{"id":"BILL-ACT-db-74340","name":"Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026","slug":"crimes-coercive-control-amendment-bill-2026","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"act","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":"2026-05-28","administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":462405,"registerId":"BILL-ACT-db-74340:current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-05-28","status":"in_force","reasons":null,"registeredAt":"2026-05-28T04:54:24.618Z"},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"retrieval-0001","sectionType":"document_chunk","heading":"Document excerpt 1","content":"# Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026\n\nJ2025-1308\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\n2026\nTHE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY\nFOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY\n(As presented)\n(Minister for the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence)\nCrimes (Coercive Control) Amendment\nBill 2026\nContents\nPage\n1 Name of Act 2\n2 Commencement 2\n3 Legislation amended 2\n4 Offences against Act—application of Criminal Code etc\nSection 7A, note 1, new dot point 2\n5 New part 3B 2\n6 New part 21 5\n7 Dictionary, definition of conduct 6\n8 Dictionary, new definitions 6\n\nContents\nPage\ncontents 2 Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\nSchedule 1 Consequential amendments 7\nPart 1.1 Ombudsman Act 1989 7\nPart 1.2 Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 2016 7\n\nJ2025-1308\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\n2026\nTHE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY\nFOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY\n(As presented)\n(Minister for the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence)\nCrimes (Coercive Control) Amendment\nBill 2026\nA Bill for\nAn Act to amend the Crimes Act 1900, and for other purposes\nThe Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory enacts as follows:\n\nSection 1\npage 2 Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\n1 Name of Act1\nThis Act is the Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Act 2026.2\n2 Commencement3\n(1) Sections 3 and 6 commence on the day after this Act’s notification4\nday.5\nNote The naming and commencement provisions automatically commence on6\nthe notification day (see Legislation Act, s 75 (1)).7\n(2) The remaining provisions commence 2 years after this Act’s8\nnotification day.9\n3 Legislation amended10\nThis Act amends the Crimes Act 1900 and the legislation mentioned11\nin schedule 1.12\n4 Offences against Act—application of Criminal Code etc13\nSection 7A, note 1, new dot point14\ninsert15\n• s 72J (Coercive control of family member)16\n5 New part 3B17\ninsert18\nPart 3B Coercive control19\n72I Definitions—pt 3B20\nIn this part:21\nconduct means an act or an omission to do an act.22\ncourse of conduct includes—23\n(a) conduct that is repeated or continuous or both; and24\n\nSection 5\nCrimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026 page 3\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\n(b) a series of incidents of conduct that do not occur in immediate1\nsuccession or form an unbroken series.2\nfamily member, of a person—see the Family Violence Act 2016,3\nsection 9.4\nharm—see the Criminal Code, dictionary.5\n72J Coercive control of family member6\n(1) A person commits an offence if—7\n(a) the person is an adult; and8\n(b) the person engages in a course of conduct consisting of family9\nviolence against a family member of the person; and10\n(c) the person intends the course of conduct to coerce or control the11\nfamily member; and12\n(d) a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances, consider the13\ncourse of conduct likely to result in harm to, or fear of harm in,14\nthe family member or someone else.15\nMaximum penalty: 700 penalty units, imprisonment for 7 years or16\nboth.17\n(2) For subsection (1) (b)—18\n(a) a course of conduct may consist of family violence if it consists19\nof any combination of incidents of family violence; and20\n(b) whether a course of conduct consisting of family violence exists21\nmust be assessed by considering the totality of the conduct.22\n(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the course of conduct was reasonable23\nin all the circumstances.24\nNote The defendant has an evidential burden in relation to the matter25\nmentioned in s (3) (see Criminal Code, s 58).26\n\nSection 5\npage 4 Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\n(4) For a person to be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1),1\nthe trier of fact must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there2\nwas a course of conduct consisting of family violence.3\n(5) However—4\n(a) the trier of fact is not required to be satisfied of the particulars5\nof any specific incident of family violence alleged to form part6\nof the course of conduct of which it would have to be satisfied7\nif the incident were charged as a separate offence; and8\n(b) if the trier of fact is a jury—the members