We are still waiting for the implementation of the other changes.

This bill will assist with that task. It will amend the earlier legislation so that first‑instance bail matters may be heard by audiovisual link rather than in person. It also requires any accused granted bail, subject to electronic monitoring, must first be fitted with that electronic monitoring before release. The Coalition welcomes those changes, which will hopefully expedite the proclamation and operation of the earlier Act. However, the fact that the bail legislation needs to be fixed by this legislation only four months after its introduction is a clear indication that this Government is not thinking carefully about the critically important issue of women's safety. It is not doing the work to get it right but is delaying implementation until it can perform running repairs so that the laws are fit for purpose. Women facing domestic violence deserve the respect of this Government, which means that it thinks about the issues properly and get the legislation right the first time so it can operate promptly.

The changes are even more perplexing when considered against the background of testimony at budget estimates. The Opposition asked the police Minister, the Minister for Corrections, the Minister for Women and the Attorney General what was happening about the implementation of the bail legislation. We heard lots of buck‑passing to other Ministers. We heard about working groups, taskforces and Cabinet Office oversight. We heard "maybe September" and "maybe October", but not once did we hear that the bail legislation changes could not commence fully until they were fixed by the bill that is before the House today.

That leaves three possibilities. The first is that the Attorney General was unaware of the problems in his own legislation that needed to be fixed before it could be proclaimed. The second is that he was aware but was unwilling to disclose it at estimates as the reason for the delay in introducing measures to protect women's safety. The third possibility is the most frightening of all: No-one in the Government actually realised that the problems existed until the Coalition started asking about the delay in implementation. Not one of those options give the women of New South Wales confidence that they are being respected and that their safety is a priority for this Government. This Government stands condemned by its own impotence.

The more we look at this program of the Government, the more we see that it is held together by sticky tape and chewing gum, and it can hardly be regarded as a serious attempt to address one of the most important social issues of our time. The bill before the House makes an important statement about the seriousness of breach of aggregated domestic violence orders [ADVO] and creates two new aggravated offences, each with a much higher penalty. All members know that the ADVO is not necessarily protective. It is a sobering statistic that 22.5 per cent of all intimate partner homicides from 2021 to 2023 were committed with an ADVO in place. The Opposition supports any attempt to make them work better and be treated more seriously. That includes the introduction of the new sections 14 (1A) and 14 (1C). The Opposition hopes that stronger penalties send a stronger message to those who might otherwise be tempted to commit domestic violence, because a penalty, no matter how high, awarded after an assault or after death is hardly an indicator of success.

But, to be educative, these higher penalties must be awarded and must be seen to be on the table. This is why it is surprising that these new aggravated offences have both been created as table 2 offences. This means that, unless the prosecutor elects to proceed by way of indictment, they will be heard in the Local Court, where the maximum penalty is not the three years of new section 14 (1A) or the five years of section 14 (1C), but rather the existing two-year maximum. The Government did a very similar thing in relation to knife crime in June last year. It doubled penalties but left matters to be tried summarily in the Local Court.

What has been the outcome? In the year since the legislation has been in effect, there has not been one single case in which the higher penalties have even been sought, let alone awarded. In budget estimate hearings and in repeated press releases, the Attorney General stated, "This legislation about knife crime sends an important message." What message is being sent if the penalties are never sought and never awarded? Does the Attorney General believe that possible offenders are scanning his press releases for new laws and moderating their behaviour accordingly? The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research stats suggest that they are not, with a sad rise in homicide by knife since the introduction of these laws.

It appears that the Gilbert and Sullivan theory of jurisprudence, where the emperor says a thing and it as good as happens, does not in fact work in the real world after all. We view with hope, but also considerable trepidation, the prospect that these new offences will have a moderating effect on domestic violence, especially since they have been structured in such a way to make it unlikely that the new higher penalties will ever be awarded. The last major reform introduced by this bill is the introduction of a civil protection order scheme for serious domestic abuse. These orders are modelled on serious crime prevention orders. Unlike apprehended domestic violence orders, they can operate prospectively and positively to address the behaviour of the person of concern rather than being targeted at the protection of a particular person at risk of abuse. Novelly, they can be made for the protection of future partners not in existence or contemplation at the time the order is made.

There are critics of the serious crime prevention orders, just as we anticipate there will be critics of these orders, from the perspective of the infringement of civil liberties. However, if they are effective to protect the personal safety of women and children, then that may be a price worth paying. There is certainly evidence of the success of serious crime prevention orders, but this is not simply because of the order being made. It is because of the way in which these orders have been resourced. Will we see a domestic violence version of Strike Force Raptor ready to enforce these orders? If we do not have comparable resourcing, and if the law is not implemented rather than simply being made, how confident can we be that women will be protected? Let us all hope that this measure will, in fact, be properly resourced and will work. It is increasingly hard to maintain hope when we see that breach of these orders is also a table 1 offence and, unless a decision is made to proceed by way of indictment, the maximum penalty will be two years, not the legislated five.

