Police arrest the thieves, and courts release them. There has to be a better way.

That way is what the CAA calls the G-Tag (Electronic Vehicle tracking).

If the Government won’t bring the Courts into line to do their job, then the community will have to take action.

Every day, we are told of yet another shocking crime or string of crimes to which a Motor car is central, but the government sits on its hands and takes no action apart from the odd manipulation of statistics to deflect criticism.

First and foremost, the judiciary has failed, and its role now must be evaluated based on the ineffectiveness of its penalties by Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The Key indicator is the primary function of a sentence: general deterrence. However, this has been lost in the mire of so-called diversions, few of which divert the offenders from more crime.

If a judicial officer’s adjudication is below a benchmark performance (KPI), and particularly if the sentencing fails to achieve the primary objective of deterring others, then they need to explain their failure, and where that failure is consistent, they should be removed from the bench.

The reality is that if the circa 20,000 cars and other vehicles that are stolen annually and used by criminals were made unusable for their criminal activities, the theft of cars would drop dramatically, and with it, the crime the vehicles facilitate.

There would not only be a massive crime drop but also a massive impact on car owners’ safety and reduced cost, as the dramatic drop in Victorian fleet thefts would force insurers to lower premiums as the risk factors diminish.

The Courts have failed to reign in crime and blame the government, which, in turn, accuses the Courts.

Additionally, the Government has been made aware of an alternate plan since 2016 but considers the plan not even worthy of discussing with the CAA.

The problem with the plan we agree, challenges the status quo, but the status quo doesn’t help the thousands of victims; the G-Tag will.


There is, however, an alternate option: bypassing the government.

The alternative is providing the private sector with the opportunity to implement the G-Tag.

A subscription service to protect vehicles would be cost-effective for owners who could offset some of the cost with reduced premiums from insurers and provide a disabling capacity for vehicles if they are stolen, which could be a viable alternative to waiting for the government.

The money this would save the State purse by reducing crime and processing criminals would justify some relief for those who subscribe to the G-Tag service.

The security industry already operates control rooms that monitor security equipment, and some companies monitor the movement of ankle bracelets, so providing a G-Tag service would not be a significant technological step.

Although technology is unlikely to stop a vehicle from being stolen as soon as the owner is aware, the car can be disabled, making it useless for the crooks.

Most high-end vehicles already have the technology built-in, and other vehicles are relatively cheap to equip.

The disruption to the crook’s plans would deter them from stealing any vehicle with a G-Tag sticker on the window.

The G-Tag can put a vehicle into ‘limp home mode’, reducing its maximum speed to 80 KPH, and then disable the engine when it is safe.

The police can be notified of the incident and organise an interception coordinated with the use of the vehicle’s disabling capacity.

One distinct advantage is that thieves are unlikely to have the opportunity to torch the vehicle, destroying evidence.

A negotiation with the E-Tag operators could make this concept more viable.

It is a big challenge; however, if we wait for the government, it will never happen, and the crooks will continue to operate with gay abandon, and victims will continue to be put at risk because of government inaction.

Whether you are an Uber Driver or a Mum on the school run, we must lift their protection.

The CAA calls on entrepreneurial businesses who might be interested in exploring this concept to contact us at



In a much-heralded announcement of a swath of new hardline measures to combat domestic violence, the Premier ruled out absolutely the one initiative that can and will make a real difference today, not tomorrow or perhaps next year, but now when the ever-present danger exists for many victims of Domestic Violence.

It seems like the government is tone-deaf to the plight of these victims and is agnostic to their peril.

It is also clear that a very extensive evaluation of Project Vigilance (PV) conducted in Tasmania would seem not to have been considered or understood.

Premier, domestic violence victims are dying while you dither.

You may like to revisit what you said at the launch,

“When women are still dying at the hands of men — we must do more”.

And you have done more. If taking the wet lettuce leaf approach is more, then you have definitely done that.

However, given the reports in the media, you are not being helped by your Attorney General.

Jaclyn Symes has ruled out ankle bracelets or electronic monitoring as even a consideration to stop the carnage, and from her contribution, it was clear that she has been poorly advised, is reported as saying,

“The government had considered doing so but received advice not to proceed because the “disadvantages outweigh the advantages”.

