Bill Debate: Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026

BILL DEBATE:

‘JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FAMILY VIOLENCE, COERCIVE CONTROL, GOOD CHARACTER, RISK ASSESSMENT AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2026.’

Wednesday, 26 August 2026

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:40):

I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026.

Victim-survivors deserve a more contemporary justice system and the Coalition has, through the work of a number of our Members, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Eildon, lived up to that commitment in our work in recent times and over our time in Opposition. On coercive control, last December the Member for Eildon sought to introduce in this place a Private Members Bill that would have seen action taken almost one year ago, because we strongly believe that victim-survivors deserve a more contemporary justice system.

As the Attorney-General said in her second-reading speech, this Bill enables reforms to prioritise victim-survivors’ safety and improve the efficiency of justice processes, and in some ways it does. But it does not go far enough to provide that contemporary justice system that we as a Parliament have an obligation to deliver.

What this Bill does, in summary, is it makes Amendments in relation to family violence, intervention orders and criminal proceedings; enables information sharing; makes some changes in relation to electronic signatures; adds the new offence of coercive control; and makes Amendments to the capacity of good character when it comes to sentencing. I do note that an Amendment that does not get brought into effect for a full year – until August 2027 – provides that grooming constitutes prohibited behaviour. The Bill also makes a number of fines reforms and prohibits discrimination on the basis of subjection to family violence. What this Bill does not do is deliver a number of much-needed contemporary reforms and reforms this government has committed to delivering. This is a lost opportunity.

When it comes to the outstanding reforms, we need to think of them as a required set of changes that only bring about a contemporary system when they are all enacted. The measures in this Bill are important and that is why the Coalition supports them. As I said, in relation to coercive control, we moved a Private Members Bill to do just that. When it comes to character references in terms of sentencing, of course we support the reform, but there are a number of other issues that we are seeing in our justice system at the moment which are causing significant damage to victim-survivors.

I refer specifically, firstly, to suppression orders. Suppression orders are causing serious damage in the way that they are, in my view, being misused. We are the suppression order capital of the country in Victoria, and it is a change that is needed. After months and months of calling for action, we have seen the government commit to reviewing the issue. We have as a Coalition committed to end the abuse of suppression orders because we are angry with how they are being given out. There is no other word for it. As has been reported, it has been proposed that a change in that area should restrict orders to genuine physical safety reasons and severely limit the current mental health loophole. We have committed to fixing this loophole. A Coalition Government led by Jess Wilson will see reform of suppression orders, because we cannot see the continuation of suppression orders being issued in a way that is hurting and damaging people and being misused.

Further, as the Member for Eildon rightly put it, a Coalition Government will see the introduction of Clare’s law in Victoria.

For background, for the Chamber, Clare’s law was introduced in the United Kingdom after the tragic murder of Clare Wood by a former partner. What the scheme allows is for individuals to request information from police about a partner’s history of violence – their right to ask – and places an onus on police to proactively disclose information when they identify a risk – their right to know. This scheme is in place in South Australia and has seen 2581 applications and 1064 disclosures since its inception at the end of 2024, a significant measure which shows that where there is a right to ask, there is a set of information to know, as it were. That is why we strongly support those laws being introduced in Victoria. Again, under a Coalition, that will be introduced.

I would also note our commitment to prerecording sexual assault evidence. Victim-survivors deserve a more contemporary justice system, as I said earlier. That is why we have talked about and committed to the capacity for prerecorded sexual assault evidence. I note that after our commitment the Government matched our commitment to introduce that reform and has not done so, which is causing distress in the sector. Reform is needed and should include letting victims in sexual offence proceedings be given the option of prerecorded evidence. Again, a Coalition Government will do that.

Other than suppression orders, a number of other matters were recently raised at a Melbourne University round table that are worth mentioning. Though it is not specifically in the Act, there are issues with pseudonyms and concealment orders which deserve looking at because, as has been put by the courts before, they operate as de facto suppression orders. There has also been an argument put that is worth considering in relation to suppression orders, which is whether there should be an obligation to publicly publish reasons – which is not always the case – so that we can understand the reason for a suppression order.

Tangentially, I think it is worth considering current court documents and the processes around court documents. I note that in Queensland there is a legislative requirement in relation to court documents, and that is worth looking at. There are some outstanding issues in relation to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 in relation to victim consent, for example, where an adult victim has an order against their partner, and whether or not there is a consent issue whereby the person who has the order placed against them may be protected by the law. Clearly it is a mistake at law, if you will, when there are some circumstances where they are protected in a way that perhaps they should not be.

I think it is finally worth also noting the Victims of Crime Commissioner’s recommendations at the end of September last year in relation to court safety. Court safety is of course a matter that should always be considered.

All of these issues that I have raised go to providing victim-survivors with a more contemporary justice system. They are important changes that could have been included in this Bill and in some cases, as I said, have been committed to by the government but not delivered; I went through prerecorded sexual assault evidence as an example of that. These are commitments that we as a coalition have made in most of those cases. Victim-survivors deserve that contemporary justice system, and that is what they will have under a Coalition Government.