Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (18:17): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I note that this is an important bill, and I hope that many members have the opportunity to speak on it. Members on our side will try and give each other an opportunity to speak. Noting that we only have tomorrow’s debate time, we will shorten our contributions a little bit to make sure we get through as many members as possible. We have a lot of people who want to speak about this because this is an important bill. This is a really important bill, and we are not opposing this bill, because we very strongly believe – and I very strongly believe as the shadow – in both the measures in relation to family violence, but also the start of what I hope we can see in relation to a broader reform around stalking.

I know that many members of this place came out from both sides of the chamber and sat on the steps of Parliament with Aggie, who was commemorating her daughter Celeste Manno, who died in what was one of the most horrid cases of crime that frankly shocked not only I am sure the state, but the country, and led to her brave mother Aggie leading so powerfully a case for reform on stalking. The case of her daughter showed that we need reform, that we need change in the law, in terms of resourcing but more broadly in terms of cultural change. It is true that this government prioritised family violence and led on family violence in Australia with a number of reforms and also the royal commission, but that change and that advocacy is also needed in relation to stalking.

Though this bill just starts that process, we know that it is only a very small step, if I might say – an important one; I do not want to downgrade that step, but it is a first step only. I will talk about that in a little bit more detail. We know that, in relation to family violence, in 2023 Victoria Police responded to 94,170 family violence incidents, which represents one every 6 minutes. There is a shocking need to always be reforming here and to be stepping strongly into this space and looking for further ways to do better. This bill does that in a number of ways.

I will talk to those amendments. Firstly, by way of a lot of the substance on the family violence reforms, this bill amends things like family violence intervention orders, family violence safety notices and personal safety intervention orders. I will touch on a number of the measures contained therein and also go through some of the Law Institute of Victoria, the Criminal Bar Association and also the Australian Lawyers Alliance’s assessments of those changes, because they are worth putting into the record and are worth noting, because they are important additional contributions. All have noted the speed of the bill and have provided advice on the bill, which has been very much appreciated – the law institute, the Criminal Bar Association, the lawyers alliance and more – but felt that the speed with which the bill was put to them did not allow them an opportunity, as would always be the case with other pieces of legislation, to deal with it in more substance. I very much thank them for their speedy turnaround in terms of their assessments, and because of that, I feel very much that they should be commended for the work that they have done.

On those points, the law institute has noted – and it is worth saying – that although it has concerns in relation to certain elements of the bill, overall the law institute commends the Victorian government for pursuing these reforms. It is important to put that on record. Though, as the Criminal Bar Association said, the bills were not the subject of proper scrutiny, and often the resulting legislation has unforeseen, unintended or undesirable outcomes. They further point out that with an endemic delay in the hearing and determination of applications for family violence intervention orders, it is a real problem, because you need to think of these things in conjunction, don’t you. You need to think of reforms but also the practical outcome in terms of how these matters are heard and how they are considered in a hearing and on a daily basis, for want of a better explanation.

In terms of the matters in the bill, there is a new default length for family violence intervention orders, which does align with states like New South Wales – a default length of two years. It has been suggested by the law institute that the Victorian government must ensure that there are additional resources provided, which is not unreasonable, especially in terms of legal assistance and legal aid. Those points I think have been consistent ones across the whole gamut of the amendments being made. I should actually mention, on the two years, that the lawyers alliance did feel that it was worth recommending that it should be explicit that the order duration must be the least restrictive period reasonably necessary to ensure safety and that the two-year period is a guidance rather than presumptive.

The law institute did make similar points around that two-year period – that rather than the two-year period becoming a default, there should be some guidance to ensure that there is the capacity for the court to consider the matter on its merits and on the specifics of the matter.

Another change includes allowing the court to make family violence intervention orders conditional in relation to animals. I think there were a number of issues in relation to the changes. It is not that those changes, in my view, are unwelcome; I think they are important issues that have been captured by this legislation. However, it is worth thinking through how those changes will flow through in the practical sense. For example, as the law institute has pointed out, where a family pet is registered under the name of the perpetrator but has close ties to the affected person, the pet would remain in the perpetrator’s possession, so there may need to be further clarification about how those issues are managed. The intent of course is welcomed in this bill; it is about how that would be managed in that circumstance, so some of the practical elements in relation to that.

Further, on the minimum age of 12 years for respondents of family violence intervention orders, there have been mixed views on the issue. The Australian Lawyers Alliance does have concerns and, it should be noted, proposed 14 years. We accept the proposal in the legislation. It is worth noting that we are not pushing the proposal put by the lawyers alliance. As a courtesy to them, they have noted that they believe it should be limited to 12- to 13-year olds only in exceptional circumstances. Obviously, we support the government’s proposal, but they have suggested that.

