Tuesday, 14 November 2023

Bills

Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (14:54): I am not pleased to rise to speak on this legislation. I do not think any of us are ever happy to be introducing new laws to deal with the scourge of our society in family violence. I put that very clumsily, but we all wish that we did not have to be passing this sort of legislation. It is something that is, as I said, a scourge on our society and something that I grapple with – that we cannot deal with it better, not because of government, state or federal, or programs that are put in place; the issue basically stems back to the community, particularly to men in the main. And all the goodwill, education, training and legislation in the world will not stop this unless men actually stop committing violence against women.

I am a very, very proud Gippslander. I am proud to live where I do. I am proud of what we produce. I am proud of what our people do. But I am absolutely aghast to learn from the most recent statistics that Latrobe City and the East Gippsland and Wellington shires were all in the top four for family violence in Victoria. That is something I am not proud of when it comes to being a Gippslander. Of course, whatever the statistics, someone has always got to be on the top, but that is not something that we want. I commend the work of Gippsland Women’s Health for what they do and many other agencies throughout the region. But Gippsland Women’s Health in particular are running the Let’s Chat Gippsland campaign, a period of 16 days of activism starting on 25 November, and it is something that we all need to do better on. I think the statistics are still one woman killed every week due to family violence in Australia and police attending a family violence incident once every 6 minutes in Victoria, and that is just abominable. As I say, I do not think the solution is government. Sure, government and Parliament play a role, but our community has to do much better on this issue.

But it is important of course that government does its part and provides the legislation, the legal framework, that not only addresses family violence and not only provides punishment for perpetrators of family violence but also sends a message, and in many respects that is what this legislation, the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023 does. It is about sending a message that the community will not tolerate this sort of violent behaviour towards predominantly women – it is not only women – and that there needs to be a message sent to the community and to perpetrators but also to police, the courts and others that this scourge needs to be tackled in as many different ways as possible. We have this legislation that has largely been driven by the case, sadly, of Joy Rowley. As the member for Malvern indicated, this really should be known as Joy’s law in many respects, because it was the tragic death of Joy in 2011 that has effectively precipitated this legislation, and it came after a long campaign by her family, her children in particular. There was a coronial finding by Judge Sara Hinchey in 2018 that recommended the introduction of this law. Judge Hinchey said at the time:

Such an offence will more effectively hold perpetrators to account for serious offending. Further, the new offence may build further awareness of the dangers and potential lethality of strangulation among police members, courts and community services practitioners.

As I indicated a moment ago, it is partly about sending that message. If you read the story of Joy, you will find a series of failures that the police ultimately acknowledged in not picking up some of the issues, in particular where her former partner did grab her around the throat and literally caused her to become unconscious and then subsequently at a later time actually murdered her. I guess the dividend, if there is any such positive to come out of that tragic event, is that the Parliament is acting. I pay credit to the family for continuing to act on this, and we will now see effectively Joy’s law introduced through this legislation, because the opposition is certainly not opposing this bill.

There are a number of aspects to it. I will not go into the level of detail that the member for Malvern has already done in highlighting the various aspects of the bill, but it does contain some curious clauses, I guess, in the sense that the non-fatal strangulation in the legislation will only apply to a family member as defined in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. That definition is current or former spouses; domestic partners; intimate personal relationships, which do not have to be sexual in nature; children and parents, including stepchildren and step-parents; other relatives in some circumstances; and any other person reasonably regarded as being like a family member. The member for Malvern highlighted the example that has been given whereby in a nightclub situation a person who strangles their partner on the dance floor could be charged under these offences, but a person who is merely attempting to woo another person and then is knocked back and also strangles them would not be charged. That is not to say they could not be charged with other offences, but it does lead to something of an anomaly in that respect – that it does only relate to families. Sexual Assault Services Victoria indeed has said that excluding people who experience strangulation outside a family relationship from the avenue of protection afforded by non-fatal strangulation laws essentially creates a second class of people and sends a mixed message to the community about strangulation. It will mean that people – overwhelmingly women – will receive a different response depending on whether they are assaulted by a family member or by someone else.

That is certainly true of this bill. In part, again as the member for Malvern has indicated, that is due to the very broad nature of the definition of strangulation that is contemplated by the legislation. Because of that, we could potentially see, if we did not have the family restriction in respect of this bill, much wider interpretation and application of it to many, many circumstances where it may not indeed be appropriate. Whether the government has got that balance right and whether it will work in practice is I guess yet to be seen, so we will see what happens in that respect.

That brings me to the amendment moved by the member for Malvern. He has quite rightly suggested that given that this is novel legislation here in Victoria, that it is the first time something such as this has been introduced with respect to strangulation, there actually should be a review period. He has suggested that the bill be amended to include a two-year statutory review, so a review two years after the bill comes into operation, and for that to occur within six months of that two-year period passing and then to be tabled in Parliament for all to see. I do not think that is something that the government should be rejecting. Obviously, we will deal with the in the other place, but it is not something that any government really should be afraid of, having a review of legislation. We see in both the family violence space but also justice generally that we are tweaking legislation repeatedly, whether it is bail laws or whether it is youth justice. Many of the other bills that we have debated this year indeed are often dealt with again only a year or two afterwards. So I would encourage the government to support that amendment. It is a simple thing, and I hope that all members in the other place will also agree to it.

This is hopefully a step in the right direction. It is another step in the government, the Parliament and the community’s attempts to end the scourge of family violence, and I wish it speedy passage through the chambers.

Vicki WARD (Eltham – Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Employment) (15:04): I also rise in support of this bill. Strangulation can cause unconsciousness within seconds, and it can cause death within minutes. What can start as a threat can quickly become a fatal form of violence. Non-fatal strangulation can cause blood clots, it can cause stroke and it can cause brain damage. It is an in especially insidious and dangerous form of family violence experienced by up to 68 per cent of victim-survivors. It is terrifying. I cannot imagine the fear that you would have when someone’s hands are around your throat trying to cut off your airways while you try and work out how to survive. It is a form of abuse that is rarely an isolated incident, and it is often used by perpetrators as part of an ongoing and escalating pattern of coercion and control. ‘Do what I say or I will do this to you again, and you don’t know how far I will go’ – that is the hideous threat that is implied within non-fatal strangulation.

This year, as we have heard from previous speakers, 47 women have been murdered by a perpetrator of family violence. That is more than one a week. The terrible thing is that the year is not over yet, so we are really saying so far, 47 women have been murdered – so far. It is terrible. It is absolutely terrible that this is still occurring in our communities across our country. We have had seven women murdered in the last month. Actually, I will rephrase that – someone has murdered seven women in the last month – because we do need to reframe part of the language and the way that we frame the way that we talk about family violence. We talk a lot about the victim-survivors, and we need to, but we really need to talk about the perpetrators. We need to talk about the people who are using violence and their actions, what they do, because they are the ones that create this, not the victim-survivors.

One in four women have experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15. If we look around at the women in this place, you will know that there are women who are sitting here who have experienced family violence. That is around 2.5 million women across our nation. Let us try to pack that into Melbourne, for example. If we were to condense that national figure into Melbourne, that would be that every female in the city of Melbourne, Greater Melbourne, has experienced family violence. It is 2.5 million across the nation, but imagine that every woman you see in Melbourne has experienced family violence. That is what our national statistic is.

Around 800,000 people present each year nationally to our hospitals with injuries caused from family violence. That is just those who actually let the hospital know that family violence is the cause of their injury, so we know that that number is far greater. That is a lot of people presenting to hospital every day, and as we heard from the member for Gippsland South, phone calls are going out to Victoria Police around every 6 minutes. Over 92,000 calls were made to police last year, and in every single one of those calls the cause for those calls, the perpetrator, was a male. Now, we know that men are not the sole actors in family violence, and we know that women are not the only victims. We know that it happens in rainbow families. We know it happens in intergenerational families. But we do know that overwhelmingly family violence is perpetrated by men, it is gender-based and it is directed at women.

I would encourage everybody in this place to come along to the Walk against Family Violence on 24 November. I would encourage everybody in this place to sign the banner that was here with Respect Victoria a fortnight ago, which has been signed by a number of people in this chamber, but there are quite a few people in this chamber who have still not signed it.

Women are predominantly those targeted because of their gender, but we know that family violence will continue to happen until we have equality. We are not there yet, but I can tell you that this government has worked incredibly hard to get us to a point where we can say that there is no more family violence. We must bring about change. Imagine what our society could do, what we could achieve, without family violence. The introduction of standalone non-fatal strangulation legislation is an important step in protecting victim-survivors by introducing penalties that recognise the seriousness of this conduct and hold perpetrators to account, because they need to be held to account. They need to understand what they are doing is wrong, it is illegal and the government, the law and the state of Victoria will not stand for it. This bill delivers on the Allan Labor government’s commitments included in 2023–27 gender equality strategy and action plan. I commend the Minister for Women along with her office and her department for this work and the amount of energy and time and consideration that has been put into it.

This is the product of complex work, this legislation that we are debating today. Time has been taken to ensure that the targets of the sort of high-risk family violence offending intended to be captured are captured in a simple and effective way. It is also important that the legislation works effectively with other key reforms such as the adoption of the affirmative consent model. We want to ensure that the responsibility for offending is placed onto perpetrators rather than victim-survivors. It builds on the work of our royal commission – we have implemented all 227 recommendations. We have opened up 18 Orange Doors and we have created opportunities for victim-survivors to be heard and to influence policy, because we do need to understand their experience. We need to understand what it is like to go through the system, what it is like to present yourself, what it is like to not get the support that you need and even what it is like to get the support that you need and how it can transform your life – the life you now have to rebuild because of the violence of somebody else.

The offences introduced by this bill will hold offenders to account. It will provide clearer indications to the police and community service practitioners of escalating violence and control in family violence situations. It opens up a new conversation. It helps people across the sector understand the seriousness of this violence. I cannot emphasise enough that it is not an end point. Once a perpetrator starts engaging with non-fatal strangulation, that is not the end; it does not stop there, it continues to escalate. There is a core cohort of offenders who commit family violence who will escalate their behaviour. They need to know that they will be stopped, and they need to be stopped as soon as they engage in this activity, as soon as they start using violence. This bill also aims to improve understanding of the dangers and potential lethality of non-fatal strangulation among police, courts and community service practitioners and help drive more effective medical, legal and law enforcement responses.

This bill at its core is about ensuring that there are more opportunities to prevent and de-escalate family violence situations, such as where non-fatal strangulation is being used to control, threaten, scare or intimidate, because that is what it is – it is about intimidation, it is about control, it is about power. This is why for the more serious of these two offences, where injury has occurred, consent will not be available as a defence. Currently, non-fatal strangulation is recognised under the multi-agency risk assessment management – MARAM – framework as a serious family violence risk factor associated with an increased likelihood of serious injury or death for victim-survivors. As I said, it is an indication of escalation. It is a behaviour that we cannot tolerate. It is a violence that we cannot tolerate. It is a violence that we have to stamp out.

The 10-year offence that this legislation introduces is designed to capture instances where the offender intentionally injures their victim with an act of non-fatal strangulation. The element of intentional injury means that there is a higher level of culpability attached to this offence. We know you meant to hurt, we know you meant to inflict pain, and you will receive punishment for this. There will be repercussions. You will be held accountable. You will be held responsible. Existing common law and statutory defences such as self-defence, duress or sudden and extraordinary circumstances will be available for both the five-year and the 10-year offences. The risks of non-fatal strangulation have not always been widely understood by those who encounter victim-survivors and offenders, contributing to low detection and prosecution rates. This is the reason why this legislation is so important and why I support it.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (15:14): I will take up from where the member for Eltham was – those who are perpetrators of domestic violence should be bloody punished. It is as simple as that.

Here we are speaking about the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023, which we have referred to as ‘Joy’s law’. Before I go into the details of this legislation in front of us, I want to put on record my thanks for trusting me to Les and Renee, who I met with to discuss what happened to Joy Rowley back in 2011. They went through hell and back in 2011 when Renee lost her mother – and there were two other children, Aaron and Nadine. In those conversations, as you would understand, it is quite emotional, because they are not speaking about legislation the same way we do in here, they are speaking about it in real life, in real terms – how and who does it impact? I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for giving me that trust when we started having discussions many months ago. I do not often do so in here, but I would also like to thank Ashley in my office who has been working very closely with the family in a very sensitive manner. When things were coming out in the media and when discussions were happening anywhere in here, we were trying to let them know as soon as possible, because it could have been – and was at times – a trigger for the family. We wanted to make sure that they were heard along the way.

The purpose of this bill is to make non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member a standalone offence. As we have said, it is very sad that we have to be here discussing this today. A few members have spoken about domestic violence and the amount of deaths we have had. I was just looking it up before: 49 people have died at the hands of their partner in Australia this year – that is one every five days. Sometimes there are things in life that you cannot understand and kind of just make you sick. Recently we lost an actor from the Friends show, and I have never, ever had so much come through on my social media to remind me of a comedian that was on TV for a period of time. At the same time, for this entire year I have not had one bit of social media come through to talk about the 49 people who have lost their lives at the hands of their partner. That is the conversation that we should be having.

Domestic violence is not new. It has been around for a long period of time. It has been around, I would probably have to say without knowing the records, forever. My family is one of those who have been victims of domestic violence. On domestic violence – I am going to say in words and not so much the actual crimes – the attitude of the community has changed, and it is these pieces of legislation that start conversations to make that change. My grandfather was very violent. This has had an impact that still goes through our family today. This was back in the day when an assault would happen to my grandmother and the police would turn up, but they would not defend her. They would tell her to get back inside, because that was the responsible thing to do, to be inside. Over time attitudes have changed in the community and they have changed in Victoria Police – and to a positive degree. It does not mean they get it perfect. It is from circumstances like this where in 2011 Joy went to the police and said there were domestic violence issues at home – she had been strangled to a stage of being unconscious, and she had made complaints to Victoria Police – and it took an inquest for the police to come out and apologise for what had happened in 2011.

We cannot change what happened in 2011. I have spoken about that with the family. But what we can change is what happens in the future and the attitude to how this changes. Someone mentioned females in this place. I say to every male in this house and every male in my local community: it is our responsibility to call it out. It is our responsibility to make sure that we do not stand aside whilst someone is insulted, assaulted or taken advantage of. That becomes our responsibility. I have always said that the standard you walk past is the one you accept. This is never more important than when we are talking about homicide in the home.

Considerable input for the introduction of this bill came from, as I said, the death in 2011 of Rye mother Joy Rowley. Joy was smothered to death in her home by a former partner. He was sentenced to 19 years in jail in 2012. The family came forward at that time and said there had to be an investigation of the circumstances that happened around that death – not just the criminal aspect of it – to find out why there were failures in the system along the way. This family then fought against all odds to continue to push, until a review came through that captured what was happening, particularly around some of those reports. It eventually got to the stage that Victoria Police admitted that there were errors, after the inquest. Judge Sara Hinchley, on 2 August 2018, handed down her findings into the murder of 60-year-old Joy Rowley, who was killed in 2011. In that inquest it was found there were many mistakes. During that it was moved that in February the attacker was choking and threatening and in October he strangled her until such time as she had passed away. Assistant commissioner Dean McWhirter apologised to the family, accepting there had been failures. Judge Hinchey, while commending the police efforts to improve their systems, said the lack of a review was a lost opportunity, and we still say that today – it was a lost opportunity to ensure that from then it could have changed what was happening.

One of the recommendations from that report was to bring out legislation so that we could protect against this, and that is what this legislation is today. Timing is of the essence, and yes, we support the concept of the bill. I know that the member for Malvern, who I appreciate has worked with the family and has kept in contact with me as well so we can ensure that we have had our views put forward on this, has made an amendment to ensure that in two years time there is a report back to this place to see that this legislation is working. I support that amendment, but I also do support the concept of this bill. I think it is so important so we can get that change that we need moving forward.

The family of Joy have continued to call out what needs to be changed. They started this process with the government back in 2018 and 2019. I note that the government is saying certain things take time. There have been a couple of attorneys-general during this time that effectively failed to act to get this into place. It could have been well and truly done during the last term of Parliament. I am not sure why and I will not question the motives at the time, but there is no reason in my mind why this was delayed to such a degree and it has been brought forward now.

I will say when I was working with the family – and the government was aware I was working with the family – we went through the stage of putting together a private members bill to introduce in here because we knew, and we still know, it is just too important to continue delaying and pushing down the road. The family was, at that stage, having trouble getting contact with the government. When we started talking about that private members bill with the family, we were not hiding it. We were not trying to make it a secret. We worked with them closely. That would have obviously been mentioned back to the government, and that was when the government acted. Can I say to the government: it should not take that. It should not take the opposition starting to do the work on this for actions like this to happen. They are just far too important. We say in circumstances like this: this place should be above politics when it comes to domestic violence. This is not the first time. We have got another bill coming before the house during this week in similar circumstances, where the government sat idle until such time as the opposition did something. We say to the government: approach us. We are happy to sit down and talk about this.

Members interjecting.

