Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (12:50): I feel it is my duty as a male MP to rise and speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024. For quite some time, there has been a rightful onus on men to call out any act of gender-based violence. Sitting back should never be an option and, as we move forward in proclaiming that enough is definitely enough, there are moments like these when we also ask that every corner of the parliament helps in this effort by erupting in support.

Today we have before us a bill that if it were not so serious could be described as groundbreaking. Today we rightfully create a new offence in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 that will carry a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment for anyone found guilty of cruelly entrapping their victim and imposing their will upon them.

To qualify further, I hope that what we do today sends a loud and clear message that as a community we will not stand for anyone who makes a deliberate and abusive effort to control a current or former intimate partner. Slowly the web is tightening, and I am optimistic. Legislation like this helps in becoming the trigger point for the legal system catching up with such perpetrators.

Having said that, in an ideal world where respect is universal, pieces of legislation like this might be considered unnecessary. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and it therefore takes pieces of legislation like this to correct some of the fault lines that scourge our community. Up until this point, the legal system only considers acts of coercive control as background to a crime rather than it being the crime itself. I would argue this does not align with community values, as nobody would ever want to wait for a serious assault or homicide to happen before the law finally starts kicking in.

Clearly, in these extreme matters, it is a case of too little, too late, and so today we have the option to not just take the steps to stamp out something that is horribly wrong but also do something that may save a few lives in the process. In Australia, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner. That horrific stat is not going anywhere other than up unless we as men mend our ways, and a piece of legislation like this has potential to be one of the many catalysts needed to help make this happen.

I know that there will be some who argue the narrative should be aimed at both genders, and I am pretty sure a law like this will be indiscriminate, but when we know that gender-based violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, as a collective we need to own this and, dare I say it, own it with shame.

The web of control that is behind so many abusive relationships is currently invisible to our criminal law, but it is clearly evident to victim survivors that perpetrators are often relentless in imposing their will on others and, to achieve this, they will often hurt, intimidate, exploit, isolate, dominate, and terrify their victims over time. What this piece of legislation seeks to do is to establish that control is recognised when it restricts a person's freedom of movement or action, ability to engage in social, political, religious, cultural, educational, or economic activities, the ability to make choices with respect to their body, or their ability to access necessities: property, support services or, indeed, the justice system.

It is often the blokey thing to talk about Australia as a land of freedom, but how can this be true if our legal system denies this to some of our most vulnerable? This bill takes the necessary steps by qualifying that a person may be considered restricting the free will of another person through either physical, verbal or physiological restriction, removing the means by which a person is able to do something, deception, or any other behaviour that directly or indirectly significantly impairs their ability to do something.

Examples of this could include stopping the victim from taking employment, limiting the company they keep and controlling their victim's spending power by achieving low acts such as unnecessarily limiting their financial resources, unnecessarily making them their financial dependant or even making them account for every cent. I can think of one relationship close to home where the latter was a real thing, so in many ways there is a lot of truth to the example that I give. Fortunately, this victim eventually escaped, but sadly they endured many years of torment and subsequently lost many of the best years of their life.

If we are to be proud of who we are as Australian males, then actions like this must be stamped out, so today we are making it clear that this form of behaviour is not just unacceptable but hopefully also illegal. While as lawmakers we are fixated on what we get up to here, we must accept that many people do not always follow what happens within this place. It is therefore necessary that education tools are developed so there is widespread awareness that the legal system now stands in support of those wanting to call out these vile acts.

It is all good making laws, but I feel they need to be properly communicated, which is why I am pleased efforts will be made to build community awareness and understanding about this insidious form of violence. The See the Signs campaign focuses on ensuring South Australians understand what coercive control is and how they can seek support or help a loved one experiencing it. A vital point to make is that adjusting culture is akin to prevention being better than a cure, and I really welcome this.

I also understand that in the development of this bill a number of valued stakeholders were concerned with perpetrator misidentification or, to be more specific, when authorities mistakenly treat the primary victim of domestic abuse as the primary aggressor. This is something we really need to avoid as the effects of misidentification are devastating and ongoing and may give rise to perpetrators weaponising this potential crime to further torment their victims. I am assured this will not be the case as I am advised the key focus on the controlling impacts of the entirety of the behaviour under question will be the trigger point in directing the respective authorities' attention to the broader power dynamics in a relationship and the relative freedoms enjoyed by the parties.

This gives good reason as to why there is contingency for review within this bill. I have also noted that some may suggest it does not go far enough, highlighting that outside an intimate relationship coercive control may also be rife. It has been acknowledged by the minister that coercive control occurs in other kinds of relationships, potentially between siblings, carers, children towards parents, parents towards children or even in non-family contexts such as cults.

Nobody is suggesting these elements are unimportant, but the bill before us today, as a positive first step, concentrates on the areas of extreme risk. Who is to say this may not be broadened in the future? That is why a provision rightfully exists to ensure that a review of the offence takes place after the third but before the fourth anniversary of the commencement of this legislation.

Before I wrap up, I also want to use this opportunity to acknowledge the many advocates who have worked hard to champion this piece of legislation. I know there are many out there, and I also acknowledge they do not seek glory in their work: they just want to ensure that the right thing is done.

Over the last year, some very important people have come into my professional life, and these days they refer to themselves as the Northern Adelaide Community Collaboration, or NACC for short. As their Facebook page states, this collaboration consists of three service clubs and individuals centred on the cities of Playford, Tea Tree Gully and Salisbury and was formed to support a northern community voice in a submission to the South Australian Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence. While some personal matters have stopped me from closely being involved in their most recent work, it has been a huge honour to help set things up, and they still meet in my office on a regular basis. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.