1. Language justice and de-silencing. OIDV would remain the initial gateway category and the most commonly internationally used phrase (Reeves et al., 2026; Russell & Pappas, 2018; Stinson & Liederbach, 2013) but once the officer’s alleged role is known, records must use police-member victim-survivor, alleged OPDV/subject officer, or role-undetermined police-associated DFV. No policy may place the subject officer and victim-survivor under one neutral heading. The September 2026 DFV Guidelines review would replace section 22 with the first substantive section: “OIDV identification, role clarification and mandatory independent transfer.” The misconduct-support guidelines would begin with an OPDV exclusion and procedural-equality section. At allegation stage, documents would state potential serious police misconduct, public-integrity risk and possible conduct inconsistent with the police oath—not make a concluded “breach of oath” finding This distinction accords with the oath prescribed by the Police Regulation 2025 (NSW) and with role-specific language principles (Coates & Wade, 2007; Stanley, 2025).

2. Universal OIDV-First identification and transfer. After immediate-danger and safe-contact checks, every prescribed NSW DFV law, framework, guideline, DVSAT, referral protocol and training resource would ask in the first paragraph, whether either party is a current or former police employee and identify the officer’s alleged role. Alleged OPDV would automatically be classified as high institutional and integrity risk; immediate lethality would still be assessed dynamically. Police occupation would be a jurisdictional trigger, not a weighted question capable of being offset by a low score. The ordinary pathway would pause, the full narrative would remain outside COPS and WebCOPS, and the identifying worker would make a warm transfer to the Authority. DVNSW would apply an OIDV Impact Statement to every relevant policy product (LECC, 2026; DCJ, 2026).

3. Independent FEAR, predominant-aggressor and safety pathway. Accredited non-police practitioners would complete FEAR: Fear and forecast of harm; Escalation, events and exposure; Autonomy, authority and abuse; and Resistance, response and rights. The survivor’s own prediction would be primary evidence alongside firearms, sexual violence, stalking, separation, financial abuse and coercive control (Heckert & Gondolf, 2004; Weisz et al., 2000). Cross-ADVOs, first reporting by the officer, charges against the non-police partner or claims that she is unstable would trigger an independent Predominant Aggressor and Person Most in Need of Protection Review. A police-member ADVO application would receive dual-source FEAR and narrative-integrity assessment without delaying genuine emergency protection. Counter-allegations would not displace the woman’s legal, advocacy or safety support. Each survivor would receive a DFV social worker, specialist solicitor and lived-experience or cultural advocate. General community Safety Action Meetings would have an independent socio-legal chair and limited police operational participation; OPDV matters would transfer to a separate Safety and Integrity Meeting with no serving or former police attendee (Reeves et al., 2025, 2026).

4. LECC independent carriage and oversight parity. A ring-fenced transitional directorate could use LECC infrastructure but would have separate staff, records, budget and governance; no current or former NSWPF personnel could investigate, decide or govern OPDV matters. It would employ civilian investigators, barristers, social workers, digital-forensic specialists and information-integrity analysts, carry every eligible investigation itself and have direct, read-only, auditable access to body-worn video, vehicle cameras, dispatch records, firearms information and system-access logs. Any withholding would require narrow statutory grounds and rapid independent review. A Police Powers–Oversight Parity Clause would require every expansion of police coercive, surveillance or information powers to specify matching LECC powers, staffing and funding. NSWPF would retain urgent enforcement functions but could not investigate or govern OPDV.

5. Formal acknowledgement, historical truth, redress and research

The legislation establishing the Authority would begin with a formal NSW parliamentary acknowledgement of current and former police partners, children and families who experienced police officer-perpetrated domestic violence and were subsequently failed by institutions responsible for their protection. Drawing respectfully on principles of truth-telling and public acknowledgement —this would recognise that police-perpetrated violence has historically been obscured, poorly documented and treated as a private family, employment or reputational matter. A survivor-governed Truth, Recognition, Redress and Non-Repetition Division would then investigate what NSW institutions knew, how complaints and ADVO matters were handled, which policies and practices reproduced silence or institutional protection, and how police self-investigation, cross-ADVOs, predominant-aggressor misidentification, information misuse, colleague-enabled conduct, firearms decisions and enduring adverse records affected police partners and children. The Division would receive protected testimony, examine police, court and service records, enable correction or annotation of inaccurate institutional records, refer current criminal or misconduct concerns, and recommend formal apologies, legal remedies, recovery assistance and financial redress where institutional failure was established. The legislation would also create a ring-fenced OPDV Research and Knowledge Fund to support long-term, survivor-governed historical and contemporary research into prevalence, police-initiated and cross-ADVOs, misidentification, information misuse, employment and financial loss, mental-health effects, children’s experiences and institutional responses, addressing the significant survivor exclusion and evidence gaps identified by Anderson et al. (2025) and Stanley (2025).

