Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (17:39): I rise to continue my remarks on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill. Domestic and family violence in any form is unacceptable. It is not tolerated by the community and from here on South Australian legislation will accurately reflect that.

This is a bill for families that deserve safe and happy households to return home to each night. It is for those who want to live a life of autonomy, who want to choose what they want to wear when they leave the house and choose how they will spend their money and where they will go. As the minister so delicately put it in her second reading speech, it is for the people who tragically this legislation arrived too late to help, as well as for the survivors, the people whose lived experience and dedication to improving outcomes for families right across South Australia helped to shape this bill.

While this bill will not solve every issue overnight, it sends a clear message: South Australia will not tolerate coercive control. We are saying to victims: you deserve to feel safe, you deserve to have autonomy over your life and you deserve to be heard. For too long the Alisons in our community have felt they had no choice but to endure, believing there was no avenue for them to break free. This bill gives them a voice, it gives them an option and it gives them hope.

In passing this legislation we are taking a vital step towards ensuring that every South Australian has a right to live without fear and without intimidation. We are building a society where every woman, every person can walk with their head held high, free from the toxic grip of coercive control. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (17:41): I will not speak for long on this one today, but I do want to acknowledge that it is a really important moment not just for victims in our state but I do think it is something that is really important for what it means for generations of particularly women but not only women who have unfortunately lived in cycles of family and domestic violence, and that is really significant.

I think that it is important to call out what it means when you do make a decision like this one from the top down to talk about the impact on future generations, particularly of little girls who are being told decisively at a government level what it means to be in a healthy relationship. The simple fact of the matter is that many individuals, usually women, have not been taught that. The narrative has not been set for them and unfortunately behaviours that are gendered, toxic and abusive have in many instances been validated, ignored and justified since time immemorial.

I think this bill is really important because it creates the new offence of harmful controlling behaviour towards a current or former intimate partner. I think, for me, this is a particularly proud moment as a member of a government that does recognise the impact that those sorts of controlling behaviours have on relationships. It does mark, of course, the culmination of extensive consultation with the legal profession but also with victim survivors. I think being a government that listens and prioritises hearing from victim survivors says a lot and it also says a lot that stamping out family and domestic violence has been a key priority of our government. I really am proud to be part of a group that is prioritising that.

I think it is relevant but also relevant as we are finally entering an age where we openly talk about consent, where we openly talk about healthy relationships and are working decisively to change the attitudes of men and women towards each other from childhood, from school age. We are having different conversations with children about how they form those relationships, and it is really in the formative years where they learn or do not learn the skills to have healthy relationships in the future.

Even doing things like banning phones in schools, banning social media for kids, investing in junior sport participation, investing in women's and girls' sport more generally are all measures that go a long way to equalise the roles of boys and girls and to normalise relationships that are fair and measured from day one for boys and girls and to stamp out toxic, ingrained misogyny and violence towards women.

We do know, unfortunately, that that misogyny often is starting earlier with the influence of social media, particularly through the rise of toxic social media influence, and I am not ashamed to call out in this place the behaviour and the actions of individuals like Andrew Tate on social media and the impact that individuals—right wing, controlling, misogynistic individuals—are having on young boys particularly and what that means for their relationships with women going forward.

We should be calling out those behaviours but also doing what we can as a government to set the narrative from the top down that we do not think those relationships, behaviours or attitudes towards women or young girls are okay, and that it is absolutely essential that we start those conversations earlier and we are stamping out those negative behaviours from a very young age. Moments like this and legislation like this are really monumental, because when governments make a statement like this, others follow suit. We are the ones setting the agenda here, and I think it is something we should be really proud of that we are doing so.

We know that emotional and mental control that an individual can have on their supposed loved one can be monumental and often a precursor to physical violence in a relationship. For too long the criminal justice system has only been able to address individual incidents of physical violence or threats of physical violence. I have spoken many times in this place about growing up in the cycle of family and domestic violence myself. Unsurprisingly, like so many others, that was part of a cycle. My mum, too, grew up in a cycle of family and domestic violence.

