The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (20:02): On behalf of the Hon. Penny Sharpe: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The New South Wales Government is pleased to introduce the Victims Legislation Amendment (Victims Registers) Bill 2025. The bill marks another critical step in the New South Wales Government's commitment to improving our justice system and supporting victims of crime as we work to create a safer New South Wales. What these reforms show is that the Minns Government is open to improving our laws and services when genuine concerns are raised. We are delivering on what we see as our fundamental responsibility to ensure that the services we provide reflect the needs of those they are designed to serve. We know that a crucial part of this work is listening to victims and ensuring that our laws are operating to effectively meet their needs in a meaningful, trauma‑informed way.

One crucial way that the Government offers support to victims is through the provision of victims registers. I am proud to note that the first victims register in New South Wales, operated by Corrective Services NSW, was established by the Carr Labor Government in 1996. The register was established in recognition of the need to provide a supportive service to victims in what is often the most distressing period they may face in their lives. Victims registers play a crucial role in supporting victims of crime. They are designed to provide victims with specific information about an offender, such as details about their sentence, release dates or changes in their legal status. This information helps victims understand the custodial framework in which the offender is supervised, enabling them to make informed decisions for their safety and planning if necessary. Beyond safety, being kept informed can also reduce anxiety, giving victims peace of mind and a sense of control. Additionally, registered victims are able to make submissions related to key events, such as an inmate's parole or unsupervised leave.

These submissions allow victims to express their views and request conditions they feel should be imposed on the offender if leave or parole is granted. Furthermore, victims can be referred to support services through the registers, enhancing advocacy and connection to necessary support. There are three victims registers in New South Wales: the Correctives Services NSW Victims Register for victims of adult offenders, the Youth Justice Victims Register for victims of young offenders and the Specialist Victims Register for victims of forensic patients in cases such as where there has been a finding of act proven but not criminally responsible. The three New South Wales victims registers are based on an opt-in model whereby a victim chooses whether to register. The opt-in model was implemented in 1996 in accordance with the preferences of victim advocates at the time, who were of the view that victims should be able to choose whether to register. However, a challenge of this model is that it relies on a victim being aware of the existence of the register and their eligibility to register.

In late 2024 the Premier publicly committed to consulting with victims and their representatives about ways to improve the operation of victims registers. This followed advocacy by Samantha Barlow, a former New South Wales police officer, who only became aware of the existence of the Corrective Services victims register just prior to the perpetrator of the horrific offence committed against her being considered for parole. This bill will legislate a new requirement for agencies who administer the victims registers to proactively notify victims of certain serious offenders of their right to be on the register and access the benefits it has to offer. It will ensure that in the future victims who would like to be kept informed, will be. The model for this new notification process was developed in consultation with key stakeholders, including victims and victims' advocacy and support services. Stakeholders were invited to participate in roundtable discussions, held between December 2024 and February 2025, and additionally to provide written submissions to a consultation paper.

Feedback from the consultation was that there was a lack of awareness of victim registers and their functions. Stakeholders were invited to consider whether an opt-out model was preferable to the existing opt-in model. Under an opt‑out model, all eligible victims would be registered automatically and then given an opportunity to opt out. The majority of victims provided feedback that they do not want to be registered with a victims register without their consent, and that they want to retain their autonomy over whether to register. What we know is that there will be many victims who do not wish to register because they do not want to receive regular updates or be further reminded about the often traumatic events they have been through and would prefer to put the past behind them. This aligns with feedback from victims' groups who were consulted when the Corrective Services NSW victims register was originally established.

Stakeholders indicated that within an opt-in model there could be value in directly contacting victims to inform them of their eligibility to register. However, this should be targeted to balance risks around re‑traumatisation from unexpected contact and re‑exposure to painful topics. The reforms in this bill respond to this feedback by introducing a positive obligation on the agencies responsible for victims registers to notify victims of serious offenders of their eligibility to register as soon as practicable after becoming aware that a victim is eligible to register. Legislating a positive obligation on agencies to notify victims of serious offenders that they are eligible to register is seen to strike the appropriate balance between making sure that victims know about and can access their right to be on the register, while maintaining victims' agency and choice about whether to opt in.

Limiting the notification obligation to victims of serious offenders in line with stakeholder feedback will ensure that those victims most likely to be seriously impacted by crime and to have an interest in the offender's progress through the system are made aware of their right to register. Responsible agencies will not be required to notify a victim about the register if the agency does not have the sufficient information to inform the person, despite having taken reasonable steps to ascertain that information from prosecuting authorities. This ensures that an agency will not breach its obligation in situations where victims are unable to be identified or unable to be contacted due to inaccurate contact details, for example. Agencies will also not be required to notify an eligible victim if they are aware that the victim does not wish to be recorded in the register or does not wish to be contacted in relation to the relevant offender. This is an important safeguard to ensure that victims' wishes are respected.

I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I now turn to the specifics of the bill.

Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the bill will introduce a legislative obligation on agencies responsible for administering the three victims registers in New South Wales to notify victims of certain serious offenders of the existence of the register and the victim's eligibility to register.

Schedule 1 to the bill relates to the victims register for victims of young offenders established under the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987, which is administered by Youth Justice NSW.

Schedule 2 to the bill relates to the victims register for victims of adult offenders established under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, which is administered by Corrective Services NSW.

Schedule 3 relates to the victims register for victims of certain forensic patients established under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, which is administered by the Commissioner of Victims Rights.

Each of these schedules amends the relevant legislation to provide that the agency administering the relevant register must notify eligible victims about the existence of the register and their eligibility to register as soon as practicable after becoming aware that a person is an eligible victim.

