Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (15:44): As I was leaving off, I was talking about the wonderful people associated with the NACC. To date, these incredible women consisting of Margaret Farr, Pam Fletcher, Anne Berry, Sandra Richards, Sharon McKell, Sharon Lockwood and Ellie Harati have submitted two submissions to the royal commission.

As I said earlier, they do not seek recognition but they are getting it because, frankly, they deserve it. I know there are some other fantastic grassroot groups like this across Adelaide. While I have not had the privilege to meet with them, I am pretty sure they, along with members of the NACC, have rightfully been pressuring government to ensure this bill makes it to the chamber and hopefully passes. They also deserve my thanks.

Some political advisers like to remain incognito, but I feel that when they have worked so hard their cover should be blown. I would like to place on record the efforts of Hilary Duff who has a lot on her plate but has somehow managed to make so many worthwhile things come together. As a backbencher, there is a lot that you do not see in bills being put together and I would also like to offer my thanks and appreciation to everyone who has worked as advocates and behind the scenes to make this bill a reality.

While I do not see everything, I have been witness to the strength and conviction of Minister Hildyard in bringing this bill before us. I am hesitant to use the word 'congratulations' because it is hard to be happy when the subject matter is so serious, but in hopefully choosing the right and respectful words, I want to say thank you for a job well done. As I said earlier, this bill takes steps to stamp out something that is horribly wrong and may hopefully save a few lives in the process. With this and with many deep emotions in mind, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (15:46): I stand to support the bill and to congratulate the minister for continuing the work of the process of consultation on the coercive control bill started by the Hon. Vickie Chapman and Carolyn Power in the previous government.

I support very strongly the bill in the way that it protects an intimate partner, but we do know that in families coercive control goes beyond people who are in an intimate relationship. Earlier this year, on 29 July The Advertiser reported:

Family members sentenced for 'honour' stabbing of Adelaide woman who dated Christian man.

Family members of a young woman who was held down and stabbed for dating a man of a different faith have been sentenced for their roles in the incident outside Sefton Plaza Shopping Centre.

The 21-year-old woman suffered internal injuries when her father repeatedly stabbed her in the abdomen with a large kitchen knife in November 2021.

The woman's parents and older brother will serve time in custody while another brother, her sister and brother-in-law were each given suspended sentences.

I think there is no doubt that that woman grew up in a whole family where coercive control was the culture and the standard. This bill does not address that. This bill only restricts coercive control for intimate partners.

The question I have for the minister is: will she be moving to amend this bill some time in the future or even considering amendments between the houses for the bill to go further to stop parents of adult children using coercive control on their adult children? In other words, for example, not allowing them to leave home, not allowing them to go out in the evening and come home at a time they wish, not allowing them to socialise with whom they want to socialise or choosing the careers they want to choose.

I dare say that that unfortunate stabbing that happened at the Sefton Park Shopping Centre was the crescendo of a life of coercive control for that poor woman. I am pleased that justice was done and seen to be done in that situation, but it is unfortunate that there was not a mechanism that she felt she had where she could go to deal with that situation before it got to the violent situation that it got to. This bill does not do that because that woman was not in an intimate relationship with any of those people.

In this place probably close to 14, 15 or even 16 years ago now, we debated—the name of the bill escapes me at the moment, but it was a bill that recognised that two people could be living together in a partnership. One of the recognised relationships was two siblings living together. I think there is certainly a couple like this in every neighbourhood, where two sisters or two brothers who never married live together their entire life. There is nothing in this bill to prevent one of those siblings being the powerful sibling who manages or controls the life of the other sibling through coercive control.

Yes, I agree this bill captures a big bulk of the causes of domestic violence in family situations, but families are now much more complicated than they have ever been and they are broader than they have ever been. We know that more and more children are staying at home longer because of the housing crisis. It would be nice if they had a protection mechanism if they were forced to stay living with their parents so that their parents did not feel that entitled them to tell them how to live their lives, to use the measures that are described in this bill:

(2) For the purposes of this division, a person's behaviour will be taken to have a controlling impact on another person if the behaviour restricts 1 or more of the following:

(a) the other person's freedom of movement;

(b) the other person's freedom of action;

(c) the other person's ability to engage in social, political, religious, cultural, educational or economic activities;

(d) the other person's ability to make choices with respect to their body (including, but not limited to, choices in relation to their reproductive options, medical treatment or sexual activity).

A classic example could very well be a young woman living at home with her parents, or even outside of home, who is pregnant and wants to have an abortion and the parents do not agree with that and exert coercive control over that woman to try to prevent that abortion from happening. This bill does not cover that because that woman is not an intimate partner of the parents or the parent who is exercising that coercive control over her.

