Thursday, 5 February 2026

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:01): Just to reiterate, the scale of the family violence epidemic in our state is hard to comprehend – in the last financial year there were 106,430 family violence incidents. This bill will require police and courts to consider if the respondent has been misidentified when they are applying for and issuing a family violence intervention order or a family violence safety notice. Importantly the relevant factors in this consideration include the context of the relationship history and whether any actions may have been taken for the protection of self and others. Decision-makers are also directed to consider whether any parties may be at increased risk of being misidentified – legislative changes that are just one step in the right direction. An issue like misidentification requires cultural changes to shape better understanding of the complexities of family violence and shift harmful narratives of who deserves help and what the perfect victim-survivor looks like.

The complexities of family violence are also reflected in the way the bill expands and modifies the definition of family violence in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. The definition will be expanded to explicitly include stalking, systems abuse and where animals are used to perpetrate family violence. These changes make clear that courts may include conditions in family violence intervention orders to prohibit a respondent from locating or attempting to locate an affected family member. In relation to systems abuse, like vexatious court applications and false police reports, the expanded definition will help guide the interpretation of the legislation by the judiciary and highlight the prevalence of the issue. It will also make clear that the court can make family violence intervention order conditions in relation to animals. Disturbingly, animals are often targeted by perpetrators to hurt and control victim-survivors. Family violence intervention order conditions under these new laws could, for example, result in a direction that a specific animal that belongs to a protected person be returned. Other welcome reforms in this bill include consideration of impairment and age when a family violence intervention order is being considered, streamlining the processes, ensuring orders extend to conduct and people outside of Victoria and protecting victim-survivors from being cross-examined by perpetrators.

While this bill will improve processes relating to family violence intervention orders in many ways, we remain concerned that the increasingly high prevalence of people repeatedly breaching these orders is something to be reflected on. Data from the Crime Statistics Agency shows that between July 2023 and June 2024, 2010 people alleged to have breached a family violence intervention order had previously been arrested for a breach.

Even more alarmingly, of these alleged offenders, 873 had breached a family violence intervention order within the previous 30 days. When we compare that to the data from July 2017 to June 2018, in the last six years there has been a 64 per cent increase in people repeatedly breaching family violence intervention orders. It is one thing to improve the operation of laws relating to these orders and expanding their use, but these laws need to actually protect victim-survivors. The rate of breaches is unacceptable. I encourage the government to consider what else can be done to ensure the family violence intervention orders serve those who are meant to be protected.

While I am on the topic of where there are opportunities to better respond to family violence, I would again like to mention Jessica Geddes, who was just 27 years old when she was murdered by her abusive partner. Jessica would sometimes beg multiple times a day for food, cigarettes and money, telling neighbours that her partner at the time Robert would beat her up if she did not return with what he wanted. Police received 36 public order responses relating to Jessica from May 2019 through to the time of her death in November 2020, mostly in relation to begging. In the uncommon instances police got there before she left, they advised her not to return. This was despite reports of suspected family violence and concerns for Jessica’s welfare. State Coroner John Cain’s report on Jessica’s death recommended the Victorian government work with Victoria Police to develop a welfare-oriented response to people who beg rather than a criminal one.

This takes me to where I would like to see this government make further justice reforms to protect our most vulnerable. It should not be a crime to ask for help, but shamefully begging in Victoria is an offence punishable by up to 12 months imprisonment. I understand the Attorney-General has directed her department to investigate decriminalising begging following my raising of the issue in Parliament late last year. I look forward to learning more about the progress of this investigation during the committee stage of the bill. Legalise Cannabis Victoria is proud to support this bill. It will make tangible improvements to how we understand and respond to family violence within the legal system.

 Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (14:07): I rise to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025. This bill aims to change the handling of family violence orders and improve the court process by strengthening the family violence response. It also marks the beginning of a long-needed reform of stalking laws. In 2023 Victoria Police responded to over 94,000 family violence incidents, highlighting both the urgency of this bill and the need for continuous reform. On this side of the chamber we want to see a safer Victoria. We support any change that helps deliver a better, safer community. We will not oppose this bill. However, it is very disappointing that the government has missed a significant opportunity to properly address the core of the problem.

In my time as a police officer, over three decades, I witnessed, assisted with and attended far too many family violence incident reports, interventions and restraining orders. Family violence is a community-wide problem, and this Labor government has not fully grasped the opportunity that this bill has provided to address the root cause. The issue does not lie with the victims or the survivors. The driver lies with the acceptance of certain social behaviours of the instigator, the perpetrator. While this bill makes mild improvements to support victim-survivors, what the government should also be addressing is the cause of the problem, preventing these incidents from happening in the first place through real early intervention and meaningful actions. If we are serious about reducing family violence, we must not only strengthen the response after the harm has been caused but we must tackle the behaviours, the systems and the attitudes that allowed it to occur in the first place.

We are here debating this bill because in 2022, following the tragic incident involving the death of Celeste Manno, an incident my colleague Dr Renee Heath described forcefully and in detail earlier today, the urgent need for reform became undeniable.

In response to this case, and I am sure in recognition of many other incidents of a similar nature, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) released its final report on stalking. The report contained 45 recommendations aimed at transforming the justice system’s response to non–family violence stalking and strengthening protections for victim-survivors. The reform focused on shifting the burden from victim-survivors to predators and improving legal clarity. That is what this government failed to implement in this bill.

I just want to outline some of the key recommendations that the Victorian Law Reform Commission has made. First was clarifying the stalking offence and second was victim support and advocacy. The thing is the police response needs to improve. I will highlight some of the items regarding this: mandating specialised training for frontline police; requiring police to be the primary agency responsible for initiating a personal safety intervention order, thus reducing the burden on victim-survivors, who are often already traumatised by the incidents; improving court protections; strengthening perpetrator interventions, with a focus on early intervention to address the root causes of stalking behaviour and reduce reoffending and developing alternative pathways for children and young people who engage in stalking behaviour, preventing early and unnecessary contact with the criminal justice system.

