Coercive Control Is Now a Crime in Four States: What Mediators, FDRPs and Lawyers Need to Know

By Paul Kenna Law and Joanne Law

Published 30 September 2026. This article states the law as at that date. The Victorian and South Australian offences have been passed but not yet commenced; we will update this article when their start dates are confirmed.

Coercive control has moved out of the family violence textbooks and into the criminal law. New South Wales and Queensland now have standalone offences in force, South Australia passed its own in September 2025 and Victoria followed in September 2026. The four laws share one idea — a pattern of abuse intended to coerce or control someone — but they differ in ways that matter: who they protect, what the prosecution has to prove, the maximum penalty and, for Victoria and South Australia, when the offence actually starts.

For practitioners who work with separating families, those differences are not academic. Many Mi Members practise across state borders, work online with clients in several states, or live in border communities. This article sets the four laws out side by side and explains what they mean for practice.

The four offences at a glance

	New South Wales	Queensland	Victoria	South Australia
Offence	Abusive behaviour towards current or former intimate partners — Crimes Act 1900, s 54D	Coercive control — Criminal Code, s 334C	Coercive control — Crimes Act 1958, s 34AR	Coercive control — Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, s 20C
In force	1 July 2024	26 May 2025	Not yet. Act No. 41 of 2026, assented to 22 September 2026. Starts on proclamation, or 1 March 2028 at the latest.	Not yet. Passed 4 September 2025. Starts on a day to be proclaimed; the government has indicated 2027.
Who can be charged	Adults (18+)	Adults (18+)	Adults (18+)	Not limited to adults on the face of the Act
Relationships covered	Current or former intimate partners only	Current or former “domestic relationships” — intimate partners, family members and informal carers	Current or former intimate partners only (married, domestic partners, or an intimate personal relationship, sexual or not). A statutory review must consider extending it to other relationships.	Current or former intimate partners only (married, engaged, domestic partners, or another intimate personal relationship)
The conduct	A course of conduct of “abusive behaviour” — violent, threatening or intimidating behaviour, or behaviour that coerces or controls, including economic abuse, monitoring, isolating and degrading	A course of conduct of domestic violence on more than one occasion, as defined in the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012	A course of conduct (more than one occasion, or protracted conduct showing continuity of purpose) of physical, sexual, emotional or psychological, or economic abuse, threats, or other conduct that coerces or controls and causes fear	A course of conduct (including omissions and threats) with a “controlling impact” — restricting movement, social, religious or economic participation, bodily autonomy, or access to justice, necessities, support services or property
Intention	Intends to coerce or control	Intends the course of conduct to coerce or control (each act need not be shown to be intended)	Intends to coerce or control	Intends the course of conduct to have a controlling impact
Impact test	A reasonable person would consider the conduct likely to cause fear of violence, or a serious adverse impact on the person’s capacity to engage in ordinary day-to-day activities	Reasonably likely to cause harm — any detrimental effect on physical, emotional, financial, psychological or mental wellbeing	The accused “ought to understand” the conduct will probably cause harm — physical or mental harm, including self-harm or suicidal thoughts	A reasonable person would consider the conduct likely to cause physical or psychological harm, temporary or permanent
Must the victim actually be harmed?	No — the test is what is likely	No — the test is what is likely	No — the test is what the accused ought to understand	No — the test is what is likely
Defence	Course of conduct reasonable in all the circumstances. The accused raises it; the prosecution must then prove the conduct was not reasonable, beyond reasonable doubt	Course of conduct reasonable in the context of the relationship as a whole. The accused must prove it, on the balance of probabilities	Course of conduct reasonable in the context of the relationship when considered as a whole	Course of conduct reasonable in all the circumstances. The accused must prove it
Maximum penalty	7 years	14 years	10 years (level 5 imprisonment)	7 years
Conduct across borders	The course of conduct may include conduct in NSW and in another jurisdiction	Not expressly addressed in s 334C — get advice	Covered if the victim was in Victoria, or the conduct occurred in Victoria	Not expressly addressed — get advice

Where the four laws agree

• All four target a pattern, not a single incident. The harm of coercive control lies in the accumulation of behaviours that each look minor on their own.
• All four require an intention to coerce or control. Controlling behaviour that is thoughtless or clumsy is not enough.
• None requires proof that the victim was actually harmed. The focus is on what the conduct was likely to do.
• All apply to conduct after their commencement date only, and NSW, Queensland and Victoria are limited to adults; none applies to conduct before its commencement date.
• All four recognise economic abuse, monitoring and tracking (including through technology), isolating a person from family and friends, and threats — behaviours that have long sat in the civil family violence definitions but were rarely criminal on their own.

Where they differ

Relationships covered

Queensland is the broadest. Its offence covers family members and informal carers, not just intimate partners. That brings in, for example, an adult child controlling an ageing parent’s money and movements — directly relevant to anyone working in elder mediation. NSW, Victoria and South Australia are limited to intimate partners, although Victoria’s Act requires a review within three years of commencement that must consider widening the offence.

