Tuesday, 28 November 2023

Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lizzie Blandthorn:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:03): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. This bill has been a long time coming – in fact too long in coming. At the outset of my contribution today I would like to particularly pay tribute to the family of Joy Rowley. Joy died at the hands of a former boarder of hers who became a partner in 2011. She was murdered, and her murderer is currently spending a long time in jail, as is rightly the case. Joy’s children Renee Woolridge, Aaron Woolridge and Nadine Power nee Woolridge have not been ones to sit back and accept that grave injustice. They did not just want to see justice for their mum; they wanted to see the system changed. They wanted to see the system better for every woman. Domestic violence, family violence, is a scourge in this state, in this country and around the world, and we need to do much more to tackle it. I should also add that Renee, Aaron and Nadine’s father Les has been very important in their advocacy in this campaign to change the law to improve the lives of women in this state.

From the time of Joy’s death, Renee, Aaron, Nadine and Les campaigned first of all for an inquest, because it was almost as though women dying at the hands of their partners was so prevalent – something we shrugged off – that it was initially felt that there was no need for a full inquest into this death. Through their efforts – the continual campaigning and advocacy and hiring of expensive lawyers by the Woolridges – eventually a full coronial inquest was ordered. It was then the State Coroner Judge Sara Hinchey who took on this inquest. The hearing was held from 21 to 23 May 2018, and the findings were delivered on 31 July 2018. During that inquest Victoria Police quite rightly apologised to Joy’s family for the mistakes that were made. How often have we heard this where women in particular are threatened and are scared of partners or former partners? They seek an intervention in law, they seek a family violence protection order and they get a family violence protection order, but the piece of paper does not necessarily save them. Tragically this was the case for Joy Rowley. Victoria Police have rightly apologised for the many missteps that occurred in this case leading up to Joy’s death.

I want to thank my colleague Michael O’Brien in the other place, who has done great work on this bill. Of particular interest in the coroner’s findings is paragraph 161, where Her Honour said:

… researchers suggest that many perpetrators who use strangulation in a family violence context do not intend to injure their victims, but rather use strangulation to gain power and control over the victim. In this context, the available laws that require intent to cause bodily harm are unsuitable for application to this type of offending.

Her Honour went on to say in paragraph 163:

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.

There we are in July 2018 with a clear recommendation coming from the State Coroner for there to be a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation introduced in the state of Victoria. Following that, the government in fact agreed to do so. I believe it was 1 July 2019. In the Age on 1 July 2019 the then Minister for Police and Emergency Services the Honourable Lisa Neville said:

Strangulation is a common and devastating factor in violent offending – including family violence incidents ‍– and we’ve recognised the need for a standalone offence that accurately reflects the trauma caused to victims ‍…

These new laws will punish perpetrators appropriately and will be a step in recognising and intervening in escalating family violence situations.

That was 1 July 2019, and here we are in late November 2023, which makes you wonder what the government has been doing on this. How many women have died in that time, and why has it taken so long for the government to act? The coroner’s recommendation was made in July 2018. The government committed to implementing these changes on 1 July 2019. I think it is not good enough. The government owe an explanation to Joy Rowley’s family and owe an explanation to Victorian women who have not had the benefit of the protection of these laws that the government promised over four years ago. Joy’s family did not give up on 17 November 2021 – it is a little over two years ago. Another article in the Age newspaper reads:

The family of a murdered Victorian mother says the state government has failed to introduce strangulation laws that could reduce the risk of homicide to women, despite promising two years ago to bring the legislation in.

This has been a long, long journey, and I think it has been too long a journey. I do not doubt that this government, as I think all members in this place do, place a premium really on tackling family violence, and I am sure we will hear from members opposite about the Royal Commission into Family Violence and the responses to the royal commission, and I welcome that. But here is an example where in 2018 the State Coroner recommended standalone offences be brought in, and the government did not act. In 2019 the government committed to it, and the government did not act. In 2021 the family of Joy Rowley reminded the government that they had not acted, and nothing happened. So here we are in almost December 2023. I am not sure the government deserves too big a pat on the back for taking five years to do something which was, frankly, urgent five years ago. Every time this subject comes up the family are reminded of the trauma that they have suffered, but they have kept going because they care. They want something good to come out of something horrible, and what they want is to make sure that women in this state are better protected.

So the question is: is the government bill going to achieve that outcome? One thing we need to be very clear about is that this cannot be a set and forget. Simply passing this law is not necessarily going to change behaviour. It will not necessarily change the behaviour of people who are otherwise prone to family violence. It will not necessarily change the responses of victims of family violence. It will not necessarily change the behaviour of police or prosecutors or the courts. It is but one piece of a cultural change and a practical change that we need to see to better protect women in this state.

What we would ask of the government is: what else is being done around this change? Changing the law is one thing, but how is this going to actually work in practice? Will the police be educated that the new law is available as an option? How will prosecutors and the courts understand what this bill will do and the intention of it? How will domestic violence services be informed about this? Where will the public education campaign be about the fact that the law is changing? Because the coroner was talking about this law as sending a message. She said:

Further, the new offence may build further awareness of the dangers and potential lethality of strangulation ‍…

Well, it will only build awareness if the government puts in place measures around it to make sure that people who need to know know about it. That is what we would ask the government to consider and what we would ask the government to do. As I said, it cannot be a set and forget. The government must make sure that legal changes are accompanied by broader changes to the justice system, in family violence support services, and yes, in communicating to the broader public about why these changes have been made and what they do.

The bill provides for two non-fatal strangulation offences. One relates to non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury, which is section 34AD in the new bill, which will occur when a person, ‍A, intentionally and without lawful excuse chokes, strangles or suffocates another person, B, and person ‍A intends the choking, strangulation or suffocation to cause an injury to the person B and the choking, strangulation or suffocation causes injury to person B.

This requires the intent to cause an injury, and there is no consent defence available to a person charged under the new section 34AD. To some extent this goes back to old legal principles that one cannot consent to particular types of injuries. There are particular types of injuries you can consent to. If you go on the football field, you probably know you are going to get bumped or tackled. If it happened in Chapel Street, that would be an assault. If it happens on a football field, it is a tackle. That is not the sort of consent we are talking about. We are talking about consent to intentionally injure somebody in the context of non-fatal strangulation, and that has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Section 34AE is a lesser offence in terms of a maximum penalty, a maximum of five years imprisonment. That applies to where person A commits an offence if they intentionally and without lawful excuse choke, strangle or suffocate another person – person B – and person A is a family member of person B. No intent to injure is required for the section 34AE offence. Consent is available as defence in section 34AE and is dealt with in two different ways. Where the action which constitutes the offence is part of a sexual activity, then the only way in which consent can be a defence is where it complies with effectively the revised definitions of consent that this Parliament has put into law in relation to sexual activity, often known as the affirmative consent model. This is something that we are supportive of. We are concerned that if these sorts of matters devolve into ‘he said, she said’, too often it will be the victim – and too often the woman – who is not believed or police will find it very hard to prove the case.

When it comes to sexual activity, we have an affirmative consent model where there is a positive obligation on the person claiming consent to demonstrate, for example, that they said or did something to check that there was consent there. There are a whole range of matters which I do not have the time to go into in great detail, but we support the fact that where a defence of consent is raised in the context of sexual activity, it is the affirmative consent model that applies. Where consent is raised outside the context of sexual activity, then the normal statutory or common-law defences of consent are available. It is not necessarily clear, but we understand why the government has drafted the laws in the way it has.

Something which is I think very different in terms of how Victoria has approached this type of law compared to other states is in relation to the definition of ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’, because obviously that is a key element of both offences. It includes the following things:

(a) applying pressure to the front or sides of a person’s neck;

(b) obstructing any part of, or interfering with the operation of, a person’s respiratory system or accessory systems of respiration;

(c) impeding a person’s respiration …

So basically something as simple as applying fingers to the side or front of a person’s neck technically meets the definition of ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’ under this bill. What the government has done is effectively draw a very wide definition of what constitutes ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’. That is something which we have certainly asked questions about. If you ask the average person on the street what ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’ means, it probably will not be simply touching fingers on someone’s neck or the side of the neck. I do not think that that meets the pub test, if I could use that term, for what the average person in the street regards as ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’. The government says it has used a very broad definition because there have been concerns in other jurisdictions that proving the physical aspect of the offence has been difficult. It remains to be seen whether the government’s approach, which is to have a very broad definition, will be effective. We all want this change to be effective. We all want it to better protect victims and vulnerable people, particularly women. We all want it, because that is what Joy and Joy’s family deserve – a change that makes a difference and better protects women in family violence situations.