Brad BATTIN: I note laughing on the other side. When I met with the family, they could not get a response from the government until such time as we acted. I say if the Attorney-General at any stage would have liked to come to us and have this discussion, we were open to discussion, exactly as we have been with the legislation coming through later this week. This is all about ensuring, at the end, the best outcome, and if the government had come to us and taken out any of the politics in it, we could have worked together a lot sooner, probably in the last term of Parliament, to ensure this legislation could have gone through. It is too important to ensure –

Michaela Settle interjected.

Brad BATTIN: Were you even listening to the start of the speech about when I met with the family? Do not sit there –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Through the Chair. The member for Eureka will let the member –

Brad BATTIN: What a disgrace to sit there and say you are calling out for the family whilst you failed to bring in this legislation. Therefore more people are at risk. It is important that people are –

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, using the word ‘you’ is an insult to the Chair.

Brad BATTIN: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I cannot believe a government member would want to stand up in the middle of this particular debate around domestic violence, with a mother who has died, when I have sat there and spoken with that family –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Berwick will sit down.

Brad BATTIN: I am still on the point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Yes, and I will be ruling on that point of order. Your time has expired anyway. I had already flagged that you needed to speak towards, to and through the Chair.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Order! The member’s time has expired.

Ella GEORGE (Lara) (15:25): I rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. This bill will establish two new offences for non-fatal strangulation where it occurs within the context of family violence. Family violence is a scourge on our society. Family violence is deeply gendered, it is rooted in control and it is designed to cause fear. It is one family member exerting coercive, threatening, dominating or abusive behaviour over another family member or a former partner. It can take many forms and manifest in both physical and non-physical violence, and sometimes it can be physical violence where a victim-survivor does not display any visible injuries. In many cases it happens behind closed doors, hidden away from bystanders who could otherwise intervene. Family violence is prevalent in our community. At least one-quarter of Australian women have experienced family violence, and sadly, we know that family violence kills. Women are dying at the hands of their partners and former partners. On average in Australia one woman is killed by her intimate partner every single week, and in 2023 we have seen this increase to every five days. This is why this reform is needed.

No other government has done more to prevent family violence than this Labor government. It was this government that drove the Royal Commission into Family Violence, delivering all 227 of its recommendations. In fact one of the reasons why I wanted to become a Labor member of Parliament is because of this commitment to preventing and ending family violence. Having worked in the family violence sector, I saw this reform take place before my eyes. I saw up close what change you can create, what impact you can have when you have a government committed to such significant reform. For the first time in this state’s history there has been real action on family violence – not just words but real funding and a real commitment. I must acknowledge previous ministers for their hard work in driving family violence reform in Victoria. In particular I want to acknowledge Australia’s first Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence Fiona Richardson for her nation-leading work and deep commitment to keeping women and children safe from harm. I acknowledge the Attorney-General for her commitment to reforming the justice response to family violence in Victoria. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the family of Joy Rowley for their advocacy, and I thank all the brave victim-survivors, their friends and families for their ongoing advocacy to prevent family violence against women and children.

This bill will introduce two new offences of non-fatal strangulation against a family member into the Crimes Act 1958. It will ensure that an offence of non-fatal strangulation will have a five-year maximum penalty and an offence of non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury will have a 10-year maximum penalty. In addition, this bill will make consequential amendments to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 so that non-fatal strangulation is also recognised as an act of family violence. This will assist with intervention orders, consideration of bail applications and protections for witnesses giving evidence. The offences will enhance the protection of victim-survivors, particularly victim-survivors of family violence; more effectively hold offenders to account; provide clearer indication to police and community service practitioners of escalating violence and control in family violence contexts; further raise awareness of the dangers and potential lethality of non-fatal strangulation among police, courts and community service practitioners; and drive more effective medical, legal and law enforcement responses. These new offences will build on the work that our government has been doing to protect and support victim-survivors of family violence, hold perpetrators to account and help change community attitudes towards family violence.

This bill is an important step in our family violence reform, as we know that non-fatal strangulation is frequent within family violence circumstances, and we know that unfortunately non-fatal strangulation is rarely a once-off. In fact research from all over the world tells us that non-fatal strangulation is a risk factor when it comes to escalating family violence. Research undertaken by the government of South Australia found that women who survive a non-fatal strangulation are more than seven times as likely to be killed by their partner in the future. Research undertaken by the Melbourne Law School found that up to three-quarters of women escaping domestic and family violence and residing in shelters report experiences of non-fatal strangulation from their previous partner. This is devastating. What this and other research make clear is that there is a strong link between non-fatal strangulation and escalating family violence risk that can lead to death.

Monash University’s Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre completed a research brief titled Strangulation, Risk and Intimate Partner Violence. It states that:

Strangulation is also a leading cause of death among women killed by a current or former male intimate partner.

In Australia over the last 10 years an act of strangulation or suffocation has been cited as the cause of death of 14 to 16 per cent of male-perpetrated intimate partner homicides. Across the nation other states have implemented similar legislation. In May 2016 Queensland introduced an offence for non-fatal strangulation. Analysis by the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council shows that from June 2016 to June 2018 there were more than 400 cases sentenced for the non-fatal strangulation offence. In almost half of these cases, the offence was also a breach of a domestic violence protection order, again demonstrating that link between non-fatal strangulation and escalating family violence.

This bill will have a broad definition to avoid any issues seen in other states, where a narrow implementation has meant that a very high evidentiary burden has been placed on the prosecution. In Victoria both offences will prohibit choking, strangling or suffocating, which will be defined non-exhaustively as applying pressure to the front or sides of the neck, obstructing or interfering with a person’s respiratory system or impeding respiration. In both offences there is a requirement of intent to engage in the conduct of choking that I just outlined. This requirement will ensure that the legislation is not applied to accidents and that there are safeguards in place for legitimate behaviours, and this will ensure that it is in line with other states who have introduced similar legislation.

Our government has a very strong commitment to addressing the insidious effects of family violence within our community. This bill’s underlying principle is to improve the Victorian criminal justice system’s response to family violence. This bill will ensure that the penalties can be tailored to specifically respond to the heightened risk that family violence offenders bring and therefore enhance protections to victim-survivors. This bill will use the same broad and flexible definition of ‘family member’ that is used in section 8 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008.

Non-fatal strangulation often reveals an ongoing and escalating pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, especially when it occurs in family violence circumstances. This bill along with our government’s establishment of the royal commission and implementation of the entire 227 recommendations are an acknowledgement of the seriousness with which the Victorian community has come to regard family violence and its consequences for individuals and families. Victoria completed Australia’s first Royal Commission into Family Violence in 2015. The commission made 227 recommendations to reduce the impact of family violence in our community and to keep victim-survivors safe. On 28 January 2023 the Victorian government announced the implementation of the final recommendation, marking the completion of our commitment to introduce every single one of the recommendations. That is because we are a government serious about taking on this challenging issue that our community is facing. We know that family violence does not just impact the victim-survivor, it impacts their children, their pets and their wider families. It also has a huge impact on communities. The Victorian Labor governments led by Premier Allan and Premier Andrews have been a world leader in this space, investing over $3.7 billion in preventing and responding to family violence. This commitment includes opening services such as the Orange Door and Specialist Family Violence Courts.

On a personal note I had the privilege of working on the Specialist Family Violence Court project, and I am so pleased to see this up and running right across our state. We know that these courts, the Orange Door services and all the other family violence services across the state have provided support to so many victim-survivors of family violence. Family violence is not an issue that discriminates. People from all walks of life can be affected by family violence. As I have shared with the house before, when I speak to women and explain my background working in the family violence court system, so many brave women have spoken up and shared their own horrendous experiences of family violence. Unfortunately, I hear many of these stories when speaking to the local community that I represent. According to the Crime Statistics Agency, the Greater Geelong area has reported the second-highest number of family violence incidents across the state in the last financial year, and that is why bills like this one today are just so important, because we all collectively must do everything we can to combat family violence.

As the Minister for Women mentioned earlier in this debate, the absence of a standalone offence in Victoria has created a barrier to identifying, reporting and prosecuting non-fatal strangulation. This bill corrects that, addressing the unique risk profile of non-fatal strangulation as an act of family violence, which has been a key driver of these reforms. That is why I commend this bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:35): There is certainly a lot of work that needs to be done in Victoria and indeed Australia to get on top of family violence. Having a bill before the Parliament like we have now is one of those ways, and this is something that should have been done certainly in the last Parliament. The bill before us, the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023, has come to us eventually. What it does is amends the Crimes Act 1958 to provide for two non-fatal strangulation offences, and consequential to that it amends the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. I want to remind the house of the vision of Respect Victoria, and that is:

… a Victorian community where all people are safe, equal and respected, and live free from family violence and violence against women.

Too many women lose their lives through family violence, and this is what happened to Joy Rowley in 2011 – and I will talk a little bit more about her circumstances later. One woman is killed nearly every week in Australia. That is an appalling statistic. So far this year we have had 49 deaths, and that is one every five days. There is still a long way for us to go. At the end of October, a couple of weeks ago, we had a horrific period when five women lost their lives allegedly to family violence, and that also included incidents here in Victoria. That is staggering and appalling. These are some statistics from the Crime Statistics Agency:

A child or children were present at 29.8 per cent or 26,284 family violence incidents occurring in Victoria between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020. A ‘family incident’ is an incident attended by Victoria Police where a Risk Assessment and Risk Management Report … was completed.

Some members may be familiar with the L17 form that gets completed. Also from that same year, Victoria Police attended 88,214 family violence incidents. An incident is defined as where a risk assessment, the L17 form, is completed. These are staggering statistics; these are large numbers.

In May this year I joined with former Minister for Prevention of Family Violence Minister Spence at a candlelit vigil in the memorial gardens just down here at the lovely statues at St Andrews Place. At that time Renee Woolridge was one of the speakers, and I met with Renee. Renee is the daughter of Joy Rowley, and Renee and her family members have been pursuing this sort of legislation for a considerable time. Her sister Nadine Power, her brother Aaron Woolridge and Renee have been pushing to have this sort of attack legislated before the Victorian Parliament.

When we had the coronial inquest into Joy’s death, eventually the findings were handed down in July 2018. This is for an incident that happened a considerable period before. The findings included the following, and I want to read this out:

The introduction of a stand-alone offence for strangulation, suffocation or choking in Victoria may significantly help to ensure strangulation is treated commensurate with the risk it poses to victims, and remove the need to prove particular bodily harm or intent to cause injury. Such an offence will more effectively hold perpetrators to account for serious offending. Further, the new offence may build further awareness of the dangers and potential lethality of strangulation among police members, courts and community services practitioners.

What happened with Joy, who eventually lost her life, was she was smothered to death in her home by her former partner James Mulhall, who was sentenced to 19 years for murder in 2012. However, eight months prior to the murder Joy had been choked unconscious, which is staggering in itself, and as the perpetrator had a violent past and he had strangled her to the point of unconsciousness, he was likely to do that again. He did that again and suffocated her, and he was a dangerous person.

I think where you have got those who demonstrate such behaviours as near-fatal strangulation – and she did not die, she pulled through – that has led now to what we see before us with these non-fatal strangulation offences. James Mulhall had a violent and abusive past and, according to his second wife and daughter, was a dangerous man. He moved into Joy’s home, and although he believed they were partners, she thought they were friends. In February he attacked her, choking her and threatening to kill her with a knife before leaving in a taxi. In October he strangled her with his hands and a necktie before smothering her with a pillow. This is horrendous, and this story needs to be told and needs to remind us that it is not just the final point of murder that we should be prosecuting but the non-fatal strangulation.

I note that this bill is brought in in the context only of family violence, and if something happens outside of that – for example, at a nightclub or a pub where two people have got together and things get out of hand and one does that strangulation – it is not covered here. I think there is room to improve that, because I do not think that is acceptable either.

The Shadow Attorney-General has circulated amendments because we want to make sure that some of the feedback that has been provided is picked up. The Shadow Attorney-General wants to implement a legislative review after two years of operation, with a report tabled in Parliament, so that we can be sure that the legislation is operating with the correct intent and correctly, and to see whether or not it should be widened to, as I have just mentioned, that other situation.

Some of the feedback that has been received from Sexual Assault Services Victoria and provided to us noted that excluding people who experienced strangulation outside a family relationship from the avenue of protection afforded by non-fatal strangulation laws essentially creates a second class of people and sends a mixed message to the community about strangulation. It will mean that people, overwhelmingly women, will receive a different response depending on whether they are assaulted by a family member or somebody else, and that is exactly that situation that I have outlined. People in a different situation, people who are not partners and who have a short relationship or who are attacked at random – and we have seen some random attacks within the community – will be treated differently. Whilst it is important that in the context of family violence Joy’s law can be prosecuted, we still have this other situation, and I think it is important that it gets looked at. The review proposed by the amendments from the Shadow Attorney-General really needs to be considered by the chamber and looked at as a whole, not as the opposition just creating something for the means of creating something. Also, the definitions around ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’ are broadly defined, and so there is room to improve this further. I will leave my comments there. Family violence is still out of control. There is a lot more that can be done. Community standards and men and women, men particularly, need to be standing up against attacks on women, violence within the home and violence randomly against women. It is certainly not on, and I think that the government can do a little bit more to expand the powers here.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (15:44): I rise this afternoon to speak to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023, a bill that builds on the Allan Labor government’s commitment to standing with survivors of domestic abuse, to doing absolutely everything we can to stop the scourge or lessen the scourge of domestic violence within our community and to creating a legislative framework that both makes it easier to stop people that are inflicting violence on others in our community but also makes it easier to prosecute them when they do. Even though we are talking about amendments and different things like that, I think every single person in this place will agree that somebody that inflicts violence on their family or on their partner deserves to be in prison and has no right to be walking around our community.

Non-fatal strangulation is a highly dangerous and potentially life-threatening act, and it is particularly threatening in the realm of family violence. It is not just an act of aggression, it is a foreboding sign of escalating violence and an alarming predictor of future severe harm or even death. I think I heard somebody earlier refer to it as the reddest of red flags. In family violence situations non-fatal strangulation is far from an isolated incident. It signifies a disturbing increase in coercive and controlling behaviour, and research shows it often leads to more abuse and in certain times can even lead to future fatalities. That is something that everybody in this place wants to do absolutely everything that it is in their power to stop. The stark reality is that women that endure non-fatal strangulation by a partner are seven times more likely to later face serious injury or death at the hands of that same partner, and we have heard some harrowing stories of exactly that during members’ contributions today.

We have heard different stats from different parts of Victoria in respect of family and domestic violence throughout this debate. We have heard, tragically, that 47 women have died at the hands of their partner in Victoria just this year, an alarming stat. Forty-seven is 47 too many, and part of this legislation, part of what we are doing today, is in response to that scourge of family and domestic violence, hopefully trying to catch some behaviours that often lead to fatal outcomes before that happens and making it easier to prosecute people that are heading down a road that may add to that statistic of 47. Also, we have heard that police are estimated to attend a family violence incident every 6 minutes in Victoria.

We heard the contribution from the member for Gippsland South, who spoke about some statistics in his local government area, and it pains me to say that my local area of Wyndham also contributes disproportionately to those stats. We saw 899 cases of breaches of family violence orders and 769 cases of family violence common assault in the year ending June 2023, so the last financial year. That is contributing disproportionately to the stats that we speak about here and contributing disproportionately to the exact reasons why we need this bill. But in Wyndham we have some fantastic organisations that work with women that either are experiencing domestic and family violence or have experienced domestic and family violence in the past – organisations such as Orange Door. I know that they are not specific to the western suburbs of Melbourne – they work across the breadth of Victoria – but they do absolutely fantastic work in Wyndham and out in the west, as do GenWest. They are so incredibly important to our region. As I said, the stats out there do not look fantastic, but I know that the workers at these two organisations in particular, as well as many others, do absolutely everything they can, day and night, to support victims of family and domestic violence in my LGA of Wyndham. It is incredibly important that organisations and programs like this are funded so that people have access to family violence resources such as these.

It is also important that the law reflects the circumstances of family violence, which I have touched on previously, and that perpetrators of family violence are identified and brought to justice early and at that initial point of violence. As I said, non-fatal strangulation is the reddest of red flags, and all too often it continues to go down a line where the consequences are either serious injury or indeed fatal. We need a legislative framework that allows police and courts to deal with that at its very early stages, not when a child or a woman has been killed at the hands of somebody else in their family. In Victoria the absence of a specific offence for non-fatal strangulation has hindered our ability to effectively identify, report and prosecute such cases, obscuring our understanding of its impact and impeding risk assessment. It is this gap that our reforms seek to address, recognising the distinct and severe risks associated with non-fatal strangulation, as I have already gone into.

The bill concerning non-fatal strangulation is a significant legislative proposal that aims to strengthen the response of the criminal justice system to this incredibly serious issue, particularly in the context of family violence. The bill aims to realise the Allan Labor government’s commitments outlined in the Community Safety Statement 2019–20 and the gender equality strategy and action plan, which runs between 2023 and 2027. This is achieved by introducing two new indictable offences of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member in the Crimes Act 1958. The proposed reforms are set to enhance the criminal justice system’s handling of non-fatal strangulation cases by introducing specific offences that address the distinct characteristics of such incidents. Additionally, these reforms will bolster the government’s efforts to combat family violence by offering a clear and distinct categorisation of non-fatal strangulation. This clarity will aid police and family violence service providers, as I spoke about earlier, in identifying these cases more effectively, a feature that is currently lacking in the broader, more generic offences.