A statement made without detailing what the advantages/disadvantages were, and then another gem the AG provided was,

 “Ankle brackets can often provide a false sense of security for victims”.

“We do not want women relying on a piece of technology that has been demonstrated is not fit for purpose for these situations,”

If relying on technology avoids one more death, then it gets our vote. The research conducted in Tasmania debunks this ill-informed notion with evidence from victims. See the full report and access above.

Even if the Government does not share our view, the vast majority of the community will when they are informed of what this technology can do. And notably the cost savings made to the disbursement of their taxes.

There is also no reason the user pays principle cannot be applied subject to means testing to defray some of the costs in hardship circumstances.

Currently, in NSW, criminals seeking bail can pay a private contractor to provide an electronic monitoring option instead of being remanded in custody as another bail option.

The private contractor approved by the court operates a control room to monitor the criminal’s movements, taking into account restrictions put in place by the court, and any deviation is reported immediately to the Police.

Over 300 perpetrators have taken advantage of this alternative, and no problems have been reported.

There would be no apparent reason not to use this same system for Domestic Violence or, for that matter, recidivist juvenile offenders.

For Domestic Violence supervision, Electronic Management (EM) is a very effective and cost-effective way to save lives.

Anybody who has been served with a Family Violence Intervention Order (AVO) and chooses to breach that order in any manner must be required to be EM monitored.

In those circumstances, there are two EM devices.

The perpetrator wears a non-removable ankle monitor, which can be pre-programmed with exclusion zones such as the victim’s home address, work or even children’s school. Any attempt at entering these zones (which can be set to any radius) will trigger an automatic violation, and police will be notified.

The second device is for the victim and is as unintrusive as a small mobile phone or fob device.

The device becomes a protective geo-zone around the victim as they move around freely. The monitoring system monitors both the victim’s and perpetrator’s devices to ensure they do not come into close contact, allowing the victim complete freedom while retaining security.

The bonus is the peace of mind that the Victim is not continually looking over their shoulder once they step outside their home due to the virtual electronic fence protecting them.

If the perpetrator does appear to be breaching the exclusion zones and confronting the victim, the electronic monitoring devices provide crucial intervention time. The monitoring centre can call the victim and advise them to immediately enact their safe plan (whether going to the local police station or finding safety in a shop) whilst police are dispatched and apprehend the perpetrator.

Through the two-way communication device, the victim would be alerted should they venture into an area where the perpetrator lawfully is, avoiding unintended contact. An obvious example would be where the Perpetrator may be lawfully in a large shopping complex that the victim has also intended to visit.

When the victim arrives, they can be warned that the perpetrator is in the centre or has arrived, and the victim can take the necessary steps to avoid confrontation.

Looking more broadly, these devices, generally restricted to the parole period of a perpetrator’s sentence, could be applied to the other end, ensuring the suspects charged appear in Court, or, more importantly, cease criminal activities during the bail period. Moreover, more technically advanced EM devices can record and monitor conversations, a terrific disincentive for those wearing one to commit further offences.

Albeit highly effective and financially desirable, the EM devices could be used as part of a sentencing regime at a fraction of the cost of the current options, countering the undesirable side effects of incarceration.

The evaluation by ‘Project Vigilance’ also addressed the costs and found the electronic alternative very cost-efficient.

For example, monitoring offenders electronically equates to roughly $47 per day, whereas incarceration costs were calculated by Morgan (2018) as nine times the cost of community corrections at circa $427.  That or a similar equation applies to a domestic violence perpetrator who breaches an AVO.

This cost disparity is even more significant when the savings made by policing and other agencies, including the Courts, are factored in.

This can be further mitigated when a user-pays interface is imposed, subject to a financial hardship assessment of their ability to pay.

A system where the most anybody can pay is 15% of their gross income every week.

Although there may be a need to change legislation, the physical implementation of the system is a matter of weeks, not years, as the private sector has already established protocols and the backend infrastructure and processes, including 24/7 control rooms and mobile service resources to maintain the equipment.

For the Government to start from scratch and build a network facility, apart from the physical accommodation infrastructure, technical expertise does not exist within current Government resources.