6. Police Family Safety and Economic Equity Covenant. Adapting the ADF’s recognition that service affects the whole family, the Covenant would recognise current and former partners and children as rights-bearing institutional stakeholders (Australian Government Department of Defence, 2025). Support would continue after separation and include independent legal, social-work and peer representation, child recovery, employment protection, emergency housing, wage replacement, career restoration and a statutory Police Family Impact Benefit. The subject officer would retain external legal, industrial, medical and clinical support; the affected partner would receive equivalent accessibility, resourcing and procedural influence through an independent counter-policy to the misconduct-support guidelines. Colleague-enabled assistance, information leakage, retaliation or knowing failures to report would be separately investigated.

Draft Legislative Instructions

Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Amendment
(Police-Perpetrated Domestic and Family Violence and Oversight Powers) Bill 2026

A proposed private member’s bill package for stronger LECC powers, mandatory independent carriage of alleged police-perpetrated domestic and family violence matters, and victim-survivor safety and procedural equality.

Status of this document

This is a policy and   legislative-instructions paper, not final bill text. The Parliamentary   Counsel’s Office drafts private members’ bills from a member’s instructions   and resolves consequential legal issues. The bill should be designed so it   does not itself appropriate public money if introduced in the Legislative   Council; funding-dependent measures may require a government appropriation,   an Assembly companion measure, or commencement by proclamation.

August 2026

Sue Higginson has publicly stated that she will introduce a private member’s bill if the NSW Government does not strengthen the powers and capacity of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC). Her stated concerns include police non-compliance with LECC, insufficient evidence-access powers, inadequate body-worn video requirements, limited investigative capacity, and the default practice of police investigating police. [1]

This draft recommends that the bill combine those general oversight reforms with a dedicated statutory response to alleged police officer-perpetrated domestic and family violence (OPDV). The existing Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 permits LECC to refer misconduct matters to NSW Police Force (NSWPF) for police investigation. [2] LECC’s own April 2026 review found low compliance with conflict and risk-management safeguards in police DFV matters and identified confidential police-information access as an additional misconduct risk. [3] NSWPF also publicly acknowledges that, in most circumstances, complaints received by LECC are referred to police for investigation. [4]

The recommended bill would create a mandatory independent-carriage rule for alleged OPDV matters, prohibit substantive referral back to NSWPF, give LECC direct and auditable access to specified police systems and evidence, mandate evidence preservation and body-worn video activation, establish role-specific language and an OIDV-first transfer gateway, and create survivor safety, legal advocacy, predominant-aggressor review and public accountability mechanisms.

Recommended political framing

This is not a bill that presumes police   guilt or denies police officers procedural fairness. It is a bill that   removes occupational privilege and institutional conflict. Police officers   retain equal protection and legal rights; NSWPF does not retain the power to   investigate, define or govern allegations against its own members.

The bill can be framed as a targeted integrity reform within Sue Higginson’s broader LECC powers package. The evidence base is unusually strong:

· The LECC Act currently allows LECC to investigate, take over, oversee or refer police misconduct matters back to the Commissioner of Police. Sections 44 and 47 are the central referral provisions that require amendment for OPDV matters. [2]

· LECC’s April 2026 review examined 67 complaint investigations concerning 56 officers. It found that potential conflicts of interest and risk assessments were not routinely documented and identified confidential police-information access by officers involved in DFV. [3]

· LECC recommended stronger and repeated COPS/RTA auditing in police DFV matters, while its body-worn video review recommended mandatory activation when police exercise, or are likely to exercise, police powers. [3][5]