This bill is a big step. I congratulate the minister on moving forward from the process that was initiated under the previous government by the Hon. Vickie Chapman, which of course was a consultation process. The process started in September 2021. Obviously there was a change of government just six months or so later, and here we are nearly three years after that change in government and we have this bill in this place that I believe is incomplete and needs more work.

I certainly would welcome the minister either bringing amendments to this place while this bill is being debated or, alternatively, bringing an amendment bill to the act once it is proclaimed. We certainly do not want any delay in it being proclaimed, but that does not mean that we cannot look to improve it and expand it and protect more people from having their lives controlled by people who have no right to do so.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (15:53): Today I rise to speak in strong support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill. This bill is about more than just legal definitions and technical terms; it is about safeguarding some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, particularly women who have suffered in silence, often feeling trapped and powerless to escape.

Coercive control is not always visible. It does not leave bruises or scars on the outside but it is deeply damaging. It is a form of abuse that strips away a person's freedom, their independence and their sense of self-worth. Through relentless manipulation, threats, isolation and financial control perpetrators create an environment of fear and dependency.

This bill is the culmination of five years of hard work—work that started in opposition and has continued in government. With thanks to the Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, her team and the advocates who have contributed so heavily to this process, what we have today is legislation that will make a real and lasting impact on the lives of South Australian women. That I can say with confidence.

We know that in Australia, on average, a woman is killed each week at the hands of a violent partner or former partner and we know that, in 99 per cent of those domestic violence-related homicides, coercive control was a prior factor. We cannot allow that to continue. So while this may be a national crisis, there is no reason that we cannot drive the necessary change at a state level. In fact, as a government it is our obligation to act, which is exactly what we are doing.

In my electorate of Davenport, there is a story that has stuck with me—a story of someone who I will call Alison. Alison is a mother of two young children, a kind and hardworking woman who is well loved in our local community. She volunteers at her kids' school, she shops at our local supermarket and always has time for a friendly chat. To the outside world, she seemed happy but behind closed doors it was a different story. Her partner controlled every aspect of her life.

He insisted on knowing where she was at all times, scrutinising her every move. He forbade her from seeing friends, cut her off from her family and even took control of her finances. She had no access to her bank accounts, and any money she spent was closely monitored. She had to account for every cent, every single purchase. Gradually, her world became smaller and smaller, and her voice quieter and quieter.

While there were shocking threats, Alison's partner never physically assaulted her. There were no bruises to show, no obvious signs to make others question her wellbeing, and yet she was living in a prison of intimidation and control. She was afraid to speak out, unsure if what she was experiencing could even be considered abuse. She thought like many do in her situation, that unless he laid a hand on her there was nothing that she could do. On the few occasions that she did go to the police, they reaffirmed that without an immediate threat of physical abuse they could not do a lot to help her. But coercive control is abuse. It is deliberate, calculated and destructive, and it is happening all around us to people like Alison, often hidden in plain sight.

This bill provides a pathway to people like Alison to escape from this kind of control. By criminalising coercive control, we are acknowledging that abuse comes in many forms—not just physical. This legislation will empower our police and judicial systems to step in before things escalate, before lives are lost and before people lose their sense of worth. For far too long, legislation associated with domestic and family violence has considered single acts of physical violence, but to properly address the scourge of domestic violence we require laws that allow us to respond to concerning patterns in behaviour before those acts of violence occur.

To date, legislation and a focus on physical abuse has limited the ability of South Australia Police to intervene in domestic violence settings. That is certainly one aspect that we will be addressing, and we do that by criminalising conduct that has controlling impact on a current or former intimate partner. Of equal importance is our community's understanding of the relationships affected by domestic and family violence.

The minister was right to suggest that it is a time we stop asking: 'Why doesn't she leave?' and instead ask: 'Why doesn't he stop?' This presents such a gentle shift in our thinking, but to the people whose lives have been impacted so severely by domestic and family violence it is the only fair way to frame any questions that arise. To the men who have written to me with concerns that they are being demonised by legislation this government is implementing to protect women, I say this: while men present an overwhelming majority of perpetrators in relationships affected by domestic violence, we know men can also be the victims and this legislation will offer protection for them also.

This bill criminalises conduct that intentionally controls a current or former intimate partner if the conduct would likely cause the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm. Behaviours the bill considers controlling are:

restrictions applied to a person's freedom of movement or action;

ability to engage in social, political, religious or cultural education and economic activities; and

ability to make choices with respect to their body or ability to access necessities, property, support services or the justice system.

What I hope is apparent today is that, sadly, coercive control can fly under the radar, and right now we have a set of laws that need to better address this. Decisive action is required, and is required now. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.