Today in Parliament, Abigail passed 8 Greens amendments to the Victims Rights and Victims of Crime Commissioner Bill 2025, which will strengthen the new Commissioner’s role and functions, ensure the government responds to recommendations made by the Commissioner, and ensure the new victims advisory committee will have a representative who is a person with disability and a representative with expertise of domestic and family violence.
Abigail said:
I speak on the Victims Rights and Victims of Crime Commissioner Bill 2025 on behalf of The Greens as our spokesperson for gendered violence and abuse. The Greens support the bill, which is a long overdue but welcome reform to establish an independent victims commissioner to act as an advocate for victims of crime, separate from the Executive Government and the delivery of the Victims Support Scheme. The creation of an independent victims commissioner is something victim-survivors, families and loved ones of victims as well as frontline workers, specialists and experts across various sectors have long been calling for. On behalf of The Greens, I place on record our appreciation, gratitude and respect for the expertise and lived experience which has informed this reform across several years through statutory reviews, inquiries and consultation. The specialist expertise and knowledge of those across the domestic family and sexual violence sector, the legal sector and the disability advocacy sector is incredibly invaluable and is far too often unacknowledged.
It is a human right that victim-survivors are able to safely and easily access counselling and financial support, and that the harm they have suffered as a result of violence is recognised. Victim-survivors of violence face enormous and unnecessary barriers to accessing support, healing, recovery and justice. Establishing an independent victims commissioner does not come close to addressing those barriers, but it will create a pathway for victim-survivors to have their voices and experiences heard in advocacy pathways and change-making. The bill has, in our opinion, some concerning gaps and weaknesses, and there is a serious risk of the independent commissioner becoming yet another statutory role with effectively no real powers to enact change. The Greens will be proposing some amendments to the bill to strengthen the functions of the commissioner and to address some of the gaps in the bill as it stands. I take the opportunity to thank the Attorney General and his team for engaging with us in relation to those amendments and for being consultative in that process.
Currently, the existing Commissioner of Victims Rights is responsible for advocating for victims of crime, overseeing the Charter of Victims Rights and chairing the Victims Advisory Board under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013. There are serious flaws in that existing model, which empowers one individual to act as both Commissioner of Victims Rights and executive director for Victims Services. Having one individual advocate for, and act in the best interests of, victims, while also performing bureaucratic duties, poses an inherent conflict of interest. It has resulted in several instances where the Commissioner of Victims Rights has acted against the interests of victim‑survivors, for example, in September 2021, when the commissioner unilaterally amended the Victims of Crime Interagency terms of reference to remove any reference to the Victims of Crime Interagency as a consultative mechanism, despite strong opposition by members of the interagency who were not representing government.
For many years, experts have raised concerns with the functions of the existing commissioner and have called for the establishment of an independent victims commissioner separate from government and able to function as a fully independent advocate for victims, similar to models used in other jurisdictions, including Victoria and Queensland. Specifically, calls have urged that the commissioner must not be a public servant and should be appointed under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 rather than the Government Sector Employment Act 2013. In other jurisdictions, the statutory role of an independent victims commissioner plays an important role in advocating for and representing the voices and experiences of victim-survivors of violent crimes, who are most commonly victim-survivors of domestic and family violence, sexual assault, child abuse, homicide and modern slavery, as those make up the majority of violent crimes that the commissioner would be advocating in relation to.
I now turn to the contents of the bill. The bill would create a new Act, the Victims Rights and Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2025, to establish a Victims of Crime Commissioner and to recognise and promote the rights of victims of crime under the Charter of Victims Rights. The new independent commissioner will assume the advocacy functions of the current Commissioner of Victims Rights, who will continue to administer the Victims Support Scheme and register for victims of forensic patients. Part 1 of the proposed new Act lays out the meaning of "victim of crime", which is the same as that which is currently in the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013. Proposed part 2 moves the Charter of Victims Rights from the existing Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 to place it under the remit of the new independent commissioner. It separates the charter from the functions of the scheme executive.