· As at March 2025, NSWPF had supported 173 of 255 LECC recommendations and implemented 90 of the supported recommendations, demonstrating that recommendation-making does not itself guarantee implementation. [6]

· Peer-reviewed Australian research identifies distinctive OPDV risks involving police training, weapons, institutional credibility, legal knowledge, professional networks, information access, counter-allegations and loss of confidence in police-controlled accountability. [7]–[10]

· Private members’ bills can be introduced in either House, and the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office assists private members with drafting. A bill introduced in the Legislative Council cannot itself appropriate public money. [11][12]

Recommended short title

Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Amendment   (Police-Perpetrated Domestic and Family Violence and Oversight Powers) Bill   2026

The title keeps the bill anchored to   Sue Higginson’s publicly announced LECC reform agenda while making the OPDV   component visible and non-neutralised.

Recommended long title

An Act to amend the Law Enforcement Conduct   Commission Act 2016, the Police Act 1990 and the Crimes (Domestic and   Personal Violence) Act 2007 to strengthen the independent investigation and   oversight of police misconduct and maladministration; to require independent   carriage of alleged police-perpetrated domestic and family violence matters;   to improve access to police information and audiovisual evidence; to protect   victim-survivor safety, participation and procedural equality; and for   related purposes.

1. Ensure that alleged police-perpetrated domestic and family violence is identified early and treated as a high institutional and integrity-risk matter without presuming guilt.

2. Require LECC to assume independent carriage of alleged OPDV and connected misconduct matters and prohibit substantive referral back to NSWPF.

3. Give LECC timely, direct and auditable access to police information, evidence and digital systems necessary to investigate misconduct and maladministration.

4. Protect the safety, information, legal interests and procedural participation of non-police victim-survivors and affected police-family members.

5. Protect the procedural fairness of subject officers while removing institutional conflicts, colleague influence and occupational privilege.

6. Strengthen transparency, implementation monitoring and parliamentary accountability for LECC recommendations and police compliance.

7. Create a staged pathway towards the NSW Independent OIDV Safety and Integrity Authority.

The bill should distinguish the initial gateway category from the alleged role once known. Brian Stanley’s scholarship cautions that “officer-involved” language can obscure alleged perpetration and centre police institutions rather than survivors. [8]

Term

Proposed meaning

Police-associated DFV matter

A   DFV matter in which either party is a current or former NSWPF officer or   employee. This is the initial gateway category while roles are being   clarified.

Alleged police-perpetrated DFV   matter

A   police-associated DFV matter in which a current or former police officer or   police employee is alleged to be the person using violence. “Alleged OPDV”   may be used where the alleged perpetrator is a sworn officer.

Police-member victim-survivor

A   current or former police officer or police employee who reports experiencing   DFV.

High institutional and   integrity-risk matter

A   classification automatically applied to alleged OPDV because police status   may affect information access, firearms, professional credibility, legal   knowledge, colleague relationships and investigation independence. It is not   a finding of guilt or a lethality score.

Connected officer misconduct

Conduct by another officer or employee that may assist, conceal, enable, retaliate,   improperly access information, interfere with evidence, influence allocation,   or breach a duty to report in relation to OPDV.

Material police affiliation

A   current or former employment, close professional, financial, family or personal relationship with NSWPF or a party that creates a real or perceived conflict in an OPDV function.

Mandatory language rule

“OIDV” may be used as the initial gateway term. Once the police member’s alleged role is known, all prescribed policies, forms and records must identify the police-member victim-survivor,   the alleged police perpetrator or the subject officer. A role-neutral heading such as “members involved in a DFV incident” must not be used to collapse the  parties into the same institutional position.

The bill should be drafted in two linked parts so that the immediate LECC reforms are not lost if the full OPDV institutional package requires further inquiry or staged commencement.

8. Direct evidence-access powers: create a statutory direct-access regime for LECC, including read-only and auditable access to specified NSWPF systems, subject only to narrow, reviewable protections for unrelated covert material or protected sources.

9. Mandatory body-worn video: require activation at minimum whenever police exercise, or are likely to exercise, police powers; create automatic preservation and direct LECC access for OPDV, critical incident and serious misconduct matters.

10. Critical incident oversight: remove procedural barriers that require LECC to wait for or depend upon police critical-incident processes where police conduct itself requires independent investigation.