For the Youth Justice NSW and Corrective Services NSW registers under schedules 1 and 2 to the bill, the notification obligation only applies in relation to victims of certain "serious offenders", which are defined in the respective legislation for each register, as reflected within the bill.

To be clear, the cohort targeted through this bill is a smaller subset of all victims who are eligible to register to be on a victims register.

For the Corrective Services register, victims who are eligible to be registered include:

A victim of an offender serving a sentence of imprisonment by full-time detention.

A victim of an offender serving an Intensive Correction Order [ICO] for a personal violence offence.

A victim of a high-risk offender.

A victim of a terrorism offender.

For the Youth Justice NSW Register, eligible victims are victims of an offence for which the offender has been sentenced to a control order or a sentence of imprisonment where the offender was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offence.

Limiting the notification obligation to victims of serious offenders responds to stakeholder feedback that direct contact with victims to inform them about the register should be limited to victims of particularly serious offences.

This balances the risks around re-traumatisation from unexpected contact and re-exposure to painful topics.

The focus on victims of "serious offenders" is further taken on the basis that victims of serious crimes may be more likely to want to access the benefits of the victims register such as making a submission about an offenders' parole, due to the significant impact that serious crimes may have.

Stakeholders also indicated that victims of serious crimes are most likely to be overwhelmed in the immediate aftermath of the legal process, requiring support to ensure that their rights are upheld.

For the Youth Justice NSW register, the notification obligation is limited to victims of "serious young offenders" as defined in section 37N of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987, namely a detainee who has been convicted of a serious children's indictable offence within the meaning of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.

For the Corrective Services NSW register, "serious offender" will include an offender under subsections (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the definition of "serious offender" in section 3 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, namely:

an offender who is serving a sentence for life,

an offender who is serving a sentence for which a non-parole period has been set in accordance with schedule 1 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (i.e. an offender who was serving a life sentence prior to the enactment of "truth in sentencing" legislation),

an offender who is serving a sentence, or one of a series of sentences of imprisonment, where the term of the sentence, or the combined terms of all of the sentences in the series, is such that the offender will not become eligible for release from custody, including release on parole, until the offender has spent at least 12 years in custody,

an offender who has been convicted of murder and who is subject to a sentence in respect of the conviction.

Offenders falling under subsections (d) and (e1) to (f) of the definition of "serious offender" in the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, including offenders subject to a continued detention order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 or Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017, will not be included as these categories relate to orders made after the offender has already been sentenced and spent time in custody for the original offence.

The reasons for becoming subject to a continued detention order may not relate to the victim/s of the original offence, who may be re­traumatised by being contacted years later.

Where the original offending also falls within the definition of serious offending, as would often be the case, including these categories would also involve a second mandatory contact, including for victims who chose not to register on the first occasion and may not welcome further correspondence.

For the Specialist Victims Register under schedule 3 to the bill, all eligible victims of forensic patients will be required to be notified.

Eligible victims for the Specialist Victims Register are victims of forensic patients who have received a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible for the offence against the victim and victims of forensic patient who have received a limiting term following a special hearing.

Given the particular needs of victims of forensic patients, it is appropriate that all of these victims be notified about the Specialist Victims Register rather than a separate cohort be prescribed based on the seriousness of the offending.

Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the bill provide in relation to each of the registers, that "notifiable family members" who are known to prosecuting authorities should be notified instead of the primary victim in situations where the victim is dead, is under incapacity or is aged under 18.

This reflects existing legislated provisions across the registers which provide for family member representatives to be recorded on the register instead of the primary victim.

Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the bill also provide that the relevant responsible agency is not required to notify a victim about the register if the agency does not have the sufficient information to inform the person despite having taken reasonable steps to ascertain that information from prosecuting authorities.

This ensures that an agency will not breach their obligation in situations where victims are unable to be identified or unable to be contacted, for example due to inaccurate contact details.

Similarly, schedules 1, 2 and 3 provide with respect to each agency that the requirement to notify an eligible victim does not apply if the agency is aware that that the victim does not wish to be recorded in the register or does not wish to be contacted in relation to the relevant offender.

This would include, for example, where the victim has already indicated to NSW Police or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that they do not wish to engage with the register.

Schedule 4 to the bill contains amendments to facilitate the sharing of information between agencies to enable victims to be notified about victims registers.

As agencies responsible for administering the registers do not hold victim contact information prior to registration, this information will need to be obtained from relevant prosecuting authorities, including the NSW Police Force and Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Schedule 4 [2] to the bill amends section 7 of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 to ensure that a victim's contact information can be shared for the purpose of informing victims about services, support or assistance available to them, including advising victims of their eligibility to be registered on a victims register.

The bill does this by providing that section 6.8 of the Charter of Victim's Rights, which provides that a victim's residential address and telephone number will not be disclosed unless a court otherwise directs, does not apply when an agency is disclosing, to the extent reasonably necessary, a victim's contact information to allow another agency to inform the victim about services, support or assistance available to them, including advising victims of their eligibility to be recorded on a victims register.

This amendment is needed so that prosecuting authorities can share a victim's phone number and address with the agency administering the register, so that the agency can contact the victim via letter or by phone.

Schedule 4 to the bill also amends the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 to clarify that the sharing of victim information between agencies responsible for administering the registers and other agencies is permissible under privacy legislation.

Schedule 4 to the bill does this by inserting a new subsection to the existing information sharing provision under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (section 112A) which exempts agencies from specific sections of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 7998 when victims' information is disclosed for specific purposes.