The details regarding complaints about alleged contraventions of the charter are laid out in proposed part 3 of the bill. Currently, the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 only makes a brief reference to the ability of a victim to make a complaint about a breach of the charter and the information they are to be provided with regarding the procedure for making such a complaint. That has been an identified issue in terms of the existing commissioner being responsible for overseeing complaints with breaches of the charter, given that they are also responsible for the operation of the scheme. The bill ensures that complaints are overseen and investigated by the new independent commissioner. The appointment of the new Victims of Crime Commissioner and the commissioner's office is detailed in proposed part 4 of the bill. The provisions require the office of the commissioner to be established as a statutory office and specify that the commissioner must not be removed from office under part 6 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013. The commissioner may also employ public sector workers under the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 to enable them to exercise the commissioner's functions.
Proposed part 5 prescribes the commissioner's functions and the limitations on those functions and on the commissioner's independence. It also provides details of the new Victims Advisory Committee. Importantly, proposed section 24 specifies that the new commissioner will not be subject to the control and direction of the Minister. Proposed section 22 (3) specifies that the commissioner must act in the public interest when exercising their functions. Safeguarding the independence of the commissioner was a key request from stakeholders. I note that The Greens will be proposing some amendments to further strengthen those provisions, including clarifying that the commissioner must act both independently and in the public interest, and that the commissioner is not subject to the control and direction of any person, including the Minister.
In relation to the commissioner's functions, the commissioner will be empowered to advocate for the rights of victims of crime at a systemic level, including through reviewing systemic issues, conducting research, consulting victim-survivors and making recommendations to the Minister. The commissioner will also have the ability to promote and oversee the implementation of the charter and receive complaints from persons in relation to alleged contraventions of the charter. The Greens are concerned that those functions are relatively weak and limited, and that they will result in yet another case where victim‑survivors are not adequately listened to and heard, with another statutory agency that is unable to genuinely advocate for the people it is intended to advocate for.
I also note that, without adequate funding, the new commissioner's office will become yet another agency that cannot fulfil its statutory duties because it is so underfunded—like we are currently seeing with both the Ageing and Disability Commissioner and the Anti-slavery Commissioner, which are both incredibly important statutory roles that continue to be severely under-resourced. I urge the Government to commit to fund the new victims commissioner on a demand‑based model to ensure that they are able to carry out their statutory functions and properly advocate for victims and victim‑survivors and their rights.
Importantly, though the commissioner is able to make recommendations to the Minister, there are no accountability mechanisms in place to require the Minister or relevant government agencies to respond to those recommendations, which leaves the commissioner unable to follow up on the implementation, or lack thereof, of any recommendations. Many stakeholders have identified that as an area of concern and have urged for a requirement for the Government to formally respond to recommendations made by the commissioner within a certain time frame, and for that to be made public to ensure an additional layer of transparency and accountability. Successive governments have proven time and again that the rights, perspectives and wishes of victim‑survivors are rarely put at the forefront of decision‑making and are oftentimes outright ignored, even when a government is required to formally respond to recommendations made by experts.
Proposed section 23 limits the commissioner's functions to exclude individual advocacy for victims, including inquiring into decisions about eligibility for support under the scheme. I understand that is in line with the Government's election commitment to establish an independent victims commissioner who purely carries out systemic advocacy functions; however, I note that several stakeholders have called for the role to include some individual advocacy functions, such as assisting individual victims in their dealings with government agencies across the criminal legal system.
I also put on record that it is unclear in the bill whether the commissioner's functions include the ability to oversee and make recommendations in relation to structural issues with the rules bounding the scheme, as well as its operation. Though the provisions relating to the commissioner's functions draw a line between systemic advocacy and individual case decisions, it may limit the commissioner's ability to identify and intervene in recurring structural issues within the administration and operation of the scheme, for example, eligibility rules, time limits or inconsistent decision‑making for particular crime types. For that reason, The Greens will be proposing an amendment to decisively close that gap.
