Bill: Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025

BILL:

‘JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FAMILY VIOLENCE,STALKING AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2025.’

Wednesday, 19 November 2025.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (18:17):

I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025.

I note that this is an important Bill, and I hope that many Members have the opportunity to speak on it. Members on our side will try and give each other an opportunity to speak. Noting that we only have tomorrow’s debate time, we will shorten our contributions a little bit to make sure we get through as many Members as possible. We have a lot of people who want to speak about this
because this is an important Bill. This is a really important Bill, and we are not opposing this Bill, because we very strongly believe – and I very strongly believe as the shadow – in both the measures in relation to family violence, but also the start of what I hope we can see in relation to a broader reform around stalking.

I know that many Members of this place came out from both sides of the Chamber and sat on the steps of Parliament with Aggie, who was commemorating her daughter Celeste Manno, who died in what was one of the most horrid cases of crime that frankly shocked not only I am sure the State, but the country, and led to her brave mother Aggie leading so powerfully a case for reform on stalking. The case of her daughter showed that we need reform, that we need change in the law, in terms of resourcing but more broadly in terms of cultural change. It is true that this Government prioritised family violence and led on family violence in Australia with a number of reforms and also the Royal Commission, but that change and that advocacy is also needed in relation to stalking.

Though this Bill just starts that process, we know that it is only a very small step, if I might say – an important one; I do not want to downgrade that step, but it is a first step only. I will talk about that in a little bit more detail. We know that, in relation to family violence, in 2023 Victoria Police responded to 94,170 family violence incidents, which represents one every 6 minutes. There is a shocking need to always be reforming here and to be stepping strongly into this space and looking for further ways to do better. This Bill does that in a number of ways.

I will talk to those Amendments. Firstly, by way of a lot of the substance on the family violence reforms, this Bill amends things like family violence intervention orders, family violence safety notices and personal safety intervention orders. I will touch on a number of the measures contained therein and also go through some of the Law Institute of Victoria, the Criminal Bar Association and also the Australian Lawyers Alliance’s assessments of those changes, because they are worth putting into the record and are worth noting, because they are important
additional contributions. All have noted the speed of the Bill and have provided advice on the Bill, which has been very much appreciated – the law institute, the Criminal Bar Association, the lawyers alliance and more – but felt that the speed with which the bill was put to them did not allow them an opportunity, as would always be the case with other pieces of legislation, to deal with it in more substance. I very much thank them for their speedy turnaround in terms of their assessments, and because of that, I feel very much that they should be commended for the work that they have done.

On those points, the Law Institute has noted – and it is worth saying – that although it has concerns in relation to certain elements of the Bill, overall, the law institute commends the Victorian Government for pursuing these reforms. It is important to put that on record. Though, as the Criminal Bar Association said, the bills were not the subject of proper scrutiny, and often the resulting legislation has unforeseen, unintended or undesirable outcomes. They further point out that with an endemic delay in the hearing and determination of applications for family violence intervention orders, it is a real problem, because you need to think of these things in conjunction, don’t you. You need to think of reforms but also the practical outcome in terms of how these matters are heard and how they are considered in a hearing and on a daily basis, for want of a better explanation.

In terms of the matters in the Bill, there is a new default length for family violence intervention orders, which does align with states like New South Wales – a default length of two years. It has been suggested by the Law Institute that the Victorian Government must ensure that there are additional resources provided, which is not unreasonable, especially in terms of legal assistance and legal aid. Those points I think have been consistent ones across the whole gamut of the Amendments being made. I should actually mention, on the two years, that the Lawyers Alliance did feel that it was worth recommending that it should be explicit that the order duration must be the least restrictive period reasonably necessary to ensure safety and that the two-year period is a guidance rather than presumptive.

The Law Institute did make similar points around that two-year period – that rather than the two-year period becoming a default, there should be some guidance to ensure that there is the capacity for the court to consider the matter on its merits and on the specifics of the matter.