11. Implementation accountability: require a written government and NSWPF response to LECC recommendations within a fixed period, with a public implementation register and reasons for non-acceptance or non-implementation.

12. Mandatory notification and automatic LECC jurisdiction.

13. No substantive referral back to NSWPF.

14. Civilian-only OPDV investigation, adjudication, governance and information-control functions.

15. OIDV-first identification, FEAR assessment and independent predominant-aggressor review.

16. Police-free OIDV Safety and Integrity Meetings.

17. Victim-survivor legal, advocacy, record-correction and support non-displacement rights.

18. Historical review, redress recommendations and police-family safety rights.

Amend the LECC Act so that every alleged OPDV matter and every connected officer-misconduct matter is a notifiable misconduct matter that must be notified to LECC immediately. Notification must not depend on a criminal charge, ADVO, physical injury, complaint by the victim-survivor or an internal finding by NSWPF.

· Insert a mandatory-carriage provision requiring LECC to investigate or take over the investigation of every alleged OPDV matter.

· Disapply sections 44(1)(b), 44(1)(c), 47 and any similar referral power to the extent it would permit substantive referral to NSWPF.

· Permit NSWPF to perform defined emergency or enforcement tasks only under written LECC direction; operational tasking must not confer control over the investigation, risk narrative, evidence or case closure.

· Prohibit alternative dispute resolution, informal management action or “advice and guidance” as a substitute for investigating alleged OPDV, evidence interference, retaliation or information misuse.

· Require LECC to notify the victim-survivor of the assigned independent advocate, investigator, information protections and review rights, subject to lawful investigative restrictions.

The current Act gives LECC notice-based production powers, including section 54, but Sue Higginson’s announced bill is intended to address police delay, defensiveness and non-compliance. [1][13] The bill should establish a direct-access model for defined categories of evidence.

· Direct, read-only, purpose-limited and fully logged access to COPS, event and dispatch records, body-worn video, in-car video, firearms records, complaint and misconduct systems, duty rosters, access logs, relevant emails and other prescribed systems.

· Automatic preservation notices upon OPDV notification, including suspension of routine deletion schedules.

· A prohibition on redaction, de-identification or withholding by NSWPF except under a narrow statutory ground and rapid review by an independent judicial officer or prescribed decision-maker.

· An offence for intentional obstruction, deletion, concealment, misleading disclosure or failure to comply with preservation and access duties.

· A victim-survivor right to be notified of material unauthorised access to her information, subject to investigative safety considerations.

Create a ring-fenced OPDV Directorate within LECC as the first statutory waystation towards the NSW Independent OIDV Safety and Integrity Authority. The Directorate should have separate staff, records, governance, reporting and case-allocation rules.

· No current or former NSWPF officer or employee, Police Association representative, or person with a material police affiliation may perform OPDV investigative, adjudicative, governance or information-control functions.

· The Directorate may engage civilian investigators, barristers, solicitors, forensic accountants, digital forensic specialists, DFV social workers, child and family specialists, privacy experts and First Nations cultural and data-governance specialists.

· All personnel must complete initial and continuing conflict declarations and be subject to independent security vetting.

· The Chief Commissioner must report annually on OPDV caseload, staffing, timeframes, outcomes, information access, referrals, systemic findings and barriers to independent carriage.

Require the Minister, after consultation with LECC and the non-police OIDV Governance Council, to prescribe a Universal OIDV-First Identification, Language and Transfer Standard for all NSW DFV policies, guidelines, frameworks, assessment tools and referral systems.

First substantive gateway question

After immediate danger and safe-contact   questions: “Is either party a current or former police officer or police   employee?” If yes, identify whether the police member is the alleged   victim-survivor, alleged perpetrator, or whether roles remain undetermined.   Alleged police perpetration triggers mandatory transfer to LECC’s OPDV   Directorate.

· Police occupation operates as a jurisdictional trigger, not a weighted DVSAT item capable of being offset by a low score.

· Every alleged OPDV matter is automatically classified as high institutional and integrity risk. Immediate personal-safety urgency is assessed separately and dynamically.

· The full victim-survivor narrative and FEAR record must be stored outside ordinary NSWPF systems, with minimum-necessary disclosure for urgent police tasks.

