Vote defeats public agency scrutiny

Media statement

December 9, 2021

Tania Maxwell MP was last week prevented by two votes from giving Parliament and government the power to request a Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission review of public agency compliance with equal opportunity law and authorise it to publish findings.

The Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party Member for Northern Victoria moved in the Legislative Council on December 3 to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 during debate on the government’s proposed changes to equal opportunity exceptions[1] for religious organisations.

“Victorians have been shocked this week to read about VEOHRC findings into the extent of bullying, harassment and gender and sexual identity discrimination in Ambulance Victoria,” Ms Maxwell said.

“But in 2018 we were prevented from knowing if there was similar behaviour in the Metropolitan Fire Brigade and Country Fire Authority when Victoria’s Court of Appeal upheld action brought by the United Firefighters’ Union against the VEOHRC’s power to conduct exactly this type of review.

“The Court found that the VEOHRC had exceeded the powers of review given it by Parliament.

“So the only way to ensure that the VEOHRC is properly equipped to do its work is to change the Equal Opportunity Act, and I look to the support of my parliamentary colleagues to do that.”

Ms Maxwell’s amendment would have authorised Parliament or a Minister to request a VEOHRC review of programs and practices of any government department, public authority, state-owned enterprise or municipal council.

It would also authorise the VEOHRC to release a report and related documents under this process subject to a public interest test.

Government response

But Attorney-General and Legislative Council leader Jaclyn Symes MP told the House the government was unable to support Ms Maxwell’s amendment “because I do not have an appreciation of what the outcome will be”.

“I know what you are trying to achieve, but because of the time I have not had the opportunity to get advice on whether there would be unintended consequences and the like and how it would change the VEOHRC’s practices,” Ms Symes said.

“Have you got any advice from the commission or otherwise about how that would be implemented? You do not do things unless you know exactly what they are going to do, and I am not in a position to know if there would be other consequences for your amendment.”

Ms Maxwell said she had requested a meeting with the Equal Opportunity Commissioner.

“In my speech in the second-reading debate I said it is clear that the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 needs to change in order for VEOHRC to review matters that may be referred to it by a government minister or the Parliament,” she said.

“As Ms Symes noted in response to my question yesterday, the government cannot table a review that it does not have and VEOHRC cannot provide the minister with a copy of a particular review because of a court order made by the Court of Appeal in 2018.

“The court order was enforced in direct relation to section 151 of the Equal Opportunity Act. It clearly demonstrated that if the government requests a review of a public entity by VEOHRC, that entity may simply say, ‘No, thanks’, and block the review.

“If there are systemic human rights issues within a public authority, a government department, a state-owned entity or council and they do not self-refer, the government or the Parliament should, we believe, be able to refer this to VEOHRC.

“The commission’s role is executed through researching systemic issues; reviewing organisations, programs and practices for compliance; and conducting investigations under the Equal Opportunity Act.

“So these amendments provide for VEOHRC to exercise some discretion. VEOHRC can consider a referral and determine not to review an organisation; however, there is a public interest test for the release of reports and documents. I believe these are reasonable amendments—ones that advance the protections for workers and public transparency—and they would provide the opportunity for those reports to be accessible by changing section 151 of the Act.”

Opposition supports amendment

Shadow attorney-general Matthew Bach told the House the Opposition was “very understanding” of Ms Maxwell’s amendments.

“From our perspective, given the seriousness of the issues which she has hit upon both in her contribution here but also in the very helpful explanatory note that she circulated some time ago, we will be supporting her amendments,” Dr Bach said.

Liberal Democrats’ David Limbrick MP and Independent Catherine Cumming MP also indicated support for the amendments.

“I would like to thank Ms Maxwell’s team for briefing my team on what she is intending to do here,” Mr Limbrick said.

“I appreciate some of the concerns raised by the Attorney, but I do appreciate the intent of what Ms Maxwell is trying to do and the Liberal Democrats will be supporting this.”

On division, the move to amend the bill was defeated 19-18, with the Reason, Animal Justice and Greens parties voting with Labor. Two more votes would have passed the amendment.

Ms Maxwell used Question Time yesterday to ask the Emergency Services’ Minister Jaclyn Symes MP if the government itself would initiate changes to the Equal Opportunity Act, or conduct a fresh review of workplace culture in Victoria’s fire services.

Currently S.151(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 says:

Commission may conduct review of compliance

S. 151(1) amended by No. 26/2011 s. 22(1)

(1)  On request of a person, the Commission may enter into an agreement with the person to review that person’s programs and practices to determine their compliance with this Act.

Ms Maxwell’s proposed amendment to Bill:

(2) On request of the Parliament or government, the Commission may review the programs and practices of any public agency or authority.

(3) The Commission may disclose a report or documents that relate to the review of programs and practices of an agency or authority under (2) if the Commission considers it in the public interest to do so.



[1] Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Bill 2021

Flying Doctor makes memories happen

Adjournment speech

November 19, 2021

Tania MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (13:51): (1667)

My adjournment is to the Minister for Health, and the action I seek is for the minister to meet with the Royal Flying Doctor Service regarding their palliative care program, Memory Lane, and how the government can provide support.

Who does not know, love and respect the Royal Flying Doctor Service and their work? This trusted organisation is committed to connecting communities with the care and support they need and with one another. I had the pleasure to recently meet with the CEO, Scott Chapman, to talk about the broad range of services they provide across our regional communities. They are well known for their remote patient transport service, and their planes make frequent trips to Mildura, Albury-Wodonga and interstate. But with 700 staff around Victoria plus an army of volunteers, flight services represent only around 14 per cent of their work, and the Royal Flying Doctor Service also offers community transport, dental clinics, telehealth, eye care, a women’s GP service and speech therapy.

The Flying Doctor Memory Lane program is something extremely special and supports patients in end-of-life care to visit a place that is meaningful to them. An example from my electorate is Jack. Jack was in palliative care in Rochester after spending 92 years on his farm. The Memory Lane team fulfilled his dying wish to return to the farm one last time. The team decorated the inside of the transport vehicle with eucalyptus leaves. They took Jack back to his farm, and he was able to spend some time inside his home and with his family, be in his garden with memories of his wife, who had planted roses, and look down his long driveway one last time. It gave him time to reflect and to say goodbye. Five days later Jack passed away.

The family was so grateful they had the chance to fulfil his last wish. This is something they could not facilitate safely for Jack on their own. The last wishes of the dying are not usually elaborate; it is usually visiting a place of personal significance one more time. And this is not just about fulfilling these wishes for older citizens but applies to every age. The Memory Lane program relies on a team of volunteers and generous donations. I think this wonderful program could be made available more broadly across the state, and I encourage the government to explore these opportunities. In the meantime I thank the volunteers and the team at the Royal Flying Doctor Service for all their wonderful hard work.

Watch Jack’s story – a Royal Flying Doctor Service ‘Memory Lane’ video clip.

Breaking ‘invisible chains’

Motion and speech

November 17, 2021

Tania MAXWELL MP (Northern Victoria):

That this House —

  1. recognises —
    • the prevalence of coercive control in family violence offending;
    • that perpetrators of family violence may offend against multiple family members and/or intimate partners;
    • that disclosure of relevant information about the criminal history of a perpetrator is a key indicator in family violence risk assessment and management;
  2. calls on the Government to —
    • review legislative and procedural frameworks in relation to family violence to consider how evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour is available to illustrate the experience of family violence; and
    • consider the suite of initiatives and opportunities available to enhance understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour in our community and the justice system.

I rise today to speak on my motion #676 which calls on the government to examine the abhorrent behaviour known as coercive control and the potential for evidence of such behaviour to be used in court cases.

My motion today is to represent victims who have suffered and endured the effects and impacts of coercive control, and to seek much needed changes to how organisations and our justice system respond to the impacts of coercive control and the traumatic implications that are often irreversible.

I am not going to dance lightly around this subject today nor am I going to refrain from highlighting serious concerns about the insidious behaviours that ruin lives and leave lasting scars on victims. Scars that for some will never heal.

Some of this information may be overwhelming, and it should be!

I am not here to sugar coat the reality of the consequences and impacts of this appalling behaviour which is nothing short of inexcusable, controlling and ultimately an expression of inadequacy of those who inflict it on others.

The murder of Hannah Clarke and her children in February 2020 broke the hearts of our nation. It has been a watershed moment in sparking the national conversation around coercive control.  We need to determine how this conversation is going to happen in Victoria and that is why I am putting this motion to the Parliament today.

One woman every week in Australia dies at the hands of her current or former partner. According to the Victorian Homicide Register there were 110 family violence homicides in this state in the past 5 years.

There were more than 174,000 family violence offences reported in Victoria in the year ending 30 June 2021. This was an increase of 18 per cent on the previous year.

The Men’s Referral Service recorded a 90 per cent increase in calls in April 2020 when stage 3 restrictions were introduced.[i] Police were called to 92,251 incidents in 2020.[ii] These are big numbers.

Before I speak more specifically about coercive control, I want to take a moment to pay my respects to the victims, victim survivors, their families and loved ones. I also pay my respects to the staunch advocates for those who don’t have a voice themselves – who advocate for the deceased, for those who are silenced by grief, for those who are living with violence and silenced by fear.

As MPs for Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, Mr Grimley and I have the privilege to advocate for those who are impacted by crime, whether they are survivors or …..in their memories. We speak with people every week whose lives are forever changed by the offences committed against them or their loved one. Some are here today – your courage is truly inspiring and is at the centre of our work.

I also note the efforts of frontline police, family violence specialists and the broader social services network who work at the coalface, who try to help people access safety, pick up the pieces, achieve justice. It is complicated, heartbreaking work.

Coercive and controlling behaviours are a form of violence involving repeat patterns of abusive behaviour. They can cause enormous harm, leaving victims isolated, insecure and fearful.

Coercive controlling behaviours pervasive by nature – it increases the likelihood of escalating violence within a relationship, and it is likely to persist after separation.

Controlling behaviours might including any combination of measures, such as withholding money, tracking a phone, reading emails and texts. It could be regulating what someone wears, who they hang out with, or where they go. Following them. Isolating them.  Making things so difficult that friends and family pull away.

Gaslighting, making threats, manipulation, intimidation. As a victim of coercive control becomes increasingly isolated, the patterns of abuse can escalate. It is no wonder they refer to coercive control as ‘invisible chains’.

Many victims report that the psychological abuse is often worse than all but the most extreme physical abuse, because of its persistent and enduring nature.

Going back to the case of Hannah Clarke, one of her closest friends reported having spoken to her husband on many occasions to effectively ‘pull him up’ on the controlling behaviours that he exercised over his wife. This friend said that he only heard the term coercive control after her death and that if he had known more about coercive control he would have done more.[iii]

Here in Victoria, our courts recently considered the horrifying abuse suffered by Michelle Skewes at the hands of her ex-husband and I met with Ms Skewes in preparing this motion.  Coercive controlling behaviours were pervasive throughout her marriage and she describes trying to make herself a small target and keeping a public mask of normality in order to hide her private life of misery. For more than a decade, Ms Skewes was stripped of her independence, her vibrancy and sense of self-worth, and the manipulation and denigration extended to extreme physical and sexual violence. 

Excerpts noted by the judge from Ms Skewes victim impact statement noted the possibility of vomiting triggers panic, she apologises for everything, and her self-esteem is still broken by humiliation and shame. She is hyper vigilant, naturally distrusting of others, anxious about her physical health, plagued by nightmares and exhaustion. She has suffered the besmirching judgement of others as if her abuse disturbed an idyllic public picture of her marriage.

Ms Skewes courage to share her story in the face of all that she has endured is remarkable. Her offender was sentenced to more than a decade in prison, and the Judge said:  ‘this sentence must send a clear and unequivocal message of deterrence that those who are like-minded to offend in this way, particularly men in the context of coercive control and domestic violence, must understand that their behaviour will be met by condemnation and denunciation as utterly unacceptable conduct and with stern and just punishment.’   Now, with much ahead to rebuild her life with her children, Ms Skewes is in this parliament today hoping that she can help prevent the abuse she endured from happening to others.