Another change includes allowing the court to make family violence intervention orders conditional in relation to animals. I think there were a number of issues in
relation to the changes. It is not that those changes, in my view, are unwelcome; I think they are important issues that have been captured by this legislation. However, it is worth thinking through how those changes will flow through in the practical sense. For example, as the Law Institute has pointed out, where a family pet is registered under the name of the perpetrator but has close ties to the affected person, the pet would remain in the perpetrator’s possession, so there may need to be further clarification about how those issues are managed. The intent of course is welcomed in this Bill; it is about how that would be managed in that circumstance, so some of the practical elements in relation to that.

Further, on the minimum age of 12 years for respondents of family violence intervention orders, there have been mixed views on the issue. The Australian Lawyers Alliance does have concerns and, it should be noted, proposed 14 years. We accept the proposal in the legislation. It is worth noting that we are not pushing the proposal put by the Lawyers Alliance. As a courtesy to them, they have noted that they believe it should be limited to 12- to 13-year olds only in exceptional circumstances. Obviously, we support the Government’s proposal, but they have suggested that.

Another Amendment relates to allowing the courts to make orders for alternate or substituted service, which is a matter that has been hotly contested by the experts in terms of the practical application of service. Because service is a serious issue, it does need to be made clear where service has occurred, as the law institute has put, so as to avoid unintentional breaches of orders where the respondent is not made aware of the order. That makes sense, because if we are moving to a place where we are creating a model for alternate service, we need to think through how that will practically operate when we perhaps move to alternate services or, as has been suggested, potentially in the future private providers. Do they have the expert understanding of the subject matters they are dealing with in terms of service? Those general points are not necessarily concerning in relation to the Bill, but because a framework is being created and
effectively foreshadowed, these are issues we will need to think about in the future.

On allowing the courts to make interim and final orders regardless of whether some of the offending occurred outside of Victoria and one affected family member was outside and one was inside, currently both have to be in the same place.

This is actually a really important part of the reforms in this Bill. The community awareness of this reform perhaps has not been highlighted, but it is a very important reform, because though we will see issues in terms of managing cross jurisdictional matters – of course we will see that – no doubt there is cooperation between law enforcement across jurisdictions. It is a really important signal in this Bill to say that the Victorian Parliament and more broadly we as Victorians would expect that where offending has occurred, that is captured by our law and that loopholes cannot exist in relation to whether or not someone is in the same state.

As the Law Institute points out, the proposed Amendments do not specify whether extraterritoriality is limited to Australian States or is also international, which is a note. I read it as interstate in that there are other constitutional issues in other places and constitutional power limits in relation to this Parliament, believe it or not. But this is perhaps a point that is worth noting, because it is an important point and we do not want those loopholes to extend any further than they need to.

Another reform relates to providing Victoria Legal Aid to conduct cross examination of the affected family member on behalf of self-represented respondents. It is another very important reform that ensures that people affected, victim-survivors, are not put in a position they need not be in. But again, to reinforce the point from the Law Institute, the Victorian Government must ensure that legal aid has adequate resourcing, as they say, and further, broadly, current legal assistance funding in Victoria is not sufficient. Placing additional requirements on legal aid to provide legal assistance on such matters will only place further strain on an already stretched system. So, it is an important point to note that though this Bill does do important things in relation to these matters, there is still the capacity provided to those services. When I speak briefly about stalking, that will become clear as well.

There are a number of other minor Amendments in relation to the family violence issues. I think I have touched on a lot of the broad-based issues. There are a number of Amendments in relation to things like jury directions, which I will not go into in any great detail, but there are jury direction changes, including in relation to non-fatal strangulation, intimate image offences and historical sexual offences. There are also some changes in relation to where certain offences have occurred it would be open for a jury to find an accused guilty of an alternate
offence, which is also an important reform that perhaps has not been widely understood by the community. So, in relation to, broadly speaking, the family violence matters, I think I have touched on the majority of the major reforms contained in the Bill. As I said, those matters are supported by the Coalition, and the Coalition will not be opposing the Bill.

In relation to stalking, I did touch on at the start our view that these stalking reforms, which go to two of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s final report recommendations. For background: led by Aggie after the tragic death of her daughter Celeste, the Law Reform Commission conducted what can only be described as a groundbreaking report a few years ago, released a final report into stalking and released 45 recommendations. It is a significant, significant piece of work in relation to the need to take a very strong set of forward steps in relation to stalking.

