CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COERCIVE CONTROL) BILL 2022 Second Reading Debate

Ms JODIE HARRISON (Charlestown) (10:41): I contribute to debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Bill 2022. Coercive control is a pattern of controlling and manipulative behaviours within a relationship. It is the combination of tactics, which may be violent but are most frequently nonviolent and psychological, over a period of time to dominate a partner, degrade them, exploit them and, ultimately, deprive them of their rights and freedom. Love bombing, isolating, demeaning, devaluing and gaslighting are all tactics used by the perpetrator to make their partner come to rely on them. It is insidious. In the vast majority of intimate and former intimate partner murders, it is present and identifiable before the final act of violence.

A perpetrator makes their victim believe, because they are supposedly intensely loved, that it is normal to hand over all their earnings and have no say in the spending of family money; that it is normal to be told they are useless, unattractive and worthless over and over again; that it is normal to be contacted a hundred times a day to confirm their whereabouts; and that it is normal to be cut off from loving family and friends, isolated to a point that the perpetrator becomes the victim's entire world. Coercive control can deny someone their religious or cultural identity, and it can threaten loved ones and pets. I stand in this place in support of the criminalisation of coercive control.

The aim of criminalisation is to recognise the seriousness of the conduct to which victims of coercive control are subjected and to give victims appropriate support from police and the judiciary to keep them and their families safe. The bill makes it an offence for an adult to engage in a course of conduct consisting of abusive behaviour against a current or former intimate partner. I will not go into the detail of the bill, which the shadow Attorney General and the Attorney General have done eloquently. I note that, unfortunately, standing orders give me limited speaking time today, and I have much more to say than I otherwise will be able to.

Firstly, I acknowledge the goodwill across the Chamber on this issue. I recognise the long road we have taken to get to this point and the work of so many in the community—including survivors, victims' families, legal experts and domestic violence organisations as well as the work of my Labor colleagues and members on the crossbench in this House—to see this action through. I recognise my colleague Anna Watson, the member for Shellharbour, who first brought the issue of coercive control to the House in 2020 when she introduced Preethi's Law, in recognition of the death and the preceding acts of coercive control of Sydney dentist Dr Preethi Reddy in 2019. A bill also was introduced in the upper House by The Greens Ms Abigail Boyd, MLC, in November 2020.

The Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control comprised members from across the political spectrum. It was certainly an effective committee and heard intensive evidence. The membership included my Labor colleagues Trish Doyle, the member for Blue Mountains and shadow Minister at the time, and the member for Shellharbour. The committee unanimously agreed that coercive control should be criminalised. It is now up to us in this place to ensure that coercive control legislation is written into law to send the strongest message that our communities find coercive control abhorrent. I acknowledge the work of the shadow Attorney General, the member for Maroubra, in developing Labor's position on this important bill. We have worked well together on that. I also acknowledge the briefing provided by the Attorney General, Mr Mark Speakman, as well as the discussions the shadow Attorney General and I have had with members of the crossbench, both in this place and in the Legislative Council. It is clear that we all want to see a law that criminalises the abhorrent practice of coercive control, and we want it to work.

During the entire process, as shadow Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, I have been in close consultation with stakeholders within the domestic violence sector. Those people at the coalface of this issue have worked with victims-survivors of coercive control and their families. I can indicate there is absolute support for the criminalisation of coercive control from the practitioners who work in the domestic violence sector. But there is also significant concern that if the legislation is not properly drafted and, in particular, implemented, it could lead to mis-identifying victims of domestic abuse as perpetrators or be very difficult to prosecute. I will come back to those concerns shortly.

I recognise the work of the Federal Labor Government Minister for Women Senator Katy Gallagher and Minister for Social Services Amanda Rishworth on theNational Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, which was released just this Monday, 17 October. The plan recognises coercive control as a key area of focus for addressing gender-based violence in Australia and flags that the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments are in the process of co-designing National Principles to Address Coercive Control which will aim to develop a common understanding of coercive control, raise awareness of the issue and aim to ensure that the community better understands the full range of physical and non-physical tactics used by perpetrators of family and domestic violence and their impacts. Those national principles will help to inform more effective and consistent responses to coercive control. New South Wales needs to ensure that it is consistent in its approach going forward. That is the reason that an effective and timely review of the legislation is so important. We need to be part of the national conversation and the work across the country that is being done to eliminate gender‑based violence.

I take the opportunity to speak about why this change is so important. Coercive control is an insidious form of domestic abuse. The NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team noted that in 111 of the 112 intimate partner domestic violence homicides that occurred in New South Wales between 2008 and 2016 that it had reviewed, the relationship was characterised by the abuser's use of coercive and controlling behaviours towards the victim. It noted the complexities that can arise in such cases, with perpetrators going to extreme lengths to control their victim and avoid detection and the varying ability of a victim or those close to them to identify what was being experienced as domestic and family violence.

The need for this new legislation is clear. In Queensland, there were the horrific murders of Hannah Clarke and her three young children at the hands of her ex-partner, Rowan Baxter. Baxter had forced Hannah to distance herself and the children from family members. He punished the children in order to punish Hannah, he controlled Hannah's movements, he tracked her electronically and, finally, he brutally took their lives and his own. Closer to home, we remember the deaths of young Jack and Jennifer Edwards, who were shot and killed by their father John in 2018. The Coroner found that John Edwards "sought to control the lives of his current partner, his ex-partners and his children". The aim of recognising those patterns of behaviours as criminal is to allow law enforcement and the courts to intervene in circumstances of intimate partner abuse before they reach those types of tragic outcomes. It is recognition that we as a society do not believe that behaviours aimed at taking away a partner's autonomy and freedom are in any way, in any place or at any time acceptable.