These last few points are particularly important as they highlight the role of community attitudes, social norms and our acceptance of certain behaviours that often escalate into stalking or violence. I have seen it too many times over my career. Early intervention must go hand in hand with community awareness, because preventing stalking begins long before a person enters the justice system. It begins with identifying harmful behaviours, challenging harmful attitudes and educating our community about respectful relationships and boundaries – what we accept in Australia.

This justice legislation amendment bill addresses key items like clarifying the stalking offence and banning cross-examinations, but the problem lies in that it only directly addresses two of the 45 recommendations, with 34 recommendations calling on the government for action. We have two addressed in this bill.

In line with the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s recommendations, I believe we need a system-wide shift in prevention, one that moves away from expecting victims to simply unplug or change their behaviour and instead focuses on early, proactive intervention for both victim-survivors and perpetrators. Community education and awareness are key by identifying stalking and countering victim blaming by reinforcing that victim-survivors are not responsible for the behaviour of predators and should not be told to ignore it, block them or just stay off social media. These remarks should not be used when we talk to victims.

Raising awareness of support services is important. Early intervention for perpetrators – and I will keep emphasising this – and addressing the root cause of the issues. The central aim of reform is to stop stalking behaviour from escalating into serious harm. This includes therapeutic treatments by providing accessible, evidence-based programs such as interpersonal skill building and cognitive behavioural therapy to address the underlying causes of stalking and reduce reoffending. It also includes court-ordered treatment. The VLRC recommended that if future research supports its effectiveness, the government should introduce mandatory therapeutic orders within the civil personal safety intervention order system. And it includes keeping perpetrators in view and ensuring perpetrators are referred to services, helping prevent isolation and enabling the coordination of interagency monitoring.

The next key point is specialised pathways for children and young people. It is important to raise awareness in the community about what social behaviours are. That is where we need to address and stop incidents from happening in the first place. To avoid unnecessary criminalisation and set young people on a safe trajectory, we need to address this and raise awareness at a young age. As a system-wide reform, we need to have a better system of data collection. The whole-story framework mandates that Victoria Police adopt a specialist investigative approach. Closing data gaps is important as we raise awareness in relation to social behaviour acceptance in our communities. On this side of the chamber we will use every means to make a safer community and a better community. We will continue to support a better community and a safer community. We do not oppose this bill, but we do like to emphasise accountabilities for people in this chamber and alike. We are making legislation. We do not just wipe it off and do ad hoc legislation. We have got to make sure we address the root of the problem.

In closing, I say that when the government makes legislation, it must be accountable for ensuring it is truly delivering safety and protection for our community. The VLRC has provided a clear road map in relation to the matter through its recommendations. What is needed now is political will to implement them fully. Victorians deserve to be safe, to feel safe and to be protected from predators. Stalking and other antisocial behaviours are community-wide issues. We must address the core of the problem, not just the symptom. With early intervention and early protection we can stop these incidents before they occur rather than simply responding to the aftermath. What this bill does is address the support, and we do encourage that afterwards, but we must also look into what caused the issue. That is where the meaningful change happens. We must continue reforming stalking laws until every Victorian feels safe, is safe and is protected.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:18): I rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025. Family violence can take several forms and has a profound impact on victims and survivors, families and communities. Before speaking on the changes in this bill, I want to start by acknowledging the services that are available in the state of Victoria, recognising the extraordinary work of our services and frontline workers who respond to people’s calls of distress every single day. Safe Steps is Victoria’s 24/7 family violence response centre, where people can access crisis support, information and accommodation in case of escaping family violence. Their commitment to their work and the safety of the community saves lives. I also want to acknowledge the critical role of Victoria Police, who are often the first responders when someone is in danger. Their work in enforcing intervention orders and supporting victim-survivors can be challenging, yet every day members of our police force step into these situations with compassion and professionalism. Together these services form the backbone of Victoria’s family violence support network, ensuring that people have somewhere to go to help them through these really difficult times.

This bill follows on from the Allan Labor government’s commitment to stamping out family violence and making sure victim-survivors are safe and the perpetrators are held accountable. Following a number of deaths from family violence in Victoria, the Royal Commission into Family Violence was completed in 2015 to further improve our statewide response to family violence. It held over 25 days of public hearings and community conversations with over 800 Victorians and received thousands of written submissions. The then Andrews Labor government committed to implementing all 227 recommendations made within the report, delivered in March 2016, including recommendations based on reducing the frequency and the impact of violence, preventing violence through early intervention, supporting victim-survivors, holding perpetrators to account for their actions and coordinating community and government services.

The Andrews Labor government pledged to implement each and every one of the recommendations made within the report, alongside investing over $3.86 million into protecting women, children and families from family violence. This bill is a continuation of the work done to prevent family violence over countless years, and its aims are as follows. It will amend the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to provide for the service of family violence intervention orders and other documents and in relation to the duration of final orders. It will provide for consideration of misidentification, age and cognitive impairment in making family violence intervention orders and, in case of a misidentification, the issuing of family violence safety notices. It will ensure family violence interventions cannot be made against a child under the age of 12 years. It will make amendments in relation to legal representation in contested family violence intervention order applications and remove limitations on the making of family violence intervention orders where the family violence occurred outside Victoria. The bill will further clarify behaviours constituting family violence and make amendments in relation to conditions of family violence intervention orders and family violence safety notices, including conditions relating to animals, and it will ensure the continuing protection of family violence intervention orders made to protect children.

I was saddened to note that, as the Attorney-General said in her speech regarding this bill in the other place, Victoria Police responded to over 94,000 family violence incidents in 2023 – one every 6 minutes – with almost three-quarters of these being committed against women and girls, and these are the only the numbers that have resulted in 000 calls.

