Thursday, 30 November 2023
Bills
Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023
Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023
Council’s amendments
The SPEAKER (12:35): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023 with amendments.
Ordered that amendments be taken into consideration immediately.
Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:
Clause 3, page 11, line 27, omit ‘34AE.”.’ and insert “34AE.”.
Clause 3, page 11, after line 27 insert –
‘34AL Review of amendments made by Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Act 2023
(1) The Attorney-General must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of –
(a) this Subdivision; and
(b) section 5(2)(ba) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008.
(2) The review must be commenced no later than 2 years after the commencement of the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Act 2023.
(3) The review must be completed no later than 6 months after it commences.
(4) The Attorney-General must cause a copy of the review to be laid before each House of the Parliament no later than 14 sitting days after receiving it.”.’.
That these amendments be agreed to.
In doing so I would like to just address a few comments. In particular we do acknowledge that there are different views on various aspects of the bill and that the development of the bill has taken a long time, partly because of several legitimate but divergent views. It has been hard to land the right balance, and we thank all of those involved in shaping the final version of the bill. The job of reforming the justice system never concludes; these offences are no different. In the second-reading speech we did commit to reviewing the operation of these offences, and given the complexity of the bill a statutory review after two years is warranted. It is the standard review clause which will allow the act to be reviewed two years after commencement.
I would just like to take the house back to the statement made by the Attorney-General in the other place back on 18 October when she made a particular statement that the reforms will create the two offences: firstly, an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation, which does not require proof of injury and will carry a maximum five-year prison term; and a second more serious offence of non-fatal strangulation where a perpetrator intentionally causes injury, with a maximum penalty of 10 years. The Attorney said, and I think it is prudent to remind the house of these comments, that:
Non-fatal strangulation is rarely an isolated event. Instead it often reveals an ongoing and escalating pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour – especially when it occurs in family violence circumstances.
We’ve listened to the concerns of those families affected by these acts of violence and the Bill will make this behaviour clear for what it is – controlling, dangerous and unacceptable.
Can I say further that I do commend not only the Attorney and her leadership but the wise counsel across both chambers in this Parliament. There has been very intensive and serious and deep engagement with stakeholders – perhaps stakeholders is not quite the right term when we are talking about victims and families and understanding and having an empathy for the challenges and the grief that they have endured – and we have all worked very hard to bring to the house, with again those amendments to be taken into consideration, a bill that tries to affirm the best values of members and a willingness to try and enliven the values of the Victorian community into how we can address these matters and give not only peace of mind but protection and accountability in relation to non-fatal strangulation becoming a standalone offence. I commend not only the bill but the amendments to the house.
Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (12:39): I appreciate the words of the Minister for Police. I think we have seen in the adoption of these amendments some bipartisanship on a very important and sensitive issue, and I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for being open to having those discussions with me and to agreeing to these amendments proposed by the opposition in the other place. This is a bill with the best of intentions, but as we all know as legislators we do not always get it right, or maybe when we think we get it right courts or police and prosecutors have a slightly different view. When we are dealing with something that is designed to improve the lives and the safety particularly of women in a family violence situation, it is vital that we get it right, and that is the reason why we proposed a statutory two-year review after the operation of this bill comes into law.
There is potential for unintended consequences in the way in which this bill has been drafted, and I think we all accept that. I was listening to some of the Attorney-General’s comments in the committee stage in the other place earlier this morning. She was very open about saying that she has been really wrestling with this issue of how to draft it in order to make it as effective as possible without having unintended consequences. I commend the Attorney for doing her best. While I would love to be in her position, I do not envy her that task, because it is very, very difficult. For that reason we have come to a very sensible view as a Parliament, which is that, yes, the bill should proceed in its current form but there should be that built-in review after two years to give it a chance to work. Hopefully, it will work perfectly as intended.
Hopefully, women’s lives will be saved because of what we call Joy’s law, and I again pay tribute to Joy Rowley’s family: to Les Woolridge, Nadine Power, Aaron Woolridge, Renee Woolridge and Annalisa Wooldridge. They have been campaigners for this. They have been determined that what happened to Joy should not happen to other women. They wanted the tragedy of her death, her murder, to beget some good. I hope that for everything they have given to this – their time, their emotion, their heart – they can be pleased that their efforts have changed the law and hopefully will change the safety of women in this state. With those comments I commend the amendments and commend the bill.
Motion agreed to.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Jordan Crugnale): A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.