The way in which the government has approached this through its definitions, I do not know if it is going to work. We want it to, but it remains to be seen whether it will work. We do not want to see, for example, the broad definition being abused or weaponised in any way. Clearly we want to protect people who are vulnerable, but we do not want to see a broad definition being misused by anybody in any particular circumstance. It is very much for the government to explain how it will be confident that a broad definition is appropriate and will protect those who need protection, but equally it must not be misused by anybody, because that is the last thing we need. We cannot afford to undermine legal protections for victims of family violence – we just cannot – because we know that simply passing a law does not necessarily change behaviour, and sometimes the way in which we as legislators pass laws is not interpreted or applied in the way that we had in mind by the police, by prosecutors or indeed by the courts.

We do think we need to build in a review of this change. We want to see just how the change that we implement through this bill has effect legislatively, how police respond to it, how family violence support groups respond to it, how hospitals respond to it, how courts respond to it and how the broader Victorian community responds to it, which I think is fair. So we do think there is a strong case for review to be put into this bill, which my colleague Ms Crozier will speak about in her contribution.

The bill was drafted, no doubt, with the best of intentions, but I do think we need to have accountability to make sure that the changes we expect it to have happen, and if they do not, we need to understand why and fix it. We could argue over whether 12 months or two years or three years is the right period of time to let these laws operate before we have a review, but given the Parliament did agree across the chamber to have a review in two years in relation to bail changes, we believe that two years is an appropriate period of time. I would urge all colleagues in this chamber to support those amendments when they are circulated. These are amendments which the family of Joy Rowley have asked for, and they are amendments that I am very supportive of. The opposition puts them forward in a spirit of goodwill, and we hope they are taken up in the same spirit.

This is a very, very important bill. As I mentioned earlier, it is a bill that has been coming for too long. The family have been waiting for too long. We had a coroner’s report in 2018 and a commitment in 2019 and it has only just reached this house now, in late 2023. I pay tribute to Renee, to Aaron, to Nadine, to Les and also mention Les’s wife Annalisa and stepson Michael. This has been a very long journey for them. They have worked so hard and given so much of their time and of their emotion so that something good and something positive can come out of something so horrible as the death of Joy Rowley. But we do hope that this law will provide a fitting tribute to Joy and to the work of their family and that it may protect many, many women in this state going forward.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:26): I rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. The path that led to this legislation today obviously comes from many places but one of them is the tragedy that surrounded the death of Victorian woman Joy Rowley in October 2011 when she was strangled to death by her intimate partner. It was not the first time that he had strangled her. Eight months prior to the fatal assault he strangled her to the point of unconsciousness, an incident which she then went on to report to the police. The signs that he was a danger to her were clear early on, and her death could have been or may have been preventable under reforms such as these. Following Joy’s death and following the coronial inquest into her death many have been campaigning for the introduction of a non-fatal strangulation offence to ensure that this never happens to anyone ever again. The coronial inquest into Joy’s death observed that a standalone offence could assist to ensure the act is acknowledged for the risk that it poses to victim-survivors of these incidents. The Labor government has listened to these calls for change, and the legislation before us today will, we hope, help save lives and protect vulnerable Victorians.

The bill will introduce two new indictable offences: one of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member under the Crimes Act 1958, and this includes an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member as defined in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and has a maximum penalty of five years in prison; and secondly, an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation against a family member which intentionally causes injury, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The second of the two, the more serious of the offences relating to non-fatal strangulation, will ensure that this act is recognised as an act of family violence for the purposes of family violence intervention orders, the consideration of bail applications and the protections for witnesses giving evidence. It is an important acknowledgement to make in law that these acts are ones of family violence and of the connection that these acts of non-fatal strangulation have to behaviours that we recognise quite rightly as acts of family violence. It is important that the regime that has been established under law and in the Family Violence Protection Act and more broadly gives appropriate recognition to these acts as ones of family violence.

There will be a consent defence available under these reforms for the five-year offence to provide protection for people who engage in genuinely consensual non-fatal strangulation during sexual activity and when no intentional injury has occurred. In this context it will be an affirmative consent defence to guarantee the same rigorous victim-centred consent standards that apply in sexual offences also apply to sexual non-fatal strangulation.

We understand that by establishing non-fatal strangulation as a standalone offence we can provide a very clear indication to the Victorian community of the severity of this conduct in family violence contexts, because there is a growing body of research backing the dangers of this sort of behaviour, and it deserves and warrants action. We have had research in South Australia which found that women who survive non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely to be killed by their partner in the future. In 2019 this state Labor government recognised the role that non-fatal strangulation plays in family violence and therefore as something that needed to be dealt with as part of our ongoing commitment to ending family violence here in Victoria. We committed in the 2019 community safety statement to introducing a standalone offence of that contemplated in this legislation.

So the legislation before us today follows through on these commitments and takes meaningful action to address these issues. We hope that it will provide Victorians experiencing family violence – people in situations like Joy Rowley found herself in preceding her death and many, many others – with greater protection and greater security. They come as yet another and a further example of this government’s commitment to ending family violence, to protecting the victim-survivors of family violence in our state, to holding perpetrators accountable for their actions and to being part of the shift that is required across our community about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. The importance of these measures and the importance of legislation such as this is not just confined to those circumstances that it seeks to prevent in the primary instance – and of course they are important ‍– but is also about sending important community-wide messages about the sorts of behaviour that are acceptable and about those that are not.

As part of the prevention of family violence, this bill is also so powerful because it demonstrates again that in a range of settings we need to say that certain behaviours are not acceptable and that the practice of using non-fatal strangulation, principally in circumstances where intentional harm has been caused, is a serious matter of family violence that should be dealt with. Therefore in that context of Victoria’s significant leadership both nationally and globally with our family violence agenda, the amendments that this bill proposes to the Crimes Act have been warmly welcomed by a diverse range of key stakeholders and groups including Joy Rowley’s children and also Victoria Police, Safe and Equal, domestic violence services and Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre, among others. With a range of legal and medical studies emphasising the importance of preventing strangulation in the context of responding to family violence, we know that we cannot allow it to continue. The evidence is quite clear on this that the act is established as a predictive risk factor for future severe domestic violence and, sadly, homicide and is commonly alleged by women who have experienced family violence.

Victims of non-fatal strangulation can experience a diverse range of long-term health effects as a consequence of the act. They often report a range of clinical symptoms, including neurological and psychiatric symptoms such as loss of consciousness, paralysis, loss of sensation, vision changes, memory loss, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. It is a dangerous act in and of itself, but it is also a red flag for future risk. The bill includes critical reforms which have been developed to protect victim-survivors, including those who may not sustain visible injuries. We know that the signs of family violence are often not obvious on the outside, but they do exist and it does harm no matter whether we can see physical signs or not.

Importantly, as part of the response, the bill seeks to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. I have spoken previously in this place about the importance of everyone – but especially men, as in many circumstances it will be men undertaking these sorts of activities – being held accountable for their actions in intimate partner settings. They need to know that when they do things like intentionally strangle their partner it is not an acceptable act and it is in fact a crime which is punishable and they will be punished. I say this because we know from the evidence that this offence will disproportionately affect women and it is indicative of generally problematic behavioural patterns that often in isolation may not provide a full picture of the extent of the violence that is being perpetrated against an individual, but taken collectively all of these various acts, when we see them together, demonstrate a pattern of serious risk that needs to be prevented.

We know that family violence continues to be a scourge in our community. The number of family violence incidents recorded by Victoria Police increased by 6.7 per cent between 2018–19 and 2019–‍20. We cannot ignore and cannot let go unremarked the gendered nature of family and intimate partner violence. According to Safe and Equal, here in Australia approximately one in four women experience violence by an intimate partner, compared to only one in 13 men.