This bill builds upon the mountain of work done by the Victorian government to implement all recommendations of the royal commission, including increased investment into services providing support for those impacted by family violence and targeted responses to family and sexual violence. These legislative changes focus on strengthening judicial processes in responding to family violence, sexual violence and stalking offences and ensuring that the safety and support of victim-survivors is centred in this process. Key contributors to the development of this bill include the Federation of Community Legal Centres, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Caucus, the Law Institute of Victoria, the victims of crime commissioner, the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council and the LGBTIQA+ justice working group. These groups were critical in supporting the Allan Labor government’s goal to ensure that a broad, diverse range of voices shaped this bill in a way which can respond effectively to all cases.

Family violence intervention orders will, through the legislative changes proposed in this bill, have a new final default length of two years. Currently the majority of FVIOs against adults are made for a period of 12 months or less, although they can be set for any duration. By setting this default length of two years, victim-survivors will be protected for longer and will face less risk of retraumatisation through repeat court appearances. This is in line with consultation with the community and key stakeholders, who have told our government that a longer period of protection is required to manage the risk and to address any mental health impacts or concerns. It also aligns our legislation with that that of other jurisdictions in New South Wales, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The courts will maintain the ability to amend this duration for either a longer or shorter period of time at their discretion, in line with the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, and a maximum FVIO length of 12 months will remain applicable to those orders against a child. Finally, for the FVIO’s implementation against an individual serving a custodial sentence for family violence, a default period will be set as the total effective sentence, in addition to 12 months post sentence where the said sentence is 12 months or more, inclusive of both parole and non-parole periods This legislative change is an important one. It will ensure that victim-survivors continue to have protection in place once an offender is released.

In consideration of the heightened risk period following custodial release, another important legislative change made through the implementation of this bill will be to respond to the risks of misidentification. When a victim-survivor is misidentified as the perpetrator, whether that be because of presentation and characteristics or the use of retaliatory force against the perpetrator, they do not get the protection or support they need from the processes and systems that they should, and marginalised demographics are more at risk of harm due to misidentification, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, migrant and refugee women, women with disabilities and LGBTQIA+ people.

The act in its current form does not explicitly recognise the risk of misidentification or ways in which to prevent it, despite the serious, long-lasting ramifications that this can have on victims. In the case of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and families, for example, it can contribute to excessive criminalisation, loss of housing and the removal of children from their families, and increase distrust in police in their communities, making them less likely to seek help and putting them further at risk of harm from family violence. These consequences can be seen in many marginalised communities impacted by family violence, and more broadly, consultation with communities and stakeholders has told us that the potential of misidentification is not often considered until a case is taken to a contested hearing. This can take time to reach and puts victim-survivors at further risk of harm, and it can lead victim-survivors to consent to orders without admission to avoid court contact with perpetrators.

Legislative changes made through the implementation of this bill to address this will include requiring police and courts to actively consider the potential of misidentification when responding to family violence incidents, taking into account the nature of the incident, including the relationship history, the dynamics and the possibility of the action being taken for the purposes of self-defence or protection of another and whether the individual is at risk of being misidentified as a perpetrator by nature of their cohort or demographic. These changes are in line with the family violence multi-agency risk assessment and the management framework which informs and supports services responding to family violence.

This bill seeks to explicitly legislate that a child listed as a protected person under their parent’s FVIO will maintain that protection after turning 18 for the duration of the order. The act does not currently clarify this, leading to inconsistent application of protection and creating uncertainty for vulnerable young people. Through these amendments young people will not need to return to the court and apply for their own order, maintaining their status as a protected person under the FVIO. This is another change that prevents the risk of retraumatisation for victim-survivors and increases their protection from family violence. This bill will effect this by setting the minimum age for a respondent of an FVIO to 12 years of age. As younger children are unlikely to understand the restrictions or obligations of FVIOs, their behaviour would be better managed through therapeutic approaches, and more critically, the consequences of violating FVIOs are a criminal matter, which would be contradictory to a case involving a child under 12 who cannot be held criminally responsible.

This bill also legislates provisions regarding children or people with cognitive impairment to allow the court to act with discretion if they believe the respondent is unable to understand and comply with an FVIO, and it will ensure that protections afforded by FVIOs are implemented as soon as possible through the streamlining of service provisions. Currently an FVIO is only enforceable once served on and explained to a respondent, including all relevant documentation under the act, and it is generally personally served by a member of Victoria Police. This bill seeks to ensure that the respondent cannot deliberately avoid service of an FVIO, by empowering the court to order alternative or substitute service when appropriate to do so, by providing a list of factors to be put into consideration to support courts in decision-making and police in service provisions, by changing terminology regarding personal service provisions from ‘not possible’ to ‘not practicable’ and by allowing for further scope for discretion of the court to make an order or substitute service without requiring a family member or police officer to submit an application to do so, ultimately speeding up the process for service provisions in cases where a respondent may be intentionally avoiding the matter. Similarly, this bill will address the service of FVIOs to respondents in incarceration, allowing for documents to be left with the prison’s governor if personal service through the police officer’s visit arrangement has been unsuccessful in the first instance, with the failed personal service instance requiring having sought confirmation that the respondent was incarcerated at the facility and that the respondent was aware of the purpose for the arranged visit. In this substitutive arrangement, the governor is responsible for serving these documents to the respondent as soon as reasonably practicable. In line with these provisions the bill sets out a framework in which prescribed classes of persons other than the police can serve an FVIO to a respondent with a reduced burden on the process involving affidavits, further ensuring that these documents are served and required proceedings are completed as swiftly as possible to protect victim-survivors. The bill also extends the timeframe for respondents to be served counselling orders from the current 10 days to 15 as recommended by key stakeholders.

This bill will increase compliance from respondents through a less onerous timeframe in which to engage with counselling intended to encourage responsibility for behaviour and improve outcomes. Importantly, this bill also addresses gaps in the coverage of the act to enforce FVIOs regardless of whether a family violence incident has occurred within or outside Victoria. This is critically pertinent to victim-survivors who have moved from Victoria after fleeing family violence and to those who live interstate in border towns where the closest court is within the Victorian border.

