Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a member of this committee who helped put together this report, I wanted to really commend it to the government and to speak about a couple of key aspects. It's got 88 recommendations, it's quite a considerable document, and there are a number of aspects that I wanted to draw to the chamber's attention that I think are the most important. Those are the issues of coercive control and technology based abuse, and there is one important recommendation that I want to commend to the government when it comes to stopping this kind of abuse.

I have to say that serving on this committee was a very important but at times very harrowing and eye-opening experience for all of us. We know scourge of domestic and family violence on our country, and it comes in many forms. Perpetrators are continually adapting their methods of asserting control over and using force on their victims. It is not just physical abuse but also other forms of abuse, particularly coercive control, that the committee heard about. This is an insidious form of violence. It doesn't show itself easily, like bruises or cuts or broken bones do, but it is probably an even more effective means of control and manipulation. It is behaviour that seeks to isolate victims and intimidate them, to ultimately control another person.

We heard from victims who were put in states of complete fear, at the total mercy of somebody else's actions. Criminals who seek to use coercive control as a weapon withhold finances, access to health care and educational opportunities and even access to children. Importantly—and this is the key point about the importance of addressing coercive control—it is a major predictor of fear and physical violence, particularly homicide. This shows the seriousness of these crimes and the consequences of a path of coercive control.

In my state of Queensland, we recently lost Kelly Wilkinson, a 27-year-old young mum from Runaway Bay on the Gold Coast, who died by the hands of her ex-partner. He set her on fire. Weeks before this horrific crime, Kelly had reached out about her ex-partner to both police and local support groups. She recognised his behaviour; she knew that he was exerting coercive control. She was let down. It isn't good enough. We cannot hear any more of these stories. The behaviour must be stopped, and the way we do that is by having proper legislation that captures coercion and coercive behaviour, and has consistency across all states. Police and other law enforcement need to have legislative powers so that, when they are contacted by the Kellys of this world, they can act very quickly to stop those perpetrators.

At present, each state and territory approaches coercive control and the legislation to prevent it differently. Some have better legislation than others. Some, unfortunately, have no legislation. To truly capture all of the behaviours that involve coercive control and have them dealt with properly under law so that law enforcement can protect victims and survivors, the committee has recommended that the federal government work with the states and territories to establish 'shared principles to guide any future offences of coercive and controlling behaviour, with a view to ensuring consistency' across all jurisdictions. To that call for consistency, I would add a very strong call for states to get on with the job of legislating against coercive control.

That leads on to aspects of how coercive control occurs. Some of it is well documented, but I wanted to take the opportunity to speak to the part of the committee report that documents, in particular, technology facilitated coercive control, which I think is a relatively new but unfortunately quickly expanding form of that offence. Technology is being used to commit some of the most horrific forms of coercive control. Criminals with the most insidious intentions are using social media platforms for all sorts of things. But, when it comes to domestic and family violence, devices and platforms are being used to further control, stalk and intimidate victims.

A recent example is messaging on banking platforms. You'd think this would be a pretty innocuous form of technology—somebody is making an electronic bank transfer to another and they have an opportunity to write a short message about what that transfer relates to. Well, as we are learning, even these most innocuous forms of technology come with great risk. A month or two ago, I was in the Economics Committee talking to the major banks. In answering my questions, the Commonwealth Bank revealed that thousands of customers are sending hundreds of thousands of abusive and coercive messages to people, particularly in domestic violence situations, across this seemingly innocuous technology. It's only recently that the banks, to their credit, have picked up on it. Having done so, they're starting to fully understand and reveal the full scope of the horror, which we didn't understand before.

One of the other most concerning developments is remote access Trojans, or RATs. RATs are purchased from online sellers and can be installed on victims' devices. If you were seeking to exert coercive control, you could purchase a subscription for a RAT—which is just a software program—just as you would purchase a subscription for Microsoft Word. You could install it on a victim's device and you would then have full access to that device, whether it's a laptop, a phone or an iPad. You'd see the keystrokes and you could observe banking passwords. You could stalk their diaries, often without their consent. It is used to assert control and instil great fear. Before this inquiry, I confess I didn't know what RATs were, how they could be used or, indeed, the prevalence of their use. But, having been briefed by the AFP and having served on this committee, I am now fully across the horror that these things pose. They are not in and of themselves illegal, but I have to say I can see no legal or reasonable use for such a technology. I think there's work to be done on, again, giving law enforcement more powers to crack down on those who use RATs to exercise coercive control. In particular, the committee has recommended a public awareness campaign on this technology so that victims-survivors and the general community are aware how they can be used for coercive control and how to recognise the signs of a device being monitored. I think this is a very important recommendation, and I commend it to the government to take up.

Finally, if I could be so bold as to single one out, I would highlight what I think is the most important of the 88 recommendations. More often than not, when the committee heard this harrowing testimony, we heard the phrase 'If only I had known'. If only they had known how poorly he had treated a previous partner, that he was already subject to and had broken a previous AVO or that he already had a conviction which was part of a pattern of escalating behaviour, that victim-survivor could have protected themselves and their children. It is with that in mind that I believe the most important recommendation for government to take action on is the introduction of a register of convicted family, domestic and sexual violence offenders, similar to the proposed national public register of child sex offenders.

What a powerful tool a public register would be. It would allow victim-survivors to take back some of the power from these perpetrators. It would mean that the crimes of these perpetrators and their escalating behaviour would follow them throughout their lives, as they should. In my mind, the moment that you engage in this kind of behaviour, you give up the right to some kind of anonymity and you deserve having your behaviour follow you as long as you walk this place. Others deserve the opportunity to be warned off you and warned of your behaviour. With a register like this, women could search the same of a prospective partner and be able to find if they have a history of violence or abuse towards other partners or women. Power would be handed back to them so they can decide and be informed about who they allow to enter their lives. It is a very simple idea and something we all take for granted. We control who enters our lives. We control who engages with our family. But we need the information to be able to make informed decisions, and the register would allow us to do that.

The fact that it might also, hopefully, make these offenders think twice about committing this behaviour in the first place if this behaviour was to follow them for the rest of their life would be an even better incidental benefit. The main benefit is for victim-survivors to take back the power, but, if it deterred even one bit of offending, it would make the whole thing worth it. I commend in particular those three recommendations and the whole report to the government.

See this speech in context