It is important that this bill is being considered and this debate is occurring at the beginning of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence in our community. The 16 days of activism is a global campaign led by UN women that seeks to highlight through continuous activism across the 16 days the continuing and ongoing problem that gendered violence is. I made a contribution about this in the last sitting week. We have seen too many women die at the hands of men who are known to them in Australia this year and in recent weeks. It is a problem that is not going away, and it is a problem that deserves our ongoing attention.

That is why with our family violence reforms and our family violence laws and the actions that we need to take to prevent family violence we can never rest and say that we have done enough until the violence has ended. It is why these laws are important and the next wave of laws that we will consider will be important – to better protect particularly women, who are disproportionately affected by family violence and who are disproportionately the victims and survivors of family violence. We cannot rest as governments and as legislators until we have done all that we can to ensure that this is stamped out, which is why the legislation before us seeking to get rid of non-fatal strangulation is important, because it is becoming a more common, it seems, form of violence and is reported significantly by between 25 and 30 per cent of family violence victim-survivors.

University of Melbourne law researcher Heather Douglas found that a person who has experienced strangulation from their abusive partner is six or seven times more likely than other victim-survivors of family violence to experience serious harm or even death in the weeks or months that follow. She further found that some 15 per cent of deaths attributed to family violence are caused by strangulation and that short-term injuries are also common, including bruising and nausea. It is estimated that in around 50 per cent of non-fatal strangulation cases victim-survivors show no visible injuries even when they have lost consciousness.

These reforms are an important step in recognising the specific risks and harms associated with this type of behaviour and creating awareness around the issue. It aligns with the gender equality strategy and action plan 2023. Not only is it part of our action plan, but in following through we are delivering and implementing these commitments to ensure that the law that we have in the state of Victoria reflects all that we can do to make sure that we are working for a future free of family and intimate partner violence, a future where everyone can be safe in their own home.

This bill will make important changes to the Crimes Act and the criminal law here in Victoria. It is very appropriate that the Parliament considers these issues during the 16 days of activism as a demonstration of our ongoing and active commitment to ending gender-based violence in our community.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (16:41): I rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. As anyone that has done law enforcement knows, these sorts of things are way too prevalent in our society, and I am glad to see that the government is dealing with this particularly in the context of family violence. But I think this is an opportunity where it could have been expanded somewhat, and I think the government has possibly missed the opportunity to make it so that it is not just among family members. The number of people that are assaulted in a sexual way but not actually raped by strangers is probably more than we would care to admit, the issue being that if they are not actually raped – and I found it very strange – a lot of people are very hesitant to report crimes like that, when ‘nothing actually happened’. My view obviously is that if something like that happens, if someone has done it once, they will do it again.

I have got amendments to this. I am not going to move them until we get to the committee stage, but basically I want to expand on what this bill attends to. At the moment it applies basically, really, to paraphrase it, to close family members. I think it should be to the whole community, because the issue is strangulation, not necessarily strangulation of just close family members. A random person that commits an offence exactly the same as this bill covers is not actually covered by it, and I think it is an opportunity missed by the government. My approach is a bit of a middle ground. The way that the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel have crafted the amendments is to try not to overdo it where there are situations. It has been a very difficult one, and I do apologise to the chamber. It took up until basically before I walked in here to get a copy of the amendments to present, but I am trying to find a middle ground while we can do it. We are trying to avoid inappropriate criminalisation. What I have proposed in these amendments is actually less than what is in some other jurisdictions. It will not criminalise consensual sexual acts where there is no intent to cause injury, because the consent obviously is a defence. Obviously if it is consensual – I am going back to my training, which was in 1996 – to a large degree consent is a defence.

I will keep my comments brief because, as I said, I only got these amendments not so long ago, and I am still trying to take them around. But what I would suggest is that this is an opportunity missed by the government, where at the moment it really only applies to close family members, and offences of this nature, quite horrifically, are not just confined to close family members. Random people doing these things, even if it happens once, is way too common. I think, as I said at the beginning of this, this is an opportunity – and I have not, to be fair to them, had the opportunity to go through this in detail – but I think the government could have had the opportunity to sort out a ground that covers everyone and not just kept it in the confines that they have. So during the committee phase I will be presenting the amendments in a bit of a more fulsome manner when I have had time to go through and talk to other people in the chamber, but at this stage I will wrap up my contribution there, and I will obviously ask for people to vote for my amendments.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:45): I rise to speak to this important bill, the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. Looking at the issues we have been speaking about today, as we know family violence is a scourge. It is affecting way too many women, way too many Victorians. I was just checking when you called me, Acting President, on the latest crime stats, and to see those figures just increasing and continuing to increase shows that family violence incidents are way too prevalent. Despite the efforts of governments at all levels, there are still too many issues, and one is the terrible statistics around women who are murdered at the hands of partners and of family members.

As I said, I want to speak to this important bill, but I want to make a few comments. Firstly, as others have indicated, this bill does a couple of things. It amends the Crimes Act 1958 to provide for two non-fatal strangulation offences and makes consequential amendments to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. Its real purpose is to make the issue of non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member a standalone offence, and up until this point Victoria, unbelievably, has been the only state that does not have a non-fatal strangulation law. It was something that I, when I was previously the Shadow Minister for Family Violence, took a policy to the 2018 election on. We took this policy, and disappointingly the government at the time and the minister at the time absolutely pooh-poohed this policy. Well, here we are now five years later and the government is bringing in exactly the same non-fatal strangulation bill that we are debating today. What I was proposing was that non-fatal strangulation, choking and suffocation in a domestic setting be made a criminal offence, and together with then leader Matthew Guy we spoke about the shocking statistics around this issue in Victoria. As I have just said, they are not getting any better. They are getting worse, incredibly. It was very disappointing that, as I said, the former minister did not support aspects of this and quite frankly at the time basically pooh-poohed the whole consideration.

As we know, it is complex. Family violence is complex. There is no single solution to family violence, and it does affect people in different ways. Something so horrific as non-fatal strangulation has a huge impact on those people that survive that abuse from family members or an intimate partner. I remember when we did this at the time hearing of these issues and hearing from survivors, and that is why we wanted to bring in this policy and that is why we did bring in this policy. It was an important policy to recognise exactly what was happening and to understand exactly how it impacted those victims of non-fatal strangulation. At the time, I made the point that Queensland had had this law in place since 2016, so I was saying to the then Andrews government, ‘Come on, get on and do this. You’ve had a royal commission; you’ve made a big song and dance about that. You said you’re getting on with it.’ Well, you had every opportunity, and I say again that you have had so many years to do this and now we are in 2023 talking about it yet again.

My colleague Michael O’Brien spoke about that in his excellent contribution. I would urge people to read his contribution, because he sets out exactly what this bill is achieving and the history behind the bill. He refers to Joy Rowley, as others have also referenced, and the terrible circumstances around Joy Rowley and the family, who have been really advocating on her behalf. That was a shocking situation where she was murdered at the hands of her partner. He boarded with her and then became her partner. An inquest was taken up after advocacy by the family and friends, and the coroner looked into this case and made some very powerful recommendations. I really do think that that has been an extraordinary effort by that family of Joy Rowley to be able to say that we are in the Parliament now talking about this very important legislation off the back of the tragic circumstances that occurred and what they had to do. But it goes to the point: what on earth has this government been doing around something that could have been implemented years ago? They have not done it. As I have said, this was a policy that we took to the 2018 election five years ago.

I want to just make note of a couple of things that Mr O’Brien said. I do not know that we have got the coalition amendments yet. They are coming; I will keep talking. We have got them? Excellent. I will get to our amendments. When Mr O’Brien made the point in his contribution, he spoke about a couple of issues with this bill and he spoke about the definition of ‘family member’. ‘Family member’ is given the same definition as in section 8 of the Family Violence Protection Act. The broader definition includes current or former spouses, domestic partners, intimate personal relationships which do not have to be sexual in nature, children and parents – including stepchildren, stepparents and other relatives in some circumstances – and any other person reasonably regarded as being like a family member. This definition includes housemates that share household expenses. Whether two people meet this definition will be determined on the individual facts and circumstances. In Mr O’Brien’s contribution he made that point about the instance of being in a nightclub. I just want to read this in because I think it is important, so I am going to quote from Mr O’Brien’s contribution:

The example that was put forward in the bill briefing – and I am grateful to the Attorney’s office; they have always been very helpful in arranging bill briefings on these sorts of matters –

that is excellent, thank you –

was if a man in a nightclub grabs his girlfriend around the neck aggressively and says ‘Right, we’re going home’, that would be an offence under this bill because, being intimate partners, they are family members. If a man at a nightclub had his advances rebuffed by a woman and he then grabbed her by the neck aggressively, that would not be an offence under this bill. It would be an offence under some other bill – it could be common assault, but that has got a much lower penalty than do these non-fatal strangulation standalone offences.