The impact test

NSW sets the highest bar: a reasonable person must consider the conduct likely to cause fear of violence or a serious adverse impact on the person’s day-to-day life. South Australia also uses a reasonable-person test, but the question is simply whether physical or psychological harm is likely. Queensland’s “reasonably likely to cause harm” and Victoria’s “ought to understand … will probably cause harm” are broader, and both expressly include psychological and mental harm.

The defence

All four allow a defence that the conduct was reasonable, but the burden falls differently. In NSW the accused only has to raise it — the prosecution must then prove the conduct was not reasonable, beyond reasonable doubt. In Queensland and South Australia the accused has to prove it was reasonable, on the balance of probabilities. That is a real difference in how hard the charge is to defend.

Penalty

The maximum ranges from 7 years in NSW and South Australia to 14 years in Queensland, with Victoria in between at 10.

Victoria’s definitions

Victoria gives the most detailed statutory lists of economic abuse and emotional or psychological abuse. They include incurring debts in a partner’s name, demanding a power of attorney in order to misuse their finances, threatening self-harm unless they comply, making false reports to child protection or police, threatening to report them to immigration authorities, and mistreating an animal in their presence. These lists are useful in practice now, before the offence commences, because they describe the behaviours courts and practitioners are expected to recognise.

What this means for practitioners

Family dispute resolution practitioners and mediators

Intake and screening for family violence should now include questions about patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour, not just physical violence or recent incidents. In NSW and Queensland, conduct disclosed at intake may amount to a serious criminal offence.

Practitioners should review how their confidentiality and disclosure obligations under sections 10H and 10J of the Family Law Act 1975 apply to disclosures of coercive control. Whether coercive control falls within the section 10H exception for offences “involving violence or a threat of violence” has not been tested. If you are unsure, get advice.

Lawyers

Family law clients may now face — or be able to pursue — parallel criminal proceedings for conduct that previously supported only a family violence intervention order or findings in parenting proceedings. Advice on how criminal charges, protection orders and family law proceedings interact is becoming more important. Equally, practitioners need to be alert to allegations made for tactical advantage, and to the risk of the wrong party being identified as the primary aggressor.

Cross-border and online practice

A relationship that spans the NSW–Victoria, Queensland–NSW or Victoria–South Australia border, or a family spread across states, may now fall under two different offences with different tests. If you work online with clients interstate, know which law applies to your client.

Behaviour change work

Criminalisation will bring more people who use coercive control, but little or no physical violence, into court-ordered programs. Programs and facilitators need to be ready to work with people who do not see themselves as “violent”.

What about the other states and territories?

The other four jurisdictions are at different points on the same road.

• ACT — bill before the Assembly. The Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2026 was introduced on 28 May 2026 and referred to a committee. It is broader than NSW — it covers family members, including ex-partners, relatives, people connected through children and family-like relationships — and has a built-in two-year delay after enactment, so it would not start before 2028.
• Tasmania — old partial offences, new one proposed. Tasmania has had standalone offences of economic abuse and emotional abuse or intimidation in the Family Violence Act 2004 since 2004 — the first in Australia, though rarely used. A draft Family Violence Reforms Bill 2026, open for consultation until 4 October 2026, would add a dedicated coercive control offence and modernise the existing two.
• Western Australia — no offence, no bill. A 2023 report by the Commissioner for Victims of Crime recommended systemic reform before criminalisation. The government has run education campaigns since but has not committed to legislating.
• Northern Territory — decided against a standalone offence. Reforms in November 2023 wrote coercive control into the definition of domestic violence in the Domestic and Family Violence Act, so courts consider it for protection orders and breaches, but the government expressly ruled out a separate crime.

So the national count is: two offences in force (NSW and Queensland), two passed but not commenced (Victoria and South Australia), one bill before parliament (ACT), one draft out for consultation (Tasmania), and two jurisdictions with no offence (WA and the NT).

Victoria and South Australia: when will they start?

Victoria’s offence sits in Part 6 of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Act 2026. Only a small, mostly administrative, part of that Act commenced the day after Royal Assent. The coercive control offence commences on a day to be proclaimed — and if it has not been proclaimed before 1 March 2028, it starts on that day. With the Victorian state election on 28 November 2026, the timing may be left to the incoming government. South Australia’s Act likewise commences on a day to be proclaimed. It passed on 4 September 2025 with a deliberately long lead time for training and system changes, and the government has pointed to 2027. We will update Members when either commencement date is set.

Where to go from here

• Mi Members — family violence screening and coercive control are covered in the CPD available through the Members portal.
• Working towards FDR accreditation — the CHC81115 Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution, delivered in partnership with Inspiritive (RTO 21178), covers family violence screening and risk assessment in depth. CHCFAM001 – Operate in a Family Law Environment is available as a single unit.
• Want the practice side — listen to our Trauma Informed Mediation episode of Mediator Musings.
• Not yet a Member — join Mediation Institute.

This article is general information for practitioners and is not legal advice. The law is stated as at 30 September 2026.

Frequently asked questions

Related reading for FDR practitioners