of the jury are not9\nrequired to be satisfied about the same incidents of family10\nviolence alleged to form part of the course of conduct.11\n(6) In a proceeding for an offence against subsection (1), the12\nprosecution—13\n(a) is not required to allege the particulars for any specific incident14\nof family violence to the extent necessary if the incident were15\ncharged as a separate offence; but16\n(b) is required to allege—17\n(i) the nature and description of the conduct alleged to form18\npart of the course of conduct; and19\n(ii) particulars of the period of time over which the course of20\nconduct took place.21\n(7) In a proceeding for an offence against subsection (1), the prosecution22\nis not required to prove that the person intended each incident of23\nfamily violence to coerce or control the person’s family member.24\n72K Review of provisions about coercive control25\n(1) The Minister administering the Domestic Violence Agencies Act 198626\nmust review the operation of the amendments to this Act made by the27\nCrimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Act 2026 as soon as28\npracticable after the end of 3 years after this section commences.29\n\nSection 6\nCrimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026 page 5\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\n(2) The Minister must present a report of the review to the Legislative1\nAssembly within 1 year after the day the review is started.2\n(3) This section expires 6 years after the day it commences.3\n6 New part 214\ninsert5\nPart 21 Coercive control advisory6\ncommittee7\n433 Advisory committee8\n(1) The coercive control advisory committee is established.9\n(2) The function of the advisory committee is to advise the responsible10\nMinister about the offence relating to coercive control mentioned in11\nthe Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Act 2026, section 5,12\nincluding the implementation of the offence.13\n(3) The advisory committee is made up of members appointed by the14\nresponsible Minister who the Minister considers have relevant skills15\nand experience.16\nNote For laws about appointments, see the Legislation Act, pt 19.3.17\n(4) The advisory committee may establish an expert reference group to18\nassist the committee in the exercise of its function.19\n(5) In this section:20\nresponsible Minister means the Minister administering the Domestic21\nViolence Agencies Act 1986.22\n434 Expiry—pt 2123\nThis part expires 3 years after the day it commences.24\n\nSection 7\npage 6 Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\n7 Dictionary, definition of conduct1\nsubstitute2\nconduct—3\n(a) for part 3B (Coercive control)—see section 72I; and4\n(b) for part 13 (Unfitness to plead and mental impairment)—see the5\nCriminal Code, section 13.6\n8 Dictionary, new definitions7\ninsert8\ncourse of conduct, for part 3B (Coercive control)—see section 72I.9\nfamily member, of a person, for part 3B (Coercive control)—see the10\nFamily Violence Act 2016, section 9.11\nharm, for part 3B (Coercive control)—see the Criminal Code,12\ndictionary.13\n\nConsequential amendments Schedule 1\nOmbudsman Act 1989 Part 1.1\nAmendment [1.1]\nCrimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026 page 7\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\nSchedule 1 Consequential amendments1\n(see s 3)2\nPart 1.1 Ombudsman Act 19893\n[1.1] Section 17E (1), definition of reportable conduct, new4\nparagraph (b) (iii) (BA)5\ninsert6\n(BA) section 72J (Coercive control of family member);7\nPart 1.2 Victims of Crime (Financial8\nAssistance) Act 20169\n[1.2] Schedule 1, division 1.2.2, new item 1A10\nbefore item 1, insert11\n1A Crimes Act 72J coercive control\n12\n\npage 8 Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026\nAuthorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au\nEndnotes\n1 Presentation speech\nPresentation speech made in the Legislative Assembly on 28 May 2026.\n2 Notification\nNotified under the Legislation Act on 2026.\n3 Republications of amended laws\nFor the latest republication of amended laws, see www.legislation.act.gov.au.\n© Australian Capital Territory 2026","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This Bill stays within the core purpose of criminalising coercive control as a pattern of family-violence behaviour. It adds implementation and oversight measures (an advisory committee and a statutory review) and makes consequential changes to reporting and victim-assistance regimes, but does not materially expand the object beyond creating the offence and associated procedural and administrative arrangements (see new Part 3B, Part 21, and Schedule 1)."