His point is: shouldn’t the same bad act be punished equivalently under the law? I do think that is a terribly important point. Having had a conversation with Mr Bourman – I have not had time to look at his amendments in full – he was basically saying the same thing with his amendments. How is it determined? These bad acts – shouldn’t they be seen under the law in the same way? I do think that is a terribly important component of what Mr O’Brien was raising in his speech. Why has the government failed to address that? Their point probably is that this is around family violence. But if you look at their definition, which goes to housemates when they are sharing expenses and doing other things, then it does broaden it out and it does become quite odd that the instance I described would not be deemed to be the same thing under the law.

I would just like to go to another point that Mr O’Brien made in terms of the definitions again. Where we are talking about ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’ it includes applying pressure to the front or sides of a person’s neck; obstructing any part of, or interfering with the operation of, a person’s respiratory system or accessory systems of respiration; or impeding a person’s respiration. They are the definitions around ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’. But that is the point I made before: if somebody is approaching you and you do that, why isn’t it applied in the same manner? I will be interested to understand what the government might have to say about that if the minister could take that on notice and possibly provide some clarification; otherwise, we can always go into committee. But getting back to this bill in my final few minutes that I have, Mr O’Brien in the Assembly circulated his amendments, and I would like to also ask that the amendments be circulated in this chamber, please.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Georgie CROZIER: What we are really asking with these amendments is that they provide for a review of the changes implemented in the bill after two years, so after two years of operation a review is undertaken by the Attorney-General and once that review is concluded, within a six-month period of time after that two-year anniversary, it is then tabled in the house. That is a sensible amendment. It really does go to the points that we want to get this right and we think it is important that this bill is in place. As I said, we had a policy back in 2018 on non-fatal strangulation. It was what we took to the 2018 election, and we want to see that we get this right by this review process given that there are situations and areas of concern that have been raised on how the bill will actually operate in effect. It is not a big ask. It is a sensible ask, and I would urge that all members support the amendment.

In conclusion, can I say again I think everybody is of the view that this sort of violence is unacceptable in any form, that family violence statistics are way too high in Victoria and that we need to be sending a strong message to those perpetrators who undertake such acts to say that we are not tolerating this, we have got zero tolerance for it and they will be punished for these acts. That is partly what this legislation will do. I urge the government to consider our amendments and support them in a sensible way. Let us all hope that we can stamp out the very real threats for too many women and keep them safe in whatever way we possibly can.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:58): I am proud to add my voice in support of this important piece of legislation, the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. Fittingly, we are debating this bill during the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. It is absolutely marvellous to see so many people wearing a touch of orange, whether it is ranging from a peachy colour through to perhaps my own bright orange and everything in between. There are orange scarves, there are orange badges, there are orange dresses and also Mr Tarlamis, who takes it to another whole level, and that is very impressive. This global campaign of 16 days of activism began in 1991 and remains as necessary today as it was 30 years ago, because despite an increase in awareness and action, gender-based violence continues to cost women’s lives. This year 53 women have died because of violence in Australia – 53 women who were not safe in their homes, on our streets, even in their own workplaces. It is also worth noting that this is the figure to date, with family violence peaking over the Christmas and New Year period.

Then there is an even bigger set of numbers that demonstrate just how disturbingly common gender-based violence is. In 2021–22, 5606 women required hospitalisation as a result of domestic or family violence. That is an average of 15 women every day. One in four women over the age of 15 has experienced intimate partner violence, and across Australia intimate partner violence contributes to more death, disability and illness in women 44 years and under than any other single preventable risk factor. Just to rephrase that, if you are 44 years of age or younger, you are more likely to be impacted, disabled, have illness caused or die as a result of intimate partner violence than you are of any other illness.

In isolation these figures are damning, and together they add up to a much bigger and more terrible truth. I must say that most of the survivors of sexual assault who came to the South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault when I was there reported their first experience of sexual assault under the age of 16 – it was about 72 per cent or thereabouts, if my memory is correct – and under the age of 18, up to 18, it went up to more than 90 per cent. So just even looking at the sexual assault figures, that story says that sexual assault happens within families in a family context; it is about young women. Most of the work I did was with teenage girls and adult women. The devastation and impact on their lives were indescribable really.

Still, even in 2023, women and girls are not assured the safety and respect that they deserve. It should be said that overwhelmingly this is an issue that impacts women and girls. As the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence said in the other chamber, we know that family violence happens in LGBTIQ+ families, we know it happens in intergenerational families and, increasingly, to senior Australians, but mostly it is a crime perpetrated by men against women. In many instances it is a form of coercive control – in fact the control element is the defining characteristic – an implicit threat of escalation. That is what these children and mostly women – not all women but mostly women – live with hour by hour, minute by minute: the threat of escalation. What might start as so-called lower level acts of aggression begin to build, becoming increasingly more violent and intimidating. As the Royal Commission into Family Violence put it, violence becomes a pattern rather than an event.

One of the commission’s victim statements described this sinister escalation in detail:

It was a whirlwind romance –

she said –

… he won me over with his charm and intelligence, putting me on a pedestal. We … moved [in] together within a few weeks of dating. The abuse wasn’t immediate but started to show around six months into the relationship. It was an insidious creep of abuse. So slow that I just thought it was a normal part of a relationship.

The commission also detailed some of the well-known warning signs – risk factors that are likely to indicate a significant or increased danger to a woman’s life. Some of the clues: strict sex role stereotyping of tasks and roles within a relationship is evidenced to be one of these signs; complete exclusion from any financial management; we debated this issue not that long ago – cruelty to animals, so vets are sometimes picking up signs of family violence; and of course, the topic of this piece of legislation, high on the list is non-fatal strangulation. As a form of abuse strangulation is rarely an isolated incident. Instead it often represents a ticking time bomb. It is why this legislation is before us. This bill reflects research that shows that women who are strangled by their partners are much more likely to be murdered by their partners. In fact they are seven times more likely to be murdered or seriously injured. It is why under these reforms two new standalone offences will be created: the first, a serious offence of non-fatal strangulation where a perpetrator intentionally causes injury, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years; and the second, an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation, which will not require proof of injury and carries a maximum of five years.

I want to take a moment to talk about the aspect of the second offence not requiring evidence of injury and why it matters. To me, Ellen’s story tells it well. A survivor of strangulation, Ellen bravely shared her experience with the Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, and I repeat her words here today:

He was very aware of what he was doing. It wasn’t like some fit of rage … He knew that he had created the fear. He knew exactly where to push … against my neck, which would create that choking sensation. He knew exactly how long to choke for. It was very premeditated, and it all happens in an instant, nobody knows when – there’s … no evidence of it.

Because that is the reality of this form of violence: mostly it happens behind closed doors. In an estimated 50 per cent of cases it does not leave visible injury, but that does not mean it does not leave a mark. We know that non-fatal strangulation can cause a number of hidden and ongoing issues, including brain damage, blood clots and an increased risk of stroke. Then there are the mental injuries: post-traumatic stress, anxiety, panic disorders, memory loss, much of it debilitating and enduring. The introduction of these two standalone offences will ensure that those who inflict these kinds of injuries are held to account. It will also help those working in our justice system, providing a clear indication to police and community service practitioners of escalating violence and giving them the opportunity to respond. That is what is important.