Proposed section 25 provides that the commissioner "may" establish a victims advisory committee. It is concerning that there is not a clear legislated requirement to establish that committee. The Greens also have some concerns with the proposed makeup of the committee, including the unnecessary restriction of no more than six members of the general community and the lack of diverse and expert representation. The advisory committee is made up of mostly government representatives from various departments and agencies, including the NSW Police Force, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Legal Aid Commission, the department and the scheme executive. With only six community representatives and without a formal mechanism to represent a diverse range of victim‑survivors with lived experience and experts, there is a risk of the body becoming overly institutional.
In particular, it is concerning that there is no requirement for a representative from the domestic and family violence sector or the sexual violence sector, and no requirement for a representative who is a person living with disability. I also note it is important that the committee engages in co‑designed consultation with priority cohorts in carrying out advocacy functions. However, The Greens strongly support proposed section 25 (3) (b) (i), which provides that at least one of the members on the advisory committee must be an Aboriginal person. I also note that there is no requirement for individuals on the advisory board to be remunerated if they are not already there as a public servant. I encourage the Government to ensure that the members who are part of the general community are adequately compensated for their time, expertise and experience.
Turning to the provisions in proposed part 6 of the bill, which relate to the powers of the commissioner, I note that there are some gaps in the ability of the commissioner to require an agency to provide information necessary for identifying and reviewing systemic issues. In addition, there is no provision for a penalty for failing to comply with a notice by the commissioner, which has been raised by stakeholders in the legal sector.
The Greens are also concerned that the broad GIPA Act exemption adds unnecessary constraints on the commissioner's information gathering powers. Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 to rename it as the Victims Support Act 2013 and remove the advocacy functions of the existing commissioner from the existing Act. The bill also renames the existing commissioner as the Scheme Executive and removes provisions relating to the current Victims Advisory Board which will effectively be replaced by the new Victims Advisory Committee.
Finally, schedule 4 to the bill makes consequential amendments to other legislation regarding references to the new name of the Act. The bill also makes amendments to the Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2019 to clarify the authorisation of payments for approved counselling services for certain relatives of persons killed in road crimes. The Greens are supportive of this change, which addresses an identified gap in the scheme. I also want to put on the record that there are similar issues with eligibility and access to payments under the scheme for families of victims of domestic and family violence homicide, as well as victim‑survivors of domestic, family and sexual violence more broadly. There are significant gaps identified in the operation of the scheme regarding eligibility constraints, accessing support and claiming payments, which need to be urgently addressed.
I note that the statutory review of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 is still ongoing, after having been delayed yet again. In response to questions asked in a budget estimates hearing earlier this year, the Attorney General advised that he wrote to stakeholders in January to advise that the growth in demand has placed significant upward pressure on the Victims Support Scheme's budget. The Attorney General said, "In light of this, the statutory review of the Act must be progressed with a focus on reforms that can be implemented within the scheme's existing financial parameters. This means that reforms which would significantly increase the cost of the scheme are unable to be pursued at this time. The objectives of the Act can only be met through the continued operation of a financially sustainable scheme."
Given how prominent the gaps in the system are, I urge the Government to address the financial constraints of the scheme and to ensure the statutory review is progressed as a matter of priority. Victim‑survivors commonly report having to navigate unnecessary and complicated barriers to access victims support, which is often retraumatising and commonly results in victim‑survivors and victims' families giving up on trying to access the support that they are entitled to and that they need for their recovery and healing.
There are also a number of reforms that can and should be introduced as a matter of urgency which do not require legislative change, such as adequately investing in the invaluable and irreplaceable specialist frontline services that work tirelessly every day to support victim‑survivors and advocate for their rights. To conclude, The Greens welcome the long‑overdue establishment of an independent victims commissioner. We urge the Government to use this as a foundation to take far bolder action when it comes to addressing the systemic failings that impede on the rights of victims of crime and prevent victim‑survivors from seeking justice, accessing support, and achieving healing and recovery. The Greens support the bill.