These offences are quite hard to imagine, but the work of police, of social workers, of our courts, is littered with cases of intimate partner and family violence.

The New South Wales Joint Select Committee into coercive control has recommended a criminal offence for the patterns of oppressive behaviour that are coercive control.  This committee heard evidence that 111 out of 112 cases of intimate partner homicide – 99 per cent – had been preceded by elements of coercive control[iv]

We are dreaming to think that domestic and family violence offending stops when one relationship ends. You only have to look at data from the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme in South Australia for verification that abusive partners can repeat their offending from one relationship to the next. South Australia launched a Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme in 2018, where people with a concern about their safety could apply to know information of a partner’s history of domestic offending. More than 900 people have applied through the scheme for information since its launch.

In an analysis of just 221 of those applications, more than 100 men had a history of abuse of up to three people, while 15 had harmed between four and 10 others.[v]  That’s nearly half that had repeated their offending across multiple partners. Keep in mind that this history will only include what has been reported, so it’s a bit like an iceberg and there is likely a lot more under the surface.

There are tragic cases in our country of victims who were killed by a current or former partner, where there were red flags and only when it is too late does the criminal history of the offender emerge.

Rekiah O’Donnell is one such case. Rekiah died at age 22 when she was murdered by her abusive partner. Only after her death did the family become aware that he had previously offended and had a former partner and two children who were hiding from him.

The Centre Against Violence in my home town of Wangaratta has done extensive work over decades with victims of violence, including family violence. In their experience, understanding the past behaviour and character of an offender is absolutely an indicator of future offending. But often they can’t share that information, or there are substantial limitations on what they can share.

Issues raised about our justice system are not always about the laws that exist, but often about how they are applied and how they can favour offenders to the detriment of their victim.

One of the principles of our criminal justice system is the concept of ‘de novo’ which effectively means ‘new’. Every incident is considered in its own right and this single-incident approach doesn’t fit with the enduring nature of coercive control and some other family violence offending.  It effectively means that offenders avoid accountability for the complex and enduring behaviour patterns that occur in abusive relationships.

Coercive controlling behaviours in isolation might be viewed as minor, and not criminal. When considered in the total context of control, it’s a completely different picture and this is what we need to capture.

Our existing criminal systems are described as ‘too narrow to capture the patterns of coercion and control’.[vi] Without consequence, or when behaviour is downplayed or dismissed, the behaviour is reinforced in the mind of offenders – and blame is often shifted to the victims.

Kerry Burns is the former Chief Executive Officer of the Centre Against Violence and a highly experienced and respected practitioner.

In one of our first conversations after I was elected, Ms Burns spoke to me at length about the need to make the court system more victim-centred, including our courts taking into account the whole picture of offending when it comes to family violence. As a service, they might have considerable information relating to family violence for their client, including coercive controlling behaviours, that is never considered by our courts.

If an organisation like the Centre Against Violence or a GP or health service has information about that history, it should be required to be put to the courts when offending is against an intimate partner or family member, to provide a consideration of the broader context in which the offending occurred.

With me in Parliament today is Lee Little. Lee’s daughter, Alicia was killed by her partner as she attempted to leave the relationship. Alicia’s body was crushed against a water tank by the car her partner was driving and he left the scene without assisting her. She died.

Alicia’s offender was charged with murder and this was later plea bargained down to a charge of dangerous driving causing death. The OPP indicated to the family that the plea bargain guaranteed them a guilty verdict, it saved them the ‘trauma’ of a trial. For the family, not only did they lose Alicia – they felt they lost their justice.

Alicia had interactions with the Centre Against Violence before her death and had reported to her doctor. The court noted their relationship was volatile and their four year relationship had been marked by episodes of family violence. Yet there was no opportunity for the records of the Centre Against Violence, or the evidence of their case workers, to be presented to the court and so there was little consideration of family violence in the context of this offence.  Not to mention that he was subject to an IVO by a former partner.

The plea bargaining process, by reducing the charge took family violence outside of the scope of the incident. And so the court never obtained  the full picture.

Plea bargaining is seen as a necessary and efficient part of our justice system, most often the horse-trading of a guilty plea in exchange for a reduced charge and lower sentence. Courts often justify this by saying that victims aren’t traumatised through the court process – which might be true, but victims and their families often say they want their day in court, they want their story known.  This is certainly the case for Lee Little and her family.

The Coroner has indicated to the family that they will conduct a review of Alicia Little’s death, and a Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths forms part of coronial proceedings. But Alicia died in 2017 and it could still be years before the inquest takes place.

Another victim survivor of family violence can attest to the adverse impact of plea bargaining on her case and that person is watching today from the Queen’s Hall. They say that coercive control often first presents itself as an expression of love, of interest and protection.  For this survivor, charm turned to coercive control and later sexual and physical violence. The offender was charged with 70 criminal offences, that were reduced once he pleaded guilty. In the end, he was sentenced to just three months’ jail, which was further reduced on appeal to a two-year community correction order.

The long-term impacts are not just for the intimate partner, but extend to the children. Let’s call child one Liam. Liam was 8 when his mother met his stepfather. He was fabulous at first and would play footy with him.  Later he would be mean to Liam, call him names, constantly criticise him, be rough with him. Liam did his best to just stay out of his way. This went on for years.

He would witness his mother being physically and verbally abused. His little sister was assaulted. Ultimately his step-father assaulted his mother so badly, with Liam watching, he thought she died. Liam felt guilty because he couldn’t protect his mum. He was part of their safety plan and knew if things got bad, his job was to take his little sister and get out of the house. He constantly felt the fear in the house.

Liam was not recognised as a victim in his own right despite being subject to the coercive controlling offending of his step-father, like his sister and his mother.

As the Centre Against Violence tells me, unless the whole picture of their offending is presented, the context is not completely understood or considered. The courts will be presented with references from the defence showing the offender to be a great guy, someone who is usually placid, that the offending seems out of character. But there is often not the same scrutiny to the other side, to the pattern of offending, because of the incident based nature of our judicial system.

This is not just about sentencing, or sentence lengths. It’s also about accountability and rehabilitation. If our system doesn’t see the full picture how does our system really work to create change? How is rehabilitation achieved? How does an offender have insight or take true accountability? How do conditions on a CCO properly reflect the big picture if it’s not known? How do perpetrator programs address offending if the big picture is not understood?

So what now?  Jurisdictions across Australia are actively considering how coercive control is addressed within their existing frameworks.[vii]

The UK criminalised coercive control in 2015, making an offence of ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’.[viii] Offences doubled between 2017 and 2018, with just over 9000 offences of coercive control recorded by the police in England and Wales, out of a total of around two million domestic incidents.[ix]

Tasmania has offences for economic abuse and emotional abuse or intimidation, as well as a ‘course of conduct’ offence made up of a number of coercive behaviours. 

In Western Australia, the criminal offence of ‘persistent family violence’ recognises patterns of abuse by criminalising three or more acts of family violence against one victim-survivor within a ten-year period.

In New South Wales, a Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control was established in 2020 and their report recommended the criminalisation of coercive control.

The Northern Territory and Queensland are both reviewing their legislation to determine criminalisation of the offence.

I hope that our state governments work together to develop nationally consistent definitions and set up a national database of domestic violence orders. I hope that the path Victoria takes will give this due consideration so that information sharing is streamlined and consistency is achieved. We don’t want this we need this!

There are suggestions that if coercion and course of conduct offences are criminalised by proxy through the civil protection regime – you take out an intervention order for the behaviour, and if a person breaches they commit a criminal offence.

We know from the death of Celeste Manno that there are significant failings in the reliance on intervention orders and how breaches are sanctioned.

Celeste’s tragic death brought her family to Parliament with me, and led to the government initiating a review of stalking responses through the VLRC. We look forward to the recommendations of that review.

The Scottish approach to coercive control has been a little different, and is currently considered the gold standard. A course of conduct offence includes a pattern of behaviour that is abusive to the victim, and where a reasonable person would consider the course of behaviour is likely to cause the victim physical or psychological harm. Rather than proof resting on the victim that the offence caused harm to them, the proof is on a reasonable understanding for the offender that their behaviour would frighten or otherwise harm the targeted partner. 

In 2020, then Attorney General Jill Hennessy said she had asked the Department of Justice to consider options to strengthen responses to coercive behaviour.[x] This consideration needs to happen now and I am pleased that through the course of conversations with the government about my motion today,that a review of the current frameworks will take place.

I know that the Victorian government is actively looking at a course of conduct offence along the lines of the Scottish model and I have spoken in some detail with the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence in this regard.  I appreciate her willingness to work with me and to ensure that the full experiences of victims of crime are given due consideration in determining the way forward for Victoria.

Whether coercive control or a course of conduct offence is established in Victoria, we still need to fix the ongoing issue where these behaviours are not presented where an offender faces court for violent offences against their intimate partner or family member. This gap needs to close.

As I mentioned earlier, South Australia has had a Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme in place since 2018. It received a strong update during its first twelve months and funding was extended to 2020 and again this year.  In the first two years of the scheme they received 455 applications and 317 were eligible for further consideration – that’s 70%! 18 applicants were at imminent risk. More than half the applicants had not previously received support from a domestic violence service.

South Australia is now looking at a scheme that would require police to contact a person they believed was at risk as a result of domestic violence, instead of waiting to be asked.

New South Wales initiated a very limited pilot, which at first seemed to be quite successful however it was abandoned after mixed findings. This pilot was criticised for its design, which was limited to only four local government areas and it is perhaps the execution and not the scheme that failed here. Nonetheless, In the first two years the scheme received 149 applications and 42% of those resulted in a criminal history disclosure being made – that’s more than 62 people that had a conversation about their safety and were connected with support.

Lee Little has been a staunch advocate for a national disclosure scheme to be implemented in Australia.  The opposition took the commitment of a pilot to the last election. The Report of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence noted that Victoria Police had suggested consideration be given to including a disclosure scheme in Victoria.

In Victoria, there is progress in how information on prior offending is used to try and improve safety for people who are at risk of violence. 

I completely support the use of information in this targeted and strategic way, though hope the meaning doesn’t fall through the gaps. It is my understanding that if a person was to directly ask about offending, then the service provider can’t directly answer.  Police can reach into other systems, but they still have to actively go looking and I hope that between the states we can find a way to make this information more readily available.  There are limitations to what information can be disclosed, even between agencies.

For example, if one agency has an understanding about an offender and are liaising with Child Protection they can’t openly discuss that information. What they can do is suggest they run a history themselves to get broader context.

In educating our community about the violence that is coercive control, there has to be an end-to-end response that includes our justice system. A clear message of what behaviours are not acceptable or tolerated for our citizens, with clear and effective early interventions, but also with clear consequences so that those who perpetrate offences on others are held to account.

This is a greater community conversation, about equipping the community to build capacity for change. It involves what happens at home, what happens at school, in our sporting clubs and community groups. Changing the norms, calling it out. Knowing how to have a conversation with a friend or family member about behaviour that makes you worried for them.

The best result is for coercive control, course of conduct offending, family violence offending, all violent offending to stop. The best way to protect victims is to stop offending from occurring in the first place. That’s a big project. It’s a goal that for every week that someone dies at the hands of their partner – or a stranger – we should remain firmly fixed.  For the memory of every victim, and for the loved ones left behind.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:24): I rise to speak on the motion as proposed in regard to a range of things regarding family violence but also particularly the prevalence of coercive control in family violence offending. It calls on the government to review our legislative and procedural frameworks in relation to family violence to consider how evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour is available to illustrate the experience of family violence and consider a suite of initiatives and opportunities available to enhance the understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour in our community and the justice system.

