Today in Parliament Abigail spoke in support of the government's new domestic violence legislation that will strengthen our laws in relation to ADVO breaches, prevention orders, and expanding the definition of stalking to include technology related stalking.
Abigail said:
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 (NSW Treasurer): 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.
Read the full transcript in Hansard here.
24 September 2024