I worry that women are being gaslit by this Government. They are told they will be safe. They are told that these laws will protect them. But then, as we saw with the bail laws, these laws are not actually ever implemented. It is just like Jack's law: promises, promises, but not a single purchase order for a single wand. When will the changes promised by this legislation commence? We do not know. It is by proclamation, and that is simply not good enough. New South Wales women deserve more. We deserve respect and an end to the gaslighting and fanciful jurisprudence that says passing a law is the same as implementing a law. We need a timeline and a real commitment to resourcing to ensure that this initiative has the best chance of truly protecting women. That is why I indicate that I will be moving an amendment on behalf of the Coalition to lock in a definite time frame for the commencement of the entirety of this law which is designed to provide women with the protection that we need.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (20:43): I indicate that The Greens support this bill. I am going to say something that I say very rarely in this place: This is a good bill. As the domestic violence and abuse spokesperson for The Greens, I have seen so much legislation come through this place that is a knee-jerk reaction to whatever happens to be in the news that day. The last bill brought in on this matter was the terrible bail bill, which was so poorly thought out. It was rushed, people did not like it and it really was not very good. What we have here, though, is legislation that has actually listened to the experts in the sector—Domestic Violence NSW and the rest of the sector—who are all wholly happy with what we have here. Thank goodness somebody is finally listening to the things we have asked for and not what the right-wing media has told the Premier to do. This is a positive step forward. I am really impressed with the bill. I thank the Attorney General's office for its detailed briefings and information, which has given us the confidence to believe that what we are seeing here is actually as good as it looks.

The bill has two new aggravated offences which have higher penalties for apprehended domestic violence order [ADVO] breaches. Victim-survivors and experts have been saying for a long time that ADVOs are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not enforced or taken seriously. There is a real culture between perpetrators who say, "It's fine mate. You just breach your ADVO, and it doesn't really matter. She'll go to the police but it's unlikely anything is ever going to happen." This is the first indication that we are actually going to start taking these things seriously. It brings us into line with Victoria, which has very similar provisions. As an alternative to the standard ADVO breach, a person can be charged with an ADVO breach with intent. That is where a person knowingly contravenes an ADVO with the intention of causing someone physical or mental harm or causing them to fear for their safety.

Finally, a person can be charged with persistent ADVO breach, where someone knowingly repeatedly contravenes an ADVO in circumstances where a reasonable person would know the behaviour would cause harm. A good example I like to use for this is the perpetrator who sends flowers to a victim-survivor who has an ADVO out against him. She may be at her workplace and receive some flowers from the perpetrator, or she might be at dinner or the pub with her friends and receive a drink from a bartender who says, "Some guy just bought this for you." These are a series of things which, on the face of it, look like the person is being really nice. "Oh, that's lovely. He sent you flowers. Maybe he wants to make up with you." But, in the context of an ADVO, it is an incredibly sinister thing. This guy knows where you are, and he is sending you these things wherever you go. A reasonable person would see that they are doing that to menace this person.

This brings us into line with Victoria on those grounds. I think this is an obvious and good step to take to show that the Government understands how important it is—and, with time and training, the police will too. For the last five years, I have been banging on about coercive control. We can argue about the way the previous Government brought in the coercive control legislation. It is far from perfect and will not be used until we change it and make it fit for purpose. But what gives me hope is that the whole point of the campaign to get coercive control criminalised was to get people to properly understand that domestic violence is not just when a person physically hits somebody else; it needs to be understood as a system of abuse. It is a pattern of behaviour designed to take away a person's autonomy, to control them and to make them fear, every minute, even without ever being physically hit, that this person is watching them and will come for them if they put a foot wrong. That is the pattern of behaviour that we know leads to 99 per cent of all domestic homicides. The bill looks at this sort of behaviour—persistent ADVO breaches with intent to cause fear and harm. That shows me that we finally have a government that is listening to what is at the heart of domestic abuse. That is really positive.

The bill also provides for a serious domestic abuse prevention order to be made against a person who seems to be a threat not only to the person they were in a relationship with but also to others within that victim‑survivor's broader world. Again, this shows a true understanding of what these perpetrators are like. A serious domestic abuse prevention order may be made in two circumstances. The first involves a perpetrator who has been convicted of a number of domestic violence offences with a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment or more, where the police feel there is a need to protect the victim‑survivor and their immediate circle—their family, their children, and/or their current partner or potential partner. These are all people that we have seen these sorts of perpetrators harm in order to psychologically hurt the real target of their malicious actions. Again, this shows an understanding of when perpetrators of domestic violence are a danger to other people.

The second circumstance is where someone has been charged with a serious domestic violence offence, being an offence carrying a maximum prison sentence of 14 years or more, but not convicted. The police can request that the Supreme Court rely on that background as a ground for making a prevention order. They can submit that although the person may not have been found guilty in the past, there is a pattern of events and instances that led to those charges being laid. It is evidence of a person hellbent on getting their way with their partner or former partner. They are the type of people who go on to kill not only their former partner but also their former partner's children, new boyfriend or parents. There are many examples of this over the years. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon. Unlike civil protection orders to deal with organised crime or terrorism, where the argument is that the person's civil rights are being taken away to protect the broader society, the new serious domestic abuse prevention orders put a series of conditions onto a person so as to be able to keep a check on when they might be of danger to a particular group of identified people.