As many would know in this place, the government accepted all of the recommendations that arose out of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and it is something that our government were world-first leaders in in announcing the Royal Commission into Family Violence. We have acquitted 204 of the royal commission’s 227 recommendations, and all of the 23 remaining recommendations are well underway.

Before I go any further I would also like to acknowledge any victim-survivors who may be watching the live broadcast at home. Obviously some of you may be here in this chamber unknown to me, so if you are impacted I wish to acknowledge you as well—and also, as I said, acknowledge those people who may be watching on the live broadcast and remember those who have been killed as a result of family violence as well. We also keep at the forefront of our minds all those who are experiencing family violence today and for whom we undertake this very important work.

As I said, we have acquitted 204 of the royal commission’s 227 recommendations, and the remainder are well underway. This government has invested $3.5 billion, more than every other state combined and more than the commonwealth, into addressing this problem. There is more to do. There will always be more to do in this space. It is a very intractable problem, and family violence and the consequences of it have roots in many different geneses. We have talked about gender inequity as one basis for gendered violence but also family violence. There are many, many things that contribute to it. So there are a range of fronts that governments and agencies need to work on, and we are consistently and persistently working our way to wind back these behaviours and to protect family violence survivors.

I just want to focus a little bit on the issue of coercive control. We need to speak carefully about coercive control, particularly in the context of what protections we are offering to family violence survivors, because I think perhaps what is embedded in Ms Maxwell’s motion—again I thank her for bringing this to the house, and it is by no means a criticism at all—but what I think is perhaps not well understood is that there are a range of mechanisms within our family violence responses that do allow for, whether it is the authorities or not, protections to be afforded to people who are experiencing coercive control as part of that spectrum of family violence behaviours. So it is clear; it is identified. I understand the point that different jurisdictions might have other particular and specific, nuanced approaches, but rest assured that here in Victoria our legislative frameworks do address this point.

Coercive and controlling behaviour can already constitute an offence in Victoria, and it is explicitly defined as a form of family violence in section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. It also sits alongside economic, psychological, emotional, physical and sexual abuse. As we know, all these forms of abuse or control can interact and all form parts of coercive control or be singular offences in and of themselves. Section 5 does provide that framework for those things to be identified and recognised, and as I said, we need to be really, really clear that coercive and controlling behaviour is family violence. It is not either/or. It is a form of family violence. It is recognised as family violence in the current policy settings in Victoria. As I said, it is recognised by the law, can already constitute a criminal offence and is recognised in our risk assessment frameworks.

It is also really important that we communicate clearly to victim-survivors in Victoria that these behaviours are recognised, because they can be dealt with by the law and there is help and support available. If we somehow want to say—perhaps inadvertently even—that there might be a gap, we risk then people not coming forward and getting the help that they need or the protection that they need and deserve. So as I said, we need to be careful in the way in which we talk about this issue. As I said earlier, when it comes to the public conversation around coercive control it is really important that we treat the issue with a nuance and acknowledge these inherent complexities, some of the matters I spoke to just a moment ago. As the conversation around Australia continues to grow and it gathers traction, the narrative has at times been oversimplified and often frames coercive control, as I said earlier, as a standalone tactic. But it is complex; it is multifaceted. It is important to emphasise, as I said earlier, coercive control can coexist with almost all forms of family violence. It is that complex interaction, but it can coexist and it can stand alone.

We acknowledge that as family violence reform progresses here in Victoria we must also ensure that the totality of victim-survivors’ experiences is captured by the system and that it responds to family violence and continues to do so. Several victim-survivors have identified that for too many the response to their family violence was too incident based, for example, and failed to capture the full picture of the abuse they endured. One victim-survivor in her evidence to the royal commission said:

It is the prevalence and the all-encompassing awareness that you are living with something that is dangerous—life threatening. That fact slowly and methodically eats away at your self-awareness and ability to make decisions. All your decisions are about self-preservation and how safe you are from day to day and hour to hour.

I could not imagine living with that fear and constant level of threat arousal in my day-to-day life. It would be all-encompassing, it would be exhausting and you would constantly be walking on eggshells. This is why we have got to continue in the work that we are doing to increase support and assistance for victim-survivors of family violence. As I said, this can have a significant and detrimental impact on a victim-survivor’s perception of their own experience of family violence relative to others. I know that I have had constituents in my own region talk to me about their family violence experiences, and although having survived perhaps and come out of an abusive relationship, oftentimes there is ongoing PTSD that results from living with those violent and coercive controlling behaviours which people need assistance to manage. So once you have left a coercive controlled relationship or a relationship that is full of family violence, whilst there is some hope, oftentimes the path is not straightforward and easy. There are still ongoing issues to deal with.

The Royal Commission into Family Violence considered but did not recommend implementation of a standalone coercive control offence, and as I said earlier, our legislation already deals with that, because there is a range of provisions that recognise that controlling behaviour can be standalone but it can also interact with other forms. But we will always consider further ways to end family violence. We will continue to consider advice from the experts, the community and victim-survivors of family violence about the necessary reform to keep women and children safe. So it will be an evolving situation, and we recognise that we have to get existing systems working to recognise and respond to coercive control. Any further legislative changes would only be considered after extensive consultation with victim-survivors, professionals and experts in the area. Domestic Violence Victoria CEO Tania Farha stated:

A new law is not where we should be starting in Victoria, where there is already recognition of coercive control in our legislation. The focus needs to be on improving how existing laws are applied.

So again when it comes to coercive control, Domestic Violence Victoria noted:

Safe and just outcomes for victim survivors requires a whole of systems and community response—where everyone has a shared understanding of what coercive control is and looks like, and how to assess and manage associated risks.

So again I just want to recognise and pay respect to those victim-survivors of family violence— (Time expired)

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:34): I am pleased to be able to rise and speak to Ms Maxwell’s motion this afternoon. She spoke with such passion and commitment, and she has been speaking about this for a very long time. I know—I was in the streets marching with Ms Maxwell before she entered this place, in defence and in support of those affected by family violence. So she has always been committed to this cause, and I think she showed that through her commitment in her contribution this afternoon to this very important matter.

She mentioned some of the people that have been affected by this—the women who have been affected, who are in Queen’s Hall. Lee, Michelle and Jana are in watching this debate this afternoon.

I want to congratulate Ms Maxwell for bringing this motion to the house. Can I say that the Liberals and Nationals will be supporting the motion because it is asking for a review into this important area around coercive control. I know that parliaments around the country are looking into this area. In New South Wales, as Ms Maxwell said, the parliamentary inquiry that looked into it made a suite of recommendations. The government is reviewing those recommendations and will bring down their report and speak to that from those findings. There were dozens of findings actually in that very thorough inquiry that was conducted in New South Wales. Likewise in Queensland they are also looking at this issue.

But it brought me back. I know the government is saying that they had the family violence royal commission, which we were all very supportive of, and despite the commentary—the unfortunate, unnecessary commentary—in the lead-up to the 2018 election there was bipartisan support for that important royal commission. The government has not undertaken, has not been able to undertake or has failed to implement all 227 of the recommendations. There are still a couple of dozen that are outstanding, and they are important. I note that Domestic Violence Victoria, in this year’s budget, was calling for an urgent response to a flawed funding system. They are saying things that the government has not promised. I think that is the danger with this.

The government keeps talking about the big picture. They keep making these very big promises and the expectation is there but they just cannot meet it, and as a result people are let down and the system is failing. And it is failing, because if you look at the latest crime statistics, the number of family violence offences leading up to 30 June of this year increased from 88 205 to 93 440, a 5.9 per cent increase. That is on the Crime Statistics Agency website. We know that lockdowns really exacerbated some terrible situations behind closed doors, and that family violence rates increased is no surprise as a result of the stresses and the pressures of extended lockdown. Extraordinary numbers of people spoke to me about their concerns. If you look now at the sad statistics of marriage break-ups, I think that says a lot about what has happened over the last 20 months and the failure of the government to understand not only the health impacts but the social impacts and the mental health impacts of their decisions to lock Victoria down, and they want to do it again.

This motion about coercive control reform reminded me of what I was doing as the shadow minister at the time, and that was the Liberal-Nationals took a policy to the last state election regarding the ‘Right to Ask, Right to Know’, based on Clare’s Law. It reminded me of a remarkable woman that I met, Samantha Handley. Her story is extraordinary. It talks about those elements that Ms Maxwell spoke of: the psychological impacts, the power of coercion, feeling that she could not leave her partner who was abusive. She did not know he was abusive at the time, but she felt that he had such a powerful control over her, and that is part of what this motion is about—that coercive control. Samantha Handley was extraordinary in herself because she was a woman that felt after she left her first marriage with her children that, as she says, she was in a loving relationship before his control over her slowly built up and she realised he had become abusive. That is what Ms Maxwell is speaking about and that is what this coercive control really shows. Samantha said in an article on 14 October 2016 that:

At first I refused to take any notice. I really liked this guy and he had a hold on me.

This built up and her family started to get worried about it and she started to realise that something was not quite right, so she started to do a Google search and found that this man had been charged with some very violent offences in New South Wales.

That was the reason why I presented that policy as part of a suite of measures that could assist women in these violent situations and improve outcomes. Sadly, it was dismissed out of hand, and the then minister, Minister Hutchins, virtually ridiculed what we were presenting. I was really disappointed with the government’s response. It was again this assumption, this arrogance, that they know best, that this is their space. Well, no-one owns any space when it comes to violence or abuse against women or anyone. It is what we need to do to improve the status and situation, and unfortunately the situation is getting worse.

I want to just place on record again the enormous gratitude that I have for Samantha Handley for coming out and telling her story and being part of that voice. Hers is a very powerful story about what Ms Maxwell is talking about today in her motion: the coercive abuse, the coercive powers and how that can really be a very insidious sort of abuse that is silent. It is not there, but it is very powerful. As Samantha said, she felt so isolated because of these coercive powers.

In closing I want to again commend Ms Maxwell for her advocacy in this regard and for outlining the argument that she has. But I do want to say that I think it is disappointing. The crime stats do not lie. They are the numbers, and the numbers are getting worse. Despite all that has been said, the numbers are getting worse, and that is something that I think needs to be noted, and I think that everybody acknowledges and understands that more needs to be done. There are still recommendations from the Royal Commission into Family Violence which were handed down in 2015, so six years ago, that are outstanding. This government might talk the big talk, but it is actually results and outcomes that matter. When the figures and the stats are there from the crime stats agency to say that it is not getting better, it is getting worse, then maybe we need to look at exactly what is going on.

Again I say, on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals, we support Ms Maxwell’s motion to recognise the prevalence of coercive control in family violence offending, that perpetrators of family violence may offend against multiple family members and intimate partners and that disclosure of relevant information about the criminal history of a perpetrator is a key indicator in family violence risk assessment and management—those red flags that she spoke of. The motion calls on the government to review legislative and procedural frameworks in relation to family violence to consider how evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour is available to illustrate the experience of family violence, and finally, to consider the suite of initiatives and opportunities available to enhance the understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour in our community and the justice system.

I hope the government does not disregard Ms Maxwell’s suggestions like they disregarded the policy I took to the 2018 election.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:44): I rise to speak on Ms Maxwell’s motion on coercive control and family violence. I will be supporting this motion today. Coercive control is a pattern of domination that includes tactics to isolate, degrade, exploit and control a person. It is a non-physical form of violence. This motion seeks not to criminalise coercive control but to consider how evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour illustrates the experience of family violence. This is based upon coercive control being a predictor of severe physical violence and homicide. Coercive control is not a one-off; it is an ongoing, relentless pattern of controlling and manipulative behaviours that renders victims powerless.

I recognise that this concept is difficult to find and identify as it is based on patterns and context, although I think it is addressed appropriately in this motion. Coercive control is absolutely a foundational element of family violence, and it should be recognised as such. The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence found that family violence differs from other forms of violence as it is generally underpinned by a pattern of coercion, control and domination by one person over another. This makes clear the role of coercive control in family violence. This motion seeks to understand the relationship between coercive control and family violence. If we ignore the role of controlling behaviour and focus only on physical violence, we do not do justice to the victim of abuse. This can have lethal consequences.