As I said, I understand there is an amendment on the table, but I think everybody in this place, irrespective of which party they come from, will agree and absolutely understand that legislation like this is so incredibly important. As we know, the stats say that non-fatal strangulation is something that is initially perpetrated and so often leads to much more dire consequences. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation, and I commend it to the house.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (15:54): I rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. The purpose of this legislation is to make non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member a standalone offence. As it stands, Victoria is currently the only state that does not have specific non-fatal strangulation laws. The ACT introduced legislation in 2015 and New South Wales in 2014, and they also brought forward reforms in 2018. The Northern Territory introduced laws in 2020, Queensland in 2016, South Australia in 2020 and Tasmania in 2022, and Western Australia brought laws into effect in 2020. The introduction of the offence in these states has significantly improved knowledge among frontline workers about the risks and harms of strangulation, so I hope that here in Victoria a greater understanding of its risk and harms should lead to more appropriate referrals and enhanced safety. I am pleased to see Victoria join the rest of the country in recognising the significance of this crime. In Victoria strangulation is commonly charged as an assault, which absolutely does not reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Under this proposed legislation the offence of non-fatal strangulation will be categorised in two forms. The most serious form will require the prosecution to prove the offender intended to cause injury and will attract a maximum 10-year prison sentence. A second form will not require proof of injury, and it could attract a five-year maximum penalty. In such cases it will be possible for the accused to demonstrate there was affirmative consent and avoid conviction. Non-fatal strangulation that falls outside of the scope of this bill will continue to be dealt with by existing offences, such as assault.

Much of the momentum behind this bill being introduced comes from the Joy Rowley case and the courageous advocacy shown by her family following her tragic murder. I want to thank her family for their continued activism and for never tiring in their push for this legislation. Strangulation is sadly a common and gendered form of violence reported by up to 60 per cent of family violence survivors. It is recognised as a form of coercive control and often forms part of a pattern of controlling and manipulative behaviours within a relationship. Through strangulation, abusers can show they literally hold the survivor’s life in their hands. One thing that is incredibly alarming is that if someone has been strangled by their abusive partner, they are up to seven times more likely than other survivors of family violence to face severe harm and even death in the weeks and months afterwards.

Devastatingly, 15 per cent of deaths attributed to family violence are caused by strangulation. These deaths can occur in around a minute, with minimal pressure. Sometimes death can occur weeks or months after strangulation because of blood clots, stroke and brain damage. Even when it is not fatal, injuries can be long lasting. This includes a loss of consciousness, brain injuries resulting in memory loss and pregnancy miscarriage. Short-term injuries are common too and may include bruising and sickness. However, in about 50 per cent of cases, victims have no visible injuries even when they lose consciousness. This piece of legislation is addressing a significant area of family violence and will hopefully bring our legislation up to the levels of our neighbouring states.

In regional areas, including my electorate of Euroa, breaches of family violence orders is one of the primary offences committed. It is the number one recorded offence in the Benalla, Strathbogie, Mitchell, Campaspe, Greater Shepparton and Greater Bendigo LGAs, which cover the Euroa electorate. In 2022 Benalla was said to have the highest rate of family violence per capita in the entire north-east of Victoria, and numbers have only gotten worse. In Benalla family violence incidents are up 17 per cent from last year, and the numbers are alarmingly more than double the state average. There were a total of 423 family incidents in Benalla this past year and 289 breaches of family violence orders for an area with just 10,000 people. To put that into perspective, the next highest offence recorded was criminal damage, with 108 incidents for the same period. The numbers continue to rise each year for family violence, and more needs to be done to address this issue.

These statistics paint an alarming picture, but Benalla is not alone. The Mitchell shire has seen an 11 per cent rise to nearly 1100 total family incidents and 736 breaches of family violence orders. Many of these incidents occurred in Seymour, one of the largest towns in my electorate. In 2021 a news article declared:

If Seymour were an LGA, it would have the highest family violence incident rate in the state.

Despite these heartbreaking statistics, Seymour remains without a physical point of contact for those experiencing family violence. I recently spoke about family violence in the region with former police prosecutor Peter Comte, who spent 20 years on the job in Seymour. During this discussion several areas of concern about family violence were raised, including its frequency, how it is policed and adjudicated and also how support is offered to those who have survived it. When Peter first started his role, there were a few family violence incidents mixed in with the general case load, and now the courts require an entire day every single week just to handle these cases due to the alarming frequency of them. When it comes to strangulation, he points out that there have been difficulties and shortcomings in the investigation stage. With police trained to look for evidence, the frequent lack of visible injuries from strangulation have meant that too many cases have been ignored or charged with a low-level unlawful assault. This stresses the need for education amongst our police services and our courts. I know of local women who have decided not to come forward because of a lack of support after the incident as well as in the courts. They have decided to live in danger because coming forward without support was even more dangerous. The court decisions, Peter said, had been watered down. Despite high maximum penalties, the adjudications were often settled at the minimum or not punished at all. Survivors often felt like the ones on trial. It was their testimonies picked apart while the perpetrator rarely had to give evidence at all.

Sadly, there are not enough support services in many of our regional areas. In Seymour and Benalla, the Salvation Army has protected our women and children by providing temporary short-term accommodation at motels for survivors. Thankfully, we are starting to see more support groups emerge in regional communities, with groups like the Orange Door and the Centre Against Violence. While outreach services exist, both operate outside Seymour and Benalla, and I know of incidents where the barrier of transportation has prevented women from seeking help. While community awareness of violence against women and their children is growing and the quality and availability of support services are increasing, we are still seeing the amount of crimes grow at a very concerning rate.

While this bill is set to introduce important legislation to address this crime, I have my concerns about how this will actually be policed, particularly in regional areas. The Labor government’s neglect of Victoria Police is putting the safety of our local communities at risk. With rising crime rates and declining police numbers, stations are operating at reduced hours and our single-officer stations are at risk. How are police going to be supported to help enforce this new legislation? There has been an alarming increase in crime across regional Victoria, particularly in youth crime, family violence and farm crime. Criminal incidents rising by over 10 per cent in a year across multiple regional communities needs to be taken seriously. We know it is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent crime with fewer officers on duty. Labor promised to recruit up to 2000 new officers, but the latest Victoria Police annual report confirmed there are 319 less police officers compared to last year. We have heard the Minister for Police say there were no staffing problems across Victoria Police, but these numbers do not lie. There are 800 general Victoria Police vacancies, with an annual exodus of 500 officers from the force and more than 800 police officers off duty on WorkCover. It has come to light that one out of every five police officers are expected to leave in the upcoming year. The consequence of this is a loss of 3500 dedicated officers from active duty.

A study by Swinburne University has revealed a staggering 67 per cent of officers feel burnt out, workload pressure is skyrocketing and stress levels have reached unprecedented heights. Police whistleblowers have raised the alarm, stating that major crimes, including sexual assault, are taking three years to be investigated. Intervention orders are not being served on time, police vehicles remain idle and stations are closing without notice. Police shortages are now affecting vital frontline services. Keeping our community safe is crucial and I am pleased to see this legislation addressing that, but it is essential for the government to also focus on improving staffing at our local police stations to make sure that laws like this one are actually effective and not just created without impact.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:04): Certainly very important amendments are being brought about today through the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. There is no question that non-fatal strangulation is a highly dangerous and potentially life-threatening form of offending, and it is mortifying to think of one human being inflicting this kind of violence on another human being. When you stop and reflect, it is very difficult to understand how a relationship could get to this point. Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that the sheer prevalence of family violence attests to that fact.

Whilst this conduct is already captured, and I just note that, by criminal offences such as common assault, intentionally or recklessly causing injury or assault with intent to commit a sexual offence, non-fatal strangulation is particularly prevalent and concerning when it occurs in the context of family violence, and here I am coming to the core purpose of these reforms. When committed as an act of family violence, it is an indicator of significant future risk of serious harm. Sadly, we know that non-fatal strangulation is rarely an isolated event and often indicates an escalation of violence and coercive and controlling behaviours in a family violence context and that women who survive a non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner, which is absolutely staggering. We know the barriers that the absence of a standalone offence in Victoria have represented when we are looking at these particular reforms in terms of identifying, reporting and prosecuting this offending and therefore making it harder to monitor its impact and assess risk. So coming to the core purpose here of these reforms, addressing the unique risk profile of non-fatal strangulation as an act of family violence really is the fundamental driver for these reforms.

Before I proceed I do want to acknowledge the incredible advocacy for the creation of a standalone non-fatal strangulation offence by the family of the late Joy Maree Rowley. We know that Joy was tragically murdered by strangulation and suffocation in 2011 after being non-fatally strangled by her killer on at least one occasion prior to her death. Joy’s children Aaron, Nadine and Renee and their father Les have campaigned tirelessly for the creation of an offence which better responds to and better identifies the risks of non-fatal strangulation, so I do want to specifically acknowledge their incredible patience and persistence, and I thank them for their commitment to driving these very important reforms. Certainly their advocacy has been heard.

I do want to tackle some of the key issues that were raised by the opposition, and we welcome the raising of those matters in the chamber so that they can be properly assessed and debated. When it comes to the alleged broadness of the definition of ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’, it is deliberately broad. Why – to overcome difficulties in prosecuting non-fatal strangulation that jurisdictions that do not define the term or define the term more narrowly have experienced in practice. Therefore we do have the benefit of having documentation that is able to assert the challenges that have presented to date, and this is why the particular strategy has been implemented in terms of the way ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’ is defined in this particular bill. A very similar definition, I note, is now used in the ACT and the Northern Territory to address these difficulties. In the Northern Territory ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’ includes applying pressure to any extent to the person’s neck. Similarly in the ACT ‘chokes’ means applying pressure to any extent to the person’s neck. I hope that clarifies the purpose behind having a relatively broad definition with regard to those very important elements of the offences in this bill.

A further question was with regard to these behaviours when outside the context of family violence. Non-fatal strangulation has always been – let us be clear – and will continue to be a criminal act regardless of whether the parties are family members. Currently, non-fatal strangulation is charged under other criminal offences such as common assault, intentionally or recklessly causing injury or assault with intent to commit a sexual offence. Where the prohibited conduct occurs outside a family relationship, these charging options will continue to be available, so no-one is resiling from the seriousness of that activity. The standalone offences are specifically designed to address the unique risk profile posed by family violence offenders using non-fatal strangulation. If we bring the underlying purpose of these reforms to the fore, then we can see why the legislation has been drafted in this manner, because we will have to concede the extraordinary challenge that continues to present in terms of stamping out family violence, whether prevention from the outset or actually addressing the acts once committed and making sure that the perpetrators are duly held to account for behaviour that as a community we deem unacceptable. I hope that clarifies the positioning of the particular reforms within this bill, noting that they are not resiling from the seriousness of such behaviour were it to be undertaken outside the context of family violence. I hope that clarifies that particular context.

When we were talking about addressing the scourge of family violence I know the comment was made: ‘I hope that passing this legislation doesn’t therefore mean “set and forget”’. I think that you can clearly see by the massive reforms in terms of gender equality – the 227 recommendations that followed the Royal Commission into Family Violence and the many other elements that have been established – that there is a continuum in this space. There has to be, that is fully acknowledged, but it is not lip service because you can see – and I know, in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary for Justice as I go around and visit community legal centres and other members of the community and professionals who are undertaking important work to support those at their time of need – that there are significant elements that have been implemented to date and are continuing, because we will keep going; that is absolutely unequivocal. I hope I am not overstating it, but that is certainly a commitment on the part of our government.

Of course it spans so many aspects of the structure of government per se to the broader community, whether it is representation of women on boards, whether it is representation of women in Parliament, whether it is educating particularly younger generations about what affirmative consent means or whether it is the establishment of the Orange Door and thereby facilitating a more, for want of a better word, streamlined process for those in acute situations to be able to address serious and unacceptable behaviour – and I am specifically talking about family violence in our community. Rest assured, this is an incredibly important tool that is being implemented here and now through the processes of Parliament, but it is one key tool as part of a holistic approach to addressing the scourge of family violence. And it does not stop today; we keep going until this scourge has been definitively stamped out from our community.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (16:14): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal strangulation) Bill 2023. This is and will forever be, after the next few days, I imagine, ‘Joy’s law’. Joy Rowley was a mother in my local community in Rye. In 2011 she was smothered to death in her home by her partner, who was later sentenced to 19 years in jail for murder. That was back in 2012. Eight months prior to the murder the perpetrator had choked Joy unconscious and committed other breaches of family violence protection orders, which at the time were not properly dealt with. Joy’s family – and I know they were here and have been pushing strongly for this for a long time – Nadine, Renee and Aaron ever since that time and right through to when it finally happened pushed strongly for a coronial inquest into their mother’s death, which eventually took place before the State Coroner Judge Sara Hinchey and those findings were handed down in July 2018. The findings included:

The introduction of a stand-alone offence for strangulation, suffocation or choking in Victoria may significantly help to ensure strangulation is treated commensurate with the risk it poses to victims, and remove the need to prove particular bodily harm or intent to cause injury. Such an offence will more effectively hold perpetrators to account for serious offending. Further, the new offence may build further awareness of the dangers and potential lethality of strangulation among police members, courts and community services practitioners.

Victoria Police had previously indicated its support for a standalone offence. In July 2019 the Labor government confirmed it would introduce the legislation, and here we are today debating it. But for the past four years the family of Joy have continued to press for the introduction of this legislation that was promised. We know research has shown that strangulation often does not leave visible injury, and while assault charges could apply previously, a standalone charge may significantly help, as we said. We need to make sure that perpetrators of family violence are held to account, and I note the member for Berwick said earlier that it is the job of the men in this chamber as well to stand up and call these things out when they happen and to stand strong and make sure that these sorts of offences are brought to light and they do not continue to happen. While we stand with victim-survivors always, it is also the job of the men in this chamber to call these things out and make sure they do not continue to happen, because it is quite often the men who are the perpetrators in these situations, and we can always do better when we call these things out.

I do also note the member for Malvern in his contribution did circulate amendments, and that was just addressed by the member for Albert Park. But we want to make sure legislation like this, when it is brought in, is having the intended effect, so I support the member for Malvern’s amendments. Of course we want to see this bill go through. I think that we all want to see it be the most appropriate bill and to serve the purpose that it should, and I note that he moved an amendment that recommends a review no later than two years after the commencement of the act, completed no later than six months and 14 days after receiving it, to each house of Parliament. I support the member for Malvern in his amendment there.

I also note that Sexual Assault Services Victoria said excluding people who experienced regulation outside of a family relationship from the avenue of protection afforded by non-fatal strangulation laws essentially creates a second class of people and sends a mixed message to the community about strangulation. It will mean that people, overwhelmingly women, will receive a different response depending on whether they are assaulted by a family member or someone else, and we want to make sure that any sort of violence in this case, towards women or towards anyone else, is dealt with in the appropriate ways.

I will also note that the family of Joy Rowley are very, very supportive of seeing this legislation go through. But it is not just about passing legislation in this place. I know I said it is our job to call it out as well, but I think it is also to make sure that the government, with the support of the opposition in this house in general, has a public education campaign around these things and making sure that the public is fully aware. Quite often we stand in this place and we debate and we talk about things, but the majority of the population is not always listening to everything that we say in here, so we have got to make sure that we are out in public and there are public campaigns to make sure that this is understood as well and that we are doing everything we can – and also people like Victoria Police and the Office of Public Prosecutions are – for everybody to have an understanding of what they are doing.

This is legislation that is needed. I am not here to argue, but it has been a long time coming – it needed to be done sooner. ‘Positive’ is not the right word, but we are here now and it is the right thing to be moving this forward. We will not be opposing this legislation. But as I said, it is about not just what we do in this place when we stand here and speak about a bill like this but what we do when we go out in public. The information that we share, the actions that we call out and the behaviours that we practise ourselves are the important things when it comes to this.

I am glad to see this legislation coming through. I know my community, who were so deeply affected by this tragedy with the murder of Joy Rowley more than 12 years ago, is glad to be finally seeing this legislation come through this place. Some of the numbers that we have heard mentioned throughout the contributions of members on both sides – 49 is too many, one is too many people dying at the hands of family violence and perpetrators. I am glad to see this legislation going through. I support the amendment from the member for Malvern, and it is time for us to start to move forward.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (16:21): I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution on behalf of my community to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. I would like to acknowledge the member for Nepean’s contribution, noting that perhaps from now on this will be referred to as ‘Joy’s law’, and the impact that her murder has had on his community and of course her family, whose tireless advocacy has helped bring it to this place.