Again, this is smart legislating which properly understands the patterns of domestic abuse activity and coercive control. I have had the grim experience of reading all of the Domestic Violence Death Review Team reports. They set out what these patterns of behaviour are and what preceded these things happening. This bill is a direct response to that sort of research and evidence that has led us to this point where we can begin to prevent such homicides. Although The Greens are always cautious about civil liberties being taken away, we see this as a very different policy context, because it is a limited group being protected from the person. In the case of a person who has not been convicted of domestic violence offences before but has had a history of being charged with them, the provision allows a senior judge to look at those circumstances. It is not just a case of ticking a box and a prevention order will be made. It is looking at the circumstances and cleverly working out what needs to happen.

The new aggravated ADVO breach offences, and particularly the serious domestic abuse prevention orders, are game changers for New South Wales. The prevention order is novel. It is not found in other States. Higher penalties for ADVO breaches with intent or for persistent ADVO breaches are found in Victoria and other places, but serious domestic abuse prevention orders are novel. Anyone who watched me in budget estimates would have seen me banging on about the police not getting enough training in this area. I still do not think they are getting enough training. This legislation is going to push both the police and the judiciary to learn a little bit more about domestic violence behaviours. It is going to take time to train the police up on these new offences and this new prevention order. They will need training. The magistrates and the judges will need to be trained. These changes cannot be implemented tomorrow. If the legislation provided for the changes to take effect on the date of assent, I would be a little concerned because the police are certainly not in a position where they could, in an informed and steady manner, implement this new regime that quickly.

The Greens fully support the Government's proposal that it will not happen until proclamation. Typically, The Greens do not love it when things are not done at particular times. In the past, some legislation has been enacted but never proclaimed. We had that experience with the Modern Slavery Act. I do not want to see that happen. The Greens are cautious when it comes to giving the government of the day the discretion for proclamation. But for these two new ADVO breach offences and for this novel serious domestic abuse prevention order, it makes really good sense. Ask me again in a year if it has not been implemented by then, but I do not think that will happen. I am sure if I were to move an amendment to the bill at that time I would get the support of members opposite. I am not putting that as a threat to the Government, because I know that the Government is going to do the right thing and is trying to get this bill through.

I have covered the meaty part of the bill. There are a couple of additional things. There is an amendment to the definition of "stalking", which The Greens also support because the old‑fashioned idea that stalking only occurs when someone is in another person's physical space or physically close to a person is very outdated. We need to better capture in the definition the use of technology‑facilitated tracking devices, social media and all of the other GPS trackers and horrible means that perpetrators are now using to stalk their victim. We know there is a link between people who stalk and people who use coercive control and other types of behaviours to commit domestic abuse. The coercive control offence is not fit for purpose, for all of the reasons I have said on record many times. It needs to be amended, and it will be in due course. In the meantime, a lot of the offences that otherwise might meet a robust coercive control offence will need to be dealt with under the stalking provisions, and so it is really important that they are broadened to include all of the sophisticated, technology‑based tracking systems and monitoring systems that are employed.

The Greens fully support that and would like to see that brought forward. From what I understand, that may be able to be implemented quickly. It is just a tweak to police systems and not as big a deal as the other major changes. The bill also contains amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. I had concerns when I first read this because of the broken links that exist between our State's child protection and family court systems, which is an absolute travesty that needs to be corrected.

In particular, in the parliamentary inquiry a couple of years back, people from the Department of Communities and Justice told us that they knew there were hundreds of children under protection orders in New South Wales who had been placed with the parent they deemed to be at risk from by the Family Court because the court had not taken that information from the department. That is incredibly concerning. Whenever I see anything where the States get involved in the Family Court and family law system, I have a good look. However, in these circumstances, the bill does not make that kind of significant change or do anything to make that situation worse.

Instead, in this situation the Family Court has given an order that a parent has pretty broad powers or at least the power to change the name of a child. In other States and Territories they could just get on with that. In New South Wales, because of the provision we are now getting rid of, the parent receiving that order nevertheless needs to consult with the other parent. In so doing, they let the cat out of the bag; they have to let them know exactly what the name of the child will be, thereby—in many cases—subverting the reason for changing the child's name in the first place. On that basis, it is a pretty technical amendment, which The Greens support.

The first of the final two changes I will mention is the exception to the requirement that the accused person must appear in person for first appearance bail matters to enable audio-visual link access. That comes out of the previous, poorly thought out and drafted bill that was rushed through by this Parliament. I am not surprised that it needed to be changed after the event. That is fine; it has been done now. The other change is about adjusting the technical requirements for the service of apprehended violence orders [AVOs]. It effectively allows the police, instead of needing to drag someone into the station to serve them the AVO, to instead, with the person's consent, give them an AVO by email. That seems incredibly sensible in this day and age, particularly in regional and remote areas where people do not have the time or inclination to travel a couple of hours to their nearest station in order to be given an AVO that they could be given by email.

I have cantered through all the changes in the bill. It is not going to solve everything. What I like about the bill is that it shows a change in attitude. It shows that this Government not only finally understands a bit more about coercive control but is also listening to some of the longstanding asks of the sector. It is finally introducing legislation that is well thought out and not a kneejerk reaction, and that is to be commended. I am glad we have got to that stage. I am not saying that will apply to every bill that is introduced but, for this one, I am giving it—

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Nine out of 10?

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: No, eight out of 10. I conclude by saying that, as with everything related to using the criminal law to try to solve the domestic and family violence crisis in New South Wales, the bill is but one small piece of the puzzle. We all know that. It is not particularly cheap; we still have to pay for training and some technical and other things. Of the things a government can do to make a difference to domestic and family violence in New South Wales, passing a change to a law is one of the cheapest. What would make a far greater difference and go a lot further towards keeping women and children in this country and State safe is investing what is needed in frontline services.