Another amendment relates to allowing the courts to make orders for alternate or substituted service, which is a matter that has been hotly contested by the experts in terms of the practical application of service. Because service is a serious issue, it does need to be made clear where service has occurred, as the law institute has put, so as to avoid unintentional breaches of orders where the respondent is not made aware of the order. That makes sense, because if we are moving to a place where we are creating a model for alternate service, we need to think through how that will practically operate when we perhaps move to alternate services or, as has been suggested, potentially in the future private providers. Do they have the expert understanding of the subject matters they are dealing with in terms of service? Those general points are not necessarily concerning in relation to the bill, but because a framework is being created and effectively foreshadowed, these are issues we will need to think about in the future.

On allowing the courts to make interim and final orders regardless of whether some of the offending occurred outside of Victoria and one affected family member was outside and one was inside, currently both have to be in the same place.

This is actually a really important part of the reforms in this bill. The community awareness of this reform perhaps has not been highlighted, but it is a very important reform, because though we will see issues in terms of managing cross-jurisdictional matters – of course we will see that – no doubt there is cooperation between law enforcement across jurisdictions. It is a really important signal in this bill to say that the Victorian Parliament and more broadly we as Victorians would expect that where offending has occurred, that is captured by our law and that loopholes cannot exist in relation to whether or not someone is in the same state.

As the law institute points out, the proposed amendments do not specify whether extraterritoriality is limited to Australian states or is also international, which is a note. I read it as interstate in that there are other constitutional issues in other places and constitutional power limits in relation to this Parliament, believe it or not. But this is perhaps a point that is worth noting, because it is an important point and we do not want those loopholes to extend any further than they need to.

Another reform relates to providing Victoria Legal Aid to conduct cross-examination of the affected family member on behalf of self-represented respondents. It is another very important reform that ensures that people affected, victim-survivors, are not put in a position they need not be in. But again, to reinforce the point from the law institute, the Victorian government must ensure that legal aid has adequate resourcing, as they say, and further, broadly, current legal assistance funding in Victoria is not sufficient. Placing additional requirements on legal aid to provide legal assistance on such matters will only place further strain on an already stretched system. So it is an important point to note that though this bill does do important things in relation to these matters, there is still the capacity provided to those services. When I speak briefly about stalking, that will become clear as well.

There are a number of other minor amendments in relation to the family violence issues. I think I have touched on a lot of the broad-based issues. There are a number of amendments in relation to things like jury directions, which I will not go into in any great detail, but there are jury direction changes, including in relation to non-fatal strangulation, intimate image offences and historical sexual offences. There are also some changes in relation to where certain offences have occurred it would be open for a jury to find an accused guilty of an alternate offence, which is also an important reform that perhaps has not been widely understood by the community. So in relation to, broadly speaking, the family violence matters, I think I have touched on the majority of the major reforms contained in the bill. As I said, those matters are supported by the coalition, and the coalition will not be opposing the bill.

In relation to stalking, I did touch on at the start our view that these stalking reforms, which go to two of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s final report recommendations. For background: led by Aggie after the tragic death of her daughter Celeste, the law reform commission conducted what can only be described as a groundbreaking report a few years ago, released a final report into stalking and released 45 recommendations. It is a significant, significant piece of work in relation to the need to take a very strong set of forward steps in relation to stalking.

I should note, and I say this as constructively as I can, the government has not substantially dealt with the 45 recommendations in the commission’s report. This bill acquits two of the recommendations in relation to recommendations 26 and 33 – 26 relates to amendments of personal safety intervention orders, and recommendation 33 is the change in relation to the offence of stalking. We do accept and we do support that you cannot see change in relation to stalking unless you look to the primary offence and reform it where it needs that reform. So we accept that on that particular resetting out of the offence of stalking it is a significant reform, but it is only a start, which is why earlier on I said that it was a first step in relation to the work needed on stalking.

Both the Law Institute of Victoria and the Criminal Bar Association have understandably put out strong views on that. I will start with the law institute. They have said a couple of things which are worth noting and recording. They said that they:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

… support the reformulation of the stalking offence, which would amend the current Crimes Act section into a single offence rather than creating separate offences. The Law Institute emphasises that the proposal provides for clear, understandable and modernised language –

Frankly, I accept their assessment of that reform. They further said:

The LIV is satisfied that the proposed restructuring provides clarity with respect to the intentional, reckless and objective fault elements of the existing stalking offence. Furthermore, that the fault element is much clearer without detracting the meaning of the offence or adding any unnecessary complexity, such as, for instance, requiring changes on maximum penalties and sentencing practices for stalking.