I would like to start my contribution by acknowledging what underpins family violence – and gender inequality is what drives violence against women. We have a massive cultural problem in this country. Behind every statistic of course are many layers of human impact. On average one woman a week dies at the hands of her current or former partner – 47 women this year. Violence in intimate relationships adds more to the disease burden for women aged 18 to 44 years than any other risk factor – that is more than smoking or alcohol use. Sixty per cent of Victorian women – 60 per cent – have experienced some type of gendered violence and have felt at risk at work. Aboriginal women are 32 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence. Aboriginal women are 11 times more likely to die from assault. We have police attending family violence matters every 6 minutes. So when we talk about a cultural problem, it is really important that we acknowledge that what sits underneath it is gender inequality and that this is gendered violence that we are speaking about.

Non-fatal strangulation in the family violence context is a terrible precursor and warning of things to come. Victims of non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely to face serious injury or death from the same partner. We have had a royal commission in Victoria and 227 recommendations, which have been acted on by this government, and that is such an important foundation for us as we move forward to try and change the cultural problem that we have in this state and in this country. I would like to acknowledge that in the western suburbs we have an absolute scourge of family violence issues.

We are well supported by organisations such as GenWest and McAuley Community Services for Women. I would like to speak a little bit about the work of GenWest. They were formerly called Women’s Health West, and they are based in my electorate of Footscray. Whilst they support victims of family violence and their children, they also work tirelessly to collect data, to develop research and to advocate for change when it comes to gendered violence. They are working every single day on changing gendered perceptions of women and cultural perceptions and to support the women and their children as they recover from family violence.

McAuley Community Services is an extraordinary organisation in my electorate. There is a safe house in Footscray, funded by the Andrews Labor government, which provides long-term accommodation for women who are leaving violent relationships. The work they do is so complex. It goes from support to making sure that a woman’s financial situation and legal situation, whether that be through bills or the legal support they need through Westjustice, is provided. They work with Jobs Victoria to provide economic independence to women who have been trapped in the most awful situations. They have helped hundreds of women in recent years to start new lives. But that takes time, so often the women staying with McAuley community services stay for longer than six months. It is really a remarkable organisation.

I would like to reflect a little bit on the layers of impact and the impact on children. This is how Michelle, a children’s worker employed by McAuley, describes the paradox that mothers and children can find themselves living with where they may be each other’s primal source of love but they cannot express it because when mum is being abused at home she is constantly in a state of alertness. Her body is drained because she is so focused on fighting this violence or staying quiet so as to not trigger the perpetrator. She is disengaged, and that takes away from her the relationship with her child. Research by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety concludes that children in families with parental conflict have worse health, social and educational outcomes than children in families without it. Social and health outcomes are worse for children where there is persistent family violence. There is greater probability of impaired parenting in homes with family violence, and children are more likely to experience physical and verbal parental conflict after their parents have separated. According to one of the world’s largest and most impactful studies on childhood trauma, the risk of children who have experienced it having poor outcomes as adults is extremely high.

In 2021, 42 per cent of all clients of homelessness services presented because of family violence. McAuley Community Services for Women advocate for a shift in the culture where women experiencing family violence leave the family home. They are advocates for that to be shifted. They advocate for Safe at Home, which involves maximising safety through a combination of legal and judicial policy and home security to exclude the perpetrator rather than the victim and to protect the victim. This is something that Jocelyn, the tireless CEO of McAuley social services, has been working on for some time. It is extraordinary work. It is very important.

There have been a lot of contributions today that have been really powerful, talking about experiences from electorates across Victoria, and I think we are at a point in time in this country and in Victoria where we are acknowledging the role of men and that men have to help shift the culture to make sure that bills like this are not needed into the future. How extraordinarily sad that non-fatal strangulation is something that in 2023 is still such a dominant issue in family violence and that this scourge of family violence – the woman who is dying every week at the hands of a current or former partner – is not some sort of national crisis that we are talking about every single day and is not on the front page of the newspapers.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (16:31): I rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. This is a significant piece of legislation that in its essence inserts two new offences of non-fatal strangulation into the Crimes Act 1958 – first, an offence of non-fatal strangulation, with a five-year maximum imprisonment penalty, and second, an offence of non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury, with a 10-year maximum imprisonment penalty. The bill also amends the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to insert:

choking, strangling or suffocating … a family member or threatening to do so …

into the list of behaviours constituting family violence.

The bill comes after a spate of legislation enacted by various state and territory governments over the past eight years, with Victoria the only state or territory with no current specific non-fatal strangulation offence. The bill also comes more than 12 years after the murder of Victorian mother Joy Rowley, who was strangled to death in her Rye home on the Mornington Peninsula by her intimate partner James Mulhall. It was not the first time he had strangled her. In the nine months leading to her death Rowley had reported multiple incidents of family violence by Mulhall to Victoria Police, including one in which he threatened to kill her and choked her to the point of unconsciousness. At the time of her death Mulhall was also facing outstanding criminal charges for a previous assault on Rowley and was in violation of a current family violence intervention order.

During the coronial inquest that followed Rowley’s tragic death, Victoria Police assistant commissioner Dean McWhirter recommended to the state government the introduction of a standalone offence of strangulation. The coroner’s findings concluded:

The introduction of a stand-alone offence for strangulation, suffocation or choking in Victoria may significantly help to ensure strangulation is treated commensurate with the risk it poses to victims, and remove the need to prove particular bodily harm or intent to cause injury. Such an offence will more effectively hold perpetrators to account for serious offending. Further, the new offence may build further awareness of the dangers and potential lethality of strangulation among police members, courts and community services practitioners.

Rowley’s family and others have, ever since October 2011, tirelessly campaigned for the introduction of a standalone strangulation offence. Strangulation is the obstruction or compression of blood vessels and/or airways by external pressure to the neck, impeding normal breathing or circulation of the blood. It is a leading cause of death among women killed by a current or former male intimate partner. Indeed strangulation/suffocation has been cited as the cause of death of 14 to 16 per cent of male-perpetrated intimate partner homicides, and those women who survive non-fatal strangulation on one occasion are six or seven times more likely than other victim-survivors of family violence to experience death or very serious harm in the weeks or months that follow.

Up to three-quarters of women escaping domestic and family violence and residing in shelters report experiences of non-fatal strangulation from their previous partner. Of course, while not in the majority, victims also include male family members. Strangulation is frequently motivated by coercive control, a pattern of controlling and manipulative behaviour within a relationship. Through strangulation, domestic violence perpetrators can show that they literally hold the victim-survivor’s life in their hands.

There have been some concerns raised, however, that introducing new standalone strangulation offences might divert attention away from more systemic failures to properly utilise existing laws, particularly from police failures at times to comply with operational policies and procedures related to family violence. Marianne Jago from the Women’s Legal Service Victoria argued that Victorian law:

… contains provisions for strangulation to be criminalised. Unfortunately, we regularly see cases where police have not followed existing good practices and policy.

Such a statement is of course particularly salient in the context of the inquiry into Joy Rowley’s death. McWhirter delivered an apology to the Rowley family, admitting that prior to her death there were failures of compliance with policy within Victoria Police. The coroner further stated:

Ms Rowley’s case demonstrates a failure by frontline Victoria Police officers to implement policies relevant to family violence which were in existence at the time of the family violence incidents involving Ms Rowley, and at the time of her death.

The coroner recommended that Victoria Police engage in a widespread review of family violence related homicides to ensure police policies are as effective as possible in preventing and dealing with family violence.

Family members of Joy Rowley are supportive of the bill. However, they have expressed concern that this legislation might not be accompanied by a public education campaign, and they are unsure how it will operate in practice in terms of whether VicPol and the DPP will use the new offences effectively. The family of Joy Rowley, which have been pivotal in the campaign for this legislation, are keen to keep its focus on family violence. As the Shadow Attorney-General the member for Malvern outlined in his earlier contribution, the drafting option taken by the government, being a broad definition in the act but with a narrow application through the family member nexus, is open to criticism. The reality of how it will work in practice will be the test of whether it has been or will be effective. For this reason it is recommended to amend the bill to require a statutory review of its implementation after two years of operation, with this review to occur within six months and to be tabled in both houses of Parliament. I note that Joy’s family are very supportive of the Victorian opposition’s proposed amendment to the bill to incorporate a statutory review after two years of operation.

I would also like to take a moment to discuss a motion put forward in the upper house to investigate adding an animal cruelty offence to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, with the motion further exploring ‘the link between violence towards animals and humans’. It will be very interesting to see the results of this investigation, especially given the wealth of statistical information and research that exists in relation to animal cruelty and family violence. In one Victorian study 53 per cent of family violence survivors said that their partner had hurt or killed one of their pets. Further, in its submission to the Victorian government’s Royal Commission into Family Violence the RSPCA said that:

It is well documented that perpetrators of family violence use overt threats and actual harm to animals as a mechanism to attain and maintain control of their family …

In many cases animals were abused as a method of controlling partners while in the home, or they might be starved, abused or neglected when the victim fled. According to the animal welfare agency, one in three women delay leaving situations of family violence due to concerns about leaving their pets behind. This is further exacerbated by the fact that most refuge or crisis accommodation options will not house animals.

In closing my contribution on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023, I would like to commend the family of Joy Rowley, who have campaigned tirelessly since Joy’s murder for changes to the law. Thank you to Joy’s children, who have never given up and have been campaigning for many years for law reform in the area of non-fatal strangulation. To Renee and Aaron Woolridge and Nadine Power, nee Woolridge, as member for Mornington and as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Corrections and also joining with other members in this place, we are all very, very grateful and proud of your efforts along with those of other family members to raise awareness of this important issue. Your fight for justice has been pivotal in the campaign for this legislation. The member for Malvern refers to this as ‘Joy’s law’, which is a fitting tribute to Joy and raises awareness of family violence. I commend this bill.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (16:40): I also rise to speak in support of the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. As previous speakers have said, this is a piece of legislation to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to include two new offences, with new penalties for those offences. Those are, as the title says, offences of standalone non-fatal strangulation of a family member, and there are various definitions of what that means and of course what ‘family member’ means as well. There are two offences. One has a maximum penalty of five years jail and the second of 10 years. There is also a consequential amendment that is required in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to recognise non-fatal strangulation for the purposes of intervention orders and also for bail considerations. These amendments have been a longstanding commitment of the Allan Labor Victorian government. This was first referred to in the Community SafetyStatement2019–20, some time ago, and of course it arose from a number of terrible tragedies. I have to at this point just commend Joy Rowley’s family for their advocacy, their courage and their persistence in this matter and also express how sad the circumstances were around Ms Joy Rowley’s passing.

This legislation is about ensuring that we have proper penalties and proper recognition and also I guess awareness of certain acts that can lead to other acts. The non-fatal strangulation of in most cases a woman has a significant risk factor to it that indicates that further escalation of violence, and in fact murder, can result from that. It is a bit similar I think to the Betrayal of Trust inquiry. I was on that committee that looked at child physical and sexual abuse in non-government organisations, and one of the issues that arose was around grooming and that there were not actually sufficient penalties to prevent grooming. It was a thing that would happen that would indicate a risk that certain actions or activities of somebody in order to groom a child or to induce a child would not have an adequate penalty, and the police were really powerless to then prevent further things happening to that child. This is a similar case in that we need to have offences that have been documented. There is a lot of evidence to prove that in the case of a non-fatal strangulation act, this does lead to escalated violence and in many cases could lead to the death of a woman in an incident of family violence committed by her partner.

It is important that we have this sort of legislation to make sure that we are trying to prevent further things happening. As other speakers have said, family violence is just a scourge on our society and our community. It is gendered violence against women – in most cases it is women that are attacked and killed – so we need to really make sure that we continue our march to try to prevent and eradicate this terrible scourge on our society. The Labor government of course started with the Royal Commission into Family Violence, to get everyday people, victim-survivors and those working in the area to come together to talk about what it is that we should be doing to ensure that women are reporting acts of violence against them and also how we are going to deal with perpetrators and support women through this process.

For example, in the Thomastown electorate there is a housing complex of supported living for homeless women. If you talk around the table having a cup of tea, every woman that you talk to in that housing complex has a story of family violence behind their homelessness and other terrible things that have happened to them through the course of their lives for them to end up where they are. In saying that, though, of course this accommodation really is very supportive. It is finally, as the women tell me, having a home again – a roof over their heads – and then they can get back on with their lives and get themselves into having interests and an interest in what they are doing.

Whittlesea Community Connections is also an organisation in the City of Whittlesea in the Thomastown electorate that does a lot of work providing legal services and other support for women, because the municipality of Whittlesea has sadly some of the highest reporting of family violence incidents in the state. It really is something that we are all looking at. We all have a job and a role to play in making sure that we make Victoria – and in fact Australia – safer, in particular safer for women, particularly in their own homes. As I mentioned, the Labor government has really put a focus on family violence. We know the statistics are terrible. We know that it is a long-term issue not just of penalties and support but also a very long program of ensuring that women are equal, that they are respected in society and that those people living in society are behaving in a respectful way.

I look at some of the programs in the schools, particularly in some of the primary schools, around respect. I know for example Harvest Home Primary School has an incredible program there that has been used as a model in the area for ensuring that young children are taught how to deal with their anger and how to work with and care and support others. When you look at that school and what the students are doing – it is with great pride I see such a school with the students there doing that sort of work.

Family violence is something that we all need to work to eradicate. This is one further step after many pieces of legislation that the Allan Labor government has introduced in order to continue the fight against family violence and to ensure that perpetrators are properly dealt with. I think another speaker mentioned the coroner. It is not just about having the laws and stronger penalties and interventions early. It is also about raising awareness, whether it is amongst the general community, whether it is within the police force or whether it is in other government services and agencies. We all have a part to play in this. I think this legislation is another further step towards ensuring that family violence is well and truly under the spotlight and that we continue to work to reduce such crimes with of course the ultimate aim to eradicate it.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (16:49): I am grateful today to rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. I will try and keep it brief, but often when I say that it is seldom the case, as you well know. But I am not entirely sure how my body will react to this bill, so bear with me. It is actually something I consciously have in the past avoided talking about. But I heard the member for Lara earlier – she had been speaking about some courageous women who had spoken about family and domestic violence, and that made me think of Kim O’Reilly, who has become an advocate. And doing a podcast with Kim got me to speak about my experiences 20 years on that I had never spoken about out loud before. I am grateful now that this is before the house and becoming a standalone law in Victoria. The member for Malvern – Joy’s law, he refers to this bill as – referenced that this bill is perhaps five years too late. I would suggest that it is 20, 30 years too late, but at least there is a name for it.

When I went through some experiences that I have heard referenced throughout the debate today it was like reading from a textbook – yes, the control, leading to escalating violence, the reddest of red flags, as I heard the member for Tarneit and a few others say today. It is like flipping through a memory book, which is not great, but now that there is a name for it and that there is legislation before the house, I am grateful, even though it is 20 years too late for me.

The member for Malvern has also submitted an amendment. During discussions post bill briefing – I have been working with the member for Malvern on this quite closely, and I thank him for his time; he has been very, very generous with his time on this and very gentle too, I might add, which has been great – and working through some of the technicalities which we have heard a lot about today, there were suggestions that maybe they needed to be reviewed, just because of some technical issues that may or may not arise over the implementation of this legislation. So I hope the government will support the Shadow Attorney-General’s amendments on this bill, because I think it will be useful to have a review after two years.

Now that these incidents do have a name and victim-survivors, survivors and those that did not survive have a voice and a language to put to them, it does give us a voice, and I think it is important. I had toyed for so long with speaking in this place, in a very public place, about this and my experiences, in here. Some would say ‘Don’t’, some would say ‘If you can, you should’ and others would say ‘Why would you do it to yourself?’ But I think it is really important that lived experiences from me and other members allow things like this. I say it fuels my hate fire, but it fuels a passion to work with survivors and to keep saying the names of those that did not survive, like my school friend Sam Fraser, who the media have covered extensively – and she is back in the news today – and who did not survive. We will keep saying her name, just like we will keep saying Joy’s name – and I thank the Shadow Attorney-General for referring to this as Joy’s law. It is very important.

But it does make me so much more passionate to advocate for people that are brave enough to speak about this in public, like Conor Pall, who was here with Respect and the victim-survivor advocacy group last week and who has just launched a book called The Shadow That Follows. He was another one that actually inspired me and gave me language that I feel like I had not had before, given it has been 20 years since this incident or this relationship happened to me. There was no language back then. It was some 23 years ago. There was no language; there were no words; there was no standalone legislation. In fact I was told that I needed to go and find somewhere to stay by the police in the flat that we shared, but after being controlled for six years you have nowhere to go. So Conor Pall came to me, seeking out my support to make coercive control also a standalone offence, and he just happened to be in the building during the last sitting week. It was a great opportunity to sit down with the Shadow Attorney-General and discuss how we might move that forward because legislation such as this and coercive control go hand in hand. Although it may be too late for some of us, it is better late than never. I hope that is something that we can push forward, and I do hope the government supports the amendments that have been submitted by the member for Malvern.

I did mention Conor Pall’s book which this extraordinary young man has written and had illustrated called The Shadow That Follows. It gives language to the feelings that he felt as a young man being in a family affected by coercive control – family violence. He did not have the words for it, but this book gives language to that. He is such a powerful advocate against family violence and coercive control and is so brave to speak about his experiences publicly, so I figure if Conor can do it at 19 years old, there is no reason why I cannot do it now after 20-something years and at 43 years of age – yes, I am 43; I know, I hold it well – and there is no reason that I cannot speak about it as well and help the advocacy efforts of Joy’s family, of Conor and of Kim O’Reilly and many others that I have spoken to along the way.