Later in the debate, Abigail moved the following 16 amendments to the bill, securing half of them:
I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 1 Meaning of "victim of crime"
Page 2, clause 5(1)(b), line 21. Omit ", paragraph (b)".
The amendment amends the definition of "victim of crime" to include all forms of modern slavery in the definition in section 5 (1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2018, or MSA. The existing definition of "victim of crime" in the bill replicates the provision of that Act that refers only to modern slavery occurring in a supply chain. Excluded from this are other forms of modern slavery captured in paragraph (a) of the definition of modern slavery in section 5 (1) of the MSA—namely, the offences contained in schedule 2 of the MSA. That includes other forms of slavery and slavery-like offences such as deceptive recruiting, debt bondage, forced marriage and trafficking. That means that many victims of modern slavery cannot access the scheme. It also means that the bill in its current form would prevent the independent commissioner from advocating for victims of all forms of modern slavery.
There are already gaps in the meaning of supply chain in this context, as there is no definition of supply chain under the MSA or the Victims Rights and Support Act [VRSA], which has caused uncertainty as to who is entitled to seek assistance under the scheme. The conduct referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of modern slavery in section 5 (1) of the MSA is:
… any conduct involving the use of any form of slavery, servitude or forced labour to exploit children or other persons taking place in the supply chains of—
government agencies or non-government agencies. This amendment removes the reference to paragraph (b) of the definition of modern slavery in section 5 (1) so that the conduct referred to paragraph (a) is also included—namely, "any conduct constituting a modern slavery offence". Many stakeholders in the legal and domestic and family violence sectors have raised issues with this over the years, including through the recent 2022 statutory review of the VRSA. Domestic Violence NSW and Women's Legal Service NSW in particular made recommendations on this specific change in the statutory review. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment negatived.
I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 2 Meaning of "victim of crime" for purposes of Charter
Page 2, clause 5. Insert after line 30—
(5) For the purposes of the Charter, a victim includes a person acting on behalf of a person who is a victim of crime under subsection (1).
In brief, this amends the meaning of a victim of crime for the purposes of the charter to include a person acting on behalf of a victim. That would capture, for example, a support person or representative of a person with disability. The amendment came from disability advocates who are concerned that some of the language for the purposes of the charter presupposes a situation where they are being excluded because their representatives are not covered. I have a lot of sympathy for that position, although I understand it is not necessarily going to be supported today. I nevertheless commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment negatived.
I move The Greens amendment No. 3 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 3 Commissioner may recommend changes to Charter
Page 5, clause 8. Insert after line 44—
(3A) The Commissioner may make recommendations to the Minister about changes to the Charter, including the following, after conducting research, consultation with victims of crime and consideration of systemic evidence about matters that impact on victims of crime—
(a) the addition of new rights to the Charter,
(b) the expansion of existing rights set out in the Charter,
(c) means of strengthening the enforceability of rights set out in the Charter.
This amendment seeks to expand the functions of the commissioner to include the ability to make recommendations about emerging systemic issues and changes to the victims charter. That would strengthen the framework and ensure that the charter is keeping in line with best practice when it comes to victims' rights.
Amendment negatived.
I move The Greens amendment No. 4 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 4 Providing support to persons making complaints about alleged contravention of Charter
Page 7, clause 11(2)(a), line 19. Omit "help". Insert instead "support".
This is a simple amendment that changes the word "help" to "support", which ensures that we are using inclusive language regarding victims when we refer to supporting them. That is particularly important in the context of Australia moving towards a supported decision-making framework when it comes to people with disability.
Amendment agreed to.