The Royal Commission into Family Violence cited the findings of a UK study that found that the extent of the father’s control over the family rather than the frequency of family violence was an indicator that the father was at risk of killing his own children. This tells us that there is much reason to look at new legislative and procedural frameworks that could analyse how coercive control feeds into family violence as well as how coercive control can illustrate to some the extent of the presence of family violence.

It appears that in other jurisdictions more is being done to address coercive control. New South Wales has a joint committee on coercive control, the Northern Territory is considering options for criminalising coercive control, a private members bill to criminalise coercive control is before the Parliament of South Australia, Queensland has launched an independent task force and the ACT has announced in-principle support for criminalising coercive control.

I thank Ms Maxwell for bringing this important discussion to the Victorian Parliament for us today. These discussions are the first steps to be made in addressing this issue and certainly assisting in education on this issue. I would like to see every professional who comes into contact with victims of family violence, such as health professionals, social workers, lawyers, judges, police and victim-survivor services, to understand the nature of coercive control. They should understand that it controls victims and traps them in a relationship that can be very difficult to get out of. Of course training alone will not shift outcomes. There needs to be organisational change, accountability and transparency. We must do whatever we can to reduce violence against women in this country. That is why I will be supporting this motion today, and I commend this motion to the house.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (14:48): I too rise to speak on Ms Maxwell’s motion before the house today on family violence. Can I begin by just very quickly saying thank you for all the well wishes that I have received from across the chamber during my absence.

I want to thank Ms Maxwell for her continued strong advocacy in this very, very important area of public policy. I know from speaking to some of the men in the Parliament around the place about this issue—each and every time we have a conversation—that it is so important that we continue to have this conversation, that we never stop having this conversation. It is very confronting. It is very confronting for the men in this chamber and in this Parliament that I have had conversations with to think that there are those among us, there are men in our society, who exhibit and practice these sorts of behaviours in their weak and cowardly attempts to control women and children in our society. It is very important that we continue to have this conversation, that we never stop.

One of the most confronting statistics I think in this debate is to think that since we have been going, and we are now some 47 minutes into this discussion, there have been eight incidents, statistically, of family violence in Victoria—just in the time that we have been having this conversation.

That is about 206 incidents every day here in this state, and we must never stop, we must never rest, until that number hits zero.

Ms Maxwell: That’s the reported ones.

Mr GEPP: That is exactly right, that is just the reported number. Ms Maxwell is quite correct. We do not know about all of those that are unreported. But we must never stop trying and doing everything that we possibly can to bring that number to zero.

I want to acknowledge the courage, the strength and the bravery of the victim-survivors who are with us today in Queen’s Hall but also all of those victim-survivors of family violence and those that are no longer with us. It is just abhorrent to anyone, any decent human being, to think that any person in our society would seek to exercise control over another to the extent of their own gain and benefit and that they would choose to do so with violence in particular.

I do want to congratulate the Victorian government’s Minister for Prevention of Family Violence and Minister for Women, the honourable Gabrielle Williams. She is steadfast in her determination to do as much as she can in this space. I know from talking to the minister that she does not rest on what we have done to date. She is always striving for better outcomes for women, for children, for victim-survivors of family violence and for their families. That is evidenced I think by the fantastic work that she has led in response to the royal commission and the work that she will continue to lead.

The government is also very much focused on improving our system that identifies and responds to things such as coercive control, the matter that Ms Maxwell has brought before us. We do remain open to evidence-based solutions to ensure victim-survivors’ whole experience of violence is seen and acknowledged by the system—not just a little bit, not just some of it, but all of it—and that includes of course their experience through the justice system. That is a big component. As we know from victim-survivors themselves, it is a big component of their experience.

I could be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that in terms of the plea-bargaining that Ms Maxwell referred to earlier there is legislation that has been brought to the other place. Again, my understanding could be wrong, but I think if matters are not to go to trial it requires the agreement of all the parties involved so that there is an agreed plea—that is, if the victim-survivor does not agree then that plea agreement, if you like, would not be advanced, and it would go to trial. That is my understanding of it. I just think it is important to put that on the record. We know that the experiences, as I said, of the justice system are such a crucial part of a victim-survivor’s journey—having that day in court, but feeling that real sense of justice.

We all remember not too long ago when the conversation was about, ‘Oh, what did she do? Why didn’t she leave? Why didn’t she’—well, it cannot be about the victim-survivor. It can never be about the victim-survivor. It has got to be about the perpetrator, and it has got to be about the behaviours that that person not only exhibits but practises in the home. I think all of us would know of somebody, either in our immediate circles or maybe in our extended circles that has experienced some sort of domestic violence, and it is absolutely abhorrent.

And to think that it is such a leading contributor to injury and death of women in our community is just extraordinary—particularly those in the age group of 15 to 44. It is just quite staggering.

So we have spent a lot of money and we have done a lot of things, but it is not enough, because in this country one in four women will experience some form of physical or sexual violence by a current or a former partner. We also know, in terms of coercive control, that it is a feature of most of those occurrences of domestic violence. Mr Barton, Ms Maxwell, Ms Crozier and Ms Terpstra talked about the elements of coercive control, and I will not go through all of those again, but it is a clear feature—it is a very clear feature—of the experiences of victim-survivors. Whether it is money, whether it is psychological, whether it is physical abuse—whatever controlling mechanism that these cowards are using—it is all part of them putting themselves in a dominant position to be able to control, particularly, women and children.

We must do everything that we can. We must never rest until we can find better ways to assist women experiencing and children experiencing those environments. We have got to change the behaviours and it has got to come with respect, and every time we see violence that is being used—I do not care, you know, whether it is a set of gallows out the front or any other type of violence—we have got to call it out for what it is. We have got to say ‘That’s unacceptable’. It is unacceptable because each and every time we see those sorts of things in our society it enables those that have those tendencies to run away and indeed play out those very features in their own lives.

It behoves all of us I think to raise the standard, to show a bit more respect, to understand that we are in a pluralist society and to understand that we are all equal. The bigotry, the hatred and the domination only come from when we are actually supposed to be better, when we are growing up, when we are mature adults, and it only seems to get worse when we get to that point. So thank you, Ms Maxwell, for your strong advocacy in this area. May it always continue, as I know it will. I look forward to continuing this very, very important conversation with you and the Parliament.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:58): I am also very pleased to join this important debate brought on by Ms Maxwell. As Mr Gepp has said—and numerous other members—Ms Maxwell is a tireless advocate for victims of crime across the board. I know that she has particularly strong views, and they are well founded, when it comes to family violence and the prevention of violence against women and children. I have the pleasure and privilege of sitting on the Legal and Social Issues Committee with Ms Maxwell, and despite the fact that in another life I was a different government’s adviser on the prevention of violence against women and children, this particular element, a really important element and really pervasive element of family violence—which exactly as Mr Gepp said is sadly still such a widespread societal problem—is not one, I do not mind saying, that I had great knowledge about. It has been incredibly useful for me and instructive for me to sit on that committee, to engage with Ms Maxwell and the chair, Ms Patten, and a range of other members of that committee but also to hear from experts, in particular experts who I know Ms Maxwell has a long history with.

I find myself in so many of these matters agreeing wholeheartedly with Mr Gepp. I enjoy following Mr Gepp, because he makes on these matters incredibly strong and heartfelt contributions that we would all do well to heed and to listen to. I am convinced, as he is, that these sorts of behaviours, as abhorrent as they are, are incredibly widespread.

Even though in matters of law, of jurisprudence, I am a traditionalist, I do think we have to acknowledge that our current systems and structures over many years have failed in particular women who have been the victims of family violence and forms of sexual assault. Members of the government—Ms Terpstra—entirely appropriately, notably, have spoken about the government’s undoubted commitment to continue to do better when it comes to family violence. I will not recapitulate some of the points that Ms Crozier made in articulating, rightly so, our shared commitment to continue to do better.

We have come so far. We see unacceptably high rates of family violence in our community. The analysis of that data is difficult because for a time—I daresay things have changed now—many within the family violence sector thought that at least in some respects, and I will seek to choose my words very carefully here, as we saw that data increase, demonstrating the pervasive nature of family violence in our community, that demonstrated at least one thing that was not entirely negative, and that was that some systems were changing to enable more victim-survivors to come forward and to seek help. I daresay we have now reached a point in the community where we no longer hear that sort of messaging from family violence groups. Ultimately of course we want to drive down both the published data and, far more importantly, the real incidence of family violence in the community. I am most certainly not against the notion of looking, as Ms Maxwell said, at the full suite of initiatives and opportunities available to enhance the understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour in our community and the justice system to see how we can do better, because as we have heard on the Legal and Social Issues Committee—this is something I have discussed with Ms Patten as well—it is devilishly difficult for the police and other support services so oftentimes to get to the bottom of what has occurred in interpersonal relationships.

That is one of the reasons why I was very pleased to read in the newspapers over the weekend that the Attorney-General is also looking at innovative reforms in the broader space of sexual assault when thinking about consent and how again we can hopefully change some legal processes to deliver justice for more Victorian women, and more than that of course to seek to put in place programs and, more importantly—I think Mr Gepp was right—to embark upon what will be undoubtedly a longstanding mission of seeking to change attitudes in the community. There has been a longstanding bipartisan agreement in Victoria that central to family violence, to sexual assault, are attitudinal problems that so many men have. There has been a longstanding bipartisan position in this place that violence against women and sexual assault is gendered violence. It is hard, as Mr Gepp said, to kind of rationalise just how prevalent that violence is in our community. I agree therefore that we all have a deep commitment not to laugh along at that joke that probably 15 or 20 years ago was pretty normal and that in sports clubs or when you were out with your mates you laughed along to and to seek to stand up whenever you hear attitudes expressed that are harmful, because I think we are all in agreement that we have such a long way to go.

Our current legal structures do not function well enough to support victim-survivors and also to seek to drive down the incidence of family violence. Furthermore they do not function well enough to support victim-survivors of sexual assault. Just looking at the numbers of women, overwhelmingly, who come forward to report sexual assault and then ultimately prosecution rates, they are unacceptable to me and they are unacceptable to the coalition. I do not want to speak for the Attorney-General, but I know that they are unacceptable to her as well, so I welcomed the announcement she made over the weekend and look forward to working alongside her as we seek to do better, certainly in the broad area of the prevention of violence against women and children and here in this specific area that Ms Maxwell has been talking about for so long.

It is not an area that gets as much attention I think as some other forms of violence against women, and I think that is understandable. I hear from friends and sources in the legal community some of their arguments about why it has been historically so difficult to get at the nub of this issue and to seek to combat it, but that does not mean that we should not seek to do better. In fact it means the opposite—that we should take on that challenge, look at all options, be open to change and be open to legal innovation, where that is appropriate, to do far better than we are doing right now for victim-survivors.

Just as I finish, in talking about legal matters and matters of jurisprudence it would be simply remiss of me not to remark upon the passing of Sir James Gobbo recently, a great Victorian, obviously a justice of the Supreme Court and ultimately a Governor. We will have the opportunity to engage in a condolence debate for Sir James next week. I commend Ms Maxwell for bringing this motion to the house and reiterate that I think it deserves our support.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:06): I am pleased to rise to make a short contribution to Ms Maxwell’s motion. From the outset I would like to acknowledge Lee, Michelle and Jana, who I have seen wandering around the Parliament today, and I certainly saw them outside this morning. I am pleased that they actually can be here today to hear us speak, probably all so passionately, about this incredibly difficult and important issue.

