Both NSW and Queensland have committed to criminalise coercive control. This has the potential to disproportionately impact First Nations people who often can鈥檛 report to police safely.
In July this year the NSW government released a outlining a proposed standalone offence of coercive control for NSW.
Under the proposed law, repeated abusive behaviours such as controlling an intimate partner鈥檚 finances, isolating them from their family, or monitoring their movements, could amount to a criminal offence attracting up to seven years in prison.
Like NSW, Queensland has also committed to introducing coercive control as an offence. However this will only be done after it undertakes wider . This includes conducting into domestic violence policing.
Both states have committed to criminalise coercive control despite First Nations women expressing about it. These advocates have stated introduction of a coercive control offence could lead to further of First Nations victim-survivors of violence.
There is an ongoing problem with police victim-survivors of violence as perpetrators. Various Aboriginal-led organisations have expressed concerns this will worsen with the introduction of a new coercive control offence.
The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service has :
as well as experiencing [鈥 general risk factors [for victim misidentification] at a higher rate, Aboriginal women are also more likely to be misidentified simply because they are Aboriginal, as a result of racism and bias among police and service providers.
Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women鈥檚 Legal Centre also detailed this issue in their to the NSW Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control:
[if an] Aboriginal woman is uneasy or unable to persuade a police officer that she is the primary victim of physical violence [under the current law] what hope, or incentive is there to persuade a police officer that she has experienced ongoing psychological and economic abuse [under the new law]?
Sisters Inside and the Institute for Collaborative Race Research :
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are routinely misidentified as 鈥渙ffenders鈥 rather than 鈥渧ictims鈥. Not only will Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and girls not be afforded protection by this legislation, they will be squarely targeted.
First Nations organisations and communities have repeatedly identified in victim-misidentification by police. This needs to be addressed before governments proceed with implementing coercive control as an offence.
Concerns of racism and perpetrator misidentification are reinforced by co-author Emma Buxton-Namisnyk鈥檚 . This analysis found almost a third of First Nations women killed in domestic violence homicides had been previously identified by police as domestic violence perpetrators.
This research police were likely to describe First Nations women as 鈥渦ncooperative鈥 or 鈥渦nwilling鈥 to work with police.
Police had used terminology such as this to describe victims in almost three quarters of domestic violence homicides where police had previously been involved in relation to domestic violence. In many cases police used this language to justify their decision to not provide protection or assistance for First Nations women when they experienced abuse.
Queensland鈥檚 ongoing domestic and family violence-related policing inquiry has also highlighted racism and sexism within the Queensland Police Service. This has included to properly investigate domestic violence-related deaths of First Nations women, and .
In addition to entangling victim-survivors in the criminal justice system, victim misidentification can expose women to increased and the threat of child removal.
First Nations women's聽children already enter out of home care at an unacceptable rate.
Victim misidentification can also limit women鈥檚 access to support services and enable perpetrators to to further abuse victim-survivors. For example, a perpetrator may attempt to draw out legal proceedings to intimidate or financially harm a victim-survivor.
Both the and inquiries have acknowledged there may be 鈥渦nintended consequences鈥 in criminalising coercive control, especially for First Nations women.
Saying these consequences are 鈥溾 implies these outcomes are also unanticipated. In this case, the consequences of criminalising coercive control for First Nations women are far from unanticipated. They have been repeatedly, explicitly identified and acknowledged during the law reform process. Using the language of 鈥渦nintended consequences鈥 seems to be a way to avoid accountability in law and policy making.
A similar example of law reform negatively impacting First Nations people can be found with previous changes to bail laws in Victoria. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service :
changes to bail laws introduced in 2018 were opposed by expert stakeholders, including The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, on the basis that they would disproportionately affect Aboriginal people. This expertise was disregarded, and the changed bail laws have resulted in Aboriginal women 鈥 including victim-survivors of domestic violence 鈥 being remanded in custody at alarming rates.
Both the NSW and Queensland governments have been told repeatedly what could happen if they proceed with criminalising coercive control. Instead they are pursuing a 鈥渢ough on domestic violence鈥 stance risking significant harm to its most marginalised victims.
Governments must listen and respond to First Nations women's聽lived experiences, advocacy and evidence-based concerns before proceeding down this path. Because it is First Nations women who will suffer the 鈥渦nanticipated consequences鈥 of these new laws.
, Lecturer, School of Law, Society and Criminology, ; , Research Associate, , and , PhD Candidate,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .