Today in Parliament, Abigail gave notice of a motion in Parliament commending the publication of “Harm in the Name of Safety” a damning research report surveying frontline family violence workers in Victoria about their observations and concerns on how police respond to family violence.

Abigail said:

I give notice that on the next sitting day I will move:

(1) That this House notes the release of “Harm in the Name of Safety” in September 2025, a damning research report by Beyond Survival Project, Flat Out and RMIT University surveying 225 frontline family violence workers in Victoria about their observations and concerns about how police were responding to family violence, which found that:

• harmful family violence policing practices are extremely frequent and widespread, and alternative community-based response pathways for victim-survivors are urgently needed, 
• police responses frequently minimise or downplay the violence and harm that victim-survivors experience, not only failing to offer effective support but increasing the risks of further harm, 
• 65 percent of workers reported having witnessed police practices that operate to extend the abuse of, or harm to, victim-survivors, including by criminalising victim-survivors, colluding with or extending the tactics of the person using violence (including police processes weaponised as systems abuse), or otherwise increasing victim-survivor experiences of harm or risk,
• police discrimination toward women and a range of targeted and marginalised groups is widespread and routine, including First Nations people, people of colour, LGBTIQ+ communities, young people, people from marginalised culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people with disability, sex workers, and people who have been previously criminalised, 
• misidentification, or the patterned problem of police wrongfully identifying victim-survivors of family violence as perpetrators, is an issue of significant concern to frontline workers who detail widespread, regular and repeated cases of police incorrectly and inaccurately assessing the victim-survivor as the predominant aggressor in family violence cases,
• 83 percent of workers said they had encountered situations where the person experiencing family violence has been wrongly identified by police as the perpetrator, 
• 51 percent of workers in the study said they had encountered situations where the person using violence was a police officer, with many describing the violence as more coercive and covert because of the officer's authority, training and access to weapons and systems, 
• more than three quarters of workers who had encountered police-perpetrated violence (76 percent, or 39 percent of all survey participants) said they had encountered it more than once, and almost one quarter of those (23 percent, or 12 percent of all participants) had encountered it five or more times, 
• workers raised specific concerns about police perpetrators enlisting other police to perpetrate or extend the violence; police collusion with and protection of officers who abuse; police disbelieving or discrediting victim-survivors of police-perpetrated family violence or treating survivors as liars; a lack of independent support options for victim-survivors when the perpetrator is a police officer or employee; and the fact that police perpetrators are still working in the police force, including in roles policing family violence, and 
• many frontline workers shared a range of practical ideas geared towards both prevention of, and better response to, the policing issues they have encountered in their work, including decentring and divesting from police in family violence responses and investing in alternative services and approaches; establishing and/or adequately resourcing independent and community-controlled specialist safety and crisis support options that de-centre police; creating independent police complaints and accountability processes; training family violence workers on how to best raise complaints and advocate for clients; training lawyers and court staff on how to identify and manage common police errors and biases; and funding specialised legal representation to assist workers and clients in resolving problems or making complaints. 

(2) That this House commends the work of all those involved in the creation and publication of “Harm in the Name of Safety”, including the frontline family violence workers who shared their expertise, experience and knowledge. 

(3) That this House recognises that the issues revealed in the “Harm in the Name of Safety” report align closely with issues identified in NSW by frontline domestic and family violence workers as well as experts including the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, the Auditor-General, the Domestic Violence Death Review Team and the NSW Law Reform Commission.  

(3) That this House calls on the NSW government to commit to urgently reform NSW policing of domestic and family violence and support alternative community-based response pathways for victim-survivors of domestic and family violence. 

11 September 2025