Schedule 4 [4] inserts new section 112A (1) (c) which provides that victims rights agencies are not required to comply with privacy legislation where that would prevent them from the disclosure of personal information that is reasonably necessary to enable an agency to comply with an obligation to notify victims about victims registers.

Schedule 4 [5] also provides that the disclosure of health information is similarly permissible. This is relevant to the sharing of information for the Specialist Victims Register, given that the fact a person is a forensic patient is health information Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

To conclude on the specifics, I want to make clear that the key legislative change delivered through this bill is a positive obligation on agencies responsible for notifying victims of serious offenders in the circumstances, and subject to the exceptions, I have outlined above.

Subsequent amendments are proposed to additional acts to enable this positive obligation to operate.

The bill does not amend the existing frameworks for the operation of the victims registers in New South Wales, including eligibility of victims or the notifications that they receive once they choose to register.

The Government is committed to supporting a victim-centric approach to administering the victims registers that is both accessible and sensitive to the needs of diverse victim groups and addresses identified relating to registration.

I would like to thank all of the individual victims who contributed to this reform for their contributions and brave advocacy, including Samantha and Laurence Barlow, Martha Jabour and Howard Brown.

I would also like to thank the many victims support and advocacy groups that were consulted, including:

Homicide Victims' Support Group, Victims of Terrorism Australia [VOTA],

Women's Legal Service NSW [WLS],

Wirringa Baiya,

Domestic Violence NSW,

Full Stop Australia,

No to Violence,

Victims of Crime Assistance League,

Knowmore, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia,

Survivors and Mates Support Network [SAMSN],

the Victims Advisory Board,

Enough is Enough,

People with Disability Australia,

the Intellectual Disability Rights Service and ACON.

These reforms show that the New South Wales Government takes seriously its responsibility to better protect community safety and support victims of crime.

This includes responding to calls for improvements to the systems in place to support those affected by the heinous and deplorable offences that have unfortunately taken place in our State.

By legislating a mandatory notification for victims of serious offenders, these reforms give those victims who wish to seek it, the greater peace of mind and support for safety planning that they deserve.

I am proud to deliver a bill that achieves a careful balance between improving the current registration process for victims registers while responding to victims' feedback about the importance of maintaining victims' agency and consent.

I commend the bill to the House.

Second Reading Debate

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (20:11): The Opposition supports the Victims Legislation Amendment (Victims Registers) Bill 2025. It is a sad but necessary bill. It is sad because it reminds us that crime is often a continuing event; the assault may be momentary, but its effects linger, physically and psychologically. It is necessary because we should never lose sight of the continuing impact that crime and criminals have on victims, and we need to do as much as possible to mitigate the ongoing impact. That is what the bill seeks to do. It cannot undo the harm caused by the initial crime. But it can mitigate ongoing trauma—although the bill alone is not a complete answer to the issue.

The bill seeks to improve the way our system notifies eligible victims of their right to register with one of the three existing victims registers in New South Wales. The three registers—the Corrective Services NSW Victims Register, the Youth Justice Victims Register and the Specialist Victims Register—play a crucial role in keeping victims informed about the offender who harmed them. The information provided might include parole eligibility, sentence progression or other significant updates. For many victims, particularly those of serious and violent crimes, such information can be vital for planning, safety and, of course, peace of mind. It can also provide an opportunity to make a submission when decisions are being made about changes as to how the sentence is served, such as the grant of parole or supervised leave.

Currently all three registers operate on an opt‑in model, which means that victims must take active steps to register. While that approach was originally adopted out of respect for victims so that no-one was included without consent, it does present a key challenge. Simply put, many victims are unaware that the relevant register exists, let alone that they are eligible to be included. The bill responds to that issue by introducing a new obligation for the agencies that administer the registers. Where a victim is eligible and where the offender is classified as a serious offender under the relevant legislation, the agency will be required to take reasonable steps to notify the victim and their family of their right to register. That obligation must be carried out as soon as practicable once the agency becomes aware that the person is eligible.

Importantly, the model still respects victims' autonomy by not moving to an automatic opt‑in system. It responds to feedback from stakeholders, including many victims and support organisations, which was extremely clear. While many would welcome more information, they do not want to be registered without their knowledge or consent. For some, being contacted unexpectedly can be a re-traumatising experience. For others, engaging with the register at all may be too painful. Those voices must be heard and I am pleased that the bill has sought to strike the right balance between proactive engagement and personal choice.

The Opposition is happy to support this small but very important change, legislating as it does respect for the individual person, autonomy and personal freedom. The Opposition also notes the sensible limitations and safeguards included in the bill. For example, agencies are not required to notify a victim if they are unable to obtain accurate contact information despite making all reasonable efforts. Similarly, no notification is required if the victim has already expressed that they do not wish to be contacted about the relevant offender or do not wish to be included on the register. The bill also includes specific provisions relating to family members. Where the primary victim is deceased, under the age of 18 or under some form of incapacity, a family member may be notified in their place. That is a compassionate and appropriate recognition of the need to continue supporting those who are closest to the victim.

The reforms proposed in the bill were developed through a process of consultation with victims, stakeholders and advocacy groups. I acknowledge the brave contributions of individuals like former police sergeant Samantha Barlow, whose case brought national attention to the shortfalls of the current system. Her experience of only learning of the register when the offender in her case was about to be considered for parole demonstrates exactly why the changes are needed. Victims should not have to find those services by accident or at the last minute. It is important that we take all the necessary steps to ensure that we deliver a system that engages proactively with victims and gives them the choice to be informed and involved in a way that is sensitive and respectful.