I have seen firsthand the very real need to support victim-survivors in my previous role as a counsellor advocate, as most in this chamber know. I also saw firsthand the very real and meaningful impact of our government’s reforms, at long last giving family violence the focus and funding it deserves. That includes delivering our nation’s first Royal Commission into Family Violence and all of its 227 recommendations. Six years on from the commission the government has invested more than $3.7 billion to prevent and respond to family violence – more than every other state and territory combined – providing 18 Orange Doors and also delivering the nation’s first dedicated prevention agency, Respect Victoria. In 2000 Victorian schools the Allan government has delivered the Respectful Relationships program. This month I had the great pleasure and honour to host the regional launch of the Victorian gender equality strategy alongside our state’s Minister for Women Natalie Hutchins. What we are doing is so much more than a tick-box exercise.

This strategy is about achieving a real change, addressing the systemic and societal root causes of violence against women because violence against women is experienced in big ways and small. It can express itself as a joke in a pub, a backhanded comment, a blokey culture at work and, at the extreme end, violence, assault and aggravated assault. All of these behaviours, whether we do it ourselves or we fail to speak up against it, form part of a system of oppression and exclusion and abuse of women in our society. This in turn builds as these messages and experiences rob women of their confidence and capability. It is a vicious circle, the cycle of violence that we need to put an end to. Getting there will require a range of long-term and sustained reforms, policy by policy, law by law, community by community. The bill before us represents yet another step forward; importantly, a step forward that will change lives and save lives.

Earlier I shared stories of several other survivors about their experience of family violence and in particular strangulation. I will finish with a short quote from another survivor, Jessica, and I hope it reaches someone who needs it:

The police linked me into a domestic violence outreach program straightaway. That was the first time I realised that I was in a violent relationship.

She goes on to say:

The worker had a questionnaire about our relationship, with ‘Healthy’ and ‘Unhealthy’ in different columns. All of my answers were factors that appeared in the ‘Unhealthy’ column. After completing the questionnaire, the worker said I was in a domestic violence relationship. She said that in seven years of working she had never seen a relationship become so violent so quickly.

In conclusion, I think it is very important to codify and describe and articulate the offences and the behaviours that impact on women’s safety, and this is just one of the actions we can take as a community and as legislators to make women and girls in Victoria safer.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (17:13): It is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. The issues highlighted in this bill are very raw and painful for the Bendigo community right now. Members may be aware of the recent horrific family violence incident in Bendigo, which has sparked an outpouring of grief and anger from the local community.

On 29 October Analyn ‘Logee’ Osias was allegedly fatally assaulted in her own home while her two young daughters were present. She later died in hospital. Her former partner has been charged with murder and is yet to face court. He was on bail at the time. The two children lost their father in a road accident three years ago, and a GoFundMe page has been set up for them. On 2 November a public vigil was held in Bendigo for Logee, who had been a respected member of the Filipino community in central Victoria. In the 10 days leading up to that date, five women, including Logee, had been killed as a result of family violence. Figures show that every week in Australia around one woman is killed in a family or gendered violence incident. That is every week. This is totally unacceptable, and it does not take into account the number of other women injured and traumatised by violence or emotional, verbal or economic abuse in these shocking incidents.

Researchers from the group Counting Dead Women Australia report that to date 54 women have been killed in Australia this year, the majority allegedly by the violence of men known to them. This issue of family violence is a highly complex one, and I commend the incredible work of the frontline workers already operating in this space. These include police, emergency services workers, court-appointed officials, magistrates, judges and support service providers. But as a community we absolutely must increase our efforts to address it. We simply cannot afford not to do so.

That brings me to the bill before us today. I sincerely hope this bill will go some way to improving the outcomes for victims and survivors of family violence. The bill amends the Crimes Act 1958 to provide for two non-fatal strangulation offences and also makes a consequential amendment to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. The two non-fatal strangulation offences are as follows. First, an offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation which does not require proof of injury will carry a maximum five-year prison term. A second, more serious, offence of non-fatal strangulation where a perpetrator intentionally causes injury will be created with a maximum penalty of 10 years. Put simply, the purpose of the bill is to make non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member a standalone offence.

This change is already well overdue. After the coronial inquest into the death of Joy Rowley, the 2018 report states:

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 has previously indicated its support for a standalone offence of strangulation in a family violence context. On 1 July 2019 the Labor government confirmed it would introduce legislation to implement this recommendation. Here we are four years later.

The state government have also been very slow in collecting basic data in relation to family violence in Victoria. At the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings earlier this year the minister confirmed that data would not be available for at least 12 months, and six years after the Royal Commission into Family Violence we still do not know the numbers of family violence victims forced to stay in hotels and for how long. We are also yet to understand the true number of women and children unable to flee violence due to the lack of emergency accommodation or the number of perpetrators who have completed prevention of family violence programs that have reoffended or gone to jail.

Further, there appears to be no evaluation or measure of the effectiveness of prevention of family violence projects and programs being undertaken. The state government appears to have lost a decade of data, which presents a huge setback in resolving family violence and knowing where to direct resources. In Victoria under this government public housing tenants fleeing domestic violence are now waiting nearly two years to be relocated to alternative secure accommodation. They are waiting in motels, caravans and tents or couch surfing. I know that Cindy McLeish, the member for Eildon in northern Victoria and the Shadow Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, has raised concerns that there appears to be no evaluation or measure of the effectiveness of prevention of family violence projects and programs being undertaken.

I visited the Centre for Non-Violence (CNV), which has its headquarters in Bendigo. They are overwhelmed by the demand for assistance. They provide services across central and northern Victoria for those experiencing a gendered or family violence crisis. The CEO of the Centre for Non-Violence, Margaret Augerinos said strangulation is a prevalent and gendered form of violence. In the feedback I received from the Centre for Non-Violence about these laws they said that there is unequivocal evidence through the data that non-fatal strangulation is one of the red flags for those most at risk of future abuse, harm and in some cases homicide.

A study undertaken by the University of Melbourne and the University of Queensland found that up to three-quarters of women escaping domestic and family violence and residing in shelters reported experiences of non-fatal strangulation from their previous partner. Police, prosecutors, lawyers, service providers and victims often overlook or misidentify strangulation, and this is a concern because the act is both extremely dangerous and a risk factor for future serious harm and death. CNV reports that if a victim-survivor experiences strangulation from an abusive partner, they are at least six to seven times more likely than other victim-survivors of family violence to experience death or serious harm in the weeks that follow. As it stands, strangulation is charged simply as an assault in Victoria, which does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. To date Victoria is the only state to not have strangulation as a standalone offence. In other parts of the country the introduction of the offence has significantly improved frontline workers’ knowledge of the risks and harms of NFS.

I note that there are many facets to family violence. It is a highly complex and disturbing issue, but we must do what we can. We need to call out disrespectful and aggressive behaviour and sexism, we need to keep an eye out for controlling and coercive behaviour and we need to support victims of family violence. Men and women need to step up and challenge unacceptable behaviours. Last Friday people gathered at the Bendigo town hall to mark the launch of the global campaign 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. This program of events will run until 10 December, and today I joined with other MPs in Queen’s Hall to stand against gender-based violence. Pairs of orange shoes were placed for each woman lost to family violence so far this year.

There are no easy answers to these complex and distressing issues, but we must do what we can to move towards better outcomes for the women and children still trapped in a web of family violence today. We owe it to all of them, and we owe it to Logee and her daughters. In closing, we are seeking to amend the bill to require a statutory review of its implementation after two years of operation and for this review to occur within six months and to be tabled in both houses of Parliament.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:22): I also rise today to speak on this bill, the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023, and in doing so acknowledge that just in the last hour or so this chamber did pass a very significant bill, which I also had the opportunity to speak on earlier today, and I am very, very glad to see that that bill went through with the unanimous support of this chamber, as it should. I know this will be of great comfort to a lot of people – people that are here today and people in the wider community as well. So I would like to just take a minute to acknowledge that.

The bill before us today here is also very important. Saturday, as other speakers have mentioned, was International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the beginning of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. Ending the scourge of violence against women and gender-based violence in all its forms is rightfully a persistent and ongoing goal for our society and an ongoing goal for this government. During the debate in the other place not two weeks ago, members referred to the number of women who have died violently in Australia this year – 47. Forty-seven women murdered at the hands of others – 47 women this year, but today, not two weeks later, according to Counting Dead Women, that number is now 53. Fifty-three women have died violently in Australia this year, after the alleged murder of four women in South Australia last week. Each and every single death is a tragedy, and 53 lives lost is genuinely heartbreaking and beyond unacceptable. More needs to be done.