I now raise some of the concerns that stakeholders have with the bill. The issues I will outline were raised in a letter representing the concerns of Community Legal Centres NSW, Domestic Violence NSW, Kingsford Legal Centre, Hume Riverina Community Legal Service, Hunter Community Legal Centre, Mid North Coast Legal Centre, Full Stop Australia, Older Women's Network NSW, Redfern Legal Centre, South West Sydney Legal Centre, Sydney Women's Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service, Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women's Legal Centre, Western NSW Community Legal Centre, Western Women's Legal Support, Women's Health NSW, and Women's Legal Service NSW.

Firstly, the requirement to specifically show intent rather than additionally including recklessness to coerce or control requires the prosecution to show the adult alleged offender intends the course of conduct of abusive behaviour to coerce or control the other person. The stakeholders state, "This is a very high threshold to meet, requiring the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the internal thought process of the defendant." [Extension of time]

I understand from the Attorney General's second reading speech that that intent was included to avoid overreach or over-criminalisation. However, the stakeholders state:

… as an effort to ensure that in seeking to address misidentification, the Government has created an offence which will be so hard to prove that it will result in very few successful prosecutions.

…

Rather than holding perpetrators to account, we fear perpetrators will be emboldened to continue and perhaps even worsen their abuse because they can act with impunity.

The omission of family violence is a key concern for many in the sector. The proposed new offence only covers intimate partner violence. The stakeholders state:

It is important to also recognise coercive and controlling behaviour in family and 'family like' relationships. To fail to do so creates a hierarchy of harm.

Domestic violence sector practitioners also want to see a definition of "domestic and family abuse" in the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act prior to introducing a standalone coercive control offence, as was recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control. The letter states, "The preferred language is 'domestic and family abuse' to make visible it is not limited to intimate partner violence and abuse." Further, those stakeholder groups state:

The Bill lacks a contextual definition of domestic and family abuse, which is a definition focused on behaviour that coerces, controls or causes fear.

…

Further, the definition in the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act is minimally effective. It does no more than make a minor change to the definition of domestic violence offence. We do not understand how it can have an educative function and how it will result in improving police response to domestic and family abuse. There is no legislative review provision to assess its effectiveness.

I have heard from domestic violence specialists that they are pleased the bill gives consistent examples of economic and financial abuse. However, they have a concern and say:

… only limited examples are provided and they do not encompass the wide range of economically and financially abusive behaviours which are not well understood. While noting the list is not intended to be exhaustive, a definition of economic or financial abuse could assist.

The strong position from many in the domestic violence sector is that the commencement time line proposed in the bill, which is not before 1 February 2024 and by 1 July 2024, is too short in light of the substantial training, cultural and systems reforms that will be required for effective implementation. The potential for the bill to allow misidentification is also a concern, particularly in relation to First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. That can occur when police, on responding to a domestic violence incident, incorrectly assume that the victim is the aggressor as they may be screaming, counterattacking or armed with a weapon. Perpetrators of coercive control are particularly skilled at appearing reasonable in those circumstances. Stakeholders point out the following:

… training on the content of legislative changes is insufficient when this legislation represents an entirely new way of policing and prosecuting, being contextual rather than incident based. Noting the concerns repeatedly raised by many about the misidentification of the predominant aggressor, there must be evidence of police improving practice in accurately identifying the person most in need of protection prior to the introduction of a new coercive control offence.

Stakeholders also call for extensive legislative provisions that cover regular and ongoing reviews, and the immediate establishment of a properly independent implementation task force. The criminalisation of coercive control as a standalone offence is essential in reducing the number of violent deaths at the hands of intimate partners. It is essential in sending a message that it is in no way acceptable to deprive someone of their freedoms and liberties.

The bill is not perfect. I understand that amendments are likely to be proposed by the member for Sydney. Labor will certainly look at supporting sensible amendments in this House. I also understand that Ms Abigail Boyd will move a motion in the Legislative Council to refer the bill to a committee that will report back by the end of October. That is good. It will enable public exploration of the key concerns of the domestic violence sector stakeholders, some of which I have referred to. Ultimately, I hope the bill will be the beginning of a judicial, cultural and societal change that will see the end of coercive control. Every one of us both in the Parliament and in the wider community is rightly outraged by the continued perpetration of domestic violence, which is so often aimed at women and children and is clearly gendered violence. It must stop, and the bill goes a way to doing that.

Ms JODIE HARRISON (Charlestown) (19:01): The Opposition supports the amendments of the member for Sydney. In doing so, we are pleased to see independent members of the implementation task force outside of government agencies being included in its membership. I am very pleased that that implementation task force will be undertaking regular reporting as to its findings and opinions in relation to the development of training and education, which is so important before the criminalisation of coercive control. We are pleased that the review period will be brought forward to two years and that there will be an additional two reviews after that. We have also undertaken consultation in relation to the amendments of the member for Sydney. Feedback from Domestic Violence NSW reveals that the amendments are an improvement on the original bill. It is very pleased that there has also been a referral to an upper House committee. We support the amendments.