The bill also includes amendments to the Victims Rights and Support Act to allow for limited, purpose‑specific sharing of victim contact information between prosecuting agencies like the NSW Police Force, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the agencies that manage the victims registers. That is a necessary step to enable notifications to occur without breaching privacy legislation. Importantly, the disclosure must be reasonably necessary, and safeguards must remain in place to protect sensitive information, including health information in cases involving forensic patients.

The Opposition acknowledges that the reforms do not change the eligibility requirements for the registers, nor do they alter the types of updates a victim receives once registered. They improve the gateway, ensuring that victims of serious offenders are given the opportunity to make that choice at the right time and with the right information. The work of supporting victims of crime is never complete. We must keep moving forward and listen to those with lived experience, respond to their calls for change and improve the way our systems work. It is a living formula that must continue. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (20:17): It was not, unfortunately, reflected in the briefing note to the crossbench, but the Victims Legislation Amendment (Victims Registers) Bill 2025 is primarily and overwhelmingly a product of the brave advocacy of Samantha and Laurie Barlow. I thank the Hon. Mark Buttigieg for mentioning that in his second reading speech. When the animal who attacked Samantha and left her to die was paroled late last year, the Barlows only accidentally had prior knowledge of that parole hearing. They argued for a system whereby victims were automatically placed on the three victims registers, with an opportunity to opt out if they so desired—not the other way round, where victims had to opt in when in the middle of devastating personal circumstances and trauma because of someone else's crime. We can all understand why some people would opt out, deciding, as they grieve and recover, to leave it all behind them. But I am sure the majority of victims would want to stay on the registers and know in advance of forthcoming parole hearings, not least of all for their own personal safety, as well as an innate desire to ensure justice continues to be done with regard to the perpetrator.

That is the background to the bill. Without the Barlows, there would be no legislation before us tonight—something the Government should acknowledge in every forum. I know Laurie Barlow from school days and playing rugby too many years ago at the mighty Liverpool Bulls. I had communication with Sam and Laurie Barlow late last year and into this year as the issue emerged and the Government introduced this legislation. Tonight it is my honour to read intoHansard a statement provided to me by Samantha and Laurie Barlow. It is a lesson for the House not only on the issue and bill before us but also on how the softness in the justice system from judges, magistrates and the parole board continues to endanger public safety. The statement is from both the Barlows to begin with, then Sam's voice alone. It reads:

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard in Parliament in relation to the rights of Victims. Too often discussion centres on the perceived needs of the perpetrators of crime and we the victims are just reduced to statistics in a report. When you are a victim you are not a statistic, you are a human being whose life has been irreversibly changed forever by a person who came into your world uninvited and had no right to do so.

They are referring to Roderick Holohan. The statement continues:

His actions changed our life—yet he is still the focus. On Wednesday the 13 May 2009 our life changed forever and when the violent drug addict who did this to us was released from Gaol we were never consulted or advised about his release.

He was released in November. The statement continues:

This is where our elected representatives are supposed to stand up and be counted. This is where those people living off the taxpayers dollar are supposed to do everything possible to serve and protect the community.

The system, and many people within the system from the top down has failed us and continues to fail people like us. You should not have to be the victim of serious violence before those charged with caring for us are compelled to act.

When your life is reduced to a crumbling mess you should not be expected to act on behalf of the Community to fill the void left by a flawed system. It is frightening to think how many people in the community have been failed similar to us but never had the opportunity or the public profile that allowed them to be heard.

The media, radio, TV and written media have been our greatest advocates along with the Hon. Mark Latham MLC who is speaking on our behalf today. A lot of people should hang their heads in shame that violent people continue to roam unchecked in the community committing horrendous acts of violence against women.

This change before the Parliament came to the prominence because we stood up and said enough is enough. We brought about a change to the law because those charged with making the laws designed to care for the Community never possessed the necessary skills and commitment to ensure that Victims were being heard.

The term Victim itself sits uneasily with us. People who have gone through a life changing incident are Survivors not Victims.

Samantha Barlow wrote:

On Wednesday the 13th of May 2009 I got up at 5am kissed my husband goodbye and went to work as a Sergeant in the NSW Police Force stationed at Kings Cross Police Station. I had been back at work for a couple of days following the birth of my second child who was 5 months old. My first born was 20 months. Within an hour life as I knew it was over at the hands of a recently Paroled drug addict who bashed me with a brick.

After the initial attack whilst laying on the ground unconscious he went through my handbag saw my uniform and realised I was a NSW Police Officer then went back to finish me off. In his interview with investigators he told them he believed he had killed me. Drs estimated he hit me in the head with a brick between 12 & 20 times. My head was caved in crazed like an egg-shell and surgeons had to surgically remove part of my skull which had perforated the dural sac which surrounds your brain.

He robbed me of $200, money my mother had given me to buy her Grand-daughter a 2nd birthday present which was only a couple of weeks away. After stealing this money he went about hiding the evidence of the attack in a public park, walked to the convenience store close by, bought water and washed my blood off his body, caught a cab to Central railway station, using the money he had stolen from me, and caught a train home to Wollongong.

Is my life only worth $200? I was in a Coma and not expected to live and if I did I would have significant mental and physical disability. I never died due to the incredible work of the medical teams who treated me and years of rehabilitation but my life was ruined by him. I had Benign Paroxysmal Vertigo for several years, fingers of my right hand had to be re-built and I still get dizzy 15 years after the attack.