As we know, coercive and controlling behaviour is sadly a prominent feature in almost all family violence, but it is one of the hardest things to identify. It is one of the hardest things, even for people who are experiencing it, to fully articulate what is happening to them—‘It’s just that he loves me so much, that he cares about me so much’. I am very fortunate to be chairing the inquiry into criminal justice, a referral that came from Ms Maxwell, and I do not think it should come as any surprise that the witnesses that we have heard from, the submissions that we have received, all talk about family violence and coercive behaviour. So I am really pleased that Ms Maxwell has brought this issue to the chamber, and I am happy to lend my encouragement to the government to do something on this.

I think it is interesting to note that in the most recent National Summit on Women’s Safety, which was held just one or two months ago, it was seen as one of the most complex and urgent issues. That was how it was described in the paper that followed that summit. We have seen several Victorian organisations, including Respect Victoria, united—

Ms Maxwell: On a point of order, Acting President, I am sitting very close to Ms Patten and it is difficult to hear her, and I just think particularly given the topic we are discussing, which goes along the lines of respect, could we just have a little bit less noise?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Fair point. Could we keep it down so we can hear Ms Patten, please?

Ms PATTEN: Thank you, Ms Maxwell, and thank you, Acting President. As I was saying, there have been a number of organisations who have really come to the fore and are speaking loudly about this—Respect Victoria, Domestic Violence Victoria and Djirra in particular.

I think they have all looked at this. And I know that Ms Maxwell is passionate about prevention and early intervention, and this is another area where this is so crucial, because the criminal justice system, as we know, currently fails so many victims. And it is sometimes a blunt instrument, and what we need to be doing is stopping this from happening, but we know that that is not easy. This involves cultural change. This involves education. This involves change and equality, gender equality, and it goes into so many different areas. So prevention in this context is complicated, but it has to be something that we focus on.

As I say, legislating can have that effect and it can shift norms and it can shift attitudes, but we need to shift those norms and those attitudes and those behaviours before they turn into what they are turning into. It is interesting—and I do not know whether it is because of the work we are doing in the criminal justice system—that I am seeing coercive control being discussed, being dramatised, being seen in mainstream media. You know, Netflix has a really excellent program called Maid. It is a US drama that looks at coercive control, and it goes through the various stages of that control with the main character in it. Over recent weeks I have not been listening to it but, when I was able to walk home from work in the evenings and was comfortable doing it, I would listen to the Trap by Jess Hill, another extraordinary podcast, an extraordinary detailed story. Well, it is not a story, it is a whole podcast focusing on coercive control—how it affects the children, how it affects the families, and also it goes to how we can try and find some solutions. But, as I said, it is addressing those underlying attitudes, which is what we need to do, but again it will be one of the most complicated things that we do.

I was just looking at some of the press releases that came out following that national summit, and certainly what we have been hearing during the criminal justice inquiry is that we need to be looking at broadening the scope of how we address this. And I note—and I use this quote because sadly Djirra, which is an extraordinary Aboriginal women’s advocacy organisation, was not able to appear before the committee at our last public hearing—that Antoinette Braybrook said that the conversation around coercive control had to be broadened:

Instead of putting money into the criminal justice system, invest in Aboriginal Community Controlled, self-determined solutions that we know work for our women, families and communities.

Executive director of the Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health, Dr Adele Murdolo, who did appear before our committee, also went on to say:

Migrant and refugee women and their communities are already leading the way in preventing violence, and it’s time to listen and learn from them. Whole of community and tailored approaches are needed, to ensure that we address the structural inequalities that enable violence against migrant and refugee women.

We know the impact that this has on women. As Ms Maxwell and I am certain Ms Crozier raised, family violence is still the leading contributor to death for women 15 to 44—the leading contributor. It is not breast cancer. It is not smoking. It is not heart disease. It is family violence. It is also the leading contributor to women experiencing homelessness. It is the leading contributor to women being imprisoned. Almost every woman currently in our Victorian prison is a victim—a victim-survivor.

During our inquiry we have heard harrowing stories from women who have been in the prison system. The fact that they had experienced extraordinary coercive control or violence just never kind of made it to the top. It was never really heard when they were being sentenced to prison, and that is what we need to be doing.

Part of Ms Maxwell’s call to the government is looking at building up this evidence base for the types and appearances of this type of behaviour—who perpetrates it and what drives them—and community education initiatives to increase public understanding of these behaviours and their unacceptability. Again I would commend Jess Hill’s podcast as well as the drama that I saw called Maid. Both go to increasing this public understanding. And working with organisations to ensure that they do not tacitly or overtly condone or foster attitudes and social norms that fuel coercive control—we have heard that today and we have heard that during the inquiry. It is not for people wanting to ignore and knowingly ignoring these issues; it is just that they do not understand. On behalf of Victorian women, we deserve better, and we in this chamber should be leading this change, driving this change in community attitudes to women.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:16): I would like to start by thanking Ms Maxwell for bringing this important motion into the Legislative Council on the prevalence of coercive control in family violence and among the perpetrators of family violence and that it may affect multiple members within the household. The motion goes on to speak about other legislative and procedural frameworks that can improve the lives and the outcomes of those that this is severely affecting.

When I think about this topic, coercive control, the words roll out of the dictionary: ‘interrogation’, ‘manipulation’, ‘blackmail’, ‘controlling somebody else’s will’. I guess the crux of it for me is that there is a power imbalance. We go into relationships or there are family relationships where there will by nature sometimes be a different balance. A parent-child imbalance—the parent is supposed to be the carer, the nurturer, the caregiver, the love giver, the security giver. That is in the ideal world, and for many families that is how it is. But we know that for thousands upon thousands of families that is not the way it is and there is a power imbalance, and at the end of it the child is deeply affected by family violence and, in this case, by coercive control.

There is the other side of it when the parent gets older and they become dependent on the adult child and we see elder abuse. There also can be a power imbalance there. For those of us who are, as I consider myself to be, normal, the thought that that could happen is just horrific in the extreme. But it can happen, and it does happen.

The torque between a couple where there is that power imbalance can happen very, very slowly. It can happen like tightening the screw on a nut. And gaslighting comes to my mind—it is a term that I have reflected on in recent years—where your own mentality is twisted because of that power imbalance. You are told things and your vulnerability leads you down paths of emotional abuse, financial abuse, intimidation or sexual abuse. This is not an equal sharing; this is when somebody’s will has been manipulated and controlled, and it can happen. As we have said, it is not just this domestic abuse and this coercion; it can be quite subtle.

It can have a huge effect on the children around couples where that happens, so what should be a warm and nurturing environment can be very cold and almost like living in a parallel world to what you think the rest of the society is operating in. Many reports have talked about children being that collateral damage in these coercive relationships. Reports have said that coercion is the precursor to abusive crimes, to violence in a relationship, and we have seen that.

If I can also start by mentioning that we talk about victim-survivors. In the end, one really hopes that those victim-survivors can become victim-thrivers and that they can move through that terrible, terrible time in their life and go to a better place where they are victims but they are thrivers. They have moved on and created a better life. Now, for that to happen, some of the work in the background needs to be on the perpetrator. Can the perpetrator be repurposed? Can there be prevention at the outset when that power imbalance really starts to flow and go? Can that happen? That is when we need people in society to be aware and awake, whether it be their GP, whether it be a social worker, whether it be friends or family or in an education setting—to be aware of these sorts of things and to have the antenna up to say, ‘Is that person acting reasonably or well, or is that person looking like they are under pressure and trying to keep away or hide what is happening at home?’. As Ms Maxwell and others have said, there are statistics around the evident perpetrators and the evident examples, but I would surmise, just off the top my head, that for any one case there are probably 10 to 20 to 30 cases that we do not see in the courts or in our hospitals or wherever else we see them.

I would just like to thank a young university student called Charles Rankcom, who is studying criminology. It is really great to see that there are young men—in particular this one—studying this topic. He has presented some interesting facts for me as well today. Alarmingly we have seen that there has been a 9 per cent increase in family violence related offences recorded during the 12 months of COVID to the end of June 2021. We have seen during this reporting period 25 additional reported family violence offences occurring each and every day—that is 25 extra. Crime stats agencies also revealed a significant increase in several offences, including family violence related common assault, up 5 per cent, and breaches of family violence related orders, up 15 per cent.

When you think of some of the cases, I know Ms Maxwell has brought in survivors who need to be part of this story, and we have heard of other examples from Ms Crozier. One that stands out in my mind, and we saw it on television a year ago, is that terrible case where Hannah Clarke in New South Wales and her children died at the hands of her estranged husband. This person was not able to be rehabilitated. They went down that path. I just always feel so terribly devastated for the parents of Hannah and for her extended family—her life gone and her children’s lives gone. This must be a continual catapult to us as legislators and as a government to do better in this realm and stop these cases.

The Victorian Family Violence Protection Act 2008 talks about family violence as physical, emotional, economic, threatening or coercive. But coercive control is not viewed as a criminal offence, and there is very much discussion around the importance of or the need for perpetrators to be held accountable and responsible for their harmful behaviour. Indeed Domestic Violence Victoria and the Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria put out quite an extensive paper that in truth I have not had the chance to really delve into due to other issues happening this week, but there are some really important responses that they have unpacked. They assessed the effectiveness of criminalising coercive control in addressing these gaps from a victim-survivor-centred perspective. The gaps identified in the report centred around the inadequacy of current responses to coercive control, resulting in victim-survivor experiences not being adequately recognised or responded to safely and consistently and perpetrators not being held to account.

Now, given the high levels of coercive control and family violence and homicide, it is so important to get in early and to provide those significant and compelling lessons to be learned for perpetrators.

In concluding I just want to also make some comments around some of the great services that we have in my electorate of Eastern Victoria Region and put a big shout-out and a thank you to the Gippsland Centre Against Sexual Assault for providing that specialist support. Now, not all coercive behaviour ends with sexual assault, but there is often a direct link—that if those behaviours continue and exacerbate, certainly sexual assault can occur. I know I have spoken with members in that great unit from time to time. They have an outreach service. They have amazing services. They get to the nub and they listen to people who need to be validated, respected and understood.

The other point I make is that we do not need to judge. You do not know when that woman comes into your shop and you serve her shoes what her experience has been like at home. You do not know that. If she is behaving a bit quirky, maybe we need to extend a level of sympathy or care or ask, ‘Are you okay?’ or just give a big smile or some care, because we do not know what people’s lives are like at home. I wish for all the victim-survivors to become victim-thrivers in the future. We need to listen to them. I thank Ms Maxwell for bringing this motion to the house today.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:27): Acknowledging that we are almost at the closure of this debate and there is so much more to be said on this incredibly important issue—family violence per se, but then those inherent elements of family violence, namely coercive control—I did just really want to acknowledge the courage and conviction of all those victim-survivors who have helped drive these incredibly important reforms and helped to shape a much brighter future for all Victorians. I do also want to acknowledge those victims who have come in today. We really appreciate their courage. I know that it probably just brings up a lot of memories and a lot of the incredibly difficult experiences that they have had to go through and survive, so we are very, very grateful for them coming here today. Thank you also for continuing this conversation, Ms Maxwell. We appreciate that.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (15:28): I want to thank everyone for their contributions on this important issue of coercive control today. There have been some really relevant and poignant words in your contributions. I would like to quickly just go back to what I was saying in my speech previously about the impacts of coercive control that extend to children. The child I mentioned, young Liam, was not recognised as a victim in his own right despite being subject to the coercive controlling offending of his stepfather and witnessing violence against his mother and sister time and time again.

Unless the whole picture of their offending is presented the context is never completely understood, nor considered, particularly within our courts. This is not just about sentencing or sentence length; it is also about accountability and rehabilitation. If our system does not see the full picture, how does our system really work to create change? How is rehabilitation achieved? How does an offender have insight or take true accountability? How do conditions on a community correction order properly reflect the big picture if it is not known? How do perpetrator programs address offending if the big picture is not understood?