This is a very clear endorsement of what is a very, very complicated restructuring of the offence. When you then go to the Criminal Bar Association’s assessment, they have described it slightly differently. They say:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The modifications to the offence of stalking involve the creation of a criminal offence which is at odds with contemporary notions of criminal responsibility.

To unpick that very, very briefly, the modernisation, frankly, does bring about change. But my very strong view is that there is a significant problem with stalking, and there is a significant need for change in relation to stalking. Though of course, with respect, I accept the assessment, we sadly live in a time where non-family-violence stalking offences increased by almost 10 per cent in the year to June to nearly 1200 cases. Family violence increased by nearly 7 per cent at 1800 cases. This is a very, very serious offence and one that affects a lot of people. The modernisation of the section has required, frankly, a step to be taken that perhaps some might have felt went into new territory, but it is worth, and only fair to record, the bar association’s concerns.

I will be very brief because I know I promised my colleagues more time than I have given them. I definitely promised them more time than I have given them, but this is really important to get on the record. In terms of the Law Reform Commission’s report, I did want to note a couple of points that they went to in their executive summary but also in their recommendations. Very succinctly, their view is that:

The criminal justice system is not dealing effectively with stalking.

That is a very powerful sentence. It is a very powerful sentence when you read it. I think it stands on its own, and I think it is true. Action is needed. Further:

For too long the response to stalking has focused on what the victim survivor is expected to do to avoid being stalked.

If you think about that sentence and you think about the current framework, that is also true. The recurrent response to stalking has focused on what the victim-survivor is expected to do to avoid being stalked. The onus is on them. This amendment to the concept of stalking is a first step, but as the commission has pointed out in a number of ways, we will only improve with systemic change, with a government that leans into not just a reframing of the offence as a first step but quite a dramatic intervention into this space. We do require a very dramatic intervention here, and that will include things like public education in a similar way, frankly, to family violence and strong government investment into the area and also to all of the adjacent services to ensure that the resources are properly equipped.

There are many other recommendations, and though I am tempted to them read in, others I am sure would prefer to take the opportunity. But I do note for the house’s interest that it is worth looking at the work of the commission. It is an astonishing piece of work, and I think most of it you could pick up today. Not every single recommendation in its entirety works to perhaps what we would need to implement if we had a magic wand tomorrow, but a lot of it you could immediately pick up and it would bring about significant reform to this issue.

In my brief remarks on the bill, I again note that the coalition will not be opposing the bill. I have gone to a number of amendments that I think are very strong in this bill, though in relation to stalking it is a step rather than many steps and I do hope this is an area for future reform.

 Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers) (18:43): I am very pleased to speak tonight on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025, and I am really pleased that the Shadow Attorney-General has indicated that those opposite will not be opposing this really important bill.

This bill, as we have heard, delivers reforms across our justice system to improve how we respond to family violence, stalking and sexual offences. It strengthens protections for victim-survivors and it closes the gaps in the law. Our government is committed to ending family violence in all forms. We have implemented the 227 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and we have made the largest investment of any government across the country into both prevention and response. But we also know that the job is not done. Family violence remains the number one law and order issue in our state.

This bill reflects extensive consultation with experts, advocates, front line workers and, most importantly, people with lived experience. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their contribution and their courage. From a family violence perspective, this bill broadens the definition of family violence to include stalking, the mistreatment of animals and systems abuse. It ensures that young people do not age out of their parents’ family violence intervention order on their 18th birthday, and I know that this initiative in particular will be welcomed by young victim-survivor Conor Pall, who has advocated for this change. I would recommend his book The Shadow that Follows to anyone who is interested. It is a book that I have provided to all of my schools in my electorate, and I encourage others to do so.

The bill clarifies that courts can make family violence intervention orders when the offending behaviour occurs outside of Victoria, and it improves the service of family violence intervention orders so that protection can start sooner, including to perpetrators who are in prison. In relation to stalking, the bill updates the stalking offence to improve clarity and application. It extends witness protections currently available in sexual offence and family violence proceedings to stalking matters. In relation to sexual offences, the bill improves jury directions, including cases involving non-fatal strangulation and intimate image offences. It allows for alternate verdicts in sexual offence trials – for example, an alternative verdict of sexual assault can be made in a rape trial. It helps to safely include parents, guardians and carers of people who have experienced sexual violence by allowing notice to be provided to someone other than the protected person. These are substantial reforms, and each plays a really important role in strengthening our justice system and improving safety.