I think it is really important to speak about that here in this context, the way that family violence permeates through generations and the cyclical instances of family and domestic violence, which are so common, are often the result of emotional and mental abuse. It is the persistent emotional behaviours, the emotional manipulation, the controlling behaviours, that stay in an individual's psyche. When you are a child, for example, growing up in a house where those are the relationships that you are taught, those are the examples of relationships that you are taught, we know that that can have a really significant impact on you into the future and give you an idea of what is seemingly okay in a romantic relationship.

It is really important that we call out that coercive control can have that sort of impact not just on the individual who is in the relationship but on the children who are in that household, for example, if there are children, and on generations to come. When we look back at the cycles of domestic violence, you can see those elements of coercive control, those elements of emotional and mental abuse, that have continued through generations and what that has done to the psyche of an individual and the psyche of the children, if there are children, in teaching them what is okay.

That, for me, is really what this is about. It is actually making a decision from the top down about what we consider to be a healthy relationship, what standard we are willing to set for future generations of individuals as they enter relationships. For me, that it really important, and it is something to be proud of.

I really think this bill does some essential work. It is something that we should be considering not just in relation to the legislative framework but in relation to the way that we have conversations with people more generally, the things that we teach our children, the conversations that we have with young people in our lives. We need to talk about and be open about those conversations and what is considered healthy, what is unhealthy and what can continue to permeate through an individual's life and often lead to further instances of violence.

Again, teaching those relationships and teaching those negative behaviours from a young age affirms that controlling relationships are seen to be okay. In the past, that is what generations of individuals, whether it be at a government level or others, have not been able to do. They have not been able to call out those behaviours and change those relationships from a young age, and I think that making a decision like this one at a top level really does play a big role in that.

This is a really important thing that we doing. Of course, although I have spoken mostly about female-male relationships with female victim survivors and the children in that situation, it does relate to other relationships where there may be instances of coercive control as well. The other really important part is that it also relates to former intimate couple relationships, because we know that, particularly for those with children—and, when there are children, that encourages or makes sure that that relationship continues to some degree—those controlling and coercive behaviours can continue long after the breakdown of the relationship.

Personally, I am really proud to be part of a government that acknowledges the impact that coercive control has on people's lives, not just at the time but into the future. I do want to spend just a second today thanking all of those victim survivors who have spoken to this piece, because speaking up is incredibly difficult, but it is necessary to protect the relationships of the future, particularly for young girls, but also to break the cycle in those instances, as I have mentioned, of cyclical family and domestic violence which, unfortunately, so many people continue to fall into, having been taught this idea that a toxic relationship is okay.

I really do commend the bill and all the work that has gone into this one and want to thank everyone who has been a part of that process. I think that goes a really long way, not just, of course, in terms of the legal framework, but in terms of the narrative that we as a government and we as a group, and I think just individuals in our own lives, want to send: the message that we want to send to young people particularly as they start their lives, as they build relationships, whether it be as friends or romantically, about what is okay, what is accepted and, of course, the attitudes that we want to see changed in our lifetime. I well and truly hope that they will, so I am really happy to speak to this and commend the bill today.

Ms PRATT (Frome) (17:50): I take this opportunity to make my own contribution to the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024. I begin my remarks by reflecting on previous contributions from past members, the former member for Bragg, Vickie Chapman, the former member for Elder, Carolyn Power, and, in the upper house in the other place, the Hon. Michelle Lensink MLC, who, in their own significant way, made contributions through the introduction of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Abusive Behaviour) Amendment Bill 2021.

In recognising their contributions, it is also upon us all, on both sides of the chamber, to do a very simple thing and make eye contact, to nod, to listen and to recognise that there is goodwill and there is genuine intent to support the passage of this bill.