Thankfully, I got out, and I did marry perhaps the greatest human that the good Lord has ever put breath into, although he would argue with me saying ‘the good Lord’; he would say, ‘No, science’ – whatever – which is probably why he is a great human. Like I said, there are many who do not or who cannot get out. I mentioned Samantha Fraser earlier, and I will keep saying her name because it is important that we do keep saying her name. After extensive coverage in the media, and again, like I said, it has been back in the media today post a court case involving her perpetrator, it is clear that we are a long way from eradicating family and domestic violence – a long way. But any step such as this one is a positive one. Like I said, it is better late than never. I certainly hope the government will support the amendments, and I thank the house for the opportunity to speak about this incredibly important issue. I said I would keep it brief; I did not.

Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (16:58): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023, and I just acknowledge the member for Mildura for her contribution and bravely sharing that today. I will say from the outset that violence in any form is never acceptable. This bill appropriately strengthens our laws, and it sends a clear message that violence such as non-fatal strangulation will not be tolerated. It will not be tolerated here in Victoria and indeed should not be tolerated in this country or anywhere else.

Domestic violence does take many forms. Many of them can be non-physical in nature – for example, financial, verbal, emotional or social abuse. However, strangulation I think is one of the most lethal forms of domestic violence. Unconsciousness can happen in seconds, and death within minutes. This bill delivers on the Victorian government’s commitment, including in the 2023–27 gender equality strategy and action plan, to introducing a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation. The offences introduced with this bill will more effectively hold offenders to account and also provide clear indications to police and community service practitioners of escalating violence and control in the family context. This bill aims to improve the understanding of the dangers and potential deadliness of non-fatal strangulation among police, courts and community service practitioners, and it will help drive more effective law and health enforcement and responses.

This bill is going to introduce two offences of non-fatal strangulation to the Crimes Act 1958: an offence of non-fatal strangulation, with a five-year maximum penalty, and an offence of non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury, with a 10-year maximum penalty. Both offences will capture a broad range of conduct. The offences will prohibit choking, strangling and suffocating, which will be defined, non-exhaustive, as applying pressure to the front and side of the neck, obstructing and interfering with a person’s respiratory system or impeding respiration.

Some of these Australian jurisdictions have standalone offences. The narrow interpretation has really imposed some inappropriately high evidentiary burdens on prosecutions, and it does add to that form of traumatisation of victim-survivors. The broad definition in this bill is to avoid that issue. The bill does also make reference to family members. These reforms to improve our criminal justice system are really to address the risk posed by family violence offenders who do use non-fatal strangulation as a means of terror and control. Providing offences that only apply to family members does allow the penalties to be tailored specifically to respond to this heightened risk and to better hold family violence offenders to account.

This bill also amends the family violence legislation. The bill amends the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to include choking, strangling and suffocating of a family member – or threatening to do so – in the list of behaviours constituting family violence. This amendment ensures that non-fatal strangulation is recognised and if the risk can be mitigated when bail decision-makers are considering cases. The Allan Labor government, and the Andrews Labor government before it, is proudly delivering on the commitments from the Royal Commission into Family Violence in this bill, progressing our strong community safety and prevention of family violence reforms.

The royal commission did reveal – and it has been talked about today – the devastating prevalence and impact of family violence in this country, and it does set out a whole-system reform to end family violence in Victoria. We have acknowledged today there is still a long way to go. I will take this opportunity to thank those who have shared their lived experience, and considering lived experience is a way that we can continue to improve the prevention of and response to family violence. I would like to acknowledge the family of Joy Rowley for their advocacy. They are at the forefront of the government’s reform, policy and service delivery.

Non-fatal strangulation is rarely an isolated event. It does often indicate an escalation of violence, coercion and controlling behaviours in a family violence context. Women who survive non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner. In the absence of a standalone event in Victoria there has been a barrier to identifying, reporting and prosecuting this offending, and it has made it harder to monitor the impacts and assess the risks. Addressing the unique risk profile of non-fatal strangulation as an act of family violence has been a key part of driving these reforms. As I have noted, non-fatal strangulation has been recognised in multiple research studies across the world as an important risk for homicide of women, and researchers found that someone who survives a non-fatal strangulation by a current or former partner is seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered. It is important that we acknowledge that whilst women and children are most significantly impacted by domestic violence, it can happen to anyone, anytime. We need to remember that it does happen to husbands, children, brothers and sisters, and we need to look out for all instances of family violence in our communities. Non-fatal strangulation is a weapon; it is there to instil fear and increase control over a victim. In an abusive relationship, non-fatal strangulations are huge red flags, as has been mentioned today. It is a red flag that you are with a violent and dangerous abuser.

Victims explain that non-fatal strangulation is highly personal, up-close abusive behaviour. This is unimaginable for someone who has never experienced any abuse, but it is quite confronting to speak on this bill. For a recent 2022 report called The Voices of Women Impacted by Non-Fatal Strangulation,which was published by the Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, women were interviewed about their experiences. We have talked about lived experience being important in helping legislation. That report talked about how all women would talk about control – the word ‘control’ was used in every instance. The report stated that regardless of the number of times women were subjected to non-fatal strangulation, all of their accounts spoke about the strangulation being the ultimate act of exerting power and control. Marisa, which is not her real name, summed it up, saying:

… they are basically saying to you I can take your life.

Now, as confronting as this is, it is important I think today that I address it and express the seriousness and the horror of this type of abuse. Around Victoria there are homes where domestic abuse hangs as a frightening and deadly ticking time bomb. It affects people for life, and as legislators we have a responsibility to act.

Since the Royal Commission into Family Violence in 2016 I am proud that this government has worked tirelessly to implement all recommendations of the royal commission. Of course that does not mean we are done and dusted. We still have plenty of work to do, but from rolling out Orange Door, which I am proud to say is now in the Bellarine electorate, and establishing our first dedicated prevention agency Respect Victoria to delivering Respectful Relationships in schools, this government is leading the nation and trying to do whatever it can with the levers it has in addressing family violence and its reform. As I said, there is so much work still to be done.

We are passing this bill in the hope that it saves a life, and maybe saves many lives. The bill highlights that this form of violence is serious and is not tolerated by society. Violence in any form, like I said at the beginning, is not acceptable, and this bill appropriately strengthens our laws. It sends a clear, strong message that this violence will not be tolerated. I commend the bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (17:07): I normally say it is a pleasure to talk on a bill, but after listening to the member for Mildura it gives me no pleasure at all. The member for Mildura is a close friend of mine, and it was very hard to sit here and listen, but I am going to continue on. I rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. The purpose of the bill is to make non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member a standalone offence. Non-fatal strangulation that falls outside the scope of this bill will continue to be dealt with by existing offences, such as assault.

I have not been in this chamber very long – I have not been here 12 months yet; I am a couple of months behind everyone – but I am sure everyone will agree with me that the expectation of the community is that we in this chamber at certain times have to be brave enough to support other people’s ideas or other people’s bills. I am extremely frustrated at the fact that this was recommended on 1 July 2019, and we are now in November 2023. It has taken four years to get to this point through the advocacy of Joy Rowley’s family. I think the people of Victoria expect us to do better than that, because over those four years how many other women have been affected by this? It is legislation that we should have been introducing four years ago. This is the frustration I feel, and I would say a lot of Victorians would feel the same way. Why couldn’t important legislation like this have been done three years ago, four years ago? The people expect bipartisan support on bills like this. This bill was obviously brought forward and advocated for from what happened to Joy. The member for Mulgrave – no, not Mulgrave, sorry, Malvern. That was a big FUBAR, that one.

Members interjecting.

Wayne FARNHAM: Member for Malvern – I am glad I could get a giggle in there today. The member for Malvern referred to it as Joy’s law, and I think that is so apt. And as the member for Mildura said, when these things happen, we should not forget the victims that they happen to. We have to discuss another bill later on this week, which is probably going to bring up more emotion for people, but I will stick to this.

The member for Berwick said this earlier: when he was talking to this family years and years ago, why didn’t the government reach out? Why didn’t we work together as a chamber? There is no-one in this chamber that supports domestic violence. If you have not lived through domestic violence, you will know someone that has experienced it. Everyone in this chamber will know that. I can tell you that even close to me I have seen people being choked. I have had to witness that; I have had to live through it. This is why these laws are so important.

Do you know one thing that frustrates me? I am getting sick and tired of seeing YouTube videos of people filming stuff. I hate it. I think ‘Who’s the gutless person that won’t step in and help?’ That really annoys me. It annoys me so much. To every man in this chamber and every woman in this chamber, when you see violence against women or violence against children, do not take a photo. Step in, help them out.

Paul Edbrooke interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Thanks. I got emotional because it is obviously very personal. I have seen it happen too many times without intervention. That really pisses me off. That is unparliamentary, sorry.

When it comes to education, we have so much education on so many things in this state. Those who are old enough will remember ‘Slip! Slop! Slap!’ about skin cancer. We have drink-driving education. We have drug education. The point of this bill – and I really want this bill to work – is education. Education and intervention are really important to make sure this bill works. That is why the member for Malvern has put forward the amendments, and I support those amendments. I think it will be very important in two years time to make sure this works. We want it to work. We do not want to see violence against any woman in this state – ever. I encourage the government: please look at the amendments. They are not there out of malice; they are there to give us a chance in two years to review the legislation to make sure it has worked for those it has intended to protect. It is so important to do that.

I am not going to go for much longer, because I kind of lost it a little while back. I am grateful that this bill has come forward. I am critical that it took four years. Paralysis by analysis is not a good thing; it is not productive. I would encourage the government: if there is another bill similar to this, do not wait four years. How many people have been hurt in that period? We saw the case of a lady up in Kangaroo Flat, a Filipina lady, just last month. That was another death from domestic violence. That is the end. The last thing I will say is let us not hesitate anymore. Let us get the bills in here that protect the most vulnerable as quickly as we can.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (17:15): I am honoured to follow in the footsteps of the member for Narracan’s very heartfelt contribution, which I commend him for. I rise to support the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. In doing so I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are currently in the midst of commemorating the global 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. I commend the work of the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence and of Respect Victoria and all the other organisations, but particularly Respect Victoria, who were in Parliament last sitting week, and I will touch on that a bit shortly.

Everyone should have the right to feel safe in our communities and in our homes. Sadly, however, this is not the case for many Victorians, particularly women and children. This is because despite the best efforts of federal, state and local government and non-government organisations, gender-based violence and family violence remain among the most common law and order issues across the country and the state. Sadly, according to Our Watch, on average one woman a week is murdered by a current or former partner. On average, 15 women a day are hospitalised due to domestic violence. Just think about that.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety, Australia report, which was released in March this year, across Australia an estimated 8 million Australians, or 41 per cent, have experienced violence or physical or sexual abuse since the age of 15, including two in five women who have experienced violence – that is 39 per cent, or 3.9 million women. One in five women have experienced sexual violence – that is 22 per cent of women in Australia. One in three women have experienced physical violence – 31 per cent. One in five women have experienced stalking – 20 per cent. That is over 2 million women.

Across Australia the prevalence of intimate partner and family member violence experienced since the age of 15 remains alarmingly high. One in four women have experienced violence by an intimate partner or family member – 27 per cent of the female population. One in 12 women have experienced violence by a family member. One in four women have experienced violence by an intimate partner – that is 2.3 million women. One in 11 women have experienced violence by a boyfriend, a girlfriend or a date – 9.3 per cent, or 920,000 women. One in six women have experienced violence by a cohabiting partner – around 17 per cent. One in four women have experienced cohabiting partner emotional abuse – 23 per cent of women. One in six women have experienced cohabiting partner economic abuse – around 16 per cent. And almost 13 per cent of women have experienced some form of sexual harassment.

When it comes to children, according to the ABS an estimated 2.7 million Australians aged 18 years and over – 14 per cent – have experienced some form of physical or sexual abuse by an adult before the age of 15. Of women, 18 per cent, or 1.1 million women, have reported experiencing sexual abuse during childhood. And 10 per cent, or 988,000 women, have reported experiencing physical abuse during their childhood. In my municipality of Merri-bek, for the year ending 2022 we recorded 1996 family violence incidents. Thus far in 2023 we have recorded 1987 incidents. These statistics all combined are truly stark, and behind each statistic is a mother, a sister, a son or a daughter.

As parliamentarians in this place we all have a role and responsibility to do everything we can to end gender-based and family violence, especially the male parliamentarians, and to send the message that it is not acceptable, that it is not on. That is why the Victorian Labor government established the landmark Royal Commission into Family Violence in 2016, the first of its kind in the nation, which went on to reveal many failures and areas of reform across our system that needed improving. The royal commission, on page 18, found, sadly, the following main trends emerged, and they are consistent with much of that data that I just referenced:

• Family violence disproportionately affects women and children, and the majority of perpetrators are men.

• Female victims are more likely to be a current or former partner of the perpetrator …

• Some groups are at greater risk of family violence or experience it at increased rates. This includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and women with disabilities.

• These and other groups face particular barriers in seeking and obtaining help; they include people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people living in rural, regional or remote areas.

Although it is not clear whether the prevalence of family violence (that is, the proportion of the population who have experienced such violence at least once) is increasing, we do know that there has been greater reporting of family violence, leading to an increase in incidents being recognised. In Victoria this has been evident in the increased number of reports to police and the number of family violence intervention orders being issued.

The Victorian Labor government announced the implementation of the final recommendations of the royal commission on 28 January of this year, meeting our commitment to implementing all 227 recommendations put forward by the commission. The commission included 25 days of extensive public hearings, community conversations with over 800 Victorians and nearly 1000 written submissions being received, with the commission’s 227 recommendations very much continuing to be the foundations of our work in this space. The commission’s recommendations collectively sought to find ways to better align and coordinate government community services to address and prevent family violence, improve support for victims and hold perpetrators to account. In this respect I draw the house’s attention to page 32 of the family violence royal commission report, which helped inform the necessity of this bill and which stated and found that:

Family violence-related deaths are the ultimate tragedy of family violence. They are not uncommon, and intimate partner homicide is the most common form …

sadly. The royal commission identified the Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths as a valuable way of reducing the risk of further deaths, which they suggested be statutorily established, with funding provided that is sustained and adequate to ensure that the Coroners Court can continue to expand the review if required. Building on the work of the commission, the Labor government’s gender equality strategy and action plan 2023–27, which was recently released, seeks to help us continue building the foundations for a more equal and safe state for all Victorians. Action 80 in this strategy commits the government to:

Explore options to introduce a standalone non-fatal strangulation offence, to address this serious and insidious form of offending that occurs particularly in the context of family violence.

This bill seeks to progress this recommendation through the introduction of two new indictable offences of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member to the Crimes Act 1958. Standalone offences are needed to support the identification and prosecution of non-fatal strangulation, which often occurs within the context of family violence and is a predictive risk factor for future harm or even death. The bill will introduce two new offences of non-fatal strangulation in the Crimes Act: an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member as defined in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, and an offence also of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member which intentionally causes injury, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The bill will also make a consequential amendment to the family violence act to ensure that non-fatal strangulation is recognised as an act of family violence for the purposes of family violence intervention orders, consideration of bail applications and protections for witnesses giving evidence. The offences will prohibit choking, strangling or suffocating, which will be defined non-exhaustively as applying pressure to the front or sides of the neck, obstructing or interfering with a person’s respiratory system and impeding respiration. Some Australian jurisdictions, including Queensland, South Australia and the ACT, have standalone offences and have seen courts narrowly interpret the term ‘choke, strangle or suffocate’ where this term is not clearly defined. These narrow interpretations have imposed inappropriately high evidentiary burdens on the prosecution and may have served to further traumatise victim-survivors. The broad definition used in this bill aims to avoid this issue. The offences in this bill therefore will enhance the protection of victim-survivors, particularly victim-survivors of family violence; more effectively hold offenders to account; provide clearer indication to police and community service practitioners of escalating family violence situations; further raise awareness of the dangers and potential lethality of non-fatal strangulation among police, courts and community service practitioners; and drive more effective medical, legal and law enforcement responses. Non-fatal strangulation is a highly dangerous and potentially life-threatening offence that should have no place in our community. This conduct is already captured by criminal offences such as common assault, intentionally or recklessly causing injury and assault with intent to commit a sexual offence.

With the time I have remaining I would like to draw the house’s attention to some of our local organisations who do work in this important space. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge and commend the work of Victoria Police locally, who are based out of Brunswick and Fawkner police stations and deal with these issues every single day. I thank them and all emergency services personnel for their services. I would like to also just acknowledge all of the social workers who work across our health, wellbeing and community sectors. They do an amazing job, and they deal really with the fallout of a lot of these issues on a daily basis – members of the ASU, the Health and Community Services Union and so many other unions. Our social workers – my wife used to be one for many years actually in this space – do a tremendous job, and we really owe them a massive debt of gratitude just like we do our nurses and doctors in the health sector.