I cannot say it enough: We have been funding our frontline services in New South Wales to a level that is one-half to two-thirds of what they have in Victoria. The results are already quite stark when we look at the trajectory that Victoria seems to be on—fingers crossed—versus where New South Wales is. It is just a product of properly funding the people who make the difference on the ground. If a person wanting to flee domestic and family violence goes to the police or their local refuge or service and gets turned away, and something happens to that person, that is on the government of the day. I appreciate that the Labor Government has inherited a big mess and a lot of financial woes from the previous Government. But it is now on this Government to fund frontline services to an extent that they turn nobody away. Until it does that, it does not matter what changes it passes to the Crimes Act or the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act. That is not going to make a significant enough difference to turn this crisis around. I thank the Government for finally introducing a bill I like. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (21:05): I speak in support of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Other members have summarised the various operative parts of the bill. I will address what to my mind are the two main parts of the bill, being the new offences for breaching apprehended domestic violence orders [ADVO] and the new civil order scheme. Of course, I support other aspects of the bill, but those other parts seem more relatively straightforward. The new offences, in essence, apply new maximum penalties to types of conduct that are currently captured by the existing offence of breaching an ADVO.

I am generally sceptical of the capacity of increased maximum penalties to deter crime or, conversely, the suggestion that decreasing a maximum penalty will lead to an increase in crime. On the latter proposition, a good example is that almost a decade ago we decreased the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified, and a recent Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report has shown less jail but no increase in offending. That speaks to a few things, including the general lack of awareness of maximum penalties and sentencing trends in the community and the cohort of offenders, and the contradictory impact of incarceration, which might prevent some crimes in the short term but cause more in the long term.

That is not to say that all increases to maximum penalties are unjustified. That is certainly not the case. The determination as a matter of policy of the appropriate maximum penalty should take into account a number of matters. The first is the range of offending that might be captured by a provision and the seriousness of relevant social harm that such conduct might cause. The second is a comparison of that conduct and penalty to other maximum penalties in the statute book. In order words, a maximum penalty for any given offence should sustain a rational comparison to other maximum penalties.

The third is, fundamentally, an assessment of the capacity of the maximum penalty to afford appropriate punishment for the various instances of offending that will come before the court as allegations of breach of the section. Underpinning all of that, it should also take into account all the fundamental purposes of the sentencing process and, indeed, the criminal system, which include maintaining public confidence in the rule of law; through that, discouraging vigilantism; providing for punishment that fits the crime or just deserts; discouraging offending and further harm to the community, both specifically and generally; and, of course, allowing the rehabilitation of offenders.

At the moment, the maximum penalty for an offence against section 14 of the legislation is a fine or two years imprisonment. This sets a penalty that applies to the full range of ADVO breaches—everything from consensual contact in a non‑threatening way, as commonly occurs when the making of an order is followed by a change of heart by the parties, but also through to the recidivist stalker who breaches an order repeatedly in the most serious circumstances.

It is of course true that often the breach is accompanied by other offending conduct and sentences imposed for that conduct will be part of the context that might warrant a less severe penalty for the breach of the ADVO. But that is not always the case, even when the way that would be most appropriately accounted for is a degree of concurrency or cumulation in those sentences. Take, for example, a recidivist stalker or family and domestic violence offender who reoffends with gross violence in breach of an ADVO. I am far from convinced that two years represents the appropriate punishment as a maximum penalty in that worst-case scenario. Of course, if the bill passes, they will face three years as a maximum penalty.

Another example is a person who continues to offend repeatedly, including three times in a 28‑day period. That person might very often require a higher maximum penalty than two years, especially taking into account that they may have an appalling criminal record and there is a variety of aggravating factors. All of that is not to say that the imposition of such sentences will deter crime or achieve a meaningfully higher degree of incapacitation. But, as I said earlier, those are not the only measures by which it is judged whether incremental changes to the maximum penalties are appropriate. I note what the Hon. Susan Carter said in terms of these new offences being table 2 offences and therefore able to be disposed of summarily, unless the prosecution elects. That is certainly true, but it should not be thought that situation means an increased maximum penalty has no role to play. The maximum penalty—whether it is three years, or five years under the new provision, or the maximum penalty generally for any offence—is very rarely imposed, but that is not to say that it does not influence the disposition.

There will be in the future a large number of people who offend against these new offences who come before the Local Court and are subject to a jurisdictional limit of two years where the increased maximum penalty will mean higher sentences will be imposed inside that framework. But that jurisdictional limit is not a maximum penalty. It is a jurisdictional limit. Such persons, for example, if there was an election for trial on indictment, might not receive more than two years even if their matter was heard in the District Court.

I now address the civil order scheme aspect of the bill. In an earlier life I spent a period prosecuting family and domestic violence offenders, where I observed a wide range of such offences and offenders. That experience, and other work in the criminal justice system, here and overseas, has led me to be wary of overarching explanations for types of offending. But, all that said, I recall observing in that work some distinct types of offenders.