This bill will make legislative changes to further prevent the risk of retraumatisation in cross-examination. The act currently provides for Victoria Legal Aid to engage in cross-examination proceedings on behalf of self-represented respondents, but it does not state provisions for self-represented victim-survivors, leading to a potential of a victim-survivor engaging in cross-examination of the respondent directly. To ensure that this part of the act is in line with other protections to prevent direct contact between victim-survivor and respondent, this bill will require the court to provide legal representation for victim-survivors as well.

Another key issue this bill tackles is in the matter of stalking cases, allowing children and individuals with cognitive impairment acting as either complainant or witness to prerecord testimonies when deemed appropriate. The courts will also have the power to order alternative arrangements for witnesses providing evidence in stalking cases, such as remote arrangements or allowing a support person to attend with the witness. These legislative changes intend to reduce the risk of retraumatisation and not force victim-survivors to continuously repeat their stories and experiences.

This bill will centre victim-survivors in the legislation, ensuring that their protection is a priority, building on the last decade of reform in this area. It demonstrates successive Labor governments’ commitment to ensure our justice system is more responsive, more victim-centred and better equipped to prevent violence before it can occur. These amendments will reflect evidence from lived experiences of victim-survivors and advice from frontline workers who recognise the gaps in our system every day. This bill enhances tools available to protect those at risk and to hold perpetrators accountable. In concluding my contribution, I would like to reiterate that this is a comprehensive bill aimed at tackling the critical issues of family violence and protecting those most in need.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (14:33): I rise to speak in favour of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025. This bill does several things to help combat family and gender-based violence in our state. It will recognise misidentification in making family violence intervention orders, ensure family violence intervention orders cannot be made against a child under 12 years and strengthen the offence of stalking. Importantly, and after a lot of advocacy, this bill also acknowledges the link between animal abuse and family violence. It recognises the abuse of animals as a specific family violence offence, and changes will be made to reunite survivors with their animals, ensuring that families can stay together.

For almost a decade the Animal Justice Party has been committed to bringing about changes that would help survivors and their pets, often one of their only sources of comfort, stay together. We made some great strides, including securing funding in budgets for pet-friendly crisis accommodation, but we knew that we still had a long way to go to ensure that there are no barriers for those who flee violent situations with their animals, and we knew that it required legislative reform. That is why protecting animals and acknowledging them as victims of family violence was one of the very first things that we set out to do when I was first elected. Some may recall that I moved a motion in this place for this very change back in October 2023, and as a result the government committed to working with my office on implementing such important changes to our state’s family violence protection laws.

Some of these changes are what we see in this bill before us today. While I am proud to have played a small part, it is important to note there has been a long history in getting the government to acknowledge this link and act on it. In 2021 the government supported a motion put forward by Animal Justice Party MP Andy Meddick. The 2016 final report of the Royal Commission into Family Violence included several accounts of linked family violence and animal abuse.

Australian research into this link between people and their pets first emerged in 2014 from Dr Lydia Tong. Dr Tong’s research showed us that around 70 per cent of women escaping violent homes also reported abuse of their pets. As the rates of animal ownership increase, so does the potential for abuse. In fact, according to the most recent pet census, more than 70 per cent of Australian households live with one or more animals, and for most of us, they are seen as more than just a pet. They are seen as our family.

Perpetrators of domestic and family violence know this all too well, and they seek to weaponise it. In a submission to the 2024 federal inquiry into family violence orders Women’s Legal Services Australia stated that:

Clients of Women’s Legal Services frequently report intentional animal abuse as a form of sexual, domestic, and family violence, whereby abusers exploit the close emotional bond shared by them, their children, and their animals, to inflict significant harm upon our clients. Clients have disclosed various abuse, torture and death of their animals at the hands of their abusers.

One of these stories I shared in 2023:

In my recent marriage, there was a history of domestic violence, and we had two dogs … who meant a lot to both me and my young daughter. However, my husband was cruel and neglectful towards the dogs. He seemed to view them as an extension of his ego rather than as beloved pets …

As I planned to leave due to ongoing abuse, I had to come to terms with the possibility of leaving the dogs behind if I sought shelter or a rental for myself and my child. When my husband found out I left, he threatening to dump the dogs, claiming he couldn’t handle them on his own. I tried to arrange temporary housing for the dogs while I looked for a pet-friendly rental, but he changed his stance and then denied me access to them. He used every negotiation as a tool to manipulate me into returning and instil fear and urgency in me.

I have heard stories like this far too many times, and from the moment that I first raised this issue in Parliament I have been contacted by people who have shared their own personal experience with family and domestic violence and how their defenceless companion animals were also abused and used against them in acts of coercive control.

Animal abuse is a major warning sign for further domestic violence. Research has shown clear links between animal cruelty and the increased likelihood of violence against humans. Although animal abuse was already listed as an example of family violence in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, this bill will substantially expand it to better reflect the different ways the abuse of animals or the control of animals is used to abuse and control people. In New South Wales, where laws recognising the link passed years ago, 86 per cent of domestic and family violence and community workers said their clients expressed concern for their animals or disclosed that their animals had also experienced violence. Forty-eight per cent said their clients delayed leaving a perpetrator by more than a year due to the fear or threat of their animal being harmed. Early intervention is key in protecting people from family and domestic violence, but according to the RSPCA one in three women delay leaving violent situations due to concerns about leaving their pets behind. This is exactly why the changes in this bill are so critical. The inclusion of returning animals and any items required for their care as possible conditions of an intervention order will mean fewer people will be forced to make the painful decision between their personal safety and their beloved companion animal. By better protecting animals in our family violence laws, we are better protecting people too.

However, despite our deep connection with them, companion animals are still considered property under our law, with this law being no exception. An animal can only be returned to the protected person if the court is satisfied it is their personal property. This continues to raise potential problems. Ownership of an animal is frequently incredibly complicated, and I am concerned that if ownership is even slightly unclear, a court will not include the condition in an intervention order. If the pet is registered in one partner’s name and the other pays for vet bills and cares for it, who does it belong to? I have been engaging with the Attorney-General’s office on these issues, and I hope to be able to address them further in the future. During committee of the whole I will also be seeking clarity on how ownership will be proven as well as what happens in cases where ownership is contested.