I have so many organisations I would like to talk about that I will just quickly run through: Merri Health; VincentCare has a hub in Glenroy in Wheatsheaf Road; Youth Projects as well in Glenroy; Youth Activating Youth in Brunswick; the Oxygen youth hub in Gaffney Street, Coburg; the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria; Women’s Health in the North; Respectful Relationships and our schools programs that we run; and of course the Orange Door services. One organisation I would particularly like to highlight, though, is VICSEG New Futures, which was first established in 1981 and is particularly focused on supporting migrant communities and migrant families. I recently had the pleasure of visiting them to announce $88,000 to support their family violence prevention initiatives and to meet with the workers and the educators. They have been doing landmark work and really leading the way for so many years in this space amongst CALD, culturally and linguistically diverse, communities. I commend the bill to the house.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (17:25): I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. This landmark legislation introduced by those opposite represents a crucial step forward in the ongoing battle against family violence and the protection of victim-survivors. I begin by thanking the member for Mildura for her powerful and brave contribution earlier. I thank her for sharing her lived experience and the memory of her precious friend. Also I thank my mate the member for Narracan for his deeply personal contribution earlier. I acknowledge how deeply domestic violence affects and impacts people across our state and speak with sensitivity to that fact.

Family violence, with its insidious grasp on countless lives, often manifests itself in silent acts of non-fatal strangulation. Statistics and research have unequivocally shown that individuals who survive such incidents at the hands of a current or former partner face a chilling seven-fold increase in the likelihood of severe injury or tragically even murder. Non-fatal strangulation is not just an isolated act but a terrifying indicator of an escalating pattern of violence and coercive control within familial relationships. This bill acknowledges the urgency of addressing this silent epidemic and takes tangible steps to protect those who are most vulnerable. By creating standalone offences specifically for non-fatal strangulation, the bill provides law enforcement, early intervention services and justice agencies with clearer tools to identify, monitor and respond to instances of this heinous act within the context of family violence. The predictive elements associated with non-fatal strangulation, often obscured when offenders are charged with generic offences, necessitate a targeted response. This legislation enables early interventions, reducing the occurrence of family violence and offering a lifeline to those on the brink of a devastating potential fatality.

The impetus behind the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023 can be traced back to the tragic case of Joy Rowley, a mother from Rye whose life was cut short in 2011 by former partner James Mulhall. Mulhall, who was sentenced to 19 years in jail for Joy’s murder in 2012, had a history of violence, including an incident eight months prior to the fatal attack where he choked Joy unconscious and committed other breaches of family violence protection orders. Unfortunately these early offences were not adequately addressed by Victoria Police. Joy’s family, undeterred by the heartbreaking loss, advocated vigorously for a coronial inquest into her death. In 2018 State Coroner Judge Sara Hinchey delivered findings that underscored the critical need for a standalone offence for strangulation, suffocation or choking in Victoria. The report highlighted that such legislation would ensure that strangulation is treated with the severity it deserves, eliminating the need to prove specific bodily harm or intent to cause injury. This approach would hold perpetrators more effectively accountable for their actions and raise awareness among law enforcement, courts and community services about the dangers and potential lethality of strangulation. This law is truly, as the member for Malvern referred to, Joy’s law, and I commend her family for their consistent advocacy that has brought us to today.

To ensure that this legislation works as intended, I would also like to speak in support of the amendment to the bill to provide for a statutory review of the changes after two years. There are legitimate arguments and concerns that ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’ has been so broadly defined that it could result in offences not being adequately addressed. As this is Joy’s law, it is important to recognise that Joy’s family has been resoundingly supportive of a statutory review of the legislation, as is the opposition.

I would like to take the opportunity while we are discussing family violence and violence against women to commend Women’s Health East on the border of my electorate, an organisation that does great work in the space of women’s health and wellbeing. Women’s Health East tackles the multifaceted challenges faced by women, addressing the intricate interplay of social, cultural, economic, political and environmental factors impacting the health, safety and overall wellbeing in the region. With a commitment to building capacity, Women’s Health East collaborates with state and local governments, health and community organisations and various stakeholders invested in improving health outcomes for women.

Their emphasis on providing leadership, expertise and support to initiatives addressing key priorities is not only commendable but instrumental in driving positive change. As we speak to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023 I must extend my gratitude to them for their unwavering commitment to the betterment of women’s lives in our community. Their tireless efforts in influencing public policy and discourse, delivering education programs and building organisational excellence underscore their role in the pursuit of a safer and healthier future for all women. I pay my thanks to their CEO Elly Taylor and all the staff at Women’s Health East.

Crucially, this bill recognises that the impact of non-fatal strangulation is not always visible. Victims may bear no outward signs of injury, making it challenging to prosecute perpetrators under existing laws. The creation of specific offences acknowledges the gravity of the act itself even when the external evidence may be lacking, ensuring that justice can be served for those who carry the invisible wounds of such trauma.

The extended delay in introducing the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023 is undoubtedly disheartening, as highlighted by the fact that the promise to implement this crucial legislation was made on 1 July 2019. The nearly five-year gap between that commitment and the actual introduction of the bill underscores the urgency of addressing the issue of non-fatal strangulation within the legal framework. Such a prolonged break raises questions about the government’s responsiveness to the pressing needs of the community, particularly in cases where lives are at risk due to family violence. It is sad that Victoria is the last and only state in Australia without specific laws to prevent non-fatal strangulation. For a government that so often claims how proud they are to be the first state to introduce one law or another, Victoria is the last and only state in Australia that does not have specific laws to prevent non-fatal strangulation.

In conclusion, the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023 is a beacon of hope for those who have long suffered in silence. It stands as a testament to our commitment to eradicating family violence and creating a society where every individual can live free from fear. Let us unite in support of this bill, recognising its potential to save lives, protect the vulnerable and bring about a society where the rights and safety of all citizens are paramount.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (17:32): Today I rise to contribute to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. Firstly, I just want to acknowledge all the previous contributions that have been made in this chamber and also the passion that has come with that and the emotion that has come with that. I do acknowledge those members.

This law adds two new serious charges for deliberately choking a family member to the Crimes Act 1958, and these charges are separate and distinct so as to identify cases, to help catch and prosecute cases of choking that happen in families, especially in situations of domestic violence. Choking someone on purpose, even if it does not cause death, is a strong sign that more harm could happen in the future, and this law aims to address and prevent such situations. We have stood on this floor many times and reiterated our commitment to women and families and in particular children within families.

It was around four years ago I had a constituent that came into my electorate office to tell me about her experiences where her partner had strangled her, and at the time she was rendered unconscious for a short period of time. She requested that our government introduce legislation about this particular issue. Unfortunately, she was not believed by the police when they attended this situation because the choking fell outside of common assault and because of her relationship with the perpetrator. Again, as I said, she was not believed in any case, which was very unfortunate. But it was clear to me that the legislation needed to be changed, and it is something that has sat with me and something I have talked to colleagues about over the last few years, including the former Attorney-General the Honourable Jill Hennessy – about introducing legislation such as this. I did text my constituent last night that we were going to be talking about this legislation today, and I am just hopeful that the introduction of this legislation will ease my constituent’s mind and put her at peace in regard to domestic violence and family violence and the experiences that she has suffered.

This bill will ensure that intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member has a maximum of five years imprisonment, and intentionally causing injury carries 10 years. It is amending the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to recognise strangulation as family violence, which is important in terms of family violence intervention orders, consideration of bail applications and protections for witnesses giving evidence. Some consider that the offences are too narrow and too difficult to prosecute, but others consider there to be risks with the application being too broad. Requiring the intentional causation of injury serves as a crucial safeguard to prevent wrongly labelling acceptable behaviours as criminal, and the intentionally broad range of actions covered and the absence of a defence based on consent mean that if the offence included reckless actions it could unintentionally encompass various legitimate behaviours not intended to be addressed by the reforms.

The design of the offence aims to target the most severe instances of this wrongdoing, justifying the significant maximum penalty. This approach is in line with the existing offences that carry comparable penalties, and allowing for an offence of non-fatal strangulation recklessly causing injury would warrant a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Choking someone, even if it does not lead to death, is very dangerous and can seriously threaten someone’s life, and that has been spoken about in some of the other contributions. It stands that we have laws against things like common assault or intentionally hurting someone, which cover choking incidents, but when it happens in a family, in a family violence situation, it is a big warning sign that there is a high risk of more serious harm in the future. And of course in a world where women are more likely to die at the hands of their intimate partner, choking is a serious warning sign.

In 2023 we have seen that every five days a woman has been killed by her partner or ex-partner in Australia, and as a male I am absolutely sickened and disgusted that men continue to display behaviours that assault, that cause harm, that strangle or can even murder their partners, and the culture that encourages, allows, permits or whatever you want to describe it as to continue – I just do not understand why males in this country do these sorts of things. Sometimes it is celebrated by males, and again it just disgusts me that these things go on.

Melton has some incredible services available to people that are victims of these terrible acts, and I do encourage people to contact my office if there are issues that they need support with. We see that the Western Health website has a lot of information, and of course we have the Orange Door services out there and they do a fantastic job. We also have Djirra family violence service for Indigenous families and Indigenous women, and I want to send a shout-out to Antoinette Braybrook and her team out at Djirra. They do an amazing job with the Indigenous community, and I thank them very much for what they do. We also have Sahara Victoria Association, which is another family violence agency specific for the Indian community. Gurpreet Dhillon, who runs it out in the Melton area, deals with a lot of young Indian women that are suffering through family violence situations. I extend my thanks to them. They are only some of the agencies out west; there are many more, and I know that the member for Footscray spoke about McAuley house and other agencies. They do a magnificent job in the western suburbs, and I cannot thank them enough.

Non-fatal strangulation will not happen just once. Choking often means that the violence will get and is getting worse, and some of the injuries sustained are not just asphyxiation, not rendering someone unconscious, but the more serious things of serious and major bruising, in some cases neck fractures – and we do not even talk about that – they could be life-lasting injuries, and in others serious damage to the throat and also serious damage to the larynx and possible larynx fractures. Again, those are life-lasting injuries. I do not know if anyone has ever experienced dealing with someone with a neck fracture. You just imagine putting your hands around someone’s neck and squeezing it so hard that all of a sudden you hear the neck bones go pop, and at whatever level they do pop, potentially you could render someone paralysed from the neck down if you damage the nerves through those neck fractures, so that is how dangerous this situation is. We know it is life-threatening, but also in some cases it has been life-ending. And the perpetrators in some cases have enjoyed it, and that is just terrible.

Recently, I am sad to say, there was a woman that was murdered by her partner in Melton, and again it just adds to the statistics that we have already rattled off – one woman every five days in this country is being murdered. It is just terrible. It happened in Melton just recently. We know there was a recent one that happened in Bendigo, and many others, and it is tragic. It is not just about the victim. It flows further down from that. It is about the families, it is about the friends, it is about the kids, and in a lot of cases the kids have witnessed these terrible crimes that have been committed by these despicable and I would say gutless men in most cases, absolutely gutless. But that is what is happening, and it is something that we have to stop. And that is what this legislation will certainly do by introducing the penalties that will apply.

We live in a modern, wealthy nation, but we harbour sexist attitudes, and with them persists a culture where women do more unpaid domestic work, earn less over their lifetime than men and retire with far less superannuation than men. These are all contributors to the way women are treated. These are all contributors to domestic violence, and these are things that we have to desperately change in this country. We have to make women equal in this country, and I know our government has introduced many pieces of legislation to do so and provided many support services to do so. It is a big education agenda that we need to educate males and teach them a decent lesson: that women are protected from harm, and we do not need to resort to it. I think good men do not resort to trying to harm women. This is a really important bill. I am pleased that the opposition are supportive of it, and I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (17:42:522:): I rise, too, to talk on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. As everyone has been saying, we do not oppose this bill and support this bill. I would like to thank the member for Malvern for his bill brief, which explained the more technical terms to us in the coalition. It was great to do be able to sit down and read it and actually take it in. As people have spoken about throughout the course of the day, speaking on this bill, it does beggar belief that there is one death every week from family violence, and as I stand here today in my 10 minutes there is one police call-out every 6 minutes. So as I stand here and speak there will be a phone call made to the police for a domestic dispute that they will have to go and attend. When you break it down to facts and figures like that, it does certainly hit home a little bit. I am happy this is going to be called ‘Joy’s law’. As we heard from the member for Mildura, having a name that they can associate with this law does bring a little bit of ease to people that have actually gone through violence, especially the ones that are in situations where this particular law does hit home.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to provide for two non-fatal strangulation offences and to make consequential amendment to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. The purpose of the bill is to make non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member a standalone offence, and there are a lot of people who have stood in the chamber and spoken about this. The bill is doing its job to push forward and make this happen.

It will continue to be dealt with as a standalone offence. Non-fatal strangulation that falls outside the scope of this bill will continue to be dealt with by existing offences such as assault. Victoria is currently the only state that does not have specific non-fatal strangulation laws. A considerable impetus for the introduction of this bill came from the circumstances of the death in 2011 of Rye mother Joy Rowley. Joy was smothered to death in her home by her former partner, and he was sentenced to 19 years jail for murder in 2012. Eight months prior to the murder, her partner had choked Joy unconscious and committed other breaches of family violence protection orders, which were not properly dealt with by Victoria Police, which was unfortunate at the time. Joy’s family pushed strongly for a coronial inquest into her death. It did eventually take place before State Coroner Judge Sara Hinchey, and findings were handed down on 31 July 2018.

As we read through a couple of the findings, I am conscious that we do get up to speak on these amendments and bills going forward, but it is continual for her family, for her children and for her sister to actually sit through and listen to this again. It just continually brings up the thoughts of them losing their mother. I bring that point up as a couple of weeks ago I was contacted by Joy’s sister who lives in Traralgon. She knew that this day was coming up when the bill was going to be spoken on in the house. She just sent me a message – I have known her for quite some time, going back many, many years – and alerted me to the fact that this bill was actually about her sister Joy. So I reached out and had a bit of a chat to her, and it still traumatises her to this day. I do not think you would ever get over something like that, but she kindly put me in touch with Joy’s daughter Renee. If you ever wonder why they did not go away and why they virtually forced there to be an inquest, you only have to sit down and talk to Renee. You get the perspective from her about the passion for her mother and also the passion for the family to fight for these laws to be changed. It was educational for me to be able to sit down and talk with Renee on the phone. She was very frank and very open about everything. Although they were looking forward to the bill coming through the house and actually giving them maybe some closure – I am not sure if it will or it will not – she was also adamant that maybe it needs to go a little bit further.

With the amendment that the member for Malvern has put forward – I do hope the government takes into account this amendment – there would be a review in two years time. Will we get it right straightaway here? Who knows. It is going to be time that will tell, but with respect for the family and the way that this bill moves forward, it may not cover all bases that it needs to cover. So hopefully the government will take on board that fact and put in place a review that can happen in a couple of years time to make sure that things are travelling along well with it. I do thank Renee for her time, and with the bill reaching our house for everyone here to discuss it today, you can see how passionate people are. Somewhere along the line family violence touches you in some way. For the bill to move through here – Joy’s law – as it moves through the houses and comes back and becomes law, I hope that does give them some comfort, and I hope it does protect other people moving forward.

We know that it is a brave person that will front up and talk about these issues. Whether they go to hospital or they try and reach out to legal services or they go to the police (1) they need to be believed and (2) hopefully these laws that we are sitting in here to amend make will make it easier for people to get the help that they need. I noticed before there were other people in the chamber talking about family violence – you think that if you are home in your own house, you should be safe and that should be your sanctuary, but that is far from the truth sometimes. It is incredible, as other members have said today, that males treat females like that, and even in front of their children. It is weak, and it does need to be called out. I hope moving forward that this is just the start of being able to protect family members and people that do suffer family violence, and it gives them the hope that we are listening and we are taking on board what happens.

Renee and her family lost their mother in the most tragic circumstances, but they fought on, because they were not going to take that lying down or be told no, this cannot happen. They have forged forward in honour of their mother, and hopefully this bill that the member for Malvern has called ‘Joy’s law’ can move through and protect other people into the future. I am very pleased that I could say my few words here today. I hope it gives the family some closure and they can rest for a little bit. As we have said, we are all in agreeance in this chamber with this law.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (17:52): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. I want to start by acknowledging the great work of our ministers who have worked since 2014 on these family violence reforms. I do want to also acknowledge the powerful contributions in this place, particularly from the member for Mildura, who we heard from earlier telling her own personal story, and also the member for Melton.

The work of this government on addressing family violence has been unprecedented, and the Royal Commission into Family Violence recommendations have been the catalyst for this significant reform in Victoria. As mentioned by the Minister for Women in her contribution earlier today, we are also proud of our ongoing commitment to gender equality. The recently launched Our Equal State: Victoria’s Gender Equality Strategy and Action Plan 2023–2027 includes five important focus areas: cultural change, health and wellbeing, safety and respect, economic equity and the public sector as a leader. What women need to know is that they are respected and supported by this government. I think having a gender equality strategy sends that message, not only to women experiencing family violence now but to those younger women up-and-coming, who we in lots of ways will rely on to continue that cultural change that we need in this state and that we need in this country.