The action by Government is very urgent, everyday lost is potentially another life lost and the last thing that the community and the potential victims want is another inquiry or pilot or some other such construct to delay, all that work has been done.

There is a huge risk by ignoring what the work that has been done or trawling over the same ground, the committee or whatever title they have will end up designing a camel when they were supposed to design a horse. And while they are doing that more victims will die.

It is improbable that the necessary electronics expertise exists within the government, and considering a hybrid option is fraught with difficulty and likely to ensure the system doesn’t work or falls well short of optimum effectiveness.

It is, therefore, essential that the Government must look to the private sector.

The Government must act now.



A concise overview of critical issues, underpinning principles, and the evidence base for recommended actions.

The 2015 Royal Commission into Domestic Violence made 227 recommendations that cost the Victorian Government $2.7B to implement. This is now a multi-billion-dollar industry with a Minister for Family Violence, a Department of Family Violence, and a Multi-agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework.

The claims are to train 37,500 workers in Phase 1 (850 organisations) and 370,000 workers in Phase 2 (5,580 organisations).

The industry creates reports, resources and practice guides, grants, plans, research, statistical collection and analysis, guidelines, training, victim support groups, investigators, police, crisis assistance services, helplines, lawyers, security and the judicial system.

But they can’t arrange a response team to help Victims during a crisis.

Little in pragmatic and direct assistance for victims at the time of crisis and at the highest risk of being assaulted to protect them during these heightened risk periods or, in crime parlance, pro-active intervention.

This intervention is not to be confused with the Police role as that will remain in relation to direct physical threats and or actual physical violence. While there are no specific criminal laws against coercive control in Victoria, there are legal remedies victim-survivors can take. The Victorian Family Violence Protection Act includes coercive behaviour in its definition of family violence. That issue is a matter best dealt with by professionals other than the Police.

It is important to understand the size of the issue.

  • One Woman is killed every week in Australia due to Family violence.
  • Recorded Family Violence in Victoria is increasing, with Victoria Police reporting one incident every six minutes; 90,424 Recorded Incidents in Victoria in the 2021-2022 financial year.
  • Police time applied to Family Violence and Domestic Violence administration severely impacts the ability of Police to respond to other community issues.

We also know that,

  • Victim survivors report higher rates of violence from a perpetrator after separation. (Police are usually not directly involved at his stage, but the matter is in the hands of the Courts or the Domestic Violence Industry).
  • Children are present in 30% of family violence incidents attended by police.
  • NSW, Qld and Tas have “coercive control” legislation – Victoria still reviewing it!
  • Tasmania has had ankle bracelets on perpetrators for many years – Victoria is still reviewing!

Eight years after the Royal Commission, what has been achieved?

  • It has spawned the Family Violence bureaucratic Industry.
  • Statistics, when released, remain consistent, with little progress on designing or empirically introducing reduction strategies.
  • Critical risk victims are forced into hiding and wear a huge bracelet with a panic button.
  • Perpetrators consistently remain at large on bail able to strike at will.
  • Police are bogged down with bureaucratic risk assessments and bail/remand processes.

Family Safety Strategic Plan 2021-2024:

CAA Key Policy Positions.

  1. Strengthen the focus to “offender accountability” while maintaining “victim support”.
  2. Remove administrative functions from Operational Police and the function of Government Welfare services.
  3. Urgent Legislation
    1. Ankle monitors and vehicle tracking monitors (if perpetrators are released on bail).
    2. Specific coercive control legislation.
    3. Tightening of bail laws.
    4. Domestic violence disclosure scheme (Clare’s Law – UK 2009 -perpetrator priors available to victims on request.

CAA Observations and Recommendations

The net outcome of the Royal Commission and the Government’s responses is the creation of a Domestic Violence industry with a plethora of Quango’s and Convocations costing billions of dollars but with little or no positive impact on the people it was intended to benefit.

If there is something déjà vu about this issue, it’s not surprising. Similarities or a parallel to the issues around our first peoples come to mind.

Spending huge amounts of money with no appreciable improvements for the victims.

The CAA strongly recommends an independent inquiry into the application of resources, accountabilities and effectiveness of outcomes at the coal face.

It is long past time for positive action.