· The standard must be inserted first in the NSWPF DFV Guidelines and the NSWPF misconduct-support guidelines at their next review, and then extended to prescribed government and funded-sector instruments.

Require LECC to establish and independently validate a structured professional-judgment framework addressing:

· Fear and forecast of harm;

· Escalation, events and exposure;

· Autonomy, authority and abuse; and

· Resistance, response and rights.

The framework must treat victim-survivor fear and self-assessed risk as material evidence, while also considering firearms, strangulation, sexual violence, stalking, separation, police information access, rank, professional networks, counter-allegations, employment and child-related threats.

An independent Predominant Aggressor and Person Most in Need of Protection Review must be mandatory where the police member reports first, there are cross-allegations or cross-ADVOs, the non-police partner is arrested or charged, self-protective force may have been used, or she is described as unstable or aggressive.

Amend the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 so that a current or former police member’s ADVO application against an intimate partner triggers mandatory notification and independent review. Urgent provisional protection remains available; first reporting and police status create no presumption of victim status.

· Independent dual-source FEAR and Narrative Integrity Assessment within a defined period, such as 48 hours, after any urgent provisional order.

· No originating-Command control over the substantive application, evidence, DVSAT/FEAR assessment or predominant-aggressor determination.

· The non-police partner retains independent victim-survivor advocacy, legal support and safety planning during review; a counter-allegation, charge or cross-ADVO cannot displace support.

· Give the OPDV Directorate standing to apply to vary or revoke an interim or final ADVO where independent review identifies likely misidentification. The Local Court retains ultimate judicial authority under the existing variation and revocation framework. [14]

· Require record annotation and agency notification while a misidentification determination or court-correction application is pending.

Create a separate statutory OIDV safety process, distinct from ordinary Safety Action Meetings.

· No serving or former NSWPF officer or employee, Police Association representative or person with a material police affiliation may chair, attend, observe, vote or receive the full record.

· The meeting is chaired by an independent statutory delegate and includes the victim-survivor’s specialist DFV social worker, independent lawyer, peer or cultural advocate, an OPDV investigator and relevant non-police agencies.

· LECC obtains police information directly and may issue written operational safety tasking to NSWPF after independent deliberation.

· NSWPF must complete the task, provide evidence of completion, or give written reasons for non-compliance within the specified timeframe.

The bill should preserve subject-officer rights while correcting the current support asymmetry between the police employee and the affected family member.

· The subject officer retains external legal, industrial, medical and clinical support.

· A serving police colleague may not act as the subject officer’s personal, welfare or interview support person in an OPDV matter.

· The victim-survivor receives an independent specialist solicitor, DFV social worker and peer/cultural advocate; a written process map; scheduled updates; record-correction rights; reasons for major decisions; and an independent review pathway.

· Support continues after separation or divorce and does not depend on the officer’s employment outcome.

· Require a family-impact assessment addressing employment loss, income, housing, childcare, relocation, legal costs, mental health, children and superannuation consequences.

A separate statutory family-impact benefit or compensation scheme may require an appropriation and should be the subject of a companion government or Assembly measure. The present bill can establish the entitlement principles, reporting duty and scheme-design requirement without itself appropriating money.

Amend the Police Act 1990 and LECC Act to make explicit that OPDV-related misconduct includes:

· unauthorised information access or disclosure;

· coaching, coordinating accounts or gathering evidence through police networks;

· influencing investigator allocation or the first official narrative;

· contacting or pressuring witnesses;

· retaliation, payback, adverse action or threats following a report;

· concealment, destruction or omission of evidence; and

· knowing failure to report suspected misconduct under section 211F of the Police Act 1990. [15]

Operation Bendoc demonstrates that failures by colleagues to report serious misconduct can themselves amount to serious misconduct. [16]

Establish a separate, entirely non-police OIDV Lived Experience and Two-Way Governance Council. A voting majority should consist of OPDV victim-survivors, adult affected family members and First Nations women-led representatives.

· No current or former NSWPF officer or employee, Police Association representative or materially affiliated person may be a member, observer or secretariat officer.

· The Council must approve victim-survivor information standards, FEAR framework changes, OIDV policy language, research priorities and independent evaluation arrangements.

· The Council may request thematic investigations and publish a dissenting report where it disagrees with LECC, the Minister or government implementation.