I note, from an event that I attended last night, the support and participation, not just by the member for Reynell and the member for Hurtle Vale in their ministerial capacities, but of course my friend and colleague the member for Heysen. We were privileged to attend an event being hosted by the Zahra Foundation, as a change maker event, and I think we all note and recognise the extraordinary advocacy that we have seen in South Australia led by Arman Abrahimzadeh and his sisters. They have made themselves completely vulnerable as young adults over many years, bringing South Australians along on their very public family journey.

I commend them as siblings not only for the contribution they have made and the advocacy they have demonstrated but for the lives they have impacted and most likely saved through the foundation being established. At last night's event we were also very fortunate to have an impromptu address, if you like, from Her Excellency the Governor, Frances Adamson. She was there very simply to put her own significant role aside and to deliver a speech, and a commendation really, bestowed on a woman I was meeting for the first time, Lisa Annese, the CEO of Chief Executive Women.

That really set the tone for hundreds of attendees last night to understand the impact of gendered violence in the workplace and the duty that we have to call it out, to seek it out, to identify it, and to work towards making sure that it is removed from not just our workplace but our home environment. It was shocking to be told that after prisons and, I think, the Defence Force, the family home is the third violent environment that a person can find themselves in. We have to shift the dial on that pretty quickly.

I note earlier today the member for Unley also made a contribution to this bill. When it was introduced by the minister from the Office for Women, the member for Unley and I sat and listened to a very detailed second reading speech, and it is worth noting that the gallery was full of members of the public who had come in to listen to the introduction of this significant bill, because there is that level of public interest and public buy-in. The member for Unley and I felt the bill was incomplete in some ways—and I hasten to add that I support the bill. I support this bill and any bill that moves towards striking out any coercive behaviours that might exist in our community.

The member for Unley's contribution as to the bill being incomplete was very worthy and I want to add to that with a rare personal reflection of my own where, through unfortunate circumstances, I have had an experience where I sought the support from our fabulous South Australian police force to manage what was described by them as a non-domestic violence situation, something that took place that was not, or would not be captured by this bill, which is very much focused on intimate partners and intimate relationships. I think the member for Reynell knows that through estimates I have put these questions for such a stipulation or a definition on domestic violence to be captured or considered by the royal commission currently taking place in our state.

The bill is incomplete because—it does not apologise for having a strong focus on intimate relationships—I think that we all recognise that coercive control and controlling behaviours are not just a domain between intimate partners; we see it between strangers, we see it between neighbours, we see it between family members.

I would add another level of advocacy for those older South Australians in our community who tragically experience elder abuse. It is not for today to expand on what that can look like, but I take pride in standing here representing the Council on the Ageing—we recognise them as COTA—who have in their public submissions given feedback that they would have liked to have seen this bill capture more fulsomely some advocacy and protections for those older South Australians who cannot defend themselves or are not cognisant that abuse or controlling behaviours are being perpetuated against them, sadly, often by a family member.

In reflecting on coercive control this chamber will continue to hear many contributions, but I want to stand here as a voice for women in the electorate of Frome who have been impatiently waiting for this bill to come on, for these contributions to be made and for their voices to be heard, because coercive control and controlling behaviours, like a cancer, do not discriminate and they can be found in every household, metro and regional.

When we view coercive control through the lens of living in the regions and we start to reflect on what resources and supports there might be for those people, it quickly becomes clear that you are often on your own. Of great concern on rural and remote properties, when the power is down and the bowser does not work and the car will not run, when that protective family member or friend is away, all of a sudden people can find themselves very vulnerable to circumstances that can become life-threatening.