Many colleagues, me included, were dressed in orange earlier today in recognition of the 16 days of action, and as I believe Dr Heath referred to in a previous contribution today, we saw the orange shoes in Queen’s Hall, and what a moving site that was, each pair representing one of these victims. Each one of those shoes is one too many.

This bill will establish non-fatal strangulation as a standalone offence, and it provides a clear indication to the Victorian community of the severity of this conduct when it occurs in family violence contexts. These reforms have been developed to protect victim-survivors better, including those who may not sustain any visible injuries, and to hold perpetrators to account who use strangulation to exert power and control over their family members. As the minister has pointed out, in almost all cases instances of non-fatal strangulation are not isolated events and are generally symptomatic of an escalating pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. In situations of family violence when strangulation is involved, this act is part of a pattern of escalating abuse that often leads to dire consequences. Creating these new and specific offences means taking a firm stance against these dangerous and unacceptable acts. The government has listened to families affected by these acts and is taking swift action to institute these reforms to address non-fatal strangulation better.

The evidence is clear – non-fatal strangulation is a dangerous and potentially life-threatening form of offending. Women who survive these ordeals are seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner. I also, along with others in this chamber, want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tireless advocacy of the family of the late Joy Maree Rowley. Joy was tragically murdered by strangulation and suffocation in 2011. Her killer had non-fatally strangled her on at least one occasion before her death. Joy’s children Aaron, Nadine and Renee and their father Les have campaigned tirelessly for the creation of an offence that would better respond to and reflect the risks of non-fatal strangulation.

This particular crime, non-fatal strangulation, is currently captured by existing criminal offences, including under common assault, assault with an intent to commit a sexual offence and intentionally or recklessly causing injury. However, these offences are broad and are not specific to the offence level and particular risks associated with this particular act. These standalone offences need to be created in Victoria. It will enable greater monitoring of the impact and of the risks of these acts and offenders. It will also remove barriers to identifying, reporting and prosecuting these violent and dangerous acts in a manner that accounts for the severe nature of this form of family violence.

Non-fatal strangulation has significant health risks even when injury is not intended but especially when injury results and is intentionally caused. Risks include blood clots, which may directly result in a stroke and possibly lasting brain damage. There is a real possibility of these acts resulting in a long-term physical disability, which is not to even go into the mental distress which is caused by these despicable acts. We know that these risks are real. People in our communities today are living with the kinds of lasting mental and physical injury and disability that are the result of being strangled by their partner or family member. Tragically there are too many people no longer with us who have lost their lives. These reforms are essential to addressing the unique risks of non-fatal strangulation and to helping tackle the pervasive scourge of family violence.

Family violence remains the number one law and order issue in the state. In this debate it is really important for us to consider and also reflect on the horrifying data when it comes to family violence. On average, one woman a week in Australia is killed by her current or former intimate partner. Approximately 60 per cent of adult female victims of homicide in Australia were killed at the hands of their current or former intimate partner, according to the National Homicide Monitoring Program. ABS data indicates that one in five Australian adults have experienced violence, emotional abuse or economic abuse by a partner. That same survey found that more than a quarter of women, compared to 15 per cent of men, are experiencing partner violence or abuse or have done from the age of 15 onwards. It also found that almost a quarter of women, 2.3 million, experienced emotional abuse compared to 14 per cent of men. In Victoria 39 per cent of women have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 15, and around 26 per cent of women in Victoria have experienced partner violence, including emotional, physical, sexual and economic abuse. These are confronting and concerning statistics, and they represent the pressing challenge that faces us today.

This is a government that has been steadfast in working towards the eradication of family violence in our state. We have, as many in this chamber will know, invested about $2.7 billion to address family violence over the past nine years. Beyond financial support, the government has also recently introduced the 2023–27 gender equality strategy. The plan describes domestic, family and sexual violence as a problem of epidemic proportions and outlines the need for a more concerted effort and increased investment across the four critical areas of prevention, early intervention, response and recovery.

The two new offences introduced in this bill will amend the Crimes Act 1958 to address the two critical degrees of offending. These two offences will implement maximum penalties for non-fatal strangulation that reflect the relatively severe and dangerous forms of family violence that they are. The first provides for an offence of non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member, with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The second provides for an offence of non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member which intentionally causes injury, and this has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

In prohibiting non-fatal strangulation explicitly, the offences in this bill will prohibit choking, strangling and suffocating. This includes applying pressure to the front or sides of the neck, obstructing or interfering with a person’s respiratory system or impeding respiration. For both the five- and 10-year offences there is a requirement for intent to engage in the broadly defined conduct of choking, strangling or suffocating, which includes applying pressure to the neck. This requirement is important in preventing the application of this offence to acts that are genuine accidents and provides defences for instances where the act was not intended to result in suffocation, such as a scenario where two family members are arguing and one family member places a hand over the other family member’s mouth to stop them speaking. The reforms in this bill are designed to ensure that the two new offences target the most egregious forms of this offending and are consistent with the existing offences that carry comparable penalties. The requirement for the injury to be intentionally caused is also consistent with the approach taken by most jurisdictions with similar standalone non-fatal strangulation offences. As other speakers have gone into, there are a wide range of examples from those other jurisdictions as well.

In closing, this is an issue which a significant amount of resources has already gone into across the space of domestic and family violence, and this bill today is one more very big, important step forward for us. Across our communities, across Victoria, each and every one of us has a role to play when it comes to calling out behaviours and attitudes that lead to disrespect and violence towards women. Family violence in all its forms must be addressed actively and persistently. There are many, many organisations in my community which do wonderful work when it comes to this space, including Wellsprings for Women based in the Dandenong area as well as the Women’s Spirit Project based in Frankston. The member for Narre Warren South and I recently had the chance to join with them at one of their circles, with a group of quite frankly incredible women who have overcome some horrific obstacles and are being supported by the program offered by the Women’s Spirit Project. To be part of that and to hear from them and to hear of the importance of strong support networks such as the Women’s Spirit Project was quite frankly nothing short of immensely powerful and left quite an impression on both the member for Narre Warren South and me. There are many, many such organisations that do amazing work in this space, and I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge them as well.

Last year of course as well all states and territories signed on to a national plan to end violence against women and children within one generation, which includes the target of reducing the number of women killed by 25 per cent each year. This government is committed to further and more reforms in this space, and the bill before us today is one very strong example of that. The two offences introduced in this bill are critical to better addressing family violence in this state and ensuring that victims of these offences are protected from the escalating control, violence and harm that often results in instances of non-fatal strangulation when they are left unanswered. I commend this bill to the house.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:35): I rise to speak in relation to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to provide for two non-fatal strangulation offences: (1) non-fatal strangulation and (2) non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury. The purpose of this bill is to make non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member a standalone offence. I was amazed when I learned that Victoria is currently the only state in Australia that does not have specific strangulation laws. The need for stronger laws for non-fatal strangulation cannot be stressed enough. It is rarely an isolated event. Fifteen per cent of deaths attributed to family violence are caused by strangulation, and the data shows that somebody 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. We need early intervention, and we need to make sure that there are structures in the law to allow for that, disappointingly, because Victoria is the only state without a specific offence for non-fatal strangulation and there were calls for these laws to be increased after the murder of Joy Rowley in 2011.

Joy was a mother of three who was murdered by a former intimate partner. Her murder came despite the fact that she called the police multiple times in the previous eight months to report strangulation attacks by her partner and other breaches of family protection orders. This is a devastation, and our insufficient laws really have let her and her family down. Eight months before her death Joy was choked unconscious by her intimate partner. The inquest into her death recommended a standalone offence for non-fatal strangulation, and the Rowley family have tirelessly campaigned for the introduction of this sort of bill. The recommendation came in July 2018, yet we are in 2023 and the government has just decided now to bring this to pass. The Liberals and the Nationals had committed to passing legislation back in 2018, and the former Minister for Police Lisa Neville assured Victorians in July 2019 that the government would pass these laws.