The government have often responded to ownership concerns by directing people to the family courts, but the time required for that flies directly in the face of the actual goal of this bill. These situations are exactly why I would encourage all those who share a pet with their partner to keep good records proving their connection. Practitioners working across sectors who may interact with those affected by domestic and family violence should also be conscious of their evidentiary requirements.

Just briefly, the other major and welcome reform I would like to touch on in this bill relates to misidentification. The misidentification of the victim-survivor as the predominant aggressor is a far too common issue seen in family violence cases, with enormously harmful consequences for victim-survivors. Certain cohorts are at greater risk of being misidentified as perpetrators, in particular women, people of colour, those with a criminal background, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and LGBTQIA+ people. Although exact statistics are unknown, it is estimated that in as many as 30 per cent of family violence situations women are misidentified as the predominant aggressor.

This bill would require decision-makers to consider certain factors before making or issuing a family violence safety notice or an intervention order. As raised by community legal centres, the list of factors contributing to misidentification should be prescriptive rather than neutral, as it is currently drafted. This would greatly strengthen what the government is trying to do here and hopefully assist police in conducting more accurate, trauma-informed assessments. That being said, the bill’s recognition of misidentification in family violence situations is important and it is welcome. Ultimately legislative reform in this space can only go so far. Systemic and cultural changes are also required, particularly in the way that police are operating.

I want to recognise the stakeholders who have advocated for many of these changes but also supported those impacted by family violence and animal abuse: Lucy’s Project, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, the Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Pets of the Homeless, Safe Steps and many more. There have been a lot of bad justice laws going through this place recently, but this is a good one. I would like to recognise the government’s cooperation with my office to bring about some of these changes and thank them for this bill, which truly does have the power to save lives. I will be proud to vote in its favour, and I commend it to the house.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:42): I also would like to say a few words on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I will start from the outset by saying that the Libertarian Party, although we have some concerns about the scope of the bill, will not be opposing this bill.

It has been my great privilege to get to know one of Australia’s great advocates for stalking victims, Di McDonald, who I would like to acknowledge is in the gallery with us today. If you have seen the double episode of ABC television’s Australian Story ‘To catch a stalker’ or read her book From Roses to Terror, you will know what a remarkable person she is. Di learned the hard way how hard it was to protect herself, to be taken seriously by police and to find support. She discovered that a lot of support from family violence services does not extend to stalking victims.

Even though one in seven adult Victorians have suffered from stalking, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, none of the $269 million allocated to support women’s safety and combat family violence is targeted at the problem. This is why, with a little assistance from my office, Di felt it necessary to use her own resources to start Stalking Awareness Day Australia, which is on 24 May. She set up a website which uses all of her practical knowledge and provides all the resources and contacts you might need if you are being stalked. This is a great resource, and yet she is living proof that stalking is a massive blind spot in services to support women’s safety in particular.

This might explain why very little has been done to implement the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission that were handed down more than three years ago. It probably also explains why the legislation before us today is okay but it falls far short. In the meantime, there is a lot that can be done without requiring legislation. For example, we still hear that it is difficult for a victim of stalking to be taken seriously when they report to a police station. Police are supposed to have implemented a screening assessment for stalking and harassment tool, but there are no reports on the progress of this. I know Di would be more than happy to share her knowledge and experience with police and people in the family violence prevention sector to help address this terrible problem, and it would be great if we saw some real action on this before Stalking Awareness Day Australia on 24 May.

Today’s legislation does address a few of the recommendations relating to stalking, and the Libertarian Party, as I stated, will not oppose them. But there are elements of concern that Di and others have raised, and I will raise these in the committee stage.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (14:45): I want to from the outset just thank all members that have contributed to this important debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025. Family violence happens across all communities and all kinds of relationships. In 2023 alone, Victoria Police responded to 94,170 family violence incidents across our state. Nearly three-quarters of the victims that year were women and girls. Addressing family and gender-based violence is critical to community safety and freedom from harm and fear. That is why our government was steadfast in implementing all 227 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and we remain committed to ending family and sexual violence, recognising that there is more work to do.

This bill builds on previous reforms to better protect Victorians from family violence. We make it clear that victim-survivor safety is the paramount consideration and there is no place for family violence in this state. The bill introduces a default two-year term for family violence intervention orders against adult respondents. This reduces repeated court appearances and provides longer, more certain protection. Where a perpetrator is serving a custodial sentence, courts may extend the family violence intervention order to match the sentence with an additional 12 months after release. This recognises the heightened risk of family violence when perpetrators are released from custody. The bill also strengthens service of these orders, including for respondents in prison, ensuring protection starts sooner and preventing deliberate avoidance of service. As Minister for Corrections I have heard many stories of police attendance to serve these documents but the prison not accepting that service, meaning that these orders are not able to be applied, jeopardising safety. Changes in this bill ensure that children listed on parents’ orders remain protected after turning 18, recognising that risk does not end once a young person becomes an adult. It introduces a minimum respondent age of 12, aligning with criminal responsibility and the personal safety intervention order scheme. Police and courts will also be required to consider misidentification risks, including age, race, sex, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity. Courts will also be able to make these orders where some or all offending occurred outside Victoria, protecting people who flee violence across borders.

We know family violence can involve many forms of coercive control. That is why this bill broadens the definition to include stalking, systems abuse and mistreatment of animals. It implements key recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission Stalking report by clarifying the stalking offence and improving its practical application. Courts will be able to make interim personal safety intervention orders on their own motion in appropriate high-risk criminal or bail proceedings. Procedural protections that already apply in family violence and sexual offence cases will extend to stalking cases, including protections for children and people with cognitive impairment. The bill also clarifies alternative verdicts in sexual offence trials and strengthens jury directions on consent, including for non-fatal strangulation and intimate image offences. Much of this reform reflects the advocacy of victim-survivors and families who have pushed for better responses to stalking.