As the minister with responsibility for animal welfare in Victoria, I want to speak in more depth about the strengthened recognition of how animals are used in the perpetration of family violence. It is well recognised by researchers, frontline workers and by many victim-survivors that animals are often targeted as a tool of coercion and control. Under existing law, courts have broad discretion to include conditions on a family violence intervention order relating to animals. But stakeholders have been really clear: the legislation needs to do more to ensure the everyday, often less visible forms of harm involving animals are properly recognised and prevented. This bill delivers that.

First, it expands the definition of family violence to include the mistreatment of animals, not just direct violence, but the behaviours perpetrators commonly use: withholding food, water or medication; threatening to harm or dispose of an animal; or selling, abandoning or surrendering an animal in order to cause distress or exert control. Second, it clarifies that the courts may impose specific conditions on family violence intervention orders that directly address these behaviours – for example, prohibiting a perpetrator from using an animal to commit family violence, preventing a perpetrator from coming within a certain distance of an animal, or directing a perpetrator to return an animal along with any necessary supplies for the animal’s care and wellbeing.

Importantly, these protections apply to any animal, not just companion animals as defined in the family law act, and that is deliberate. We know perpetrators will target the animal that will cause the greatest anguish or have the most impact, whether that is a pet, an assistance animal, livestock or wildlife. Any animal that is relied on emotionally or for livelihood can be weaponised by the perpetrator. This reform recognises the full spectrum of how animals are used through family violence to inflict harm. It ensures our courts have the tools they need to intervene.

Alongside legislative reform, community organisations play a crucial role in supporting victim-survivors escaping from family violence with their pets. I would like to take the opportunity to thank them for this important work. In particular I want to acknowledge Second Chance Animal Rescue, or SCAR, in my local community. It is just outside my electorate, but it is in the very safe hands of the member for Greenvale. SCAR runs the Safe House for Pets program, providing emergency boarding for animals when their owners are facing crisis, including family violence. This service means that a victim-survivor does not have to choose between escaping violence and keeping their beloved pet safe. SCAR not only provides care and comfort during emergencies, it works to reunite pets with their owners when it is safe to do so, and it partners with local agencies and provides resources to people fleeing violence. Their work reflects the deep bond that people share with their animals, and the painful reality that perpetrators exploit that bond.

I was talking to SCAR CEO Marisa Debattista just this week about what this bill means to them, and she was very clear that this was an important amendment to the current settings. They are seeing more frequent instances of animals needing emergency boarding for family violence reasons. Last week alone, they provided family violence emergency boarding to 12 animals. The abuse towards the animals that they are seeing is physical, such as being thrown against a wall, verbal, which can result in an ongoing fear of loud voices, and even sexual.

All of these forms of abuse are abhorrent, and sadly it is common for these animals to present with a fear of men. This bill also goes to the other forms of abuse that SCAR are frequently seeing, such as emotional abuse and threats – threats of violence, threats of removal, threats to kill the animal or threats to kill the person and the animal. I thank SCAR and every organisation like them for their compassion and for the practical support they offer when it is needed most, and I am pleased that this bill recognises the broader mistreatment of animals as family violence.

This bill strengthens our justice system. It improves protections and better supports those who have experienced the trauma of family violence, stalking and sexual offending. It reflects the voices of victim-survivors who have told us with courage what needs to change. It takes away yet another tool for manipulation and coercion and another reason why victim-survivors feel unable to leave an unsafe environment. It reflects our government’s unwavering commitment to listening, learning and acting to prevent violence and to support all of those that are affected by it. The reforms relating to animals are a critical part of that work. They acknowledge the reality of how perpetrators operate, and they ensure our laws provide clear, robust and compassionate protections. I commend the bill to the house.

 Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (18:51): This is a very important bill that has come before the house. I do note, with deference to my friend the member for Brighton, the current Shadow Attorney-General, that I am the former Shadow Attorney-General, and I remember three years ago when the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) handed down its very important report on non–family related stalking. Of course the genesis of that report was the tragic death, the shocking murder, of Celeste Manno. I pay tribute to Celeste’s mother Aggie Di Mauro, who has never wavered and never given up in her fight to see justice for her daughter.

James Newbury interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: As the member for Brighton said, she is an amazing individual. I have met with Aggie. She is a very powerful and passionate advocate for her daughter, and she does not want anybody else to go through what her daughter and her family have had to go through as a result of that murder. I think that the matter is now concluded before the courts, even though the perpetrator did try a lot of tricks and legal technicalities to try and put off his day of reckoning. If that individual ever sees the outside of a prison, it will be a day too soon.