I lost my career. I lost my sense of identity. I lost my sense of self. I cannot smell or taste food. I have scars all over my head. I have a surgically implanted titanium plate in my head. I have been treated by a Psychiatrist for 15 years. And that's just the impact on me. My husband too lost his career and has also been treated for over 15 years by a Psychiatrist as well.

I am the 3rd woman he had attempted to kill.

He had been on parole for 3 weeks.

This is the type of person our legal system looks after. This is the type of person the representatives of this house hearing this speech are guilty of giving priority to over the rights of victim/survivors and the community. How has the legal system become so skewed in favour of the evil scum who prey on good people?

When you are the Victim of serious Crime, the sense of helplessness, the feelings of being ignored are repeated over and over. It's not just the incident. It is repeated in court, your loss of career, we could not afford to keep the house we were living in so sold and moved away from Sydney to a cheaper location in rural NSW.

We never received a single cent of compensation.

Samantha is referring to compensation under the Victims Support Scheme. Her statement continues:

If I had not been on my way to work that day and entitled to Workers Compensation we would have lost everything.

On Thursday 31 October 2024 my husband and I attended a Parole hearing at Parramatta. Between us we have 50 years police experience and have spent many days in courtrooms around NSW, from Local court through to Supreme Court.

The Parole hearing was educational if nothing else.

The term hearing which can be defined as "an opportunity to state one's case" implies there would be some kind of argument—adversarial in nature with both sides presenting their argument.

The parole hearing we witnessed was all about releasing the Prisoner. The decision to release had clearly been made prior to appearance in court, reducing the time in court to a "rubber stamping" of the decision and the Victim was voiceless.

It was more like a local court Bail application where an innocent person has the presumption in favour of bail as opposed to a violent career criminal who everyone knew would reoffend once released.

Parole hearings should be renamed—"Release hearings". There was no debate. There was no contrary evidence. There was no reference to the crimes committed. There was no reference to his recidivism or the serious nature of the offence. It was all about the Prisoner and his needs. His need to "reconnect with country" was more important to those present than the fact he had tried to kill another human being within 3 weeks of release the last time he was paroled. We even heard a submission that he had nowhere to live for more than a couple of days.

And they were supposed to feel sympathetic. Her statement continues:

If we had not been in court that day he would've been released without anyone making any noise. If the print and electronic media had not picked up the story he would have snuck out the back door and no one would've known. How can anyone refer to this as a hearing?

Our presence at the Parole hearing that day was due to the actions of a 3rd party who went outside the system. My husband Laurence received a phone call about 3.30pm the Friday prior to the hearing 25 October afternoon from a trusted friend that there would be a Parole hearing next Thursday (31 October) at Parramatta. The person was on holiday overseas when the call was made. I then started making phone calls to Probation and Parole who referred me to the Victims Registry which confirmed this to be true.

The scariest piece of information of all wasn't that he was appearing the following Thursday, but that this would be his second Parole appearance after he was rejected in November last year.

If he had been granted Parole last year he would've been out in the community and nothing would have prevented him from driving past my home or coming into direct contact with me or members of my family.

This situation was absolutely unimaginable. How could we be treated like this? Once again we were being treated like "throw away garbage" and the level of victimisation was more than anyone should experience. The nightmares, flashbacks, sleeping disorders like sleep paralysis, all returned in abundance and are as real and raw as they have ever been.

It is 15 years after the bashing. Her statement continues:

Even typing this statement continues the process. No sleep, sense of loss, mourning, worthlessness, the feeling of being forgotten by those who are charged with taking care of us. There are no words that can accurately describe the sense of betrayal that comes from something like this. At the parole hearing we felt like a lone voice in the dark. We never had legal representation. We never had a copy of the brief of evidence. We never had any of the information relating to his past—all we had were the scraps we remember from the previous court appearances.

The world has gone mad. At a time when there is bi-partisan support to do something about violence against women at both State and Federal level a known violent criminal with no regard for human life, who has already attempted to kill 3 women, who attempted to kill me whilst on Parole who tried to kill arresting Police Officers by infecting them with HIV AIDS was returned to the community.

Surely when someone already on parole attempts to kill another person they give up the right to Parole in the future.

Do we really have to wait until he successfully kills his next victim — and there will be one — before someone has the strength to recognise some people are beyond rehabilitation and should be locked away for life?

We were dumbfounded that someone like him was even being considered for release to the community.

We scraped together vague memories of the legal process, reliving the trauma of the incident and were expected to put together a coherent, logical, submission to be reviewed by Judges and others about whether this person should be returned to the Community in a couple of days.

By comparison he had 15 years to prepare. Been given plenty of advice. Access to Legal Aid and the Aboriginal Legal service who put together the best possible argument for release.

Ours was a rushed last minute attempt to be heard.

When he was released he was on the street for only a couple of months before once again committing an act of violence against a woman. If he hurt someone whilst he was on Parole this time then the Parole Board has blood on its hands and must be held accountable for their incompetence.

I break from the statement to point out that he was arrested on the South Coast of New South Wales for, again, attacking a woman—the fourth that we know of—and the Barlows fear there will be more to come if similar leniency is shown in the future. I continue the statement from Samantha Barlow:

We were asked by a journalist the following:

You have rebuilt your life, and have remained a positive and strong community-minded person, what keeps you going? What have the last two decades been like for you since this attack?

Here was our response.

You Never Never give up. We wrote a book about our journey "Left For Dead — a True Story of resilience and courage" from a diary Laurence kept, and shared our story with a lot of people who very kindly told us that through sharing our story we helped them. We both remained active reserve members of Surf Life Saving. We are not in the water saving lives anymore but have assisted training and preparing others for community service.