I recall a certain type of offender who came back before the court with different victims, even in the short time that I was involved in the specialist family and domestic violence unit. Most if not all men who offended against one woman after another and came back with different victims in a short time, and who seemed incapable of living alone or of not behaving in a highly controlling and eventually violent way towards their female partners, had personality disorders. I suspect that would include antisocial personality disorder, if one was to apply a clinical lens to it. I recall other types that were men and women in dysfunctional relationships and lifestyles where the offending seemed to be at least partly maladaptive responses to their environment. Others were in moments of crisis, health or otherwise.

I think this anecdotal experience finds some interesting resonance in a recent Australian Institute of Criminology study,Pathways to intimate partner homicide, in which181 cases of intimate partner homicide were analysed. I have spoken in the House before about this document. I think it is important. The study overall identified three key trajectories or cohorts inside the sample: the fixated threat offender, the persistent and disorderly offender, and the deterioration/acute stressor offender. I will not go on to say more about that report, but it is interesting reading in understanding the dynamics in intimate partner homicide and domestic and family violence more generally.

The new civil scheme will have an apt application to a wide range of offenders, particularly in limiting their ability to find new victims and to offend against them. The new scheme will acquit the Government's duty of care to the people who fall into the orbit of offenders and quickly find themselves controlled and abused. There is already the capacity, and in some cases the obligation, for courts to make apprehended violence orders [AVOs] when people have offended against named individuals. However, that does nothing really to deal with the proved recidivist who is clearly and obviously a threat to a wide range of future victims that they are yet to offend against.

New section 87C will allow for prohibitions, restrictions, requirements and other provisions as the court considers appropriate to prevent the person engaging in domestic abuse in relation to family members, former, current or potential intimate partners of the person, or persons in a domestic relationship with an intimate partner of the person. Orders will be able to be sought by the Commissioner of Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, and go to the Local Court or the Supreme Court, depending on the circumstances. The triggers for the making of an application for an order will include the respondent not being a child and the court being satisfied that during the previous 10 years the person, when at least 16 years of age, has been convicted of two or more domestic violence offences of the requisite degree of seriousness, or has been involved in serious domestic abuse activity.

The court must also be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the making of the order will protect one or more of the following persons: a family member; a former, current or potential intimate partner; or a person in a domestic relationship with an intimate partner of the person. I would not read that to mean that any potential intimate partner has to be identified. It would seem to be more in the realm of the person who they might come into contact with. This type of order is a bit like the high risk offender legislation currently applicable to sexual, violent and terrorist offenders, except those schemes are administered by the Supreme Court. This will be, in part, a Local Court power.

I think it will be important that the police and the DPP use this power relatively sparingly. It is an exceptional power that can be applied to non‑convicted people and breach will be a serious criminal offence. If overused—for example, as a tack‑on every time a person triggers the jurisdictional requirements—the civil scheme has the potential to be applied to a very wide cohort of people. If that occurs, it will mean that the police will have limited capacity to monitor compliance. The orders might become just another aspect of a wide web of regulation that does not meaningfully drive down offending or risk, yet ensnares people in a roundabout of offending. I note the legislation says "may" in the new section that allows the court to make an order, and it will be up to courts to develop a body of jurisprudence around the content of that discretion.

I note that there are appeals from the orders, but when the Local Court makes the order an appeal lies to the Supreme Court, and when the Supreme Court makes the order an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. That is a relative inaccessible appeal route and highlights just one reason why courts should be very judicious in making orders. This should not become a tack‑on application wherever the basic jurisdictional requirements are triggered. It should be noted that this bill originates in part from the tragic death of Molly Ticehurst in the Forbes area and the general scourge of intimate partner homicide.

I have spoken recently in this House about the scourge of intimate partner homicide, its prevalence over time and what reduces its incidence. The research from the Australian Institute of Criminology shows intimate partner homicide rates across Australia have dropped by more than half since 1989. In raw terms, this translates from 82 occurring in 1989-90 to 38 in 2022-23. When separated for gender, the figures also show a similarly consistent and extremely significant drop.

The rate of women killed by partners has dropped by 66 per cent over the past 34 years. That is cold comfort to anyone impacted by such a crime, but reform does need to build on what works as much as on what is proved not to work. Unfortunately, there is not a large amount of readily available research analysing the decrease. Some research attributes it in part to a contraction in the young male population, the number of people living in rural areas and the unemployment rate—a reminder, perhaps, that fluctuations in crime can be driven by broad factors unrelated to particular governmental interventions.

An obvious question is what the bill might do to rates of intimate partner homicide. The first point is that, in the context of 38 deaths a year nationwide and the very large number of cases to which the jurisdictional triggers in the bill would apply, it can be immediately observed that attempting to craft laws to catch those cases before they happen is a hard task indeed. I will not develop the point further but instead note that I made more extensive comments when I spoke to the bill that represented the first response to the death of Molly Ticehurst: the Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill 2024.

It must be remembered that the bill is part of a package. One part was the earlier bill. Other aspects of the package are on the resource side and offer an extensive range of augmentation to existing programs. The Government committed $230 million over four years as part of an emergency package to enhance support for domestic, family and sexual violence victim-survivors and expand programs that reduce the rate of violence against women and children. Those are incredibly welcome commitments. I have spoken in this House before about other things we can do to improve complainant experiences in the criminal justice system, especially in the justice reinvestment realm. Those are important too.