Cultural change is really the only way to address family violence. We can do lots of things like introduce laws, as we are today, but it is much deeper than that and much further than that. I think cultural change comes about through having those things like gender equality strategies. The work of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and the recommendations that we have delivered on – every single recommendation, I will add – have contributed enormously to addressing the issues of family violence. But this is the long haul; it is not going to happen quickly. It is that cultural change that is the key to all of that. We have heard a number of times in this place today that in 2023 nationally a woman is murdered every five days. That is just shameful. It is shameful that that is still going on. Again I reiterate what I have said – that cultural change is absolutely critical. We have to continue our work on addressing family violence. It is not a change that is going to come quickly, and we do recognise that.

This bill supports this work. It is about addressing family violence risk, and I have spoken to many constituents in my electorate, as has probably every other member in this place. We hear horrific stories of family violence, and we provide support to those constituents that need it. There are many, many different experiences that women and young girls have had and have reported to people like me, which I suppose drive me to continue the work that we are doing. I am very proud of the work that we do here in Victoria.

Non-fatal strangulation is a highly dangerous and potentially life-threatening form of offending. This conduct is already captured by criminal offences, such as common assault, intentionally or recklessly causing injury or assault with intent to commit a sexual offence. However, non-fatal strangulation is particularly prevalent and concerning when it occurs in the context of family violence. When committed as an act of family violence, it is an indicator of significant future risk of serious harm. Non-fatal strangulation is rarely an isolated event. It often indicates an escalation of violence and coerciveness and controlling behaviours in a family violence context. Women who survive a non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner. The absence of a standalone offence in Victoria has represented a barrier to identifying, reporting and prosecuting this offending, making it harder to monitor its impact and assess risk.

Addressing the unique risk profile of non-fatal strangulation as an act of family violence has been a key driver for these reforms. We do acknowledge the tireless and powerful advocacy for the creation of a standalone non-fatal strangulation offence by the family of the late Joy Maree Rowley. Joy was tragically murdered by strangulation and suffocation in 2011 after being non-fatally strangled by her killer on at least one occasion prior to her death. Joy’s children Aaron, Nadine and Renee and their father Les have campaigned tirelessly for the creation of an offence which better responds to and better identifies the risks of non-fatal strangulation. We have heard their advocacy and we have heard the advocacy of many other stakeholders, and I want to thank them for their courage and bravery in getting up and really pushing and advocating for this.

I do want to also acknowledge the many services that work and provide support in the family violence sector and give them a big shout-out for the work that they do right across our state. In Geelong we have the Orange Door, one of 17 across the state, which was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Family Violence. The Orange Door, the Sexual Assault and Family Violence Centre and the police provide help and support to people experiencing family violence, connecting people directly to services, and provide a coordinated response. They supported 6000 family violence cases throughout 2022, and we know that these numbers, unfortunately, are growing.

The Wathaurong Aboriginal service is providing a community-led approach to preventing and responding to family violence, based on an approach of Aboriginal ways of knowing, thinking, being and doing. They are a fantastic team, using Aboriginal knowledge and practice. We know that that is really important in terms of delivering services for Aboriginal communities. It must be community led, and they are leading the way in how they deal with family violence in their communities, which is really, really important. And of course Respect Victoria – we know the vital work that they do. Again it comes back to the point I made about cultural change and how important that is, and that is the work of Respect Victoria.

We know that coming up will be the 16 days of action, which is really important right across our communities because it is an opportunity to highlight to people the issues around family violence and how we can address those issues and, importantly, provide people with I suppose the support and confidence to deal with their own issues of family violence. I know in my electorate of Geelong there will be a walk or a march on Friday 24 November which is being organised by local women’s organisations. We know that there is a big walk here in Melbourne. Right across the state these activities will be going on as a means of addressing family violence issues and making sure our constituents are aware of the services that are available to them. We know how important that is.

We know how important it is to educate young women as well about the issues around family violence. You know, I speak to many young women, and it is surprising how many young women are so strong in their views around family violence and how wrong it is. But then you come across young women for whom that has been their only experience – growing up with family violence has been the only experience that they have had, and it becomes really challenging for them to move away from going into relationships with males and experiencing that family violence as well. Having worked in a youth refuge for many, many years before coming into this place, I was often pretty shocked at the stories of young women who talked about the fact that they were living in violent situations and saw that as being quite normal and in some cases went back to those situations. So it is really important that we get the message out there that we support women and we provide laws to help protect them. But again, it comes down to ensuring that we are on that journey to cultural change, which I believe we well and truly are thanks to the Labor government that we have had since 2014, and I commend the bill to the house.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (18:02): I too rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. We know after the various contributions here in this place – quite incredible contributions here in this place this afternoon – that this bill seeks to, importantly, create a new standalone offence for strangling someone in a way that is not fatal but does cause serious harm.

Let us be really clear from the outset: strangulation is an extremely violent thing to do to someone. We know that it can be fatal; it can lead to asphyxiation and death from a lack of oxygen. Whilst it is not always fatal, there are significant health risks associated. These include blood clots; they include having a stroke and causing brain damage, sometimes resulting in a long-term physical or mental disability. What is really sad is by stating those facts we know they are facts because they have happened to people and it has been reported. There are people amongst our community who have passed away because their partner has strangled them or who are living amongst us with this kind of mental and physical disability as a result of a partner engaging in strangulation.

As we have talked about here as well this afternoon, it is also a very common and very serious form of family violence. The impetus for this bill was brought on by the advocacy of the family of Joy Rowley. Now, Joy, as we have talked about this afternoon, was tragically strangled to death more than a decade ago at the hands of her partner. It was known then that Joy had been strangled more than once prior to her death. The act of strangling a partner, even if not fatally, often represents a serious escalation in the violence that is perpetrated especially against women but also very unfortunately and very tragically against children in some instances. More unfortunately what we know is that it is never likely to be a one-off event. A person who survives non-fatal strangulation at the hands of their partner is seven times more likely to be grievously injured or killed by their partner.

Fortunately what we do know is that this is being recognised more and more every single day, and even depictions of it are rightly criticised as extremely uncomfortable to watch. When I think about those depictions and how we see them on TV shows like Euphoria or House of the Dragon, which I watched recently, they show characters being strangled or being choked by their partners – something that is framed as abusive, and rightly so, by viewers. In addition, I see it was recently reported in the news that going forward future episodes of The Simpsons, which is something that I guess my generation and beyond grew up with and watched, will no longer feature the running gag of Homer, I think it was, strangling Bart. It was in fact retired a few seasons ago, because quite frankly times have changed. When there are children in the household, like mine – and sometimes I walk in and they are watching shows like The Simpsons – you can certainly see times have changed. I am indeed pleased to hear that they have removed that running gag of Homer strangling Bart.

This bill is in recognition also of the fact that since the death of Joy we have had a major realignment in how we respond to family violence. We have had the Royal Commission into Family Violence, of which every recommendation has been accepted by our government. In January this year we implemented the final outstanding recommendations. Of course there is always so much more that we can do – that we must do – to combat the scourge of family violence, and we are making it clear that this does not stop with the royal commission. That is exactly why our government’s new gender equality strategy and action plan has recommended that we introduce this standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation, not only so that our laws can better target and deter this kind of behaviour but to keep survivors of family violence, especially women, safe.

Under the current legislation this kind of behaviour falls under other offences, and the most common of these would be a statutory offence of assault. The issue here, though, it is important to state, is that that does not reflect the even more serious nature of this offence, because we know what it leads to. That is why this bill has created two offences. The first is the offence of non-fatal strangulation, and that is going to carry a maximum of five years imprisonment. The second offence is of non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury, and this is going to carry a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. These offences will bring us into line with New South Wales, who already have these offences on their books.

The bill provides a definition of choking, strangling or suffocating that is sufficiently broad and non-exhaustive enough to encompass all kinds of behaviour that may constitute these things. This can include applying pressure to the front or the sides of the neck, obstructing or interfering with a person’s respiratory system and, certainly, impeding breathing. We know that in other jurisdictions these standalone offences have been narrowly interpreted, which then leads to higher evidentiary burdens for the prosecution. By having a broad definition that can encompass all these kinds of what can only be described as abhorrent violent behaviour that may constitute choking or strangling we can avoid placing further procedural trauma on victim-survivors of this kind of violence, and that is a really important thing that we are doing as part of this bill.

In addition to this, these new offences will require an intention to engage in that broadly defined capture of choking, strangling or suffocating. This is really importantly going to ensure that we appropriately safeguard against accidentally criminalising behaviours that are not within the intentions of this bill. We do not want to see offences targeted at a scenario, for example, where someone is giving someone a neck massage that accidentally causes bruising. We want to eradicate that; that is not the intention of this bill. Without the intention, this would be considered applying pressure to the sides of the neck, obviously, and would satisfy the physical component of the offence. But obviously in this scenario there would be no intended harm to the person, so the offence would not be made out in this instance.

I just want to talk briefly about some of the defences in this bill. Like any other criminal offence, the bill applies a number of defences that will apply to non-fatal strangulation. Like other offences, the existing statutory defences, including duress, self-defence and sudden and extraordinary emergency, will also apply to the two offences in this bill. In addition to statutory defences the offences will also be able to rely on common law defences such as justified conduct during the due execution of the law, physical conduct which is generally acceptable in the context of daily life and of course consent. I do note that in addition to common law consent the bill also creates a tailored statutory defence to apply for conduct that occurs in a sexual context. I am always surprised that I am saying that, and I know I certainly was when I was reading it, but what we do know is that some people are into different things, and this bill applies our affirmative consent model, so importantly, which we introduced last year. It should be mentioned that consent is not applicable for the 10-year offence. So remember that is the one where you intentionally want to cause harm, as this reflects that even consensual acts, most importantly – and this is something very important to teach our children – should not go as far to the point that serious injury is caused, whether you consent or not.

Finally, in the last couple of seconds that I have to make this contribution to this bill I want to pay my respects to Joy and Joy’s family, who have had to live with the tragic death of their mother for a decade now. It is a very good thing that this bill has come before the house, and we are talking about what is a really difficult topic. Many of us have had different experiences here in this place, and some of them have been put to light this afternoon. It is for these reasons that I commend the bill to the house.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (18:12): I too rise in this place to make a contribution to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023, and in doing so I acknowledge all the contributions that have been made in the house. Non-fatal strangulation poses a significant and potentially life-threatening risk. While some existing criminal offences encompass this behaviour, its prevalence throughout our community and indeed its severity, as has been pointed out to us, have become particularly alarming within the realm of family violence. In cases where non-fatal strangulation is perpetrated as an act of family violence, it serves as a very strong indicator of a heightened risk of serious harm in the future. Non-fatal strangulation seldom occurs in isolation; rather, it frequently signals an escalation of violence and the presence of coercive and controlling behaviours in the context of family violence. Disturbingly, women who survive such incidents are seven times more likely to face severe injuries or even homicide at the hands of their partner.

The absence of a dedicated offence in Victoria has posed a significant obstacle to identifying, reporting and prosecuting instances of non-fatal strangulation. This absence has not only hindered the monitoring of its impact but also complicated the assessment of risk. Recognising and addressing the risk associated with non-fatal strangulation as a form of family violence has been a central motivation for the reforms that this government has brought to the house. The bill introduces two new indictable offences of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member to the Crimes Act 1958, and the Victorian government initially pledged to establish a distinct criminal charge for non-fatal strangulation in the Community Safety Statement 2019–20. The commitment has been reaffirmed on multiple occasions, notably in parliamentary discussions and most recently in the gender equality strategy and action plan for 2023–27. The Allan Labor government stands very proudly in being able to deliver on its key commitments in this bill and to progress its strong community safety and family violence agenda as well.

The bill, as I said, introduces two new offences of non-fatal strangulation – an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member as defined in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, which has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. That is known as the five-year offence. Secondly, there is an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member which intentionally causes injury, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, known as the 10-year offence. The proposed legislation will introduce a consequential amendment to the Family Violence Protection Act, ensuring that non-fatal strangulation is officially recognised as an act of family violence. This recognition extends to its consideration in family violence intervention orders, bail applications and the protection of witnesses providing evidence.

The outcomes of these amendments include the strengthening of the protection of victim-survivors, with a specific focus on those affected by family violence. The amendments will hold offenders more effectively accountable for their actions, and the amendments will offer clearer signals to law enforcement and community service practitioners regarding escalating violence and control within the context of family violence, which is a critical preventive step. The amendments will also enhance awareness among police, courts and community service practitioners about dangers and potential lethality of non-fatal strangulation. This in turn aims to provide or to drive more effective responses within medicine, law and law enforcement.

The element of intention applies to each offence to establish the requirement and prevent the application of the offence to genuine accidents, and this is an essential safeguard to prevent the criminalisation of legitimate conduct that falls outside the scope. The courts will use a broader definition of non-fatal strangulation, which generally is defined as conduct including choking, strangling and suffocating by applying pressure to the neck. That definition is intentionally broad and is important because it means that certain conduct outside of that intended scope may also be captured. So ‘chokes, strangles and suffocates’ is very broad, and it means that it also addresses the common law defences which will be available.

The common law defences also ensure that ordinary and legitimate conduct between family members, such as contact sports and massage, are not captured by that definition. Both offences will require that the conduct be committed without lawful excuse, and this means that existing statutory and common law defences will apply, except for consent in the 10-year offence. That reflects the seriousness and the risks – that non-fatal strangulation that intentionally causes injury of any kind is unsafe and cannot be consented to. However, the bill is not intended to criminalise legitimate medical procedures or body modification and includes an exception to reflect this. Statutory defences of self-defence, duress and sudden or extraordinary emergency will apply to both offences. The statutory defences of duress and self-defence provide additional protections for victim-survivors in a domestic violence setting.

These are important safeguards against misidentification of victim-survivors of family violence who act in self-defence. Further, the statutory defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency can be relied on if a person reasonably believes that a sudden or extraordinary emergency exists and their conduct is the only way to respond. The central purpose behind these reforms, though, is to enhance the Victorian criminal justice system and to enhance the handling of the distinct risk posed by family violence perpetrators who employ non-fatal strangulation as a method of intimidation and control.

In concluding my contribution today I would just like to commend the work of an organisation in my community, an organisation known as Wellsprings for Women. Wellsprings for Women are a women’s only service in Melbourne’s south-east, and they really do terrific work. They are dedicated to empowering women, but empowering women particularly from migrant and refugee backgrounds. I know that as a part of Respect Victoria’s campaign next week – a part of that 16 days of activism against gender-based violence – Wellsprings for Women have their own Meta campaign that is going to be within those 16 days. As a part of their campaign, Wellsprings for Women have identified that it is migrant men who actually are part of the solution in that they too need to be engaged and need to be involved in any prevention efforts. To that end and as a proud person of Sri Lankan heritage I am really chuffed that they have asked me to be a part of that campaign out in the south-east over those 16 days. I commend them for their work, and I look forward to that campaign launch that they will be having on 22 November. This is a terrific bill. I am really happy that it has come to this place, and on that note I commend it to the house.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (18:22): It is important to rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. Family violence remains the number one law and order issue in this state. It has been said before many times in this house, but it is important to remind ourselves of the horrifying data when it comes to family violence. We know that on average one woman a week in Australia is killed by her current or former intimate partner. We saw a horrific acceleration of this earlier in November when six women were killed across Australia in 10 days. So far this year the death toll stands at 47 according to the Counting Dead Women website and with data collected by Destroy the Joint. These are heartbreaking numbers, and they are completely unacceptable in a community such as ours.

Our government has been at the forefront of working to tackle family violence in a multifaceted way. We know that the reform that is needed is multigenerational, because we also understand that violence comes from a place where men do not respect women. It all starts with respect. We know that, and Respect Victoria is a part of delivering that attitudinal change which is the only way that we will ever be able to keep women and children safe in this community. Our government has invested approximately $2.7 billion to address family violence since 2014. We have got better at the work that we do over that time, and we will continue to learn and improve. But we all have a role to play when it comes to calling out the behaviours and the attitudes that lead to disrespect for women, which in turn, as we know, leads to violence towards women.

So just a few more facts really to set the scene: around 39 per cent of women in Victoria have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 15. Around 26 per cent of women in Victoria have experienced partner violence – that is from a partner that they live with – including emotional, physical, sexual and economic abuse. I know I do not have to tell the house all of these things; I know you all know – we all know – that this issue is real. But we have got to stay united in our commitment to addressing the drivers of family violence, which are disrespect and lack of gender equality.

As I mentioned earlier today in my speech on the government business program, I want to speak on this bill and, as I do, hold the memory of my meetings with Boyd and Bianca Unwin close to my heart. Boyd was the father and Bianca the sister of Katie Haley. Katie Haley was murdered in 2018 by her partner. She was murdered at her home in Diggers Rest while her 11-month-old baby lay asleep. Despite the unimaginable pain that Boyd as Katie’s dad and Bianca as Katie’s sister have experienced, they have continued to honour Katie through their own advocacy and continued to call out the drivers of family violence and to campaign against family violence.