I want to thank you all – too many to name in this short time that I have. I want to thank the community legal sector, who work tirelessly to advocate for the most vulnerable people in our community also. To Celeste Manno’s family, who I know have spoken about on this issue a lot, who people have mentioned in today’s debate and who I understand are listening and with us: what happened to your daughter, sister and friend should never have occurred. To Aggie and her family: thank you. In getting to speak on this issue today, I spoke earlier today to our Treasurer, the former Attorney-General, who met with the family in the past. I spoke with many of my colleagues who were really affected by this incident – this criminal, heinous act.

There are still many people in our community that are fearful for themselves and their family members. As a father of two daughters, these kinds of issues are never easy to confront, never easy to address, and our justice system is not perfect. But I know that everyone in their own little way is trying to make improvements, including for victims of stalking and coercive control.

Legislation is not the only tool, but it is an essential one. These reforms sit alongside a broader system of improvements and partnerships with people in this sector. This bill strengthens protections for women and children, improves accountability and continues Victoria’s nation-leading family violence reforms. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (14:51)

David LIMBRICK: I only have a few questions for the minister, and if it suits the minister, I will just acquit them all on clause 1. First question: where a family violence intervention order (FVIO) or personal safety intervention order restricts an accused’s associations with other family, friends, pets and animals, will those family, friends or pets be explicitly named on the order?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm: yes, they will.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that very clear answer. The second question: regarding clause 19’s definition of family violence in proposed subsection (2)(f), is there a burden of proof required to satisfy that behaviour under this definition is or was committed for the purpose of controlling, dominating or coercing the family member?

Enver ERDOGAN: I might just seek some guidance from the box.

Yes, you do, on the balance of probabilities, as it is a civil matter.

David LIMBRICK: Who holds that burden of proof, then? Does it fall upon the alleged victim to present a case that the behaviour was to control, dominate or coerce, or will behaviour be prima facie taken that way and the accused will have to prove that it was not?

Enver ERDOGAN: The burden of proof will be on the applicant, but in most of these cases it will be the police that will be getting up to put the case, not the victim-survivors themselves.

David LIMBRICK: If that burden of proof is on the applicant, what sort of evidence would be required of the applicant to prove that this is a valid application? Or is the minister saying this would be something that would be provided by the police? I am not certain how that would work.

Enver ERDOGAN: From my experience, in many of these cases the applicant would inform police of what has occurred, so their testimony and evidence is significant, but all forms of evidence would be admissible, especially if it goes to court. That includes text messages and any other evidence that may be applicable and any other matter that the police could rely on.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for clarifying that. Neither the bill nor the act contain a definition of the term ‘mistreatment’. Can the government provide any guidance on how this term should be interpreted by the justice system?

Enver ERDOGAN: In terms of ‘mistreatment’ and its application, I would say look at the ordinary meaning, but in the act more specifically there are some examples that allow it to be broadly interpreted; for example, withholding food. Some of those examples are in the legislation, but it is best to have a broad meaning. There would be an element of discretion for the decision-maker to see what they view as mistreatment in ordinary terms.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that clarification. Regarding part 2, division 3, subdivision 3, pertaining to a child or cognitively impaired respondent, will a respondent need to provide any evidence or proof which demonstrates that they lack the ability to comply with an order?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, they will need to show proof.

David LIMBRICK: In clause 67 the stalking offence has been expanded to include:

causing or threatening to cause harm to any animal –

while in the presence of B –

which is the victim –

or any other person;

But no definition of harm is provided, although the definition of ‘mental harm’ is preserved under section 21A(8) of the Crimes Act 1958. Would that definition of ‘mental harm’ under this section be intended to apply to harm or threats of harm made or committed against an animal?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

David LIMBRICK: Is ‘harm’ intended to carry the same meaning throughout section 21A, or is it to be interpreted differently between humans and animals where the word occurs in their respective contexts?

Enver ERDOGAN: Harm is harm, and I think that is the way it should be interpreted.

David LIMBRICK: This relates to an answer given by the minister about the types of decisions that a decision-maker would need to weigh up when talking about mistreatment or harm to animals. When caring for an animal certain routine conduct can appear as harmful but actually be in the animal’s best interests, such as certain dog training methods or administering medicine to a cat that is misbehaving. You can imagine there are many examples of this. Would an accused have any legal mechanism for defence against an accusation based on conduct such as this that may appear harmful to some people?

Enver ERDOGAN: Of course they would, because ultimately these decisions will be matters for courts to consider when they are contested, and courts will need to weigh up the circumstances. If the accused has evidence to counter the narrative of harm, then they would obviously have to bring that before a decision-maker, and the decision-maker would make that assessment based on their judgement.

Rachel PAYNE: Data from the Crime Statistics Agency shows that between July 2023 and June 2024, 2010 people alleged to have breached a family violence intervention order had previously been arrested for a breach. Even more alarmingly, of these alleged offenders 873 had breached a family violence intervention order within 30 days. When we compare that data from July 2017 to June 2018, in the last six years there has been a 64 per cent increase in people who are repeatedly breaching family violence intervention orders. It is one thing to improve the operation of the laws in expanding their use, but these orders need to actually protect victim-survivors. Can the minister please tell us what the government is doing to address repeated breaches of family violence intervention orders?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Ms Payne. I know your passionate advocacy on these issues. The statistics you refer to are quite glaring and do show that there is a major issue with repeat offenders in this regard. From the outset as well, there is no form of family violence that is ever acceptable, and as a government that is why we are bringing in these changes. I know that the rate of repeat of family violence breaches is a concern also to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence. It is a matter that they have closely considered. It is really important that victim-survivors continue to report and seek help from not just Victoria Police but also support services. They absolutely should not be having to rely on a system that acts when the respondent breaches the family violence intervention order.

Something that is currently in the works that I can share and that is part of the government’s women’s safety package, a package of 16 initiatives tackling family and gendered violence, is a landmark study looking at perpetrators, so understanding why people continue to repeat this behaviour. We need it to be evidence based, particularly those repeat and high-harm perpetrators, to make sure that the interventions we have here in Victoria are contemporary, effective and accessible. What I am saying is that we are looking at the perpetrators, and there are studies being done into what is causing this pattern of behaviour and how we can address it.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I just want to discuss some of the issues around service of documents on respondents in prison, at clause 26. I want to understand: are there any anticipated risks to victim-survivors if a document is taken to have been served when it is left with the governor of the prison, and if so, how does the government intend these to be mitigated?