You just have to keep moving. Learning. Being grateful for what you have, not what you could've had which is really hard. Both Laurence and I loved being NSW Police Officers. We both planned to go as far as we could—

in the service—

and the lifestyle that comes with that. It's tough when people you know achieve the success you once craved and not be a little jealous which soon turns to anger because it was stolen from us.

We are relieved that this new bill is going through both houses.

The Premier and the NSW government need to fix this—

and through this legislation, it seems that they are making the right step—

The Opposition should give it bi-partisan support as it is above politics.

Prior to this amendment, the Victims Registry is an "opt in" Registry for the victims of Crime.

Because it was "opt in" we never knew anything about it.

Laurence and Sam speak together in this next part:

Sam gave a 25 page Victim Impact statement from the witness dock staring down this scumbag who would not look her in the eye during sentencing. We engaged a Barrister with the intent of taking legal action against the Parole Authority at that time for failing to protect the Community from this monster. We wrote a book.

As if we would not want to be part of the process of keeping him locked away.

Prior to this amendment the system was back to front. Victims of serious crime should default into the Registry by virtue of what happened and it should be the Victim who decides if they want to opt out.

People who have just been through the most traumatic experience in their lives, with physical and psychological injuries — some permanent, are not in possession of the logical thinking required to become part of the body who will one day be called upon in relation to parole, 5, 10 or 15 years later.

If Laurence never received his phone call we never would've known. We never would have raised our concerns in the media, we would not be making this submission to Parliament and nothing would've changed.

It is beyond comprehension how many more victims have been voiceless at these shambolic Parole hearings and how many violent people are walking around the community amongst us who should have remained locked away OR at the very least had conditions put on their behaviour?

Victims of Serious Indictable offences in NSW — offences that are punishable by a sentence of 5 years to life — should automatically be in the Registry. They should only be removed if they apply to be. If the NSW Government amended the legislation to reflect this then something like what happened to us will never happen again.

The Parole board is a sham. It has no credibility. It does not reflect the needs of the community. They should acknowledge their collective failure and resign.

If they were the CEO of a major company they would be removed by the board—

or the shareholders—

A coach of a sporting team would be sacked and an elected politician would be thrown out of office—

too right—

Where is their accountability? Why are they allowed to continually make flawed decisions that are out of touch with reality and the wishes of the community they are paid to serve?

Politicians from all parties State and Federal owe it to the people they represent to do better.

The statement continues:

Sentences must reflect the crime. Judicial hearings, Bail Applications and Parole hearings must ensure that victims are heard.

A victim of violent crime is a victim for life.

You (the members of this house) owe it to "Victim/Survivors" to ensure everything is done to protect them and the community from monsters who have no intention of conforming with societal norms.

Now that you have heard us How would the members of the house feel if someone they knew, mother, wife, relative, friend was treated like this?

Everything must be done to ensure something like this is never allowed to happen again.

That is where the Barlow statement ends.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (20:35): On behalf of The Greens, I contribute to debate in support of the Victims Legislation Amendment (Victims Registers) Bill 2025, which is ultimately a very straightforward and commonsense amending bill. The bill reforms the processes of victims registers and will result in increased access to registers for eligible victims. I echo the comments my colleagues have already made about the bill. Victims registers currently include the Corrective Services NSW Victims Register, the Youth Justice Victims Register and the Specialist Victims Register. The registers can effectively support victims and address their personal safety concerns, with information on their offenders' sentences, release dates and changes in legal status.

I acknowledge the drive of the reforms from the Government's consultation with organisations such as Women's Legal Service NSW, Domestic Violence NSW, Enough is Enough, Full Stop Australia, Intellectual Disability Rights Service, ACON and others that do important, incredible work in supporting victims of crime and advocating for reforms. I also acknowledge the government's consultation with victims directly, including victim-survivor Samantha Barlow, a former police officer, who the Hon. Mark Latham just read an incredible statement from and who has advocated fiercely for the changes.

The status quo of victims registers places an onus on victims themselves to be informed about their offender or offenders. The opt-in system allows victims to choose whether to register and receive information about offenders, and that is really important when considering victim-survivors. We know that not all victim-survivors actually want to register, given that registers can re-expose victim-survivors to offenders and their past and lead, of course, to re-traumatisation. It is therefore crucial to maintain an opt-in system of sorts, with choice provided to victim-survivors. That being said, the system as it stands does not adequately provide victims with the easiest opportunity to register if they choose to do so. As it stands, victims are not notified if they are eligible for the victims register or to register. That is a significant gap and leaves many victims, especially those more disadvantaged, uninformed about their opportunity to register. That can be fixed while still balancing the choice and autonomy of victim-survivors.

Importantly, the bill focuses specifically on victims of serious offenders, balancing the need for victims of serious crime to feel safe through information of their offenders' sentences while also recognising the potential re-traumatisation in notifying victim-survivors who may not want to be kept informed. Schedules 1 to 3 to the bill impose a positive obligation on agencies responsible for victims registers to notify victim-survivors of serious offenders of their eligibility to register. I note the comments made in a media article last year by the Premier. He spoke about the need to change the system and that it was found that the Government could not identify which, if any, agency had the responsibility to notify victim-survivors of the register. This amending bill will bring forward that incredibly important and significant change.

