I contribute to debate on the Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill 2024. We have heard from the Attorney General and the Minister that, as part of the Government's commitment to take urgent action to address the unacceptable rate of violence against women and children particularly, the bill will strengthen the legislative framework in response to high-risk domestic violence offenders. The amendments in the bill form just one part of the Government's response. The Government will also undertake further work on a whole range of reforms to prevent domestic, sexual and family violence in this State. I fear that we lose the impact of the fact that nearly one in four women has experienced violence from an intimate partner or family member since the age of 15. It cannot be said enough times. The Government has committed to a whole-of-government response to maintain and ensure community safety in the face of this crisis.
The bill will implement legislative changes to reduce rates of domestic violence, by strengthening the bail framework for those charged with the most serious domestic violence offences. It aims to improve community safety, particularly the safety of women; prevent repeated instances of domestic violence; and hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable. The bill appropriately balances the need to keep victims and the community safe with the presumption of innocence and right to liberty.
The Bail Act 2013 governs the bail process for all alleged offenders in New South Wales. Bail authorities, who are police officers, authorised justices or a court, make bail decisions under the Bail Act using a two-step process. We have heard a bit about the show cause test, which applies to adults charged with certain serious offences or offending in certain circumstances. The Attorney outlined the unacceptable‑risk test, which is the second test for show cause offences and the first test for other offences. The test requires a bail authority to refuse bail if satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk the accused person will, if released from custody, fail to appear at any proceedings for the offence; commit a serious offence; endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community; or interfere with witnesses or evidence. Those bail concerns, including the threat of serious offences, are all being assessed here.
Whilst the content of the bulk of this bill can be a little dry at times, the list is lengthy and includes the accused person's background, including criminal history and any history of violence and of non-compliance with bail conditions, and the conduct of the accused towards any victim or their family after the offence. An exhaustive list of matters is set out in the Bail Act, and I am pleased that we are focused on what is or is not a serious offence and are actually highlighting the issue of domestic and family violence, which, for many decades, for many families, for many communities, was swept under the carpet.
The Bail Act allows a court to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail, provided that it meets minimum standards prescribed in the regulations. Bail conditions can be imposed only if the decision-maker is satisfied the conditions are reasonably necessary and appropriate to address a bail concern, no more onerous than necessary, and reasonably practicable to be complied with by the accused. For certain serious charges, if a prosecutor disagrees with a bail authority's decision to grant or dispense with bail, the accused's release can be stayed while the prosecutor makes an application to the Supreme Court.
The bill expands the list of offences to which the show cause requirement applies. The Attorney has outlined a number of those in detail. I particularly focus on the definition of "serious domestic violence offence", which means an offence under part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900 that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment or more and is committed against a current or former intimate partner. This includes but is not limited to serious offences such as sexual assault, kidnapping, and choking, suffocating or strangling a person so as to render them unconscious, insensible or incapable of resistance. The definition also captures similar offences in other jurisdictions.
Coercive control is a new offence, which will come into effect on 1 July of this year. It will make it a crime for an adult to engage in a course of conduct consisting of abusive behaviour against a current or former intimate partner. The offence will apply if the accused intends for the conduct to coerce or control the other person and if a reasonable person considers that the course of conduct would be likely to cause the victim to fear violence or to have a serious adverse impact on their capacity to go about their day-to-day activities. This offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.
We have heard many members in this place outline the issues, and it is important for the education of communities and individuals that we continue to do this over and over again, till we are sick of the sound of our own voices and sick of those definitions. But for raising children to have healthy relationships and to be able to pinpoint what domestic abuse is, we need to say that it can take forms other than physical violence. "Coercive control" describes domestic abuse that involves patterns of behaviour that have the cumulative effect of denying victim-survivors their autonomy and independence. This abuse can include physical, sexual, psychological or financial abuse.
We need to highlight in this place the research, statistics and evidence. Sadly, coercive controlling behaviour is usually a feature of relationships before intimate partner homicide. The Domestic Violence Death Review Team tells us that. The research between 2008 and 2016 highlighted that 99 per cent of homicides were preceded by coercive control. I was Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control a couple of years back. It was harrowing to hear the stories of many victim-survivors. It was personally triggering as well. But we must, in this place, chip away at every piece of legislation, however big or small, to create the changes we want to see.
The bill will require electronic monitoring for people charged with certain domestic violence offences and granted bail. The bill will create a new regime of compulsory electronic monitoring for alleged high-risk domestic violence offenders granted bail. The bill will require any accused who is charged with a serious domestic violence offence and released on bail to be subject to electronic monitoring, unless a bail authority is satisfied sufficient reasons exist, in the interests of justice, to justify not imposing the condition.
I turn to changes to the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 briefly because they have been covered off in quite a bit of detail by the Attorney. Evidence shows that some perpetrators of domestic abuse use tracking devices to maintain control and domination over their victims. Section 9 of the Surveillance Devices Act makes it an offence to knowingly install, use or maintain a tracking device to determine the geographical location of an object or a person without their consent. The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a fine of 100 penalty units. The bill will remove the requirement for consent to prosecutions for offences under section 9 of the Surveillance Devices Act where the offence is charged as a domestic violence offence under section 11 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. It is so important that the relevant legislation is amended to acknowledge how serious domestic violence is within our communities.
The bill will commence by proclamation. It will implement new programs and systems for electronic monitoring. It will be complex; it will require new infrastructure and processes to be established. It will not be easy. A taskforce has been established and the electronic monitoring provisions will commence on proclamation once the necessary arrangements have been made. The remainder of the bill is currently anticipated to commence on 1 July 2024 to coincide with the commencement of the coercive control offence in New South Wales. There are plenty of other measures that have been outlined by the New South Wales Government in relation to addressing rates of family, domestic and sexual violence. The Minister recently outlined a number of those as part of the $230 million emergency package to improve domestic violence prevention and support for victim‑survivors.
I acknowledge the good work of the police. I was talking, as I often do, with the police Minister about the many good programs in place and the change in attitude of police in the decades that I have been alive. To know that there are around 150,000 calls for assistance to the New South Wales police for domestic violence‑related matters is horrific, as it is to know that over 36,000 domestic violence assaults were recorded in New South Wales in 2023. As more people talk about domestic and family violence, it becomes part of the national conversation and not something swept under the carpet, but to know that domestic violence assaults increase each subsequent year is horrific. It is good to know of the arrests of offenders and the charges that are laid. It is good to know of projects such as Operation Amarok that target the State's most dangerous domestic violence offenders and the arrests that follow.
I told the police Minister of days gone by. When I was a young girl, neighbours would call the police to our family home. The door would open to children cowering, often blood splattered throughout the home and a sobbing woman. The police would identify the perpetrator—my father—and say, "Mate, let's head up to the pub for a couple of drinks until she calms down." That was the response as I grew up, so I feel that it has taken a long time to reach the point where perpetrators are treated in the way they deserve and victim‑survivors are provided with the safety measures they deserve. I particularly acknowledge a woman that I worked with in the Women's Coordination Unit in the Premier's Department after leaving university many years ago. Her name was Julie Stewart. She gave me a language and a passion to see through the legislative reforms. I never imagined all those years ago that I would be in this place now speaking about legislation. I am pleased that a number of members across all political parties are committed and dedicated to getting it done. I commend the bill to the House.