As a result of the advocacy of Aggie, the government referred this matter to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, because of course Celeste Manno was working at a call centre and the person who became fixated on her was a fellow employee – in fact somebody who was I think sacked. It was as a result of that work relationship that this individual became aware of Celeste’s existence, and that was what then ended up in the tragic murder of Celeste.

While we rightly treat family violence as an extremely serious matter, there was I think seen to be a gap in relation to non–family violence stalking matters. So the government, I think quite rightly, in response to Aggie Di Mauro’s advocacy, referred these matters for a report by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. That report came down in September 2022, three years ago. I remember asking questions in this place and putting out press statements and having my colleagues in the other place ask questions of the then Attorney-General, the now Treasurer, about when the government was going to respond to the 45 recommendations that were made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission.

The fact is the government to this day refuses to respond to those recommendations. The government has decided that it is going to cherrypick. It might pick up one or two here or there. I think this bill acquits two out of those 45 recommendations. What is the status of the other 43? I think that not just Aggie Di Mauro but all Victorians deserve an answer to that question. There were 45 recommendations in that report – not two, 45 – and the government really I think has an obligation.

The government can say it does not have a legal obligation to respond to a VLRC report. I think it has a political and a moral obligation, particularly when we are talking about a subject matter as critical and important to the safety of Victorians, particularly Victorian women, as non–family violence related stalking. So I do ask the government not to think that we are going to let this slide. Do not think that acquitting two out of 45 recommendations is going to be sufficient for this side of the house. We believe those recommendations were all as a result of a lengthy process by the VLRC, consideration by experts and consideration by and consultation with the public and various stakeholders, and I think it is quite disrespectful to the Victorian Law Reform Commission for the government to fail to respond to the remaining 43 recommendations. I think that should be done. We are already three years late, member for Brighton, aren’t we? But those recommendations should be responded to and responded to quickly.

In relation to these matters, we do think that there are some positive changes in here. The bill makes a series of amendments in relation to family violence matters that we do not think should be opposed. We are concerned that the additional measures in relation to stalking perhaps do not go quite far enough to achieve the systemic change that we are looking for, that I think Victorians are looking for and that I think the VLRC is looking for as well. I know there are a number of recommendations in the VLRC report that call for additional funding for the Magistrates’ Court to be provided to assist them. The Magistrates’ Court is really the workhorse when it comes to dealing with a lot of family violence and non–family violence related matters, as in stalking, and some of the recommendations in that VLRC report directly go to the question of additional funding for the Magistrates’ Court to implement a number of programs.

Unfortunately, far from increasing funding to the Magistrates’ Court, we have seen the funding to Court Services Victoria being reduced. We have seen cuts to courts from this government. In fact the CEO of Court Services Victoria appeared before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee earlier this year and admitted that this Labor government’s cuts to courts were going to have an impact on the operations of courts. I do not think I am paraphrasing Ms Anderson too much when I say her response was, essentially, ‘We have to work out which of our current operations we are going to stop doing,’ because that is the impact of those financial cuts being imposed by this Allan Labor government on our Victorian court system.

We heard some members from the western side of Melbourne loudly proclaiming how proud they are of the new Wyndham law courts. I remember going out there – I think it was over a year ago now. The Wyndham law courts were finished; the trouble was that this government did not have the money to actually fund the opening of them. It like an episode of Yes Minister: the most efficient hospital in Yes Minister was the one that did not have any patients. This was a very efficient law court which was not open to the public, was not open to the profession, did not have any magistrates. It was a beautiful shiny building. If anything sort of sums up this government’s inability to get things right on things that matter, it is having a brand new set of law courts which are absolutely desperately needed in the west of Melbourne given the population growth there, but seeing that the opening of those courts was delayed significantly by months and months and months because this government failed to fund the operations of the opening of the courts.

I note that one of the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission was that:

The Victorian Government should provide all necessary assistance to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to enable the Court to develop evidence-informed guidance for identifying and prioritising non-family violence stalking in personal safety intervention order matters.

That is a really critical recommendation, and it is not addressed in this bill. The government has failed to indicate whether it supports that recommendation and whether it will in fact provide that additional funding and additional support that is required. And there is an explicit recommendation that:

The Victorian Government should resource the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to implement Recommendation 11.

So the VLRC –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt the member now. The member for Malvern will have the call when the matter returns to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.