So what now? Jurisdictions across Australia are actively considering how coercive control is addressed within their existing frameworks, as others have also mentioned here today. The UK criminalised coercive control, Tasmania has a course of conduct offence and the Northern Territory and Queensland are both reviewing their legislation to determine criminalisation of the offence. The Scottish course of conduct offence is considered the gold standard.

Whether coercive control is criminalised or not, we still need to ensure that the context of behaviour is presented in courts. The gap needs to close. We have to have that evidence being made admissible. We have to have judges trained to understand the impacts of coercive control. In educating our community about the violence that is coercive control there has to be an end-to-end response that includes our justice system.

The best result of coercive control offending, course of conduct offending, family violence offending—all violent offending—is for it to stop. The best way to protect victims is to stop offending from occurring in the first place. That is a big project. That is a big goal—a goal on which for every week that someone dies at the hands of their partner or a stranger we should remain firmly fixed, for the memory of every victim and for the loved ones left behind.

I look forward to the review of government and hope that it is inclusive of the voices of victim-survivors and that the issues they face are carefully considered, be it in dealing with police, child protection, prosecutors or in our courts. Ensuring the legal responses and preventative measures complement each other is so imperative. There are varying views on how we address this, but the goal is the same—to reduce the incidence of violence and improve the safety and lives of others.

I want to thank Minister Williams for her conversations with me. They have been ongoing on this specific topic and other topics around family violence. We have gone back and forwards for probably a good 18 months or more, and I am extremely inspired every time I speak to her about her goals that she wants to achieve and the change that she wants to make—and she has a very specific approach that has to be evidence informed, evidence based. Once again I congratulate her, and I am extremely thankful for the time that she has given me to introduce what I say is an extremely important motion. I hope everybody feels the same about that, and certainly from the contributions that we have had here today I do believe that people feel this as passionately as I do.

I would also like to just say a quick thankyou to Ms Crozier over there for recognising the advocacy that I have been doing on behalf of victims, probably since Daniel Morecombe died, which is many, many, many years ago, but also from events and tragedies that occurred within Wangaratta. I have been lobbying governments for many years now. On that note I thank the house, and I look forward to working with the government to see what we can achieve together.

Motion agreed to.


  • [i] Victorian Government puts $20m towards new way of reducing family violence, ABC News Online 19 August 2020
  • [ii] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/still-very-much-a-state-emergency-what-family-violence-statistics-tell-us-20210324-p57dks.html
  • [iii] https://www.couriermail.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-qld/hannahs-story-to-help-teach-kids-about-coercive-control/news-story/27f9b7e7eef458b53eb2795baabc7660
  • [iv] DV law to make coercion a crime, The Australian 1 July 2021
  • [v] ‘Abusers violent history exposed, The Adelaide Advertiser 12 July 2021
  • [vi] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077801218816191
  • [vii] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Familyviolence/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportrep%2F024577%2F75463#footnote23target
  • [viii] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077801218816191
  • [ix] The Criminalisation of Coercive Control: The Power of Law? Walklate, Fitz-Gibbon, IJCJ&SD 2019 8(4)
  • [x] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-15/coercive-control-debate-under-a-spotlight-in-victoria/100183492

Image: Victim survivors Michelle Skewes and Jay (surname withheld), with Tania Maxwell MP, victim advocate Lee Little, and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party member for Western Victoria Stuart Grimley MP.

Why we oppose the pandemic bill

Speech

November 16, 2021

Tania MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (22:07):

I rise to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021.

I would like to thank my colleague, Mr Grimley, for his speech, which reaffirms many of my constituents’ thoughts on this bill. When we debated the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension) Bill 2021 in this Parliament 14 months ago, I said it was one of the most important pieces of legislation we would ever consider, and I said that because it was about how government should be allowed to function and operate in a democracy. Our role is to scrutinise the extent to which it is appropriate for governments and public officials to seek to impose their own will over the rights, freedoms and liberties of citizens.

As we publicly declared two weeks ago, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party will not be supporting this bill. The thousands and thousands of constituents who I have engaged with over the last 18 months, who have contacted me about this specific bill and have provided feedback about the restrictions imposed over the last 20 months—border issues, problems accessing health services, unemployment, financial losses, poor mental health and missing education—understand that we need a public health response. However, they also want those approaches to be proportionate and to allow broader considerations to other impacts.

While this bill shifts some of the powers given under the state of emergency from the chief health officer across to the minister, it still accumulates substantial power in the hands of a chosen few. Ms Patten talks about human rights and says that this is what this bill is doing. There is only one side of human rights that she is conveniently addressing here. What about those who have been and will continue to be affected by these laws—those who have lost their jobs, their lives, their livelihoods? Those people do not count today, according to Ms Patten’s speech. Those people who could not sit with a dying child or parent, those who could not seek medical attention for their cancer when the state of emergency was legislated—no, no mention of the impact that they have experienced.

The powers in this bill make it even easier for the government of the day to repeat the pattern of restrictions we have seen in force over the last 18 months. It gives little assurance there will be any change from the strategy that gave us the title of the most locked down region in the world.

I have repeatedly raised in this Parliament that these restrictions were imposed time and again on places without cases of COVID-19, places like Corryong, which only contracted its first COVID case in October this year, where children were forced out of school to remote learning, many of them in places with little or no internet. Businesses were closed, tourism shut and people mandated to wear masks in public places, even when they were alone—even when they were walking in a paddock on their own. Instead of pursuing ways to proportionately manage restrictions and apply some balance against the risk in our regional areas, these places without cases were forced to live under much of the same blanket restrictions as those living in metropolitan regions.

Echoing the concerns of Liberty Victoria, people have been deeply frustrated that neither the health advice nor other analysis that underpins these restrictions has ever been made public. This information should be made public, whether the government is legally obliged to or not. I know the government will say that if this bill is passed, they will now provide this information, but my question is: why hasn’t it been made public through the ongoing lockdowns that we have all endured across Victoria?

Following the passage of this bill it is highly likely, if not a guarantee, that this government will make a pandemic declaration immediately, even with 90 per cent of the population fully vaccinated, the curve flattened and the risk reduced as much as possible through vaccination rates. This could go on for years, even though the government says we are now living with COVID. Granted, the minister now will have to publish the health advice, but we do not really know how detailed this will be, and it does not have to be published at the same time the declaration is made. Further, if the government fails to publish the health advice, the orders are not rescinded. They stay. Liberty Victoria makes a very solid point that the responsible person should report to Parliament on any order made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, not just pandemic orders, because all such matters are of public concern and we are here to serve them, not the other way around.

The focus on detention and punitive measures in the bill is also of concern to us. We cannot support a public health response that focuses on detention, exclusion, policing and fines, whether that relates to warrantless entries, extensive mandates for vaccines, curfews or border closures—and we have seen plenty of those. The detention review processes are limited to the department reviewing itself and provide little or no apparent means for other orders to be challenged. Through this pandemic we saw thousands of people excluded from entering their home state and returning to their private place of residence, some for months, and there seems to be no provision for them to have their matter reviewed. The role of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) in scrutinising orders is an improvement to the current situation. However, this does not happen on every order, only when they consider it necessary. The independent committee does not require representation of small business, education or mental health or an explicit understanding of regional and rural areas.

The initial state of emergency was declared on 16 March 2020 for the purpose of flattening the curve of hospitalisation and to prepare our health system. I can understand that preparing the health system for a pandemic disease is no easy feat, but I cannot understand that when our health system has been operating close to full capacity there was little means available to expand and prepare it to respond. Fixing this will be vital to supporting our health workforce in the future and ensuring we do not have to lock down citizens for 18 months instead.

I cannot speak on this bill without expressing my disappointment that three crossbenchers were actively brought into the fold of the government to participate in the development of this legislation, to the express exclusion of others. I have worked cooperatively and collaboratively with this government on important matters, including supporting victims of crime, the initiation of the Victorian Law Reform Commission review into stalking, the Better Regulation Victoria review of tobacco regulation and even last sitting week adding female-specific cancers to the list of presumptive rights for our firefighters. For the government to push this through the Legislative Assembly as it did, to skip the scrutiny of SARC and to skip public consultation or the release of an exposure draft is an opportunity lost to allow the people we serve to have their voice. These issues were raised by the president of the Victorian Bar.

The government is asking the public to trust it, but it has already compromised this trust through the lack of transparency and due diligence by which this legislation was developed. I know this legislation will pass, but I hope the government chooses very sparingly to use it.

Helping the hidden victims of crime

Adjournment speech

November 16, 2021

Tania MAXWELL MP (Northern Victoria):

My adjournment is to the Minister for Victim Support, and the action I seek is for the minister to review the claims for assistance for the children of Michelle Skewes, which have previously been rejected by the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT). Michelle Skewes endured years of horror at the hands of her abusive husband. He was recently jailed for a minimum of 10½ years on nine counts of rape, two counts of assault and one count of threatening to inflict serious injury. These offences occurred over a five-year period that was plagued with coercive control and degrading, pervasive abuse.

The judge noted Ms Skewes’s victim impact statement as being candid, honest and disarming in its dignity. It includes triggers of panic, moments of fear and terror, broken self-esteem, hypervigilance, distrust of others, anxiety, being plagued by nightmares and exhaustion, suffering the besmirching judgement we so often see in victim blaming and her attempts to shut off the abusing rhetoric that she endured in an attempt to reconstruct her life.

Ms Skewes has four children, three of them living. I will not give too much detail here in terms of what she has conveyed to my office about the impact of family violence on her children, but I think it is enough for us just to imagine their suffering and understand their need and their right to support. Ms Skewes has received some victim support through VOCAT, though it is quite minuscule in comparison to the five years, five months and 55 days that it took for this matter to run from report through to sentencing. She applied through VOCAT for support for her children to receive counselling; however, that was rejected. She did not have the emotional strength to appeal. These children are not considered victims in their own right, and this in itself is something that we will continue to push the government to correct.

Reforms in relation to victims of crime assistance cannot come soon enough for us. We have made some progress in increasing the recognition of children who live and witness family violence, most recently through my colleague Mr (Stuart) Grimley, who is working with Rosie Batty on calls for the standalone offence of family violence in the presence of a child. Children who witness family violence, who live in the context of family violence are victims. There is no doubt about that. This family has suffered enough, and these children deserve access to the psychological supports they need. I look forward to the minister’s urgent action on this abhorrent decision.

Protection key to aged care serious incident reporting

Adjournment speech

October 28, 2021

Tania MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (22:07):

My adjournment is to Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers (Hon. James Merlino MP), and the action I seek is for the minister to detail how training and practice are being strengthened in state-managed aged-care homes in response to the sexual assault and abuse of residents.

I recognise that responsibility for aged care sits largely with the federal government, but I am very concerned by how reports of the abuse of residents by staff who commit sexual assault could possibly be classified as non-urgent.

The serious incident response scheme was brought forward by the federal government because of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Every resident in aged-care services must have in place an effective incident management system for eight types of reportable incidents, including the use of unreasonable force, unlawful or inappropriate sexual contact and psychological or emotional abuse.

The scheme requires priority 1 incidents likely to cause psychological or physical injury to be reported to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission within 24 hours, with priority 2 incidents to be reported within 30 days. What concerns me is that the regulator asks staff to determine the impact on the victim and whether there are reasonable grounds to report an incident to police.

In 2019 a KPMG study found that almost 60 per cent of aged-care staff considered a sexual survivor had experienced no physical or psychological impact after being raped or sexually assaulted. In one-third of cases incidents were resolved without formal intervention. Now, the serious incident response scheme should cover this because sexual assault is a reportable offence, but if staff deem it to have no impact it might not be reported for 30 days or reported to police at all.

The royal commission found that:

Australia’s aged care system is understaffed and the workforce underpaid and undertrained.

It recommended regular training in trauma-informed service delivery for all workers.

I raise this to the state minister because the Victorian public health system is the nation’s largest provider of public sector residential aged care, and more than 89 per cent of these care facilities are in regional and rural areas.