· Participation must be paid, confidential, trauma-informed, culturally safe and protected from retaliation.

Create a time-limited OPDV Historical Review, Truth and Non-Repetition Panel with powers to examine earlier police-controlled cases involving misidentification, cross-ADVOs, information misuse, firearms decisions, conflicted investigation and colleague-enabled conduct.

· The Panel may recommend record correction or annotation, current misconduct or criminal referral, legal review, apology, counselling, family-recovery support and ex gratia redress.

· The Panel must not purport automatically to overturn final court orders; it may support lawful variation, appeal, review or referral pathways.

· The Minister must table a response to the Panel’s recommendations within a fixed period.

· Government must fund independent historical and contemporary research into OPDV prevalence, ADVO outcomes, primary-aggressor identification, employment, financial, mental-health and child impacts.

Insert a requirement that every government proposal to expand NSWPF coercive, surveillance, information-access, firearm or enforcement powers be accompanied by a publicly tabled LECC Oversight Impact Statement.

· The statement must identify the corresponding LECC powers, direct-access capability, staffing and funding needed to oversee the expanded police power.

· The responsible Minister must table a response to LECC’s advice before or at the time the police-powers bill is introduced.

· The provision does not prevent Parliament from legislating, but it makes any widening gap between police power and independent oversight visible and contestable.

Act

Key provisions to amend

Drafting purpose

Law Enforcement Conduct   Commission Act 2016

Objects   and functions; ss 26, 44, 47, 54 and related provisions; new OPDV Part

Mandatory   carriage; no referral to NSWPF; direct access; preservation; Directorate;   Council; reporting; offences; historical review.

Police Act 1990

Misconduct   notification and investigation provisions; ss 130–136; s 211F and related   duties

Immediate   notification; no police investigation of OPDV; evidence preservation;   colleague-enabled misconduct; duty to report; external support-person rule.

Crimes (Domestic and Personal   Violence) Act 2007

Police   applications, information sharing, variation and revocation; new OPDV   notification and review provisions

Independent   review of police-member applications, cross-ADVO correction, support   non-displacement, standing for OPDV Directorate, separate OIDV safety   process.

Regulations and prescribed   instruments

DVSAT,   Safer Pathway, NSWPF DFV Guidelines, misconduct-support guidelines,   funded-service contracts

OIDV-first   gateway; role-specific language; FEAR assessment; police-free OIDV meetings;   procedural equality; data protection.

A Legislative Council private member’s bill cannot initiate an appropriation of public money. [12] The bill should therefore separate immediate legal duties from funding-dependent institutional expansion.

19. Commence immediately on assent: mandatory notification; no-referral rule; evidence preservation; OPDV language and identification duties; body-worn video requirements; anti-retaliation and duty-to-report provisions.

20. Commence within 6 months: direct-access protocols; independent advocates; FEAR and predominant-aggressor framework; police-free OIDV Safety and Integrity Meetings.

21. Commence by proclamation or within 12 months: full OPDV Directorate, regional capability, historical review and governance council, subject to appropriation and workforce readiness.

22. Require the Treasurer and responsible Ministers to table a costed implementation and appropriation plan within 90 days of assent.

23. Provide for independent statutory review after 24 months, including recommendations on transition from the LECC Directorate to the permanent NSW Independent OIDV Safety and Integrity Authority.

Draft notice

I give notice that on the next sitting   day I will move that leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to amend   the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016, the Police Act 1990 and the   Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 to strengthen the   independent investigation and oversight of police misconduct and   maladministration; to require independent carriage of alleged   police-perpetrated domestic and family violence matters; to improve access to   police information and audiovisual evidence; to protect victim-survivor   safety, participation and procedural equality; and for related purposes.

President, I move that this bill be now read a second time.

This bill begins from a simple democratic principle: police powers must be matched by independent oversight powers. When police exercise coercive authority on behalf of the State, the public must be able to trust that allegations of violence, misconduct and maladministration will be investigated independently, transparently and without institutional favour.

The current system does not consistently meet that standard. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act allows misconduct matters to be referred back to the NSW Police Force for police investigation. NSW Police itself advises the public that most complaints received by LECC are referred to police. That default is incompatible with public confidence where the alleged conduct involves serious violence, evidence control, information misuse, retaliation or domestic and family violence by a police officer.