I move The Greens amendment No. 5 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 5 Qualifications and experience of Victims of Crime Commissioner
Page 9, clause 15. Insert after line 3—
(1A) The Minister may recommend a person for appointment as the Victims of Crime Commissioner only if, in the Minister's opinion, the person has—
(a) suitable qualifications for appointment as the Commissioner having regard to the Commissioner's functions, and
(b) experience working with victims of crime.
This amendment is seeking to require that the commissioner must have some relevant experience, should be suitably qualified to work with victim-survivors of crime and should have substantial experience working with victim-survivors.
Amendment negatived.
I move The Greens amendment No. 6 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 6 Commissioner's functions
Page 11, clause 22(1). Insert after line 11—
(e1) to investigate, advise on and make recommendations about structural issues with the Scheme,
This amendment seeks to expand the commissioner's functions to include the ability to look at structural issues with the scheme. The bill excludes individual assistance regarding the scheme but does not specifically reference structural issues with the scheme. The bill in its current form is unclear on whether the commissioner would have the ability to investigate, advise on and make recommendations about structural issues with the scheme, which would be problematic given that the scheme is so significant for victims whom the commissioner is advocating for. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment negatived.
I move The Greens amendments Nos 7 and 16 on sheet c2025‑176D in globo:
No. 7 Minister and agencies to respond to Commissioner's recommendations
Page 11, clause 22. Insert after line 26—
(2A) A Minister or agency to whom a recommendation is made by the Commissioner in exercising the Commissioner's functions must provide a written response to the Commissioner advising—
(a) whether or not the recommendation has been adopted, and
(b) if the recommendation has not been adopted—the reasons for the refusal or failure to adopt the recommendation.
(2B) A response under subsection (2A) must be provided by—
(a) the day that is 6 months after the recommendation is made, or
(b) the later day requested by the Minister or agency and agreed by the Commissioner.
No. 16 Annual report
Page 15, clause 30(2)(b)(vi), line 18. Omit "section 14(1)(d).". Insert instead—
section 14(1)(d),
(c) information about recommendations made by the Commissioner to the Minister or agencies and the responses to the recommendations, including whether the recommendations have been adopted and the reasons for not adopting recommendations.
Amendment No. 7 inserts a requirement that the Government must respond to the recommendations made by the commissioner within a six-month time frame, or a later day as requested by the Minister or the agency and agreed to by the commissioner, with a written response advising whether or not the recommendation has been adopted and, if the recommendation has not been adopted, the reasons for the refusal or failure to adopt that recommendation. Without this requirement, the commissioner's ability to make recommendations is essentially toothless. The bill is such an important reform for victims of crime, and it is vital that we get it right by building a strong framework upon which the commissioner can advocate for victims. The amendment would ensure accountability from relevant Ministers and agencies. This specific requirement has been called for by the vast majority of stakeholders consulted earlier this year through the Government's consultation process, as well as in the 2022 statutory review of the Act, including Women's Legal Service NSW, Victims of Crime Assistance League (Hunter), DVNSW, Full Stop and Justice Support Centre. I take this opportunity to thank them for their continued advocacy.
Amendment No.16 inserts a requirement for the annual report to include information about the recommendations made by the commissioner to the Minister or agencies and the responses to those recommendations, including whether the recommendations have been adopted and the reasons for not adopting any of those recommendations. Again, without this reporting requirement, there is no public accountability or transparency over the recommendations made by the commissioner. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendments agreed to.
I move The Greens amendment No. 8 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 8 Commissioner to act independently
Page 11, clause 22(3), line 27. Insert "independently and" after "act".
Currently the commissioner is only required to act in the public interest. This amendment requires the commissioner to act independently and in the public interest. It is absolutely critical to safeguard the independence of the commissioner as explicitly as possible, so this amendment has been put forward on behalf of a number of stakeholders.
Amendment agreed to.
