Ms JODIE HARRISON (Charlestown—Minister for Women, Minister for Seniors, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault) (14:45): I contribute to debate on the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Earlier this year, when I delivered a ministerial statement in the Chamber on this Government's efforts to address domestic, family and sexual violence, I spoke of the devastating and indelible impact of that violence, particularly when it reaches a horrific peak when a woman is killed by a current or former intimate partner. That is felt first and foremost by victim‑survivors but it is also felt by their families, their friends and the broader community. I spoke of the grief, the rage, the horror and the understandable frustration—frustration that I am sure every member in this place, above politics, shares—felt towards the seemingly intractable nature of this issue.

We know how stubbornly prevalent domestic violence has remained in our society. We have all seen the statistics—after the age of 18, one in four women and one in eight men have experienced violence from an intimate partner or family member. We have seen the harrowing accounting from the Domestic Violence Death Review Team that one-third of the homicides in this State between 2000 and 2022 were domestic violence related. We have heard the testimonies of victim‑survivors—the firsthand accounts of lived experience. In the face of that frustration and those deeply troubling statistics, the temptation to rush through half‑baked and ill-considered reforms is incredibly strong. I said earlier this year that we cannot afford to give in to that temptation and that we need to take the time to get reforms right. In that light, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill.

The bill is a considered step forward in strengthening our State's systemic responses to domestic and family violence and is a signal of our support of victim-survivors. In May, when I spoke about this Government's emergency package, I said that this State needed more and that we needed different. We need more funding for services and more funding for workers but, crucially, different approaches to the prevention of domestic and family violence. That is what the bill delivers. It provides important legislative tools so that we can mitigate the dangers posed by high-risk domestic and family violence perpetrators. It allows us to tailor responses so that we can better hold perpetrators to account. Most importantly, it allows us to better meet the needs of victim-survivors.

In that light, I emphasise the bill's amendment to the definition of "stalking" under section 8 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. The proposed definition makes it clear that monitoring or tracking a person's activities, communications or movements could constitute stalking whether or not the alleged perpetrator contacts or approaches the victim. That amendment brings the statutory definition of stalking closer in line with the lived experiences of victim-survivors in the increasingly online twenty-first century. With that amendment, technology-facilitated tracking and monitoring may also form the basis for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order [ADVO]. As it stands, the maximum penalty for breaching an apprehended violence order [AVO] stands at two years imprisonment, a fine of 50 penalty units, or both. The bill introduces two new aggravated breach offences, carrying higher maximum penalties that are aimed at discouraging and punishing serious breaches which indicate a high risk of potential harm to the protected person.

The offences proposed by the bill will apply only to breaches of an apprehended domestic violence order, reflecting the legislation's effort to specifically target high-risk domestic violence offenders: first, an intentional breach offence for serious or harmful breaches of an ADVO's order; and, second, a persistent breach offence for repeated breaches of an ADVO over a short period of time, reflecting an offender's disregard for the conditions placed on them by the order and, indeed, for the safety of the protected person. In the case of an intentional breach, the accused must have knowingly contravened a prohibition or restriction in an ADVO made against them, and must have intended to cause or have known that their conduct was likely to cause physical or mental harm to the protected person, or cause the protected person to fear for the safety of themselves or others. There is no requirement to prove that the harm or fear was actually caused.

The maximum penalty set out in the bill is three years imprisonment, 100 penalty units, or both. In the case of a persistent breach, the accused must have knowingly contravened an ADVO and have done so on two or more other occasions in the preceding 28 days. The maximum penalty is five years imprisonment, 150 penalty units, or both. I welcome these reforms of the apprehended violence order scheme. It is a clear sign to perpetrators that this Government takes the safety of protected persons very seriously. In that vein, I turn my attention to the proposed introduction of a serious domestic abuse prevention order scheme.

A serious crime prevention order is currently one of the most powerful tools in the State's legal arsenal to prevent or disrupt involvement in organised crime or terrorism. Serious crime prevention orders have been handed down against alleged members of underworld groups, such as the Brothers 4 Life gang and the Rebels motorcycle gang. The proposed scheme builds on the serious crime prevention order framework to target serious or serial domestic violence perpetrators. Under the provisions of the bill the order can be sought against a person who is over the age of 18 years and who, within the past 10 years, has been convicted of two or more domestic violence offences, applying to any domestic relationship, with maximum penalties of seven years imprisonment or more; or has been involved in serious domestic abuse activity.

An order may be sought by the Commissioner of Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions. To grant such an order, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would protect relatives of the offender, former, current or, importantly, potential intimate partners of the offender or, indeed, anyone who has a domestic relationship with that partner by preventing abuse. This marks a difference from an AVO or ADVO, which is targeted towards specific persons. The application for an order will be heard in the Local Court if the offender has been convicted of at least two domestic violence offences, or in the Supreme Court if the grounds for seeking the order is serious domestic abuse activity. "Serious domestic abuse activity" is defined as "where a person has been charged with an offence that is a "serious domestic violence offence", which is to say an offence under part 3 of the Crimes Act committed against a relative or intimate partner and which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years or more, regardless of whether that person has been tried, acquitted or convicted, including where a conviction is quashed or set aside.

A serious domestic abuse prevention order may impose any condition the court satisfied is reasonable and appropriate in preventing the offender from engaging in domestic abuse. This may include but is not limited to restrictions or prohibitions, such as on the use of social media and dating apps, or the purchase and use of tracking devices. It may also include requirements to notify authorities about a change of circumstances, such as a new residential address or the start of an intimate partner relationship; requirements to report to a police station at certain times; and the imposition of electronic monitoring conditions. The orders may be imposed for a maximum duration of five years, though there is no barrier to making consecutive serious domestic abuse prevention orders, and the order may be appealed, varied or revoked. Contravening the directions of an order would carry a maximum penalty in line with the contravention of a serious crime prevention order, which is five years imprisonment, 300 penalty units or both.

I can certainly think of no stronger signal of how this Government approaches the seriousness of domestic and family violence offences. I told this place that the emergency package did not represent the culmination of this Government's efforts to address domestic and family violence. I said that the package was the first step on a long journey and that there would be many more steps to come. This bill is one of those steps. As the Attorney General said in his second reading speech, "There will always be work to be done to guard against domestic and family violence." There are no easy solutions. There is no simple fix. There is only progress—progress towards a society where victim‑survivors never have to live in fear in their own homes; progress towards a society where everyone has the ability to leave a bad situation if they need to; and progress towards a society where domestic and family violence is a thing of the past.

I will not stop working to achieve that progress. The Attorney General will not stop working towards it, this Government will not stop working towards it, and I know with absolute certainty that the many thousands of courageous and tireless advocates and practitioners will not stop working towards it. I thank them for their hard work, for the bravery they show every day in telling their stories and for driving change. There is certainly more work to do, and this Government will do that work. I commend the bill to the House.