},"complexity_factors":["New standalone offence with aggregated \"course of conduct\" concept (72I–72J)","Cross-references to Family Violence Act 2016 (family member) and Criminal Code (harm; evidential-burden rule)","Special evidentiary/procedural rules: prosecution not required to plead particulars; jury need not agree on same incidents (72J(5)–(7))","Defendant bears an evidential burden for the reasonableness exception (note to s72J referencing Criminal Code s58)","Definitions and dictionary inserts increase cross-referencing (conduct, course of conduct, family member, harm)","Delayed commencement (most provisions 2 years after notification) and immediate commencement for some sections (s2)","Statutory review clause with reporting deadline and expiry (72K)","Temporary advisory committee with power to establish expert reference group and expiry (Part 21 ss 433–434)","Consequential amendments across other Acts (Ombudsman Act; Victims of Crime Act)","Potential for increased pre-trial litigation over scope, particulars and totality-of-conduct assessments (implied by procedural design)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Bill does (mechanics first)**\n\n- Creates a new criminal offence called \"coercive control of a family member\" in the Crimes Act (new Part 3B, especially section 72J). The offence targets an adult who engages in a \"course of conduct\" of family violence against a family member with the intention of coercing or controlling them (72J(1)(a)–(c)).\n- Sets the legal test for harm or fear: a conviction requires that a reasonable person would regard the course of conduct as likely to cause harm or a fear of harm to the family member or someone else (72J(1)(d)).\n- Specifies the maximum penalty: 700 penalty units, 7 years imprisonment, or both (72J(1) penalty). \n- Defines key terms and structure: \"conduct\" and \"course of conduct\" are defined (72I); \"family member\" and \"harm\" are to be read from the Family Violence Act 2016 and the Criminal Code dictionary respectively (72I and Dictionary inserts).\n- Allows a lawful-defence-type exception: subsection (1) does not apply if the course of conduct \"was reasonable in all the circumstances\" (72J(3)). The defendant bears an evidential burden for that matter (note to s72J refers to Criminal Code s58).\n- Alters prosecutorial procedure for this offence: the prosecution must describe the nature of the conduct and the time period (72J(6)(b)), but is not required to plead or prove particulars of each alleged incident as would be necessary for separate incident charges (72J(5)–(6)). A jury is not required to agree on the same specific incidents that make up the course of conduct (72J(5)(b)). The prosecution also does not have to prove that the accused intended each individual incident to be coercive — only the course of conduct overall (72J(7)).\n- Requires a statutory review of the amendments within about 3 years after commencement, with a report to the Assembly within a year of starting the review; that review provision expires 6 years after commencement (72K).\n- Establishes a temporary advisory committee to advise the responsible Minister on the offence and its implementation; the committee may form an expert reference group and the Part expires 3 years after commencement (Part 21, ss 433–434).\n- Makes consequential changes: the offence is added to the Ombudsman Act reportable conduct list and to the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act schedule so that victims are captured for reporting and assistance purposes (Schedule 1, Parts 1.1–1.2).\n- Timing: most provisions commence 2 years after notification, but specific sections (3 and 6) start the day after notification (s2).\n\n**Who this affects**\n\n- Adults who have a familial relationship as defined in the Family Violence Act — they can be charged if they engage in a qualifying course of family-violence conduct with the requisite intent (72J(1); Dictionary/Family Violence Act cross-reference).\n- Victims who suffer coercive-control conduct — they become eligible for reportable-conduct processes and financial-assistance schemes listed in the consequential amendments (Schedule 1).\n- Police, prosecutors and courts — the law changes how prosecutions are pleaded and proved (72J(5)–(7)), and creates new evidentiary and procedural questions about how to present and assess aggregated behaviour over time.\n- The responsible Minister and public agencies — they must operate the advisory committee and carry out the statutory review (Part 21; 72K).\n\n**Why it matters (purpose claims, then practical tests of costs and trade-offs)**\n\n- Official purpose claim: the amendments create a criminal offence to target coercive control within family relationships — that is, repeated or continuous behaviour aimed at coercing or controlling a family member (72J; 72I). The Bill also provides oversight and implementation support through an advisory committee and a formal review (Part 21; 72K).\n\n- How the measure produces its effects (mechanisms):\n  - By criminalising an *aggregate* \"course of conduct\" rather than discrete incidents, the prosecution can pursue patterns of abusive behaviour over time without charging every single incident as a separate offence (72J(2), (5), (6)).\n  - The mens rea (mental element) required is intention to coerce or control for the course as a whole; the prosecution need not prove intent for each incident (72J(1)(c); 72J(7)).\n  - The reasonableness exception permits lawful or justified conduct to be excluded, but the defendant must first adduces evidence on that point (72J(3); evidential burden note).