Training is important not only for staff to understand their obligations under this scheme but to improve protective measures so that the incidence of sexual assault and abuse are reduced, not swept under the carpet.

I raise these concerns to actually honour and support Maria Berry, who does an enormous amount of work in regional Victoria for those in aged care. I would like to give her an enormous shout-out, because she has advocated tirelessly for this work and for those in the aged-care sector.

Cover image: Office of Women’s Health

Old courts should not leave regions short-changed

Adjournment speech

October 26, 2021

Tania MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (18:59):

My adjournment is for the Attorney-General, and the action I seek is for the Attorney to detail how many courts in regional Victoria are being considered for closure based on information in the Victorian Auditor-General’s audit of Court Services Victoria.

Court Services Victoria (CSV) is responsible for 75 buildings in 66 locations and a budget of more than $691 million. The conclusion reached by the auditor was that after seven years, since CSV was established as an independent body, it cannot demonstrate if its service actually supports the courts to perform their functions. That is simply remarkable.

The responsibility for this failure does not just rest with CSV given the failings of its governing body, the Courts Council, to provide sufficient directional, guided strategy. It does seem that years of problems are being ironed out with their strategic plan, approved in September.

Many court facilities across Victoria are not fit for purpose and demand remodelling, showing the court system requires a 70 per cent increase in physical facilities in Melbourne CBD, metropolitan region and regional courts to meet future needs. A 2019 inspection audit found that $550 million was required by 2024 to bring facilities up to standard and maintain them. The budget for CSV is approved each year by the Attorney-General, so while CSV operates as a separate authority, there is clear fiscal responsibility for this government. A number of courts across northern Victoria have had great investments, such as Shepparton and Bendigo. Other courts, like Wangaratta and Benalla as examples, are very run down. Fit-for-purpose courts may be costly, but I would be concerned that courts in rural areas might be closed simply because they have been left to rot.

If every court service is economised into regional centres, it may leave some residents at severe disadvantage, be they victims, plaintiffs or defendants. Victims of crime often report to me their frustration of mentally gearing up to a court date only to have their offender fail to appear. This is re-traumatising for victims and costly to our court system, so making offenders accountable to appear might save some money that can be reinvested in regional courts.

People in regional areas live with the reality of delays and obstruction to a whole range of services, but cutting court numbers for the purpose of economising without due consideration for equity of access should not leave our regions short-changed.

Firefighters deserve inclusive compensation rights

October 26, 2021

Forests Amendment (Forest Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation) Bill 2021

Tania MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (18:02):

I am pleased to speak today on the Forests Amendment (Forest Firefighters Presumptive Rights Compensation) Bill 2021. The bill implements an occupational cancer presumptive rights compensation scheme for forest firefighters modelled on the scheme that passed this Parliament in 2019 for Fire Services Victoria and CFA members. Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party supports this bill with a small but significant amendment.

The link between exposure to fire and cancer is an enormous risk to the health and safety of firefighters and a huge personal cost to those that protect our property and people. I stand here today very proudly as a CFA volunteer. We know the devastating bushfires Victoria faced in the summer of 2019–20 required the massive efforts of every firefighting resource our state could muster. Resources came from interstate and internationally to help. Fighting bushfires requires the cooperative efforts of career, volunteer, forest and industry fire crews with heavy machinery from timber and industry contractors. It is a multi-agency effort and exceptionally dangerous work. The exposure to every fire increases the risk of cancer, and quite a lot of research has been done, though the samples are often skewed by gender.

It is not just about research and statistics, though. At the end of every statistic is a person, and when contemplating these kinds of legislative changes we must have at the forefront of our minds the personal stories of those who are ultimately affected. At the time the presumptive rights legislation was passed in this Parliament for CFA and FRV firefighters we welcomed news that the government would implement a similar scheme for forest firefighters. Presumptive legislation is available in many jurisdictions around the world in varying forms. They include a common list of cancers, but that list is being expanded in response to emerging information.

Before speaking about this aspect in more detail, I will note contact from industry representatives who are concerned that the presumptive rights do not include industry brigades or independent contractors.

It is a requirement for plantations to have their own fire crews and they work hand in hand with the CFA on fire prevention activities and emergency fire response. There are 23 forest industry brigades registered across the state, representing about 800 people, with around 15 per cent of those being female. Hancock Victorian Plantations told me that from the summer of 2019–20 bushfires on their land alone there were 50 people eligible for the national emergency medal. These people are heroes but will not be eligible. I hope more work is done in the future to find ways to recognise the risk of exposure for these cohorts and how to extend them appropriate presumptive rights.

We do have an amendment today, which seeks to include female-specific cancers on the schedule list. If it is appropriate, I would ask for it to be circulated.

Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party amendment circulated by Ms MAXWELL pursuant to standing orders.

Ms MAXWELL: I said earlier that there are people at the end of the terrifying statistics linking exposure to fire with increased risk of cancer, but let us look at statistics for a moment. A substantial study of nearly 37,000 firefighters between 1972 and 1999 in Florida found significantly increased incidents of bladder, testicular and thyroid cancer for men. Female firefighters had significantly increased incident rates of overall cancer, cervical and thyroid cancers and Hodgkin’s disease. Women comprised around 5 per cent of the sample, so while the findings were significant the sample size was too small to be conclusive. Regardless, the suggestive data was frightening, with cervical cancer incidence more than four times higher in women firefighters. More generally, firefighters have a 9 per cent higher chance of developing cancer in their lifetime and are 14 per cent more likely to die. A study by Bates found testicular and prostate cancers were of high incidence in male firefighters.

In addition to studies on cancer risks, a growing body of research is emerging regarding exposure to toxic chemicals, including carcinogens and hormone disrupters. This is not just on the fireground but extends to stations and on firefighting gear. Medical oncologist Dr Kenneth Kunz suggests cancer rates in female firefighters run higher than the general population in Canada, predicting that female firefighters get a minimum 20 per cent more cancers than the general population. He suggests that 65 per cent of female firefighters will eventually get cancer and 45 per cent of them will die from cancer.

These predictions relate to Canada, where a number of provinces have recently expanded their presumptive rights to include female-specific cancers. Female firefighters are caught in a catch 22 in terms of research. They represent low numbers, compared to men, so they lack the scientific and media attention. Female firefighters in Canada and the United States are pushing for parity for gender-specific cancers. For them, if male counterparts are covered for testicular and other cancers, like prostate, why is there not a reasonable and good faith provision to include female-specific cancers?

It is disappointing that there is so little data specific to women and the impact on their reproductive organs from exposure to fire. While their numbers are only around 4 per cent in Australia, women have been involved in the fire responses for more than a century. Encouragingly, forest firefighters have a greater representation of women, at around 25 per cent, which makes this amendment even more important.

So while the science might not be able to demonstrate the same level of proof, women should not be penalised for this, and we believe that the suggested data should be enough to provide presumptive rights for reproductive cancers in women that are similar to those afforded to men.

Victoria prides itself on being progressive in terms of gender equality, and in fact the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning commissioned research back in 2016 to improve gender diversity in fire and emergency management. This research was led by Women’s Health Goulburn North East, from my electorate, and focused on how DELWP and networked emergency organisations might increase their capacity through diversity.

In all simplicity, gender equality is about creating a level playing field. This state has sometimes gone well beyond—extended levelling the playing field—in the name of gender equality, sometimes in ways I have completely agreed with. But it has not been prepared to put things in place ahead of the curve so that women are not left behind. I hope we do not wait years for data to confirm what we would reasonably conclude now—that the elevated risk in cancer we see in male reproductive organs is probably going to be the same tragic fate for women. This is not just about presumptive rights either. Recognising the probable increase in risk is important for the overall approach to health and safety for firefighters, whether that relates to protective gear, processes or other means to reduce the risk.

I do want to thank the government for actively engaging with me about this and for their undertaking to do further work on expanding these provisions. I look forward to this, and I hope provisions will be considered for FRV and CFA firefighters as well.

In closing, I said earlier that presumptive rights are not just about statistics but are about the individuals affected. A good friend of mine is a recipient of the support offered by the presumptive rights scheme for firefighters. He was and is a proud and effective CFA firefighter. My friend Mick Daws is a great man. And while I wish his cancer away with all my might, I am glad the presumptive scheme was there to give him some much-needed financial assistance and moral support. On that note I commend this bill to the house.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:42): 

Thanks, everyone who has made a contribution on the second-reading debate. It is very interesting that it is an issue that is very close to Acting President Melhem’s heart—and his involvement in the development of where we have got today.

It is an unfortunate reality that recent research findings show that firefighters experience a higher rate of certain cancers than the population at large, and therefore it is a reasonable presumption that firefighters due to their dangerous and necessary occupation are more vulnerable to certain cancers. This bill shifts the burden of proof to access compensation in favour of our forest firefighters. It establishes a presumption that for eligible firefighters certain cancers will be treated as workplace injuries unless there is proof to the contrary. It does this by creating a scheme model very close to the one for career and volunteer firefighters under the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019.

This bill makes use of recent research and evidence on the risks to firefighters to underpin the very significant change to the workers compensation scheme. It is based on our best assessment of the risks and the costs of care, but the validity of those assumptions will need to be tested over time. The bill covers the categories of firefighter and the types of cancer for which the data and relative risks and eligibility requirements are clear and compelling.

I understand that Ms Maxwell has proposed an amendment to include three additional cancers under the scheme that primarily affect women. I think this whole chamber shares Ms Maxwell’s aspiration to ensure the scheme is supportive of women in our fire and emergency services.

This government is committed to increasing the representation of women in our fire and emergency services. Recently the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has established a women in fire emergency services management program through which they have undertaken research to understand the barriers to increasing the number of women in fire and emergency services leadership roles and to improve their recruiting and training processes to ensure a diversity of representation. I know that the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister D’Ambrosio, and Minister Symes in her role as Minister for Emergency Services are both very passionate about this and are making sure there are more women taking up positions in the fire services.

However, this bill is written to cover cancers in which we have the highest degree of confidence based on scientific evidence currently available globally. The cancers listed in this bill are those that governments across Australia are most confident are diagnosed more frequently in firefighters. At this present time we cannot say with any confidence that firefighting increases the risk of contracting other cancers. A recent report out of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency has noted that very few studies have so far been conducted linking elevated incidence of the types of cancer that Ms Maxwell’s amendment is concerned with. Our government agrees that further research is needed and notes that there are a number of studies ongoing. The government will continue to monitor scientific evidence that evolves to ensure the scheme provides for all firefighters. This bill is about ensuring quality of protection across our different streams of firefighting services—for our career and volunteer and now forest firefighters. Any amendment to this scheme, including extending the scheme, would want to be considered holistically and acknowledge the importance of equal protection for those who put themselves on the front lines to keep Victorians safe.

In saying that, I want to thank Ms Maxwell again for raising this important matter regarding her amendment today. I note that Ms Maxwell with this amendment will not go into a division, but we thank her for raising this today. The Minister for Emergency Services, Jaclyn Symes, is a massive advocate for women in the emergency services and those on the front line, and I understand the Minister for Emergency Services has given Ms Maxwell a commitment to undertake further consultation and take into account the medical and scientific advice before we proceed with any reforms that Ms Maxwell may be suggesting. The emergency services minister is happy to involve Ms Maxwell when speaking to women this will affect and those on the ground. I am happy to provide in the chamber this commitment to Ms Maxwell to involving her in this development, and I know this is an area Minister Symes is really interested in exploring.

Motion agreed to – Read second time – Committed.

Committee deliberation

Clause 1 (18:49)

Ms MAXWELL: I have just a couple of quick questions, if I may, to the minister. Minister, you spoke in your speech about the research to ensure that there is further investigation and research done in relation to having these particular cancers for female firefighters, as is intended by my amendments. I am just wondering: how do we achieve those statistics if we are not ultimately encouraging female firefighters to take on that career role? These amendments were done as a guide to support women and encourage women to go into that role knowing that they would have potentially the same opportunities should they end up with cancers which are proven to have been caused by their firefighting career.

Mr LEANE: Well, the answer to Ms Maxwell is there is a commitment, and the Minister for Emergency Services, with the carriage of the other bills that we have passed around the CFA and FRV firefighters, is committed to exploring—well, there are couple of things that she is committed to. She is committed to increasing the number of women in the fire services, but she is also committed to working with the women that are currently in the fire services—to working with them and accessing with them and involving them in any research. I appreciate Ms Maxwell’s concern; I think the whole chamber does, as far as what she has brought to the house goes. As for this bill, it is a bill that the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change has carriage of, as far as the Victorian forest firefighters go. I know it is nothing to really brag about, Ms Maxwell, but the forest firefighters are actually 25 per cent female, so there is probably a better snapshot of what we can work with there as well. I am sure the minister for environment is happy to work with the Minister for Emergency Services and also Ms Maxwell, which is the commitment that Minister Symes has given.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Look, I would just like to leave this with a comment and just say that while I am disappointed that the amendments are not going to a vote, I am incredibly excited, and I thank the minister for his commitment and particularly Attorney-General Symes for giving this commitment. I really look forward to us working together to ensure that female firefighters are encouraged both to work in the field and to feel that there will be further research done to ensure that there is equality and that for those cancers that are listed for men, women will feel that they have that same right afforded to them. Once again, I thank the minister for his responses and for that commitment.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (18:54)

Ms MAXWELL: I move:

1. Clause 9, after line 27 insert—

  • 13 Primary site cervical cancer 10 years
  • 14 Primary site ovarian cancer 10 years
  • 15 Primary site uterine cancer 10 years

I would just like to speak on that amendment, if I may. I think I probably covered off most points in my contribution earlier, but I will reinforce our view that female firefighters should not be disadvantaged from support simply because their demographic is currently too small to provide for conclusive studies. I would like to thank everyone again who has engaged with me and my office on the proposed amendment, including the government, the opposition shadow minister and most of the crossbenchers.

The markers are there, and we should pay attention. Women are as susceptible to elevated risks of cancer as men. Men have significantly elevated risks to their reproductive organs, including testicular cancer, and indicative statistics, though small in number, show the incidence of cervical cancer to be more than four times higher in women firefighters. Yes, the studies are inconclusive on female reproductive organs, but it is a reasonable bow to draw. Quite simply, what is good for the goose is good for the gander—or in this case, the other way around. There are jurisdictions around the world recognising this very point and including women-specific cancers out of good faith and caution. While that might not be enough to make this change today, I am very hopeful that this amendment will be incorporated into future legislation and extend these presumptive rights to all female firefighters.

Mr LEANE: I just quickly reiterate the commitment from Minister Symes to working particularly with Ms Maxwell on this issue and working actually with the women that are currently in the services, but also the commitment of Minister (Jaclyn) Symes and Minister (Lily) D’Ambrosio about increasing the number of women that are in this part of the emergency services—a very important part of the emergency services. I think we agree to work together into the future, but this particular amendment we will not be supporting at this point.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to; clause 10 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Reforms help students on job path

Speech

October 26, 2021

I am pleased to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Senior Secondary Pathways Reform and Other Matters) Bill 2021.

This Bill implements recommendations 1 and 10 of the Firth Review, which proposed reforms to make vocational and applied learning in schools more relevant, higher quality and accessible to students.

There is no doubt that education is a key interest of Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party. Countless studies link a good education to a better pathway in life, simply because it provides greater opportunities for employment, which then provides stability, fulfilment and endless opportunities

I only want to make a couple of quick points on this bill, because much has already been covered by other speakers.  So for me, for Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, it’s natural to look at this bill through the justice lens.

We know that schools are integral to the emotional and social development of our young people. For at risk children, they play a pivotal role in intervention. Breakfast clubs help children obtain food where they otherwise might not, welfare teams link children and families to external supports; and schools are often the first to detect and report serious concerns about absenteeism, neglect and abuse.

It is generally accepted that keeping young people in school for longer reduces their risk of becoming involved in crime. At a very basic level, it provides time for emotional development and role modelling of positive choices and risk-aversion. For young people on the edge of leaving school, alternate learning settings like Borinya in my electorate are really important in keeping young people engaged for as long as possible.

A study more than 10 years ago by Latrobe University found that 46 per cent of young offenders in custody in Victoria had a previously undiagnosed language disorder[i]. There is a strong link between the severity of offending and the severity of disordered language skills. Building the basic capacity to read is incredibly important to improving the life trajectory of a young person. Intervention is needed at the earliest point, which is the early years of school.   La Trobe’s Professor Pamela Snow described this as needing to ‘meet children at the school gate’.

I say that in relation to this bill, because transforming careers education in Victoria’s schools has to link back to identifying children at risk in the early years, and making sure the support and intervention is available at the earliest possible point.  That way, the reforms this bill makes, in providing more diversity across the curriculum and capturing more pathways for senior students, will have even greater effect.

These reforms seek to lift the quality and perception of vocational education and applied learning and I certainly hope that this will be achieved over time.  Our society is heavily reliant on people with vocational skills – there are great jobs out there and we need to ensure young people are connected to those opportunities. Our regional areas are often challenged by a lack of vocational teachers, so implementing these reforms will require strategies to address the shortages and ensure vocational courses are high quality and engaging for students.

Much of this bill sets the framework and authority for transitioning to the new setting, so I will leave it there, with a quick shout out to students across Victoria, especially in my electorate of Northern Victoria who have just finished their formal senior studies in the last week.  The senior years for students in the last couple of years have been doing it tough, most learning has been done remotely and students have missed out on activities and opportunities that usually make their senior years unforgettably special. I know it has been tough for teachers too, in trying to find engaging and practical ways to teach remotely. I hope students will have a much smoother year in 2022. So, to all of the graduates of the Class of 2021, congratulations! To VCE students, I send my best wishes for your exams and more generally for the future.

I commend this bill to the House.

Image: Wangaratta GOTAFE


[i] https://www.latrobe.edu.au/nest/poor-reading-writing-feeds-school-prison-pipeline/

Excluding parliamentarians excludes our electors

Speech

October 14, 2021

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (17:25): I rise to speak on the government motion on compulsory COVID-19 vaccination of members of Parliament. I must start by saying that never did I imagine us debating measures to exclude elected representatives from this Parliament in such circumstances. I guess none of us ever did.

I will start by noting that Mr (Stuart) Grimley MP and I are both fully vaccinated against COVID-19, a decision we took individually and voluntarily, and I wonder if that declaration is enough proof to allow us to continue attending Parliament and our electorate offices. I would also like to place on the record that Mr Grimley and I encourage people to be vaccinated. We are not anti-vaxxers and, I will say it again, we encourage people to be vaccinated.

We are here in this place, as are those in the other place, to serve the people of our electorates. We are here to represent them as citizens and eligible voters, and that only works when we speak for them and on their behalf here in this Parliament. We need to be conscious that excluding any one of us from Parliament is to exclude those who elected us to represent them.

Yes, the house is enabled to manage its own business, but not in such a way as to undermine or change the privilege of its members and certainly not to remove these privileges altogether. So, does a motion to compel members to be vaccinated and for each to provide evidence of vaccination to the house in order to continue to represent their electorates go against the principles of our democracy?

I have spoken to so many people from across my electorate during the course of this pandemic. I have received thousands and thousands of emails, as have you all, regarding their financial hardship and their psychological distress. Victorians have had their everyday choices removed from them—the right to work, to go to school, to go out in public, to see their family, to cross an interstate border five minutes from their home. They have been frustrated by inconsistencies in restrictions and by the severity of mandates. Employers are now being forced to mandate the vaccination of their staff or effectively terminate them. There are privacy and legal concerns about this that are yet to be tested, and some businesses will have to close their doors while they recruit and train replacement staff. People who are not vaccinated face unemployment, further financial hardship and possibly homelessness, and we all know the crisis in the lack of available housing in this state at the moment.

We recognise the demands and limitations placed on the community and perhaps the opinion that members of Parliament should not be treated any differently. There are many other jurisdictions around the world using alternatives such as rapid testing to avoid widespread and prolonged restrictions. This has not been offered here or for a host of other settings. It does not appear that any other parliament in the world has deemed it necessary to mandate its elected representatives to prove their vaccination status in order to do their job. We recognise this may set a very dangerous precedent for the future.

We are disappointed that that health advice has not been provided nor consultation been offered with the chief health officer in relation to this motion. We also question whether these measures are even necessary given that the inoculation rate for members of this chamber sits at approximately 97.5 per cent if the media reports are true. If you include the clerks and other staff that enter this chamber, presuming they are vaccinated, the rate would be more like 99.5 per cent. This house should consider other reasonable means to ensure the safety of this chamber, such as rapid testing, and we will support amendments to that effect.

We believe in everyone in this place being safe, and we are very keen to get back to our normal, regular sittings so we can represent our constituents and hold the government to account. On this basis we will support this motion despite its flaws and noting our concerns that we want to have placed on the record.

Government motion (Attorney General Jaclyn Symes MP)

That —

  • In order to protect the health and safety of Members and parliamentary staff and reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19, this House requires Members of the Legislative Council attending the Chamber or the parliamentary precinct to have received —

(a)       their first COVID-19 vaccine dose by 15 October 2021, or have an appointment to receive their first dose between 15 October and 22 October 2021 and subsequently receive that dose by 22 October 2021; and

(b)       their second COVID-19 vaccine dose by 26 November 2021.

  • In order to protect the health and safety of electorate officers and community members, this House requires Members of the Legislative Council attending their electorate offices to have received COVID-19 vaccinations as set out in paragraph (1).
  • Members must provide proof of vaccination, proof of a vaccination booking or proof of a valid exception to the Clerk by the dates set out in paragraph (1).
  • If any Members do not meet the requirements set out in paragraph (3), the Clerk
    will —

(a)       as soon as practicable, notify each Member of the House which Members have not met the requirements; and

(b)       report the details to the House on the next sitting day.

  • Unless otherwise ordered, any Member who has not complied with the requirements set out in paragraph (3) is determined to have failed to comply with an Order of the House and therefore —

(a)       is suspended from attending the Chamber and the parliamentary precinct until the second sitting day of the 2022 Parliamentary year; and

(b)       will have their Parliamentary precinct security access pass revoked for the period of the suspension at the direction of the Clerk.

  • If a Member who is suspended under paragraph (5) provides proof of a single dose of vaccination between 15 October and 26 November 2021 or a second dose after 26 November 2021, or proof of a valid exception to the Clerk, their suspension is immediately lifted, and the Clerk will advise Members and the House accordingly.
  • For the purposes of this resolution —

(a)       COVID-19 vaccine means a vaccine to protect a person against SARSCoV-2 that, as at the date of this resolution, has been registered or provisionally registered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration or as been approved by a comparable overseas regulator, as determined by the Therapeutic Goods Administration under regulation 16DA(3) of the Therapeutic Goods Regulation 1990 of the Commonwealth;

(b)       proof of vaccination means information about a person’s vaccination status and includes a letter from a medical practitioner, a certificate of immunisation or an immunisation history statement obtained from the Australian Immunisation Register;

(c)       proof of a valid exception means written certification from a medical practitioner that the person is unable, due to a medical contraindication to receive a dose, or a further dose, of a COVID-19 vaccine.

  • The Clerk —

(a)       must ensure all information provided under this resolution remains confidential and is stored securely;

(b)       must not disclose any information except as authorised by this resolution; and

(c)       must destroy all information provided under this resolution at the end of the session or an earlier time determined by the House.

  • The House may agree to further resolutions to —

(a)       vary or amend this resolution; or

(b)       provide for arrangements for sittings in 2022 based on the epidemiology and progress in the roadmap to implementing the national plan at the time.