The bill, as proposed, will maintain a type of opt-in system by leaving the choice of registration ultimately with victim-survivors, while also ensuring they are more informed following the conviction of the offender who was involved in their harm. Further, the bill provides exemptions to the obligation, such as if an agency does not have sufficient information to identify the victim-survivor, or if the victim-survivor is already identified as not wanting to be notified of the register. To enable this obligation on an agency, schedule 4 to the bill amends the Victims Rights and Support Act to remove a barrier that prohibits the disclosure of a victim's residential address and telephone number and allows the disclosure to victims rights agencies in order to notify victim-survivors of their eligibility for the register.

Ultimately, the bill is a sensible reform to the current system of victims registers in New South Wales. It will see increased access to registers for victims of serious crimes and therefore address personal safety concerns of victims. However, the opt-in system will ultimately be retained in order to consider the vast range of victim‑survivors and their wishes. Again, I acknowledge the several victim advocacy organisations and victim‑survivors for their work, and those victim-survivors who were consulted by the Government in considering this reform. One of the very best things that this State can ultimately do for all victim-survivors is improve the system of incarceration in New South Wales. One of the greatest failures of our State right now is the lack of rehabilitation in the case-based service provision that applies to the incarceration system of New South Wales.

Prisons are places of torture and horror, not rehabilitation. They do not care for the needs of victims outside the system. An offender's primary need is rehabilitation so that when they get out, not only will they not reoffend, but they will be a much better person than when they went in. One of the most criminogenic inputs in a person's life is to be placed in a prison in New South Wales in 2025. We must do much better. We cannot just focus on punishment and locking people up, as if that is going to reduce crime when we know it does not. We need to invest in earnest in the prison system and start rehabilitating the thousands of people who are in prisons. That is in the public interest and the interests of all victim-survivors in New South Wales.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (20:42:4): I support the Victims Legislation Amendment (Victims Registers) Bill 2025. It is a thoughtful and important step forward in strengthening how we support victims in our justice system. As shadow Minister for Youth Justice, I am often focused on ensuring that young people get the support they need to turn their lives around. But, equally, we must ensure that victims of crime, especially serious offences, are not left behind. They deserve to be informed, respected and supported throughout the process. This bill introduces a positive obligation on agencies to notify victims of serious offenders, including serious young offenders, of their eligibility to join a victims register. This does not change the current opt-in model, which respects the wishes of those who do not wish to be contacted, but it fixes a critical gap.

Too many victims simply do not know that these registers exist and that they have a right to be heard. This commonsense and compassionate change balances victim choice with the right to be informed. It targets serious offences where the impact is often greatest. Knowing about parole, leave or other decisions can help victims plan for their safety and wellbeing. In the youth justice system this change applies to a narrow category: victims of serious children's indictable offences. That strikes the right balance between upholding our commitment to rehabilitation and acknowledging the real and lasting impact on victims. Victims registers can be a powerful tool, offering peace of mind, practical updates and the chance to be heard during key decisions like parole, but they only work if people know they exist. The bill helps close that gap without compromising victim autonomy or re-traumatising those who wish to move on. I thank the individuals, families and organisations that contributed to shaping this legislation. It reflects a justice system that is learning to listen better and support more effectively.

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (20:45): I speak in support of the Victims Legislation Amendment (Victims Registers) Bill 2025. One of the realities of our common law system of criminal justice is that victims are not a party to proceedings and therefore do not have any freestanding or longstanding right to be heard in proceedings. For a long time victims had very little role in criminal proceedings and adjacent types of executive decision-making, except as a mere witness. A lot has changed over recent decades, which is a good thing. There are now statutory obligations to consult victims and lots of internal procedures in organisations like the police and the Office of The Director of Public Prosecutions that ensure that victims are consulted. The three victims register schemes can be seen as a part of the change and the progression of our criminal justice system to properly understand the special status of victims, even though it remains the case that they are not a party to proceedings and do not have all the privileges of being a party.

One consequence of not being a party is that, except in the absence of a special policy or special legislative provisions, they will not necessarily know what is happening or when important decisions loom. In my experience, victims in the criminal justice system by and large do not have unrealistic expectations about their capacity to veto certain proceedings or even their capacity to have a substantial impact on them. One example of that is victim impact statements in criminal proceedings. Under the specific legislative provisions in New South Wales, they are not treated as evidence but simply read in court and taken into account. That is explained to victims, and by and large they understand the special status of those documents, but they still want to be heard. In my experience, victims want to know when a perpetrator is facing the prospect of being released on parole. One can imagine how confronting and affronting it must be, as a victim of a serious criminal offence, for the perpetrator to be on the street when no-one has paid you the dignity of letting you know they might be released or even given you the meaningful opportunity to have your say to try to influence proceedings.

The opt-in model for the registers was implemented in 1996. It was the preference of victims' advocates at the time, who were of the view that victims should be able to choose whether to register. But this has presented a challenge because it relies on victims being aware of the existence of the register and their eligibility to be on it. Some people have not been aware of the registers and their functions and have therefore been prevented from accessing the support and information that being on the register can provide. In late 2024 the Government committed to consulting victims and their representatives about ways to improve the operation of the registers. As has been well and truly heard by members, this followed advocacy by Samantha Barlow, a former New South Wales police officer, who was the victim of a most egregious and terrible crime.

The consultation that took place confirmed that retaining an opt-out model is fundamental in preserving victim agency and reducing the risk of re-traumatisation due to receiving unsolicited communications about a crime. However, the consultation also confirmed the significant lack of awareness of the three registers and their functions, and that needs to be addressed. The bill seeks to do that through introducing a positive obligation on the agencies responsible for the registers to notify victims of certain serious offenders of their eligibility to register as soon as practicable after becoming aware that a victim is so eligible. That will meet victims' calls for more information and awareness of the registers, while maintaining their agency and consent over the choice to register. For the Corrective Services and Youth Justice registers, the obligation will apply only in relation to victims of certain serious offenders.