I move The Greens amendment No. 9 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 9 Commissioner's independence
Page 12, clause 24, line 5. Omit "the Minister". Insert instead "any person, including the Minister,"
This amendment clarifies that the commissioner is not subject to direction by any person, including the Minister. That is in line with amendment No. 8 in terms of safeguarding the commissioner's independence as explicitly as possible. Both of these changes have been supported by the sector. These explicit provisions are similar to those in Queensland's Victims' Commissioner and Sexual Violence Review Board Act 2024, which states in section 11 (1) that the commissioner must act independently and in the public interest, and in section 11 (2) that the commissioner is not subject to direction by any person, including the Minister, about how their functions are performed. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment negatived.
I move The Greens amendment No. 10 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 10 Requirement to establish advisory committee
Page 12, clause 25(1), line 8. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".
Currently the bill states that only the Minister may establish the advisory committee. This amendment changes it to specify that the Minister must establish that advisory committee, which adds a stronger legislative requirement to provide extra clarity and assurance that the advisory committee will, in fact, be established.
Amendment agreed to.
I move The Greens amendment No. 11 on sheet c2025-176D:
No. 11 Number of members of advisory committee
Page 12, clause 25(3)(b), line 15. Omit "not more than". Insert instead "at least".
The bill states that the advisory committee must have no more than six members of the general community. The Greens and the vast majority of stakeholders believe that is inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive. The advisory committee is made up of mostly government representatives, as I said in the second reading debate, from various departments and agencies. With no formal mechanism to represent victims with lived experience, there is a risk of this body becoming overly institutional.
Amendment negatived.
I move The Greens amendments Nos 12 and 13 on sheet c2025‑176D in globo:
No. 12 Membership of advisory committee to include person living with disability
Page 12, clause 25(3)(b)(i), lines 17 and 18. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—
(i) reflect the diversity of the general community and includes—
(A) at least one person who is an Aboriginal person, and
(B) at least one person who is a person living with a disability, and
No.13 Membership of advisory committee to include person with experience of domestic and family violence or sexual violence
Page 12, clause 25(3)(b)(ii), line 20. Insert ", including, for at least one member, relevant knowledge of and experience in matters relating to victims of domestic and family violence or victims of sexual violence crime" after "are victims of crime".
Amendment No. 12 adds a requirement that the advisory committee must include at least one person living with disability. People with disability are disproportionately overrepresented in all types of crime, especially the types of crime that the commissioner will be advocating in relation to, including domestic and family violence, sexual assault and modern slavery. The Greens strongly support the inclusion of at least one Aboriginal person, and would like to also see representation from a person with disability to further diversify the committee.
Amendment No. 13 adds the requirement that the committee must include at least one member who has relevant knowledge of and experience in matters relating to victims of domestic and family violence or sexual violence crime. The bill does not currently require a representative who has that specific experience in the nuances of domestic and family violence or sexual violence. Given that those crimes have complex nuances that cannot be understood without specialist expertise, and that victims of those crimes are overrepresented in crime statistics, it is important that the advisory committee includes a representative who is able to advocate from that perspective.
Amendments agreed to.
I move The Greens amendments Nos 14 and 15 on sheet c2025‑176D in globo:
No. 14 Powers of Commissioner relating to investigating systemic issues
Page 13, clause 27(1), line 6. Insert "or systemic issues relating to the Charter" after "Charter".
No. 15 Exemption from requirement to give information—GIPA
Page 13, clause 28(a), lines 31–33. Omit all words on the lines.
Amendment No. 14 allows the commissioner to compel the giving of information in relation to systemic issues related to the charter, as was flagged in my contribution to the second reading debate. Amendment No. 15 removes the blanket exemption from the Government Information (Public Access) Act, removing the exception to the requirement to give information if there is an overriding public interest against the disclosure of the information under the Act, or if access to the information would otherwise be denied under that Act. The commissioner's information‑gathering powers are already quite weak. The broad exemption is unnecessary and would only further constrain the ability of the commissioner to perform their statutory functions. The Act already has strong provisions regarding the disclosure of information.
11 September 2025