I want to make it very clear that for women, in particular, who are living in country SA, whether that is in a town, on a farm or in the outback, the opposition is determined to ensure that there are protections, that there are supports, that there are services and that their voice is being recorded through the passage of this bill as a factor that puts them at risk when we understand that controlling behaviours can sadly be normalised and some of those signs, some of those signals are so innocuous.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

Ms PRATT: I was on my feet earlier this evening reflecting on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill before us. I want to offer some brief reflections of my own about how we consider coercive control or controlling behaviours and perhaps where some of them start as what might be described as fairly innocuous behaviours that are normalised or not recognised for their sinister intent. That might be a subtle holding of the arm or words that are said to shut down a conversation, but it is the little things that add up.

Sadly, it is often women who nod along and can contribute their own personal experience of what small, normalised, innocuous controlling behaviours might look like. We know that as those behaviours are normalised, condoned and enabled they then lead to the more obvious unwelcome, uncomfortable and sinister elements that look very much like and are easily detected as financial control, controlling bank accounts, controlling access to cards, reviews of banking statements, questions asked, control around what food and shopping items are bought, what is in the fridge and who is eating what. Sadly, I understand that some refrigerators can be locked.

Phone records may be checked, there is the use of the phone, the checking of the phone, questions about the phone, locations assessed: where have you been? Who have you been with? Then, of course, there is the pathway of physical restraint, physical abuse and loss of life.

As I move towards concluding my contributions, I am left thinking about how teachers and educators—I was of that profession once upon a time—approach conversations with students about bullying in school. A lot of work went into defining what bullying looks like, sounds like and feels like but there are three common threads: the behaviour is repeated, it is harmful and, thirdly, there is an intention behind it. It is repetitive behaviour that is recognised to be harmful and that there is an intent or a deliberate nature to that behaviour. I think that is easily extrapolated into the adult world.

I commend everyone in the chamber as we make our contributions to this important bill. We welcome a bill that starts to address the very unwelcome controlling behaviours that we are now free to talk about in our communities. I repeat my sentiment, my recognition and reflection of women who live in my community who have gone out of their way to raise this with me very quietly in corners of meeting rooms in a manner that does not necessarily demonstrate they have confidence either in what they are reporting or any change that will come.

Happily, noting the presence in the chamber of the member for Reynell and the minister, I made comments earlier about the opposition's support for the bill and also my own personal view that there is some incompleteness to it where it does not extend to non-domestic violence situations and, more broadly, to older South Australians where it might capture elder abuse.

There is a long way to go, but we are well on the way to addressing, in a bipartisan way, zero tolerance for controlling behaviours. With those sentiments I conclude my remarks, and I support the bill.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (19:35): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill. This is an important bill that creates a new offence of harmful, controlling behaviour towards a current or former intimate partner.

Let me start by acknowledging my hardworking colleague, the Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence. She introduced this bill and she is the lead speaker, but the reality is that she has been working in this area for many, many years. We raised this when we were in opposition and it is incredibly important that we are here at this point to debate it, to pass it, and to implement the coercive control legislation.

There has been extensive consultation with the legal profession and peak domestic violence prevention advocacy groups, victim survivors and community members. We are not just making this bill, this legislation, in isolation. We have been doing community awareness campaigns to ensure everyone is equipped with information about how to identify this form of violence and how to seek support. It is incredibly important that we have conversations about what coercive control is.

In conversations I have had before people are very clear about physical violence and sexual abuse, but having these other elements—financial abuse, emotional abuse, controlling behaviours—these are deeper conversations we have to have. We actually have to change our culture so that someone knows when it is not okay and, if they feel like it is not okay then they know where to go to seek help. These are important things we need to do.

Under the current laws police have been severely limited in what they can do to help women subject to coercive control if this conduct does not involve any physical violence. This means that victims of coercive control can currently be left with no protections or support until an act of physical violence occurs. Of course, this is utterly unacceptable.

We know that coercive control is deliberate, an abusive effort to control someone. In fact, many times coercive control is levelled with the potential of physical abuse—not always, but that is the fear that it is lurking, that 'I'm watching you, I know what you're doing. What made you think you could do that on your own.' When these are the questions being asked in partner relationships, we want people to be aware that that is not acceptable.