The majority of stakeholders consulted were generally supportive of a direct notification process, whereby victims are notified of their eligibility and invited to register. However, concern was expressed about the potential for direct notifications to re-traumatise victims. On balance, stakeholders considered that the option of limiting the direct notification to the serious offender victims was preferable and seen as achieving an appropriate balance between the risks and the benefits in this particular area. Stakeholders also indicated that victims of serious crime are most likely to be overwhelmed in the immediate aftermath of the legal process, requiring support to ensure that their rights are upheld.

In terms of the functional provisions under the bill, agencies responsible for managing the registers will identify eligible victims who should be notified about the register and their eligibility. That process will involve close collaboration between the NSW Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to obtain the necessary details of the victims. Once the agency has obtained the details, it will reach out to the victim to inform them about the register and their eligibility to register. It is intended that this process will be handled with a high degree of sensitivity to ensure that victims are supported to make an informed decision about whether they want to register and, if they do so wish, they will be supported to do so. The bill is a significant step forward in ensuring that victims are aware of their rights and the resources available to them. It also underscores this Government's strong commitment to supporting victims of crime and ensuring that they have the information and support they deserve to make empowered decisions and feel safe in New South Wales. For those reasons, I commend the bill.

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (20:52): On behalf of the Hon. Penny Sharpe: In reply: I thank honourable members for their respective contributions to debate on the Victims Legislation Amendment (Victims Registers) Bill 2025—namely, the Hon. Susan Carter, Ms Sue Higginson, the Hon. Mark Latham, the Hon. Aileen MacDonald and the Hon. Stephen Lawrence. I welcome support for the bill across this House. The bill marks another critical step in the New South Wales Government's commitment to improving our justice system and supporting victims of crime, as we work to create a safer New South Wales.

The bill will legislate a new requirement for agencies that administer the victims registers to proactively notify victims of certain serious offenders of their right to be on the register and access the benefits it has to offer. This will give those victims who wish to seek it the greater peace of mind and support for safety planning that they deserve. I am proud to deliver a bill that achieves a careful and appropriate balance between victims' desire for more information and awareness of the victims registers with concerns about retaining victims' privacy, agency and consent. I am glad that the Opposition, The Greens and, indeed, the Hon. Mark Latham have recognised the importance of these reforms in addressing a current gap in the system and best supporting victim-survivors. I particularly thank Ms Sue Higginson for her passionate dedication to reforms to improve the correctional services system.

The Premier publicly committed to consulting victims and victim representatives on ways to improve the operation of victims registers in late 2024. As the Hon. Mark Latham noted, that followed advocacy by Samantha Barlow, a former NSW Police Force officer, who became aware of the existence of the Corrective Services NSW victims register just prior to the perpetrator who committed the offence against her being considered for parole. The Government acted quickly in response and carried out consultation with key stakeholders from December 2024 to February 2025.

From that consultation, we know that many victims do not support an opt‑out model, which was the view held by stakeholders when the first victims register was introduced in New South Wales in 1996. That is, victims do not want to be registered with a victims register without their consent, and they want to retain their autonomy over whether to register. That is considered fundamental as it preserves the victim's agency and reduces the risk of victims being retraumatised through the receipt of unsolicited communications. Automatically enrolling victims in a register also raises issues of informed consent and data privacy. There is a risk that victims may not be aware that they are on a register, and they may not understand the implications of the notifications.

Victims' needs and personal circumstances can vary significantly, and a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate for everyone. Requiring victims to opt in ensures that they are making a conscious and informed decision to be registered, which is particularly important during a time of acute trauma, when victims may be more vulnerable and need to feel empowered to make their own choices. An opt-in model respects victims' autonomy and allows them to decide if, and when, they are ready to receive notification. These reforms show that the New South Wales Government takes seriously its responsibility to better protect community safety and support victims of crime. That includes responding to calls for improvements to the systems in place to support those affected by the heinous and deplorable offences that unfortunately sometimes take place in our State.

On behalf of the Government, I again thank the many individual victims and the victim support and advocacy groups that have contributed to the development of the bill. In particular, I thank the Homicide Victims' Support Group, Victims of Terrorism Australia, Women's Legal Service NSW, Wirringa Baiya, Domestic Violence NSW, Full Stop Australia, No to Violence, Victims of Crime Assistance League, Knowmore, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia, Survivors and Mates Support Network, the Victims Advisory Board, Enough is Enough, People with Disability Australia, the Intellectual Disability Rights Service, and ACON. I also particularly thank Samantha Barlow, the former police officer and victim-survivor, and her husband, Laurence Barlow, for their extraordinarily brave advocacy for victim-survivors and for the invaluable advice they provided throughout the consultation process.

I extend my thanks to longstanding and dedicated victim advocates Howard Brown and Martha Jabour for their generous and expert advice and contributions to the bill. I also thank staff from both the Department of Communities and Justice and Corrective Services NSW who have supported the development of the bill. I thank Luke Grant and the team: Sarah Cumming, Claudia Daly, Stephanie Parsons and Rebekah Hitchenson. Lastly, I thank the Minister's staff for their dedication to this important reform. I thank Constance Piperides, Alicia Sylvester and Brooke O'Rourke, and Department Liaison Officers Brenna Lorkin and Laura Dewberry. 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.

Third Reading

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: On behalf of the Hon. Penny Sharpe: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.