The bill amends the Crimes Act by providing two new offences relating to non-fatal strangulation and inserts the term ‘chokes, strangles or suffocates’, defined as:

applying pressure to the front or side of a person’s neck;

obstructing any part of, or interfering with the operation of, a person’s respiratory system or accessory systems of respiration –

or –

impeding a person’s respiration …

New section 34AD introduces an offence of non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury and new section 34AE introduces the offence of non-fatal strangulation.

The research is quite frightening, and it is quite clear when it comes to family violence. Abusers often use physical intimidation tactics to intimidate, control and break down their victim’s confidence. Of course we also know that somebody who survives non-fatal strangulation is seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered. But I just want to bring up that there are two levels of abuse happening here. The first is quite obvious, and it is a physical level of abuse. We talk about that. It is what happens physically to the person, and it can be measured in that way. The second one is the psychological level, and I think that it can be equally as damaging. Both need to be taken extremely seriously, and we need to have pathways for these victims to leave, to get out of these situations, and also pathways to rehabilitate the perpetrator.

I strongly support this bill. Violence and abuse come in many shapes and forms, and we cannot minimise strangulation because it is non-fatal, because the fear and intimidation that these acts induce is damaging and long lasting. I commend this bill to the house.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:40): Today I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. The objective of this bill is to introduce the criminalisation of non-fatal strangulation under two new standalone offences. The bill is an effort to address and mitigate the scourge of domestic violence. Currently someone who strangles their current or former partner but does not kill them can be charged with recklessly or intentionally causing injury or serious injury. However, these offences require the prosecution to prove the person was injured. This creates a barrier against victims coming forward. It is a needless barrier for someone who has already experienced a stressful and traumatic situation, which is why this bill is so important and straightforward.

The bill recognises the need to support victim-survivors in finding their feet. It seeks to give victim-survivors of domestic violence the structures and avenues to address issues early and effectively. This, in addition to our criminal justice system, gives victim-survivors a chance to prevent more severe acts of abuse from happening.

This government believes that nobody should wait until they are visibly injured to receive help. These reforms will amend the Crimes Act 1958, making the offence of non-fatal strangulation in which a perpetrator intentionally causes injury punishable with a maximum penalty of 10 years jail. A lesser offence of intentional non-fatal strangulation, which will not require proof of injury, will carry a maximum penalty of five years jail. The bill will also make consequential amendments to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 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 protection for witnesses giving evidence.

These offences will enhance the protection of victim-survivors. The bill will more effectively hold offenders accountable and provide a clearer indication to police and community service practitioners of escalating family violence, and it will further raise awareness of the dangers of potential lethal and non-fatal strangulation so that more effective medical, legal and law enforcement responses may be sought. The addition of these new offences builds on our work to protect victim-survivors, hold perpetrators to account and help to change community attitudes towards family violence.

The Victorian government first committed to introducing a standalone non-fatal strangulation offence in the 2019–20 community safety statement. This commitment has been reiterated several times since, including in Parliament and more recently in the 2023–27 gender equality strategy and action plan. Strangulation is a common feature of non-fatal violence against women and is a type of gender violence frequently used as a form of control in the context of domestic violence and sexual assaults. It is gross, it is not on and we must combat it.

While it can easily be fatal, non-fatal strangulation is a key marker for the escalation of violence in a domestic relationship and a strong indicator of future risk of serious harm and death of the victim. Australia’s national homicide monitoring program, which commenced in 1989, has identified that approximately 10 per cent of domestic homicide deaths have resulted from strangulation or suffocation since the program commenced. Between 2017 and 2018 alone, strangulation or suffocation by an intimate partner accounted for the deaths of 12 per cent of women. These numbers are startling, to say the least. An act that accounts for one in 10 domestic homicides must be addressed and fought in Victoria with everything we have, yet we must consider the effects of strangulation in circumstances that do not lead to death. Strangulation, even when it does not cause death, can lead to outcomes that range from somewhat bad to catastrophic. This type of gendered violence can have a serious impact on individuals, families and communities and can inflict physical injury, psychological trauma and emotional suffering. Survivors of strangulation suffer not only immediate impacts but potentially delayed and/or long-term consequences such as stroke or blood clot. Victims can be left with permanent disabilities because of the strangulation, and non-fatal strangulation can cause significant emotional and psychological trauma.

Additionally, it should be noted that this bill introduces intentionally broad definitions of strangulation. Word for word the bill reads:

… chokes, strangles or suffocates includes doing any of the following things –

(a) applying pressure to the front or sides of a person’s neck;

(b) obstructing any part of, or interfering with the operation of, a person’s respiratory system or accessory systems of respiration;

(c) impeding a person’s respiration …

This feature of the bill was deliberately added due to the performance of similar offences in other jurisdictions in addressing cases of strangulation, especially those that are related to acts of family violence. Many other states have similar offences in place in their criminal laws; however, it is common for these offences to have very narrow definitions of choking, strangling and suffocating. This has resulted in failed prosecutions of perpetrators who by the definitions in this bill would have been found guilty. This is an unacceptable flaw and will not occur in Victoria.

Trials against a victim’s abusers are already traumatic for a victim-survivor, and the prospect that many of these cases can be thrown out on a technicality leads to retraumatising of survivors. This government believes in tackling domestic violence. We are getting serious by ensuring that Victoria’s judiciary system does not impose inappropriately high evidentiary requirements for prosecution. We have seen from advocacy and research that someone who survives non-fatal strangulation by a current or former partner is seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner. These reforms have been developed to better protect victim-survivors, including those who may not sustain any visible injuries, and to hold perpetrators to account who use strangulation to exert power and control over their families.

The family of Joy Rowley, who was tragically murdered by strangulation in 2011, have bravely and fiercely advocated for a standalone non-fatal strangulation offence following her death. This bill is aimed at combating these very tragedies. Traumatic events such as these illustrate the opportunity to help improve safety or shape societal norms through legislation. I proudly stand alongside the Allan Labor government, who have recognised the need for new offences that acknowledge this and are working towards ensuring that tragedies such as this cease to exist in our community. The pain and suffering that the family of Joy Rowley have been subjected to in this world is in no way justifiable. Joy should still be with us today. I commend Joy Rowley’s family for their tireless advocacy and bravery in ensuring that no other family experiences the hurt that they have and will always endure. The Allan Labor government notes their selfless efforts to prevent tragedies like this from occurring again, and please know that we are listening and acting.

The bill will ensure that Victorians experiencing family violence will have more protection. I echo the sentiments stated by Attorney-General Symes that non-fatal strangulation is rarely an isolated event; rather, it often reveals an ongoing and escalating pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. Establishing non-fatal strangulation as a standalone offence therefore provides a clear indication to the Victorian community of the severity of this conduct. This will help ensure that these serious crimes are treated proportionally to the risks that they pose to victims.

I would also like to reiterate that it introduces another framework for victims to seek help for their situations. It is imperative, though, to ensure that individuals seeking help to escape their situation have every resource at their disposal. This also means giving our police the means to enforce powers that address the need for action in a domestic violence situation, which is what this bill enacts. It is wrong to allow for the possibility that police could be called out to a domestic abuse situation in which they cannot do anything to meaningfully support an individual at risk of harm. Already fearing for your safety and then hearing a police officer tell you that they cannot do anything is absolutely devastating. Our police exist to protect us, to protect the community. It does not stand to reason that we would not equip our police force to address domestic violence to the best of their ability. Last year nearly a quarter of cases involving violent offences and other offences were associated with domestic abuse, including offences like homicide, assault, sexual assault, abduction, robbery, blackmail, extortion, harassment, stalking and offences related to breach of police and court orders. In 2021 more assaults were related to domestic abuse situations than cases that were not.

These statistics are truly staggering. They become concerning, however, when we look at the ratio of cases that eventuate to police exercising their holding powers. This can mean direction or detention. In 2021–22 there were 90,553 L17 forms submitted. The L17 forms are the paperwork police officers are required to submit after responding to a domestic violence call-out. Of these 90,553 cases, just under 6300 included reports of police exercising their discretion and detention powers. It is important to note that not every domestic abuse situation is best handled through detention. These are often complex issues that can be escalated to tragic ends if mishandled. However, the very low rate of police action indicates that there is a factor preventing police from acting and preventing police from helping victims that need their help the most, which is exactly why the Allan Labor government is taking action to give police the tools to help victims. This is an important step in addressing the scourge of domestic violence in the community.