The bill is a welcome attempt to protect complainants, but it should not be taken to mean that tweaks to the criminal law and related civil laws, such as the orders provided for in the bill, are the substantial way to achieve community protection and reduce crime overall. Such a message would be counterproductive. Changes to the blunt and reactive tools of the criminal law and related civil laws—whether bail, sentencing or quasi-criminal civil order schemes—are not the most significant way to achieve community safety. It would be good if they were. All that said, I support the bill and commend it to the House.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (21:21): I support the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Any effort to strengthen protections for victim-survivors of domestic and family violence is worthy of support, but I make clear that, while I support the bill, I cannot ignore the Government's repeated failure to deliver on its promise to those very victim-survivors. Domestic and family violence is not a political issue. It is a heartbreaking reality for too many in our communities. Words on a page or media releases mean nothing without meaningful action to back them up.

The Government has failed time and again to turn legislation into real change. One of the most frustrating examples is electronic monitoring. We know, and the data shows, that electronic monitoring can reduce domestic violence reoffending by 33 per cent. Yet we stand here with no timeline for when it will be implemented for those granted bail. How many more families must live in fear before the Government takes the steps it has already legislated? It is not just about the delays; it is about the dismissiveness with which the delays are treated. During budget estimates, when we asked about a timeline for these changes, we received vague answers, empty words about working groups and no clear commitments.

How can a government that claims to prioritise the safety of women and children be so casual about the implementation of vital reforms? It is about the safety of victims, who are real people with real lives. I support the amendments to introduce a firm proclamation date of 1 December 2024, because enough is enough. Victims cannot wait any longer. Domestic violence survivors deserve better than empty words. They deserve a government that will act with urgency, precision and sincerity. The bill is a step in the right direction. Let us not fail these victims. I support the bill but demand that the Government put a firm date on its implementation.

The Hon. RACHEL MERTON (21:24): I speak in support of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. There is no doubt that the protection of individuals from domestic and personal violence must be a paramount concern of the Parliament. Indeed, protecting women in all ways should be of a priority of us as legislators. Any legislation that seeks to strengthen protections for victims and hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable deserves our close attention and, where appropriate, our support. However, while I recognise the intent behind the bill, particularly its focus on creating serious domestic abuse prevention orders and the introduction of new measures to tackle repeat offenders, I am left questioning whether the bill is yet another case of Labor jumping in the pool before it knows how to swim.

In principle, I support the direction of the legislation. It aims to fill gaps in our domestic violence framework, especially for high-risk offenders, but there are critical concerns we must address. The Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 already had a clear framework. Yet we are now debating additional amendments before the first set of reforms has even been implemented. I remind members that the Minns Government has been in office for 18 months. Tonight we have the proposal in this bill. Why is the bill necessary? Why is new legislation being introduced before the existing framework has had the chance to take effect?

Electronic monitoring is a perfect example. The provisions in the bill that tie bail decisions to electronic monitoring devices are important and could provide a valuable tool to ensure high-risk offenders are monitored while on bail. But here is the problem: We have heard no clear evidence that electronic monitoring has been fully implemented for those already granted bail under previous legislation. Where are those monitoring devices? Have they been purchased? Have they been tendered? Have magistrates been making bail decisions with those tools at their disposal, as we were promised? The answer, it seems, is no.

When asked about the implementation timetable for electronic monitoring during last month's budget estimates, the Attorney General made no mention of the need to amend the legislation further. Why not? Was it an oversight? More concerningly, is it evidence of a government that is failing to plan properly? The Government rushed to pass the initial legislation, yet today there are more amendments because the first round was not fully thought through. That suggests to me that we are witnessing a lack of foresight and attention to detail, which are hallmarks of poor governance.

I commend the diligent Mr Alister Henskens, SC, MP, and the Hon. Susan Carter for their tireless work in holding the Minns Labor Government to account on those matters. They have shown clear leadership, research, understanding and consideration in asking tough questions that deserve answers. We need transparency on the implementation of electronic monitoring, a clear timetable for when those devices will be operational, and assurances that the system is properly resourced. Until that happens, the legislative amendments are nothing more than empty promises.

I also draw on comments by the previous speaker, the Hon. Aileen MacDonald, who shared the personal, human consequence and experience of what domestic violence means. It is those people whom we represent. While I support measures that enhance protection for victims and increase accountability for perpetrators, I am disappointed in the failure to get the law right the first time. The delayed implementation is not just a bureaucratic hiccup; it has real-world consequences. Every day that these tools are not in place is another day that victims of domestic violence are at risk. Members on this side of the House know that.

I am incredibly proud of the former Coalition Government's work to combat domestic violence.

Under its leadership, New South Wales saw the introduction of landmark laws to criminalise coercive control—a red flag for domestic violence homicide. The former Government's commitment of a record $787 million to domestic violence programs marked the largest funding allocation in the sector's history. Those funds supported the expansion of women's refuges and enhanced court systems to better protect and support victims. I have visited some of those refuges and seen the support available to women under that program. It is a legacy of action.