I should note, and I say this as constructively as I can, the Government has not substantially dealt with the 45 recommendations in the Commission’s report. This bill acquits two of the recommendations in relation to recommendations 26 and 33 – 26 relates to amendments of personal safety intervention orders, and recommendation 33 is the change in relation to the offence of stalking. We do accept and we do support that you cannot see change in relation to stalking unless you look to the primary offence and reform it where it needs that reform. So, we accept that on that particular resetting out of the offence of stalking it is a significant reform, but it is only a start, which is why earlier on I said that it was a first step in relation to the work needed on stalking.

Both the Law Institute of Victoria and the Criminal Bar Association have understandably put out strong views on that. I will start with the Law Institute. They have said a couple of things which are worth noting and recording. They said that they:

… support the reformulation of the stalking offence, which would amend the current Crimes Act section into a single offence rather than creating separate offences. The Law Institute emphasises that the proposal provides for clear, understandable and modernised language –

Frankly, I accept their assessment of that reform. They further said:

The LIV is satisfied that the proposed restructuring provides clarity with respect to the intentional, reckless and objective fault elements of the existing stalking offence. Furthermore, that the fault element is much clearer without detracting the meaning of the offence or adding any unnecessary complexity, such as, for instance, requiring changes on maximum penalties and sentencing practices for stalking.

This is a very clear endorsement of what is a very, very complicated restructuring of the offence. When you then go to the Criminal Bar Association’s assessment, they have described it slightly differently. They say:

The modifications to the offence of stalking involve the creation of a criminal offence which is at odds with contemporary notions of criminal responsibility.

To unpick that very, very briefly, the modernisation, frankly, does bring about change. But my very strong view is that there is a significant problem with stalking, and there is a significant need for change in relation to stalking. Though of course, with respect, I accept the assessment, we sadly live in a time where non-family-violence stalking offences increased by almost 10 per cent in the year to June to nearly 1200 cases. Family violence increased by nearly 7 per cent at 1800 cases. This is a very, very serious offence and one that affects a lot of people. The modernisation of the section has required, frankly, a step to be taken that perhaps some might have felt went into new territory, but it is worth, and only fair to record, the Bar Association’s concerns.

I will be very brief because I know I promised my colleagues more time than I have given them. I definitely promised them more time than I have given them, but this is really important to get on the record. In terms of the Law Reform Commission’s report, I did want to note a couple of points that they went to in their executive summary but also in their recommendations. Very succinctly, their view is that:

The criminal justice system is not dealing effectively with stalking.

That is a very powerful sentence. It is a very powerful sentence when you read it. I think it stands on its own, and I think it is true. Action is needed. Further:

For too long the response to stalking has focused on what the victim survivor is expected to do to avoid being stalked.

If you think about that sentence and you think about the current framework, that is also true. The recurrent response to stalking has focused on what the victimsurvivor
is expected to do to avoid being stalked. The onus is on them. This Amendment to the concept of stalking is a first step, but as the Commission has pointed out in a number of ways, we will only improve with systemic change, with a Government that leans into not just a reframing of the offence as a first step but quite a dramatic intervention into this space. We do require a very
dramatic intervention here, and that will include things like public education in a similar way, frankly, to family violence and strong Government investment into the area and also to all of the adjacent services to ensure that the resources are properly equipped.

There are many other recommendations, and though I am tempted to them read in, others I am sure would prefer to take the opportunity. But I do note for the House’s interest that it is worth looking at the work of the Commission. It is an astonishing piece of work, and I think most of it you could pick up today. Not every single recommendation in its entirety works to perhaps what we would need to implement if we had a magic wand tomorrow, but a lot of it you could immediately pick up and it would bring about significant reform to this issue.

In my brief remarks on the Bill, I again note that the Coalition will not be opposing the bill. I have gone to a number of Amendments that I think are very strong in this Bill, though in relation to stalking it is a step rather than many steps and I do hope this is an area for future reform.