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission’s April 2026 review of police investigations into domestic and family violence involving officers found that conflicts of interest and risk assessments were not routinely documented. It also identified confidential police-information access as a related misconduct risk. These are not abstract procedural defects. They affect the safety of partners and children who are required to seek protection from the institution that employs, supports and may investigate the alleged perpetrator.

Police officer-perpetrated domestic violence is not ordinary domestic violence with an occupational detail added. Police status may bring firearms, restricted information, professional credibility, legal and evidentiary knowledge, relationships across commands and the capacity to shape the first official narrative. Australian victim-survivor research records counter-allegations, misidentification, information risks and loss of confidence in police-controlled accountability. The law must respond to that institutional conflict directly.

This bill therefore requires LECC to assume independent carriage of alleged police-perpetrated domestic and family violence matters. Those matters cannot be referred back to NSW Police for substantive investigation. Police may still perform urgent lawful tasks — attending emergencies, preserving a scene, seizing firearms, making arrests and enforcing court orders — but they will not control the investigation, evidence, risk narrative or safety deliberation.

The bill also gives LECC direct and auditable access to relevant police systems and audiovisual evidence. It requires preservation of body-worn and in-car video and gives practical effect to LECC’s recommendation that body-worn cameras be activated when police exercise, or are likely to exercise, police powers. Independent oversight cannot depend upon an agency choosing what evidence its watchdog may see.

The bill creates an OIDV-first identification rule. After immediate safety and privacy checks, every prescribed DFV policy and assessment must ask whether either party is a current or former police officer or employee and identify the officer’s alleged role. Once alleged police perpetration is identified, the ordinary police-controlled pathway pauses and the matter transfers to LECC’s dedicated civilian OPDV Directorate.

The bill preserves procedural fairness. Police officers remain entitled to urgent protection, independent legal advice, clinical support, an opportunity to respond, written reasons and review rights. What they will no longer receive is institutional privilege: their command, colleagues and police systems will not determine whether their intimate partner is believed, labelled the aggressor or deprived of support.

Victim-survivors will receive independent legal, social-work and peer advocacy. Cross-allegations and cross-ADVOs will trigger an independent predominant-aggressor and person-most-in-need-of-protection review. A counter-allegation, arrest, charge or cross-order will not automatically displace the woman’s safety and legal support while the institutional narrative is being independently examined.

The bill establishes separate OIDV Safety and Integrity Meetings from which police are excluded. The independent body will obtain police information directly, deliberate without police presence and issue written operational tasks where police action is required. This separates enforcement power from governance power.

The bill also recognises that abuse may be enabled by colleagues. Unauthorised information access, evidence interference, coaching, retaliation and knowing failures to report will be investigated as distinct integrity matters. The duty to report misconduct must apply in the home as clearly as it applies on the street.

Finally, the bill creates a pathway to historical truth and non-repetition. Women and children in police families have lived for decades with a system that often treated the officer as an employee requiring support while treating the family member as a witness outside the institution. The proposed review will examine past misidentification, cross-ADVOs, information misuse and conflicted investigations, and recommend record correction, legal review, acknowledgement and redress.

This bill does not ask Parliament to choose between police and victim-survivors. It asks Parliament to choose independent justice. Ethical police officers, genuine police victim-survivors and the wider community all benefit from investigations that are demonstrably impartial, evidence-based and free from colleague influence.

Police powers have expanded repeatedly. Oversight must not remain static. This bill requires an oversight impact statement whenever government proposes new coercive, surveillance or information powers for NSW Police. Power and accountability must grow together.

The public should not have to wait for the next tragedy, the next exposé or the next review before Parliament acts. I commend the bill to the House.

Clause 1 — Name of Act: Names the Act.

Clause 2 — Commencement: Provides staged commencement, with immediate integrity duties and later commencement of resource-dependent functions.

Clause 3 — Amendment of Acts: Gives effect to the schedules.

Schedule 1 — LECC direct access and evidence powers: Strengthens direct access, body-worn video, preservation, production, obstruction offences and critical-incident oversight.