The scope of the offence of coercive control under this bill applies to anyone in an intimate couple relationship, regardless of sex or gender identity. What we are talking about, in coercive control, is fundamentally about one person having power or control over another person.

I want to talk in my role as Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Over many years, nearly a decade now in the roles I have had, I have engaged with people on their migration path. People come to our country in many different ways: they come as humanitarian migrants, they come as skilled migrants, as international students, they might fall in love with an Australian and come here. Anyone who comes here, no matter their pathway, often experiences that time of settlement.

You might be here without any other family members: you made a decision to come to Australia to work or to study and so you often do not have the support networks behind you. Also, sometimes you come here after a long period of trauma, and these are really challenging times. You are safe, possibly the first time in decades, and you are here trying to find your way forward.

What I have heard and what I have seen is sometimes parents within these families arrive in Australia with limited English skills and comprehension. Many women have been unable to go to school because it was not safe. For our families from Afghanistan, women have been prevented by the government of the day from having any education. Often, without any choice of their own, women have been restricted.

As the children in these families settle into their school, they make new friends and they are able to learn English very quickly, sometimes at a higher level than their parents. What this actually means is if you are the eldest child of migrants you often take on an additional role. There is lots of responsibility: you are the one who interacts with any service providers, you are the one who translates for them, you are the one the school deals with. I often talk to people about how much pressure that is on that eldest child who takes on those additional responsibilities.

The majority of children who do this do an excellent job and I commend them for their incredible support. It is really hard to understand what kind of responsibility that is until you are in it. However, we have witnessed a very small minority who then choose to take advantage of this power and responsibility.

It may start out with something as harmless as not telling the full truth about a report card or how often you are attending school when you are translating for your parents. In extreme circumstances it can lead to controlling or manipulative actions, exercising a power imbalance created by language barriers. This can also happen in situations where you join a partner and English is not your first language.

We know that that need to seek help, that experience of coercive control—when people experienced this in a home as a child we often see them repeat that behaviour because that is what they have modelled their relationship on. That is what love is for them, and sometimes that love is about control. It is not about love for you as an individual; it is love for you as someone who is controlled by that person. While this is a small minority of people, it is important that this bill identifies those patterns of behaviour and that coercive control, calls it out, recognises it, and then supports these families to deal with this going forward.

Just recently the Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence and I announced the success of the Community Circles program aimed at teaching young culturally diverse women about coercive control, led by Multicultural Youth SA (MYSA). The Community Circles program received funding from the National Partnership Agreement on Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Responses 2021-2027 between the Malinauskas Labor government and the federal government.

MYSA delivered 30 group sessions to 766 young women, the majority of whom were from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Led by facilitator and clinical psychologist, Dr Stacey McCallum, Community Circles provided an opportunity for the participants to play an active role in designing awareness-raising strategies to bring coercive control to the attention of young women in their communities. All workshops were delivered on weekends to provide a safe forum for young people to come together, learn about coercive control and identify the wider social, cultural and political conditions that give rise to and support the problem.

Pre and post assessments were undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. During pre-assessments, results indicated that many of the participants were not aware of what coercive control is, and more concerningly they reported that they feel that it is acceptable for their boyfriend or husband to monitor and control their behaviours, particularly in relation to technology.

We have heard this more widely, not just in our migrant community but across the board. A good portion of the group felt it was okay to let their boyfriend or spouse track their whereabouts on their mobile phone. On the surface, we might all think that is about safety, but when it turns and it becomes to demand where you go and who you are speaking to, that is something different. Post assessment indicated that workshop content was effective at increasing the young women's understanding of coercive control and influenced their attitude to coercive control in relationships. The program was then able to progress to a phase aimed at collaborating with young women to develop awareness of raising strategies that they believe will be most effective within their communities.