This bill’s impact on government services does not just apply to the Victorian police force. By making non-fatal strangulation an offence, a message is sent to the community services, courts and health providers of the seriousness and the weight of early signs of domestic violence. By debating and talking about this very issue in this place today and, hopefully, receiving a unanimous vote in favour, we are sending a very clear message to the community. Reforms made in this bill will promote awareness of the early signs of domestic abuse and violence, which is an essential part of the victim support process. When concerns are addressed early the victims are less at risk of being more severely harmed and in the worst possible instance losing their lives.

This government has always been committed to tackling domestic violence and getting victims the help they need. It was back in 2015 when the then Andrews Labor government announced the establishment of Australia’s first royal commission into domestic violence. This set in motion a list of reforms implemented to support and uplift survivors, protect and help victims and prevent new cases of domestic violence from developing. This government has always recognised the gravity and danger that domestic violence poses to not just Victorians but families everywhere. This is reflected in our broad range of programs that target the unique aggravators in communities with high rates of family violence. From regional to Koori to migrant communities this government has introduced many programs that, in a culturally sensitive manner where appropriate, address the reasons for domestic violence in that community and provide solutions and support to victims and survivors.

The then Andrews Labor government was a loud supporter of the ACTU submission to the Fair Work Commission to include domestic violence leave as a right for all awards. This was introduced earlier this year and will ensure that families struggling with violence in the home will not have to choose between work and keeping their family, children and loved ones safe. Awareness of domestic violence is one of the most important aspects of the solution. Too many suffer in silence, afraid to seek help. This is not acceptable, which is why year after year the Allan Labor government has been committed to promoting information about domestic violence and what it will do if you find yourself being abused. Then of course there is reform updating our criminal justice system to recognise the severity of domestic violence.

I would like to commend several individuals and groups that participated in drafting this bill. I would also like to commend the family of Joy Rowley, who I referenced earlier. Let us all in this chamber hope that this bill may honour their campaign to create a safer Victoria and that there can be some sense of rest knowing that their hard work has led to the construction of a bill that will prevent another Victorian from falling victim to the same crime and abuse that Joy Rowley experienced. I would like to commend the many organisations and agencies that provide support to survivors of domestic abuse. Your services are vital to our state’s emergency response networks, whether the organisation or agency is public or not. This includes shelters and charity organisations that provide support to victims who have recently escaped from their abusive situation and beyond.

To wrap up today I want to say this: let us all work together to ensure that Victoria is a safe place to live. Just last sitting period this place pledged to stamp out family violence, and I along with many other colleagues in this place visited Queen’s Hall to sign the pledge against family violence. We should be committed to stamping out all violence. On Monday in the federal Parliament in Canberra the leader of the Australian Labor Party made a powerful statement in the House of Representatives during question time, and he said:

They take time.

It’s not just a matter of government. It’s a matter of every bloke having a conversation around the pub or at the footy, calling it out when they see that it’s wrong. Men have a responsibility. Men are in a position to make a difference with their peers.

Back to me, as a bloke, I stand here today and call it out. I stand here to say enough is enough. Strangulation is not okay. No violence is okay.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:55): I rise to speak to the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023. I think it is worth noting, as others have done, that we do so amid the 16 ‍days of activism that are on. Many of us are wearing orange here today in Queen’s Hall and in Parliament. We have seen the seats with the shoes painted orange for those that are no longer with us through the outcomes of family violence. This is a very stark reminder of why we are standing here and having this discussion but also a very stark reminder of why this is an ongoing piece of work and one that here in Victoria has been a high priority with the landmark Royal Commission into Family Violence and the 227 recommendations that flowed from it. In their essence they have been so important in ensuring that we align our government services and responses to deal with what is such a deep and insidious issue in our community, which is taking and is going to take an incredible amount of work.

Obviously we need to prevent family violence before it occurs. We need to ensure there is victim support and that perpetrators are held accountable. Hence why the royal commission, which really was leading the nation at the time, was such a huge undertaking, a huge body of work and such a step forward for this state and for the nation to identify the issues and responses. Now we are able to have the conversation in public far more than we could have in years past, and that is something that needs to keep occurring in the region that I represent of Eastern Victoria. We still see far too high a representation of family violence occurring. We see that through hospitalisations, ambulance call-outs and reports to police.

Frequently I speak in this place about removing generational trauma, and of course family violence is such a heavy input into that generational trauma, not only in the instance of where one member of the family is a victim but where the whole family takes on that trauma. We must always be looking to stop and prevent this from happening but also remove that trauma from continuing and going into future generations. Hence, as other members have outlined – indeed Mr Berger just spoke to the fact ‍– particularly as men, given that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of family violence, we need to continue to break the culture of family violence that has for too long prevailed and, sadly, still is.

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, and where it is identified, acting on it is incredibly important because we know that once these behaviours start there is the likelihood of continued behaviour leading to more and more significant and serious outcomes, the likes of which we saw in Queen’s Hall today, where people are no longer with us. That is why we have to stop it in its tracks.

The stats – that women who survive a non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely to be seriously injured or murdered by that partner – are exactly why, through that systemic response through government and community services, we need to be able to identify, deal with and support victims, and deal with perpetrators. 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, and addressing the unique risk profile of non-fatal strangulation as an act of family violence has been a key driver for these reforms.

The bill will introduce two new offences of intentional non-fatal strangulation of a family member into the Crimes Act 1958. The bill targets family violence offending. It clearly describes the prohibited conduct and provides two separate offences with maximum penalties that reflect their relative seriousness. There is a five-year offence: section 34AE provides an offence of non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. This offence does not require proof of injury. The 10-year offence, section 34AD, provides for an offence of non-fatal strangulation committed against a family member which intentionally causes injury, and has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

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 or impeding respiration. Some Australian jurisdictions, including Queensland, South Australia and the ACT, that have standalone offences, have seen courts narrowly interpret the terms ‘choke, strangle or suffocate’ where these terms are not clearly defined, and these narrow interpretations have imposed inappropriately high evidentiary burdens on the prosecution and may serve to further traumatise victim-survivors. The broad definition used in this bill aims to avoid this issue.

Intent is required in a couple of ways in these offences. For both the five-year and 10-year offence there is a requirement for intent to engage in the broadly defined conduct of choking, strangling or suffocating, which includes applying pressure to the neck, and while we think this will generally be easy to make out, the requirement prevents the application to genuine accidents. Requiring injury to be intentionally caused provides an important safeguard against inappropriately criminalising legitimate behaviours. The deliberately broad scope of conduct captured and the lack of a consent defence means that if the offence captured reckless conduct it would be highly likely to capture a range of legitimate conduct that falls outside the intended scope of the reforms, for example, massage and other things that may cause bruising. The offence is designed to ensure that the offence targets the most egregious forms of offending and justifies the significant maximum penalty. It is also consistent with existing offences with comparable penalties. An offence of non-fatal strangulation recklessly causing injury would attract a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. This would not be commensurate with the seriousness of the offending and would make the five-year offence redundant.

Most jurisdictions that have introduced standalone non-fatal strangulation offences require that the injury be intentionally caused. Both offences require that the conduct be committed without lawful excuse. This means that existing statutory and common-law defences will apply, except for consent in the 10-year offence, and 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. The statutory defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency can be relied on if a person reasonably believes a sudden or extraordinary emergency exists and the conduct is the only way to respond. Given the definition of ‘chokes, struggles or suffocates’ is intentionally broad, certain conduct outside the reform’s intended scope may be captured to address these. Common-law defences will be generally available. This will include a general exception excusing physical conduct which is generally acceptable in the ordinary context of daily life; justification for conduct occurring due to the execution of the law, including arrest; and consent for the offence with the five-year penalty only. Consent will not be a defence for the offence with the 10-year penalty.

This bill is another step forward in the work that we all must do and the work that we are doing to remove the culture that supports, encourages or allows family violence to occur. It is an important part of the conversation and of streamlining government and community services to respond, to support victims, to deal with perpetrators and to ensure that we are preventing and minimising trauma to victims and associated family members. It is important that we see this insidious activity removed and that it is not continued in the future. I am proud to support the bill.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:06): I move:

That debate be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.