Schedule 2 — Mandatory OPDV independent carriage: Creates notification, no-referral, civilian Directorate, FEAR, predominant-aggressor review, victim-survivor rights and police-free safety meetings.

Schedule 3 — Police Act amendments: Strengthens duty to report, defines colleague-enabled misconduct, prevents serving-colleague support in OPDV and removes NSWPF investigation control.

Schedule 4 — ADVO and Safer Pathway amendments: Creates independent review of police-member applications, support non-displacement, court-correction standing and separate OIDV safety governance.

Schedule 5 — Governance, historical review and reporting: Establishes the non-police Council, historical review, implementation reporting, oversight parity and statutory review.

· Scope: introduce the general three-part LECC powers bill with an OPDV schedule, or introduce a separate OPDV bill in parallel.

· Institutional form: immediate permanent Authority, or a ring-fenced LECC Directorate with statutory review and transition after a pilot.

· Civilian-only rule: absolute exclusion of all current and former NSWPF personnel, or a narrower exclusion from investigative, adjudicative, governance and information-control functions.

· ADVO review timeframe: 24, 48 or 72 hours after an urgent provisional order involving a police member and intimate partner.

· Historical redress: include a full Panel in the first bill, or require a parliamentary inquiry and exposure draft within 6 months.

· Family economic support: establish entitlement principles now and pursue a companion appropriation or government-adopted benefit scheme.

· Committee strategy: seek referral of the bill to Portfolio Committee No. 5 for the cross-portfolio OIDV framework and to the OmboLECC Committee for LECC powers, appropriations and oversight architecture. Sue Higginson is a member of both relevant committee structures. [17][18]

[1] Sue Higginson, “Horror police violence exposed by Four Corners escalates urgent calls to bolster watchdog powers” (2 June 2026). https://greens.org.au/nsw/news/media-release/horror-police-violence-exposed-four-corners-escalates-urgent-calls-bolster

[2] Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW), especially ss 44 and 47. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2016-061

[3] Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, Review of NSW Police Force investigations of police officers involved in domestic and family violence incidents (April 2026). https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/publications/publications/review-of-nsw-police-force-investigations-of-police-officers-involved-in-domestic-and-family-violence-incidents-april-2026.pdf

[4] NSW Police Force, How to lodge a complaint / public explanation of complaint handling. https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/online_services/providing_feedback/feedback_compliments_complaints_and_suggestions/feedback/how_to_lodge_a_complaint

[5] Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, Review of NSW Police Force body-worn video policy and practice (March 2025). https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/publications/publications/review-of-nsw-police-force-body-worn-video-policy-and-practice-march-2025.pdf

[6] Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, Recommendations Register media release (14 March 2025). https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/news/public-can-now-track-police-responses-to-commission-recommendations

[7] Anderson, Farmer and Tyson, “Police-Perpetrated Domestic and Family Violence: A Scoping Review of Australian and International Scholarship” (2025). https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.3582

[8] Stanley, “Leaving Brame Behind: An Urgent Call to Shift the Focus of Police Officer-Perpetrated Domestic Violence Research” (2025). https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012251352860

[9] Reeves et al., “The Fact That He Was a Police Officer Was Probably My Number 1 Challenge” (2026 issue; first published 2025). https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012251319761

[10] Brander, “What do the experiences of victims and survivors of police-perpetrated domestic abuse tell us about the police response to such abuse?” (2025). https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557251379235

[11] Parliament of NSW, What is a Private Member’s Bill? https://education.parliament.nsw.gov.au/what-is-a-private-members-bill/

[12] Parliament of NSW, Role of the Legislative Assembly — money bills and drafting assistance. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/legislative-assembly/role-and-history-of-the-legislative-assembly/role-of-the-legislative-assembly

[13] LECC Act 2016, s 54 — power to obtain information by written notice. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2016-061

[14] Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 73 — variation or revocation of final and interim orders. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2007-080

[15] Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 211F — duty to report suspected misconduct. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1990-047

[16] Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, Operation Bendoc media release (17 November 2025). https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/news/media-release-operation-bendoc

[17] Parliament of NSW, Sue Higginson MLC — current committee positions. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/Pages/Member-details.aspx?pk=2268

[18] Parliament of NSW, Committee on the Ombudsman, LECC and Crime Commission — current membership and inquiries. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/committees/committee-details?committeeId=175