The Government has been too focused on passing legislation to score political points without ensuring that the infrastructure and planning are in place to make the laws effective. It is all show and little substance. While I support the bill, I do so with caution. Government members must provide assurances that they are not simply introducing more layers of law without first getting the foundational measures right. I caution them to stop making those mistakes and reverse the dangerous trend they seem to be establishing for themselves. It is unacceptable and has real-world consequences. I urge the Government to focus on delivering outcomes that will make a difference in the fight against domestic violence in New South Wales.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (21:30): In reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Susan Carter, Ms Abigail Boyd, the Hon. Stephen Lawrence, the Hon. Aileen MacDonald and the Hon. Rachel Merton. The Government was as astonished to hear Ms Abigail Boyd's praise as I am sure she was to give it. I turn to some of the matters that have been raised during debate on the bill. Opposition members spoke at length about the commencement of the bill and other important legislation introduced by the Government.

In order to provide some broader context and facts around those questions, I simply make the point with respect to the legislation that has previously been passed that the Government is taking advice from the agencies that will have to respond about the time needed to ensure that all of their systems and officers are ready to implement the reforms. That implementation work is critical given that the NSW Police Force is responsible for enforcing apprehended domestic violence orders [ADVOs] and investigating breach offences, and it will be the primary agency applying the new serious domestic abuse prevention orders introduced by the bill.

Other agencies, including the courts, also require time to ensure that the necessary systems and processes are in place before the reforms commence and that the training and education can be delivered. Therefore, a staged commencement is important for our agencies to continue to work with experts in the domestic and family violence sector to ensure that the reforms can be implemented effectively. Of course the Government makes no apologies for listening to our Police Force, our judicial officers and other experts in domestic and family violence in planning appropriate reforms.

Taking time to carefully implement laws responding to domestic and family violence should come as no surprise to anyone in this place. The coercive control reforms had an extended implementation period of up to 19 months because of their complexity. In the same way, reforms in the bill such as the serious domestic abuse prevention order scheme represent significant and complex reforms that need time to get right. Forcing reforms to commence before our agencies are ready would be irresponsible. We heard that victims cannot afford to wait, but let us be clear: Victim-survivors deserve effective reforms and effective protections, particularly because in so many cases their health, physical wellbeing and—in some sad scenarios—lives depend on it.

I listened carefully to the contribution of the Hon. Susan Carter, and she argued that the Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2024 has not commenced. That is not correct. The majority of that Act commenced on 1 July 2024, and that includes the parts of the Act relating to the expansion of the show cause test, stays requiring bail decision-makers to consider domestic abuse risk factors and the views of victims and family members, and the improved process for prosecutions relating to tracking devices. Where parts have not commenced, it is due to real and valid operational requirements. Work on those has been progressed as a priority and is well underway. The bill has in no way delayed that implementation work, and it operates to support the Government's earlier reforms.

I also respond specifically to the point the Hon. Susan Carter made that suggested that the higher penalties available under the aggravated offences for breach of an ADVO are ineffective because they are table 2 offences, which are to be heard in the Local Court unless the prosecution elects otherwise. I make three points in that regard. First, the existing standard breach ADVO offence is a summary offence, so the option to try breaches on indictment is not currently available. This reform provides a further option that means that the most serious forms of breach can be tried in the higher courts and the full penalties can be made available. Secondly, the comments fail to recognise that a difference in the maximum penalty is always a relevant factor for sentencing, even in the Local Court. At common law, the maximum penalty is an important consideration for sentencing.

Finally, the majority of indictable criminal offences are table offences. Tabling offences is important to ensure that criminal charges can be heard in an appropriate court, having regard to the severity of the charge. While the maximum penalty for any offence reflects Parliament's view of the objective seriousness of the offence, individual charges under those offences will invariably reflect the different degrees of severity. Inclusion of the new offences as table 2 offences is neither unusual nor inappropriate. In conclusion, combating domestic and family violence is a key priority of the Government. The bill is one part of the Government's multifaceted approach, providing our law enforcement agencies and justice system with more tools targeted to managing high‑risk domestic violence offences and holding them to account. I commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill as a whole. I have two sheets of amendments, Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2024-164B and Libertarian Party amendment No. 1 on sheet c2024-158B. I invite the Hon. Susan Carter to move the Opposition amendment.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (21:36): I move Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2024-164B:

No. 1Commencement

Page 2, clause 2(b), line 11. Omit all words on the line. Insert instead—

(b)otherwise—on 1 March 2025 or on an earlier day or days to be appointed by proclamation.

This very simple amendment responds to an amendment in the other place to make sure that the bill has a commencement date. It is a generous commencement date of 1 March next year. I acknowledge the advice of the Treasurer that the Government has been taking advice from the relevant agencies—the police and judicial officers. What I did not hear in that statement was the advice received about how long it would take; nor did I hear what discussions the Government has had about a suitable time frame that would be in place.

In many ways the amendment stems from the Opposition's experience at estimates, where it was very clear that there is no project plan with a timeline in place for a number of really significant justice initiatives that are designed to protect the men and particularly the women of New South Wales. It is about time that this Government took the business of governing seriously and said, "Here is the timeline, and we will make it work." The amendment would see the entirety of the legislation commence by 1 March. The Opposition submits that is ample time for the training of police and judicial officers to make the legislation work. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (21:38): The Government supports the bill in its current form for the reasons that were given in the other place when a similar amendment was moved, albeit with a different proposed date. I also gave the reasons for the Government's position in my speech in reply during the second reading debate.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (21:39): The Greens do not support the amendment. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, there is merit in putting limits on when a government can or cannot proclaim legislation. In this circumstance, March is too early. From what I understand, most of the changes in the bill will be ready by March, but I am concerned about issues with the new protection order. That is quite a significant change to prepare for, especially with the break around Christmas and the new year. A lot must be put in place, particularly the training. The law is only as good as its implementation. I want police to be properly trained and able to understand and apply the apprehended domestic violence orders. Officers will have to pick up when a breach is made with malicious intent, as opposed to being accidental. Those issues are complicated.