\n\n- Costs, incentives and trade-offs to note (concrete mechanisms rather than labels):\n  - Prosecutorial discretion and aggregation: the ability to prosecute a pattern rather than specific incidents can reduce the technical burden of proving every distinct act, which may lower investigative and court costs for some cases. It simultaneously increases discretion about which collections of incidents constitute a single \"course of conduct\" (72J(2), (6)).\n  - Evidentiary complexity: courts must assess the \"totality\" of conduct and whether a reasonable person would regard it as likely to produce harm or fear of harm (72J(2)(b); 72J(1)(d)). That raises questions about admissible evidence, how time periods are pleaded, and how juries are instructed (72J(6)(b); 72J(5)).\n  - Jury agreement rule: jurors are not required to be satisfied about the same incidents that make up the course; this reduces the classical requirement of unanimous agreement on particular facts but could complicate verdict rationales (72J(5)(b)).\n  - Defence burden and proof dynamics: the defendant bears an evidential burden to show the course of conduct was reasonable (72J(3) note). The prosecution still must prove the elements beyond reasonable doubt, including that a course of conduct occurred (72J(4)).\n  - Administrative and compliance costs: agencies must set up and resource the advisory committee and run the review, and victims’ assistance and reportable-conduct systems must incorporate the new offence (Part 21; 72K; Schedule 1).\n  - Timing for implementation: most elements come into force two years after notification (s2(2)), providing time for training, procedures, and resource allocation, but also delaying legal protection until commencement.\n\n**Implementation risks and enforcement incentives**\n\n- The statutory design shifts focus from single acts to patterns. That can make it easier to prosecute sustained abusive behaviour, but requires quality investigative records and clear prosecutorial guidelines to avoid inconsistent application (72J(2), (6)).\n- Because particulars of each incident need not be pleaded or proved, courts and defence practitioners will likely litigate what counts as the \"totality\" of conduct and how the time period is specified; that could generate pre-trial applications and evidentiary disputes (72J(2)(b); 72J(6)).\n- The advisory committee and mandated review are mechanisms to monitor and advise on these implementation challenges (Part 21; 72K).\n\n**Who pays, who decides, and what behaviour changes**\n\n- Who pays: state resources (police, courts, victim-assistance agencies) will absorb investigation, prosecution and victim-support costs. Defendants face criminal penalties (up to 7 years prison / 700 penalty units). Employers or institutions dealing with reportable conduct matters will need to include this offence in their reporting processes (Schedule 1 Part 1.1).\n- Who decides: police and prosecutors decide whether to aggregate incidents into a course of conduct and whether to proceed; courts (judge or jury) decide guilt applying the new evidentiary and jury-agreement rules (72J(5)–(7)). The responsible Minister appoints advisory-committee members and runs the statutory review (Part 21; 72K).\n- Behavioural change likely intended by the Bill: it creates criminal deterrence against sustained coercive patterns within family relationships and changes prosecutorial practice toward pattern-based prosecution rather than incident-by-incident charging.\n\n**Relevant specific clauses to check in practice**\n\n- Definition and scope of \"course of conduct\" and how courts treat the \"totality\" test (72I; 72J(2)(b)).\n- The application and evidentiary effect of the defendant’s obligation to raise the reasonableness defence (72J(3); Criminal Code s58 note).\n- The procedural consequences of relaxed particulars and jury unanimity rules when the offence is charged (72J(5)–(7)).\n- Commencement timetable and interim implementation arrangements (s2).\n- Expiry of the advisory committee and review provisions (Part 21 ss 433–434; 72K(3)).\n\n**Bottom line**: The Bill establishes a new criminal offence targeting patterns of coercive behaviour within family relationships, together with special procedural rules for pleading and proof, a statutory review, and an advisory committee to guide implementation. It shifts prosecution and adjudication toward assessing aggregated conduct over time, with attendant changes to evidentiary practice and agency responsibilities (see ss 72I–72K; Part 21; Schedule 1)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/crimes-coercive-control-amendment-bill-2026","history":"/api/acts/crimes-coercive-control-amendment-bill-2026/history","analysis":"/api/acts/crimes-coercive-control-amendment-bill-2026/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/crimes-coercive-control-amendment-bill-2026/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/crimes-coercive-control-amendment-bill-2026/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/crimes-coercive-control-amendment-bill-2026/documents"}}