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank you for your question and your interest in our corrections system and the way it applies to the safety of people on the outside, in this case victim-survivors. The bill is about prioritising personal service, because we know that there was an issue of people avoiding being served these documents, and therefore they were inoperable in a practical sense. We had to overcome this issue of people not being there when police were there to serve these documents, not attending that appearance.

In terms of the risks to those outside, I think there is always a risk of people within a corrections setting contacting someone on the outside. We know these are real risks. At corrections we monitor phone calls and correspondence between prisoners and people on the outside. Therefore that is when these systems should be coming into play. As Minister for Corrections, I will say there is also a risk to corrections staff to a degree, because as part of running a modern corrections system we do try to build relationships between staff and prisoners. This does put a bit of pressure on that relationship, but we felt it was important to make sure that these documents are received by respondents so that they can take effect in an appropriate way. I think you are very right to point to this issue, but I would say, like in any of these circumstances, if there are people in prison with even the potential for them to hurt someone on the outside, it is important that the intelligence gathering and resources of the corrections system lay there. Obviously they do that not alone but together with Victoria Police.

Katherine COPSEY: Just staying on the same topic, should the court be required to consider a person’s disability, neurodivergence, literacy or language barriers when a decision is being made on how documents will be served?

Enver ERDOGAN: This reform is about protecting victim-survivors, but I think you ask a really important question about the ability of people to understand and comprehend what is being ordered on them. I would say broadly the same, in terms of the bill, that the way it is drafted does consider that in terms of the types of vulnerabilities that are proposed expressly to be referenced, and the explanatory memorandum provides for any impairment or vulnerability, including literacy, language barriers and disability, including intellectual disability and cognitive impairment – and we do know that does affect a lot of people in our correctional and justice systems – and neurodiversity. There needs to be sufficient proof to the court that there is clear guidance as to the intention and consideration, so it needs to be considered in that decision-making or in accepting if services are appropriate. These are challenging considerations, but I think the explanatory memorandum provides some guidance and I think there is an element of discretion there to consider what is appropriate.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, will the affected person’s views be a mandatory consideration before the court makes a substituted service order?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, the bill includes some of these considerations. A proposed new section 202C(2B)(g) provides that the court may have regard to views of the protected person or affected family member on the manner of service provided, the likelihood that the proposed manner of service will bring the document to the attention of the respondent and any risk to the protected person or affected family member. There is a risk that referring to any other person would include the respondent. The provisions appropriately prioritise consideration of victim safety for ensuring that respondents can be served via substituted service where appropriate.

Katherine COPSEY: Turning to another topic now, the court needs to specify periods for which orders are in force in respect of a child respondent. Can you define the use of ‘default’ in the legislation versus the use of ‘minimum’ in public statements about this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: This new provision sets out default lengths of a family violence intervention order made against an adult respondent, subject to the discretion of the court. What it means is that the length of the family violence intervention order is not specified. The duration of the family violence intervention order is two years by default, so if the court does not decide to use its discretion to set a period of time, then the two-year default will apply. The court may still have the power to order a different period where it is appropriate to do so. The term ‘default’ is just to make sure we have a consistent approach with similar provisions in other jurisdictions such as New South Wales.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, can you also clarify that victim-survivor views are the key consideration when determining the duration of family violence intervention orders and that magistrates retain the ability to make an order under new section 96B(5).

Enver ERDOGAN: The bill does not change the considerations the court must have in regard to determining the length of a family violence intervention order, which include that the safety of the protected person is paramount and consideration of the protected person’s views. The court may also make an order of indefinite length if appropriate to do so in all the circumstances. Therefore if there is a view, based on the risk, that a longer order is appropriate, the court will still have those powers.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I have some questions in relation to the animal-related provisions. The other animal-related provisions in the bill link contact with the animal to some kind of malicious motive to perpetrate family violence, but this on its own is just about proximity regardless of intent. How will respondents in a family violence matter who have been misidentified and who want to care for an animal be protected from falling victim to this provision?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Ms Purcell, for that really important question. I just want to clarify that these amendments are about allowing the court to make orders prohibiting access to an animal to prevent a respondent from using an animal to commit family violence. For the avoidance of any doubt, there is no occasion where the court would make an order prohibiting access if the animal is the property of the respondent. But I understand mostly that the question is about misidentification, and I would point to some of the amendments that are in the bill that have been inserted to require police and courts to consider misidentification before they issue family violence intervention orders or other notices or orders. I think the same kind of criteria they need to look at for misidentification, that should protect people in this situation as well. That is the goal.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, just back on to language. Does the language of the ‘respondent’ and ‘affected family member’ terminology predetermine the outcome of the assessment of who, if anyone, needs protection?

Enver ERDOGAN: The terminology here was very much considered during the drafting of the bill. I know that this was something that was raised by the community legal centres during consultation, and the government acknowledges the intent of the suggestion to use ‘parties’ instead and ‘respondent’ at the family violence notice stage to avoid labelling a person as a perpetrator of family violence when misidentification might be involved. That is why we are introducing misidentification provisions. These provisions require police to consider factors before making a family violence notice, and that makes a person more likely to be misidentified. The terminology used is consistent with existing provisions in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. Keeping the language consistent is important to ensure the effective operation of its provisions. The substance of the amendments will still require police to consider whether the parties have been misidentified, so I think that is the key to stop the misidentification in the first place. But we want to keep the language consistent.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, just on a similar topic around choice of language, why did the government choose not to replace ‘family violence’ with ‘actions’ in the factors listed to ensure self-defence or self-protection is not misread as family violence?

Enver ERDOGAN: I know the Attorney-General’s office closely considered this issue in the drafting of the bill before us. That is something that was also raised to them by the community legal centres during consultation. The terminology used is consistent with the existing provisions of the Family Violence Protection Act. Keeping the language consistent is important to ensure the effective operation of the provisions. The proposed amendment was considered, but it was not adopted as it would cause the provision to be less clear in purpose and operation.

Katherine COPSEY: On the language used to describe misidentification risk factors, why has the government chosen not to make these more specific – for example, by expressly listing groups that we know are disproportionately misidentified, including Aboriginal people, LGBTIQA+ people, CALD communities, people with disability or mental illness, temporary visa holders and children and young people?

Enver ERDOGAN: We acknowledge and accept that the listed cohorts are subject to an increased risk of misidentification as a perpetrator of family violence, and the explanatory memorandum gives practical recognition of this fact by explicitly stating that people from the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community, CALD communities, people who identify as LGBITQA+, women, children and people with disabilities are at an increased risk of being misidentified as a respondent. The bill uses broader language that captures the core characteristics that are sought to be protected and is in keeping with the attributes protected by the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, in relation to periods for which orders remain in force in relation to child respondents, what is the intended application of the exceptional circumstances referred to in this matter? This is clause 30.

Enver ERDOGAN: The bill reflects the current language in the Family Violence Protection Act that provides an order made against a child cannot be for longer than 12 months unless there are exceptional circumstances. This reflects that different considerations apply to child respondents. What is an exceptional circumstance would depend on the circumstances of each individual case. I think, especially when we are talking about children, someone under 18, ‘exceptional circumstances’ is quite broad. We know it is interpreted in a number of legislative instruments from bail and other areas of our justice system, but I think the vulnerability of the young person would be a key consideration amongst others. I think that is up to the individual decision-maker to consider.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, to come to changes around the minimum age, why has the government set the minimum age for family violence intervention respondents at 12 instead of at 14? What evidence supports setting this at 12?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, I think the goal here has been to make sure it is consistent with the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is set at 12 in Victoria. So the government’s policy is that minimum age should also in this instance be 12.

Katherine COPSEY: We have had this discussion a number of times on the Youth Justice Bill 2024, and we have had discussions about the importance of the principle of doli incapax and that presumption. So why, Minister, has the government decided not to include a specific reference to doli incapax in the factors for courts to consider in making an order against a 12- or 13-year-old, or should that be considered?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, that is right; I know your longstanding view on raising the age of criminal responsibility. But applying doli incapax, which is an important principle that applies to the criminal age of responsibility, to new sections 53AC and 60CB, is not necessary, as the proposed provisions already provide the court with sufficient scope to assess the capacity of the respondent to understand the family violence intervention order. Therefore, when you have such a young person that is vulnerable, the courts will still be able to assess their capacity. And that is what doli incapax is looking at, the capacity of someone to understand their actions and their cognitive ability to understand that, based on evidence, based on the professionals and experts. But family violence intervention orders are also civil in nature, so incorporating the principle of doli incapax when a court is considering whether to impose a family violence intervention order on a respondent risks conflating issues of criminal responsibility at a stage when criminal behaviour may not necessarily have occurred. So further responsibility to form a criminal intent, to understand whether their behaviour is seriously wrong in a moral sense, is not necessarily indicative of the respondent’s practical ability to understand and comply with the conditions of a civil order – so also understanding that this is civil, so it is a balance of probabilities and it is a lower threshold.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I just have some questions about the conditions about personal property. What kind of evidence does an affected person need to show that an animal is personal property to allow the court to make an order under clause 21 of the bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: Determining whether an animal is the property of the affected family member will be a matter for the court, and the court may consider any evidence put before it by either party. Evidence may include microchip information, council registration, proof of purchase or evidence about care provided to the animal.

Georgie PURCELL: What will occur if it is unclear whether the animal is the sole personal property of the affected family member?

Enver ERDOGAN: The amendments in this bill make it clear that the court can make conditions relating to an animal that is the personal property of the affected family member. If there is evidence that the animal is the property of the respondent, the court may determine it is not appropriate to make any conditions on a family violence intervention order relating to the animal. Where animal ownership issues arise, the parties may seek resolution under the Family Law Act 1975 or seek transfer of ownership under other legislative instruments. I know what you are probably potentially seeking here, but introducing a specific condition in legislation enabling the transfer of ownership could potentially introduce significant complexity into the act in relation to broader property rights and may inadvertently risk victim-survivor safety and involve long and protracted ownership disputes because of the complexity around animal ownership.

Georgie PURCELL: Children cannot legally be the registered owner of an animal. If an animal belongs to a child who is a protected person or listed in an intervention order and the animal is registered in the name of the respondent, would the child be able to have the animal returned?

Enver ERDOGAN: This is a really important question, because you are right: many people initially buy pets for their children, and the children take ownership in the real sense. But the provisions in this bill only apply where the animal is the personal property of the protected person, and I guess for many children that is difficult to prove, and the court may consider it not appropriate to make an order with conditions relating to an animal in those circumstances.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, do orders under clause 21 include non-domestic animals, and if so, what would the evidence required to prove ownership for them be?

Enver ERDOGAN: The bill enables courts to make conditions in relation to any animal, recognising the different animals that people have and are used to perpetrate family violence, including commonly owned pets such as dogs and cats, assistance animals, licensed wildlife such as snakes, as well as livestock. The court could consider any relevant evidence to determine whether the animal was the personal property of the affected family member, including proof of purchase and evidence of care. I think in most cases people that love their pets have a lot of photos of them – their caring duties or time spent together – to provide if there is no evidence of registration.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, just a question on the meaning of family violence: when responding to incidents of family violence that include animal abuse, what action will be taken to protect the animal and address the abuse?

Enver ERDOGAN: Police can exercise powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 in relation to animals, including in family violence situations. For example, if there has been alleged cruelty or violence against the animal, the RSPCA may also be notified and take appropriate action under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act or the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act contains a range of measures to respond to possible animal abuse, including authorising RSPCA inspectors to investigate and prosecute allegations of animal cruelty.

[The Legislative Council report is being published progressively.]