As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, we should reconsider time limits if there has been no movement on the legislation by April, May, June or July. I do not have the impression that will happen in this case, and I am usually quite harsh with the Government. I do not think the amendment is necessary. I thank the Government for the changes it made in the other place to bring forward commencement of some of the provisions that will not need much technical implementation. However, when it comes to training to deal with these serious and complex issues, I would prefer that the Government took its time.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. Susan Carter has moved Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2024-164B. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The Committee divided.

Ayes12

Noes19

Majority7

AYES

Barrett

Farraway

Merton

Carter

Franklin

Mitchell

Fang (teller)

MacDonald

Munro (teller)

Farlow

Maclaren-Jones

Ruddick



NOES

Banasiak

Higginson

Mookhey

Boyd

Houssos

Moriarty

Buckingham

Hurst

Murphy (teller)

Cohn

Jackson

Nanva (teller)

D'Adam

Kaine

Primrose

Faehrmann

Lawrence

Sharpe

Graham

PAIRS

Rath

Suvaal

Tudehope

Donnelly

Ward

Buttigieg



Amendment negatived.

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK (21:49): I move Libertarian Party amendment No. 1 on sheet c2024-158B:

No. 1Registration of change of child's name

Page 14, Schedule 2.2, lines 26–34. Omit all words on the lines.

I understand the Government's intention with the bill and with schedule 2.2. I am concerned that schedule 2.2 could result in an increase in acute episodes of domestic violence and permanent family estrangement. Schedule 2.2 would allow for a parent with sole parental responsibility to seek orders from the Family Court and change the surname of a child without the consent of the other parent. I am concerned about unintended consequences, which we need to soberly think through.

When the Family Court decides that one parent will have sole custody of a child, some parents who have lost custody will not care, but many will be left absolutely shattered. Those grief-stricken parents will hold on to some hope that when the child turns 18 it may be possible to rekindle some form of a positive relationship. In most cases, a parent who has lost all custody will share a surname with the child. Unilaterally declaring that the parent who lost custody has also lost their child's identity link, which has been removed permanently, will amplify their grief and further diminish any hope they may have of reconciliation. In some cases the custodial parent will be motivated by spite, and this bill makes that process easier.

That is a recipe for a small number of people to snap. My solution is to simply remove schedule 2.2 so that the current name-changing process through the District Court and the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages remains the same as it currently is. The parent with no custody has avenues available to provide their side of the matter and to at least feel that their voice has been heard. It provides an extra step and will therefore reduce surname-changing exercises motivated by spite. In many cases the current system results in the child having their surname changed, and often the circumstances are that it is in the best interests of the child, but the current system is less arbitrary than what is proposed by the bill.

Many fathers are distrustful of the Family Court and are convinced it has an anti-father bias. If this amendment is not supported, that view will only be hardened and it will erode confidence in our institution. When someone is 18 years old, they are an adult and can choose their surname entirely on their own. I ask members to support the amendment.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (21:51): The Government supports the bill as is. The bill maintains appropriate safeguards to ensure sole parents cannot unilaterally change a child's name without judicial oversight. The bill is appropriate because it gives effect to the intention of the Family Court orders by allowing sole parents who have been granted appropriate parenting orders to change their child's name.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (21:52): The Opposition is sympathetic to the arguments raised by the Hon. John Ruddick and would not want unintended consequences to flow from the bill. However, the Opposition shares the Government's confidence that the bill as drafted should provide sufficient protections. I make the observation that, sadly, we cannot legislate against spite. But we can, of course, legislate in a way that minimises opportunities, especially when thinking about spite being visited upon our children. If the bill proves to have unintended consequences, the Opposition would be happy to look at amendments at a future date when it can have more time to fully understand the consequences of the change proposed.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (21:53): The Greens are also sympathetic to the general vibe of the amendment. The mover of the amendment talked about fathers. In the course of the work that I have done in my portfolio area, I have spoken with not just fathers but also probably 40 or 50 women who have had an experience in the Family Court where their child was taken away and sole custody was given to a parent who was deemed to be a risk to the child under the State child protection system. Unfortunately, that happens quite a lot.

As I said in the second reading debate, this is an issue that I looked at very closely because I do not want to see that made worse. However, my understanding of the bill is that it is not taking away any additional judicial review; rather, it is just removing the administrative step that requires consent by the other parent in circumstances where the Family Court had already made the determination that consent was not appropriate. For the objective of trying to harmonise the Family Court system and our State laws so they do not overlap, duplicate and get in the way of each other, I think this is a positive bill. If the mover of the amendment is interested in pursuing removing some of the awful overlap between the family law system and our State system and the way that it is harming many children, I would be open to having that discussion.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. John Ruddick has moved Libertarian Party amendment No. 1 on sheet c2024-158B. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The question is that the bill as read be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:

That the Chair do now leave the chair and report the bill to the House without amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Adoption of Report

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.