Recently, Boyd appeared in See What You Made Me Do, which is on SBS and based on Jess Hill’s book, which looks in particular at power, control and how patriarchy establishes an environment that leads men to commit murder. In Jess’s book and in her series she has a particular focus on holding perpetrators to account. Boyd, as the father of a young woman who was murdered, sees and believes that more men need to participate in this debate. More men need to take responsibility and accountability for calling one another out and for holding one another to account. I would say in this place too: without wanting to disrespect anyone, I call on all of the male members of Parliament here to continue to lead in your communities. You have real power, you have real strength and you can model the behaviours that we need to see. You can call out sexism and you can call out disrespect when you see it, because we do – the women do – and it can get really hard. It is really tough. I have been in environments – and I have spoken about them earlier in this place – where I was the only woman in the room. Why should I have to call out this poor behaviour? Anyway, enough of that. Do it for Boyd and Bianca, and most especially for Katie.

We know that one insidious and often undermonitored or reported form of family violence, non-fatal strangulation, is part of these disturbing statistics we talked about earlier, and we also know that somebody who survives non-fatal strangulation is seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner. So it is vital that we do something about it, and that is exactly what this bill does. Others have spoken in some detail about the bill and all that it contains, so I do want to take this opportunity to thank the Attorney-General for her leadership on this and to acknowledge the family of Joy Rowley, who herself was the victim of family violence and whose family have advocated for this change.

As a consequence of that advocacy our government made a commitment back in the Community Safety Statement 2019–20 to implement standalone non-fatal strangulation offences, and we reinforced this commitment in the 2023–27 gender equality strategy. It is good to see that this bill is now in the house. I do want to acknowledge that it has been a complex bill to develop. There were many nuances that were important to get right, and I know that our Attorney-General in the other place always has a focus on ensuring that she is getting such important legislation right. This is a good bill, it is an important bill, and for so many of us today I think this is why we do what we do. We come into this place to debate legislation but also to ensure that we are making laws that will make the world in which we live and our state a safer place – a safer place for those that are most vulnerable and those that are at risk of violence or indeed murder.

As I said at the beginning, we know the attitudes that enable family violence run deep in our community. We have all got a part to play in changing those attitudes, but in the meantime, we have to deal with the world in which we live and the reality that confronts us and the fact that there are men that will kill their partners, that there are men that exercise coercive control. When we ask ‘Why didn’t she leave?’ we need to unpack and understand the many factors at play that mean that it is often impossible for a woman to leave. We have to do everything that is in our power to keep women and children safe in their homes and to keep them safe at home. This bill is just one of the many commitments our government has made to ensuring that we create a state that in the future is free of gendered violence. We have got a long way to go, but this bill is yet another sign of our government’s real commitment to that place where women and children can live free of family violence. I commend this bill to the house.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (18:32): I too rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. It is a difficult bill to speak on. It brings up a lot for many of us. There have been some extraordinary contributions in the house today. I acknowledge the previous speaker, our fabulous Leader of the House, who of course pointed out that it is still our one really important law and order issue and the fact that a woman is killed every week. The bill speaks very loudly to that. The debate today has been very moving. I have been touched by quite a few of those contributions. I would like to acknowledge the member for Geelong, who in her contribution talked about the fact that we can make this legislation, but this is a long row we have got to hoe in really making some strong cultural change, and that is really where it has to begin. Again, I would commend the Leader of the House for her comments about the fact that we need to call out gendered violence at all times and that we need men to do the same.

Whilst there have been some really, really strong contributions today, there have been a couple of pretty ordinary ones as well. I will in this instance call out the member for Berwick. For some reason he felt the need to use a bill like this as some sort of political pointscoring and suggest that perhaps this bill would have been better and speedier if the government had consulted with him and his side of the house. I did interject, but that ended in the member for Berwick screaming loudly at me that I was a disgrace. I guess what I would like to say to the member for Berwick is that his contribution towards dealing with gendered violence might actually begin at home. Perhaps I could recommend that he does not yell loudly and aggressively at women, and that might be a move forward for all of us.

Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is not the time to cast aspersions on the other side of the house. This is a bill about Joy’s law and I think the member should be brought back to the point of the bill. It is inappropriate.

Michaela SETTLE: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, there was no point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I would ask the member for Eureka to come back to the bill and continue her speech.

Michaela SETTLE: Indeed I will, but if I can reflect on the point of order I would suggest that in fact it was the member for Berwick who brought to his debate – and it stands in Hansard that he was playing political games in his debate. If you would like to look at Hansard –

Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it appears the member is defying your ruling. I ask you to ask her to come back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I ask the member to avoid reflecting on a member’s character and get back to the bill, please.

Michaela SETTLE: Rather than reflecting on anyone’s character, I was reflecting on contributions that were suggesting that this government should listen to people on the other side. What I would say is that no government has –

Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it appears that the member is defying your ruling and reflecting on your very good work this evening. I ask your opinion on whether that is the situation, and could you ask her to respect your ruling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I do not think there is a point of order, but I will encourage the member for Eureka to talk about the substance of the bill.

Michaela SETTLE: Okay. The substance of the bill for me really is around protecting women and making real, fundamental change in the space of domestic and family violence. Of course no government has ever achieved quite as much as this government has in that space. We are absolutely leading the nation in our commitment to addressing family violence, and no clearer was that than in the $3.86 billion Royal Commission into Family Violence. That was a world first, and I would like at this moment as well to pay my respects to the first Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence Fiona Richardson and all the work that she did in this space. She really began that work with the royal commission. Since then we have launched the 10-year Free from Violence strategy to deliver and scale primary prevention activities across Victoria, and all 227 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence have been implemented.

Respect Victoria is Victoria’s first dedicated primary prevention agency and is helping change community attitudes towards women through public campaigns. Sadly, I was not in Parliament to enjoy the celebrations for their fifth anniversary, though I did ask one of my colleagues to make sure that my name was added to the banner because I think it is in those actions that we show our support. I would like to think that every member of this house had put their name to that banner, though I am led to understand that, sadly, that was not the case. Indeed some people felt able to ignore that request.

This government has invested in research to really build the understanding of what causes family violence and how to prevent it. I think an important thing that we all have to remember is the temptation to think of it as the other in these situations, but really it can happen in any household. In my own household when I was very young, we did experience that. My mother is a highly educated woman and was a working woman even then in the 1960s, but nonetheless she experienced family violence at the hands of my father. What I would say is that it is important we remember that the factors that create family violence are broad, and any work towards understanding the motivations or the reasons perhaps that this occurs.

But I believe one of the very, very strong things that this government has done in this area is to establish the Orange Door network. There are 18 safety hubs across the state, and I know, Acting Speaker Addison, that you and I have visited what is a fantastic organisation in Ballarat and seen the extraordinary work that they do. No matter where you live in this state, you should have access to an Orange Door network. Again I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the first Minister for Prevention of Family Violence Fiona Richardson because much of this work began there, and this bill continues this government’s work in this space. Many before me have talked about the bill introducing two new indictable offences of intentional non-fatal strangulation. As everyone has pointed out, of course strangulation is a dangerous and potentially fatal form of violence, but I think for me what is really key to the need for this bill is that often in the family violence space non-fatal strangulation is so rarely an isolated incident. Really what is important to understand is that any moment of this action of strangulation is a harbinger in fact that there may be more to come, so it is incredibly important that we act to make sure that that will not continue.

Someone who survives non-fatal strangulation by a current or former intimate partner is seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner. Because of this, non-fatal strangulation is recognised in Victoria’s family violence multi-agency risk assessment and management framework as a serious risk factor. So I think we have acknowledged that it is a risk factor, and this bill takes it the step further and gives us the powers to charge someone and hopefully therefore prevent that happening in the future.

It is an incredibly important bill. This government’s work towards protecting women and families has been extraordinary, and I know that we will continue to work for women and families to protect them. As the Leader of the House said, we need to protect women and families within their own homes, and this bill is another step towards protecting women and families.

Pauline RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (18:42): Forty-seven – 47 women. It is 14 November, and 47 women have died this year. We know that that is unacceptable. It is outrageous and it is a crime. It is 47 people from across Victoria, some wealthy and some not very wealthy, and women who are living in every corner and every type of house – large beautiful homes with elaborate gardens, some who live in more modest homes and some who do not live in homes at all. This is outrageous, and it is not something that we can continue to accept. So I am very proud to make a contribution on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. I do that knowing that this bill will introduce two new offences of non-fatal strangulation into the Crimes Act 1958, an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member as defined in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, which has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, and an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member which intentionally causes injury.

This is something we are doing to honour those 47 women already this year, but also to pay credit to the family of Joy Rowley – her children Aaron, Nadine and Renee – and for the pain that has been endured by so many people across this great state of ours who are family or friends or neighbours. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of our first responders and the impact that these horrendous crimes have. We know, and it has already been identified by several people, that this is the greatest law and order challenge that we face, and it is something that we cannot just watch and observe. I remember being at the Labor Party state conference when Daniel Andrews announced his intention to hold a royal commission into family violence, and I pay credit to the work that led to that decision. In fact I think about some of my colleagues including, here in the chamber now, the member for Northcote and the work that was done on those 227 recommendations, which are being worked on and have been accepted in full, what it meant to have a laser-like focus on this law and order challenge and what it meant for our government to have women and men as allies. I was pleased to have the opportunity to hear my good friend and neighbouring colleague the member for Narre Warren South talking about the role that he is playing alongside Wellsprings and other great workers across Victoria. In particular I suppose I identify the work of so many in the south-east, but I do want to pay credit to the member for Northcote. We were working as advisers at the time, and the member for Northcote was working with the late Fiona Richardson on something that was a driving force for so many people in our Parliament. These are people who have left an extraordinary legacy that we can never forget.

My mother was a family violence worker. I have spoken fairly often – she is 91 now – about what it was like for me to grow up having an evolved understanding of what violence against women means and the gendered nature of that violence. When I was fortunate enough to be elected and then to give my inaugural speech, I identified family violence as a priority for me, one of the absolute priorities in the context of Cranbourne unfortunately being recognised as a place where the burden of family violence is weighing very heavily on our community. In the lead-up to that election in November 2018 there were a couple of women who were murdered in Cranbourne, only weeks and months before the election. I just want to reflect a little bit on a day I was doorknocking in a court. It was a really unusual street: people were not answering their doors, and I ended up having a conversation with a firefighter. He had been a first responder to an awful murder of a woman and he had attempted to save the victim. The impact on him was extraordinary, and the impact on the whole community was extraordinary. I know the member for Bass was similarly affected at around the same time with what we knew to be the impact on our communities.

I commend the Attorney-General for the extraordinary work that went into this legislation. It is important for us to acknowledge, as has already been well canvassed as part of the contributions, that we know that non-fatal strangulation is a terrible marker for the likelihood of a person being a victim and being murdered, and to know that and to have that research and to not observe a problem but actually use the levers of government to take action is something that is fundamental and foundational to the role of government.

I am here listening to contributions from across the chamber and am incredibly touched to hear the members for Mildura and Narracan and so many on our side give personal accounts of the pain and be incredibly generous with the explanation of the pain that they have experienced. I am proud that we are doing this. I am really proud that we are taking these steps, which are so important to pull back on what we know is an awful epidemic that is really impacting so many in our state.

The work of the police has evolved, and we have now a really sophisticated workforce who are doing amazing work. We have our ambulances, our firefighters but in particular as well the people who work at the Peninsula Community Legal Centre, the Cranbourne Information & Support Service, Relationships Australia, Wellsprings – great people doing important work – and there is Andrew Guy at the Orange Door. I am incredibly honoured to spend time with so many people working hard to do the work that is necessary, and I am really proud that we are doing our bit as well. I commend the bill to the house.

Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (18:51): It pains me to speak on this incredibly serious bill, which will make non-fatal strangulation a standalone offence in Victoria, pained because violence against women still haunts us. It still permeates across our communities. It follows us into our homes, where we should be safest. I say ‘it’, but violence against women is not perpetrated by a nondescript ‘it’. Violence against women, the murder of women, is perpetrated by a ‘who’, and it is important that we are self-aware in our language, attributing the deliberate action to the perpetrator who commits it, in most cases a man known to the victim.

In a two-week period this past month Australia has reeled under the shock of six more women’s deaths allegedly at the hands of intimate partners or acquaintances. Already this year 47 women have been murdered in our country, the vast majority through a choice made by a man that they knew. The harrowing reality is that one in six women in Australia endure physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, while one in four suffer emotional abuse from a partner. Worse still, First Nations and migrant women face even higher risks, often exacerbated by language barriers and visa constraints. Alarmingly, nearly 30 per cent of young adults aged 18 to 19 have experienced intimate partner violence in the past year, a frightening thing to consider for such a young cohort. These grim statistics are not just numbers, they are a clarion call reminding us that family violence remains a deep-rooted national crisis demanding our immediate attention.

In Victoria we have been taking action consistently and with determination and purpose since Labor came into government in 2014. In one of our first acts we appointed a Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and commenced Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence, both national firsts. The commission was tasked with identifying effective strategies to prevent family violence, enhance support for victim-survivors and hold perpetrators accountable. When it handed down an enormous 227 recommendations, we knew the full extent of the challenge before us to keep women and children safe in our state. In response the Victorian Labor government has committed more than $3.8 billion to implement every recommendation, and in January this year we implemented the final ones. In politics and with the churn of the media it is easy for the caravan to move on, but I am proud to be part of a government that has not allowed that to happen. We refuse to stop working on making women safer in our state. That means not just working to deliver the generational change we need but putting it front and centre of our work. Yet the work is by no means over, and this bill is another step to both shining a light on the scourge of family violence and also strengthening our legislation in relation to it.

Non-fatal strangulation is an incredibly disturbing, highly dangerous and life-threatening form of offending. This form of violence, involving the compression of the neck to impede breathing or blood flow, is not just physically brutal, it is also a potent symbol of control, a dark demonstration that the abuser literally has the victim’s life in their hands. It is designed to instil fear and compliance, and I can scarcely imagine anything more terrifying. While non-fatal strangulation is already captured by criminal offences such as assault, intentionally or recklessly causing injury, or assault with intent to commit a sexual offence, these offences do not wholly capture the seriousness of this act, nor do they fully convey the power dynamics at play in many cases nor the risk profile arising from the established link between non-fatal strangulation and murder. Non-fatal strangulation is rarely isolated and often indicates an escalation of violence and coercive and controlling behaviours in a family violence context.

Women who survive a non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner – seven times more likely. Indeed 15 per cent of all family violence-related deaths are attributed to strangulation. Fatal outcomes are possible in as little as a minute. For survivors the impacts can be immediate or delayed, including the risk of death from blood clots, stroke or brain damage weeks or months after. Non-fatal cases often lead to severe injuries like memory loss or nerve damage or miscarriage, with short-term effects like bruising and nausea, but notably 50 per cent of victim-survivors show no visible injuries, even when they have lost consciousness. These are horrible things to think about, let alone endure, but are worth elucidating to convey the gravity of this crime, yet the absence of a standalone offence in Victoria has represented a barrier to identifying, reporting and prosecuting this offending.

The bill before us proposes two distinct offences: a five-year maximum penalty for non-fatal strangulation against a family member and a 10-year maximum penalty if the strangulation intentionally causes injury. These changes aim to enhance victim-survivor protection, hold offenders accountable, signal escalating family violence and increase awareness amongst law enforcement and community service practitioners. There are several nuances to the bill – which other speakers have elucidated, and for brevity I will not go into them – which prevent the application of the offence to genuine accidents.

I do need to acknowledge the tireless and powerful advocacy for the creation of a standalone non-fatal strangulation offence by the family of the late Joy Maree Rowley. Joy was tragically murdered by strangulation and suffocation in 2011 after being non-fatally strangled by her killer on at least one occasion prior to her death. Since then her family have campaigned for the creation of an offence which specifically identifies this horrible act and the risk profile it carries as the reddest of red flags for what could follow.

In my community of the inner north the Fitzroy Legal Service has long been assisting women to navigate an often overwhelming and convoluted legal system when they are at some of the most vulnerable times of their lives. In preparing my comments today I reached out to Kristine Olaris, the CEO of the Fitzroy Legal Service, knowing the direct relevance of this legislation to their work. Kristine identified non-fatal strangulation as a form of coercive control, which they often see in family violence intervention order narratives, but significantly she also highlighted the importance of not just the robust justice response but strong wraparound supports and services for victim-survivors and broader awareness raising about gender inequality and the role of non-fatal strangulation within family violence.

We have known for a long time that violence against women begins with poor attitudes towards women. It begins with gender inequality. A cultural change that needs to happen, and that is why our government has invested so heavily in initiatives like Respectful Relationships and in supporting the work of our mighty women’s health services. Yet we sadly still have such a long way to go to eradicate family violence. In Darebin there were 1261 incidents of family violence reported by women in 2022. In 365 cases of reported family violence there was a child present. That is heartbreaking. As others on both sides of the house have rightly noted, this is lifelong trauma that is being inflicted by cowardly perpetrators. There is no power in these acts, only weakness. In closing I will just say this: women experience disadvantage in almost every aspect of our lives. We experience violence far too often. It all comes back to one thing: gender inequality. I commend the bill to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.