The group decided to focus on digital campaigns as well as advocacy and policy work. These are important conversations for us to have. We certainly have heard of different instances where there has been coercive control around birth control, particularly with very vulnerable young women who are encouraged to remove their birth control in an act of coercive control by their partner, taking away what has been a big decision of that person to not go down that path and to be told that is not what is expected: 'If you love me, you will remove it.' I have heard that many, many times.

We know that coercive control grips all communities, but we are ensuring that we reach out to different groups within our community to make sure that we have this conversation. We want to make sure people have greater awareness and, of course, know where to go for support. We need to equip women with the skills needed to advocate for themselves and their communities. I really want to thank the work of MYSA and recommend the work they have done in raising this level of awareness.

Of course, this conversation needs to be had at all ages because people need to understand. It needs to happen with men, it needs to happen with women, it needs to happen with younger people and with older people at different times in their life when they are starting to feel uncomfortable within their relationship about what is going on.

This bill is incredibly important. Not only do we have a royal commission into domestic violence going on at the moment, we know that for more than a decade this has been an issue we have been talking about. It is about awareness but it is about legislation that allows us to call out and say: 'It's not okay'. We have also had movements where we have allowed people to find out more information, because we know that people repeat these behaviours, relationship after relationship. We have also made sure that people are aware when they are most at risk and things start to elevate, but most importantly it is to make sure people know.

I grew up at a time when people said, 'What goes on behind closed doors is up to that family. You don't talk about it.' We need to open those doors, we need to create awareness that what is okay, what you have grown up with potentially is not what others have grown up with—and you can question that. You can say, 'That is not what love is, that is not what safety actually means.' We want people to have those conversations and we want to back them up, and that is what this bill does. We believe you, we believe it is wrong and we want to make sure that you are safe, and that is why we want to call out coercive control. I support the bill.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (19:47): I rise to indicate the opposition's support and that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. I have been glad to hear the contributions of members on both sides in the course of the debate today. As is well known, the challenge of legislating in this area has been one that has been confronted by at least both this parliament and the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, and I want to pay tribute to the work of the former Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, in this regard and acknowledge, also, the work of the government continuing to bring legislation to the house.

Much of the contribution focused on the need for cultural change and for improvement, and all of that is true. Part of what has been a challenge in terms of legislating against coercive control, as it has become known, is the legal challenge that you move from what is an objective for cultural and individual behaviour and improvement into a space in which you are imposing new criminal offences that need to be able to be prosecuted and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to have effect in that they are able to be enforced and a court is able to then impose a conviction and a sentence on a perpetrator.

All of that requires a sufficient level of evidential certainty and a capacity not to have outcomes that work in the opposite direction. As we have seen in so many areas where evidence is required in order to prove up offending, particularly against women, the court process too often lets victim survivors down. So I will just flag that in my contribution, particularly at committee stage in working through the way in which these new offences are structured for the purposes of this bill, I will flag the real concerns that have been expressed by the Law Society in respect of the 2023 draft and that remain.

Of course, the bill is approaching things in a way that includes an objective test of what constitutes coercive control, therefore there is a real issue about what a reasonable person might consider to be coercive control, regardless of the view or perception of the particular perpetrator and victim survivor. There is also a fairly wideranging provision in the bill in relation to the conduct that is prescribed, and there is built in the capacity for regulation both to add to and subtract from conduct that is determined to be coercive control and a course of conduct consistent with coercive control.

Rather than repeat the sentiments of much of what has been heard in the course of the debate, I just highlight that this is an area that has been the subject of long ongoing advocacy and consideration by those responsible in government over at least the last several years and has been the subject of advocacy by those outside. As is often the case, I am moved to pay particular tribute to the advocacy in this regard of Zonta. Zonta, through its membership and organisation of events, has shone a light on the importance of all things ranging from calling out behaviour that constitutes coercive control all the way through to dealing with the challenge of legislating.

I just flag as well that in the course of the committee I will highlight, as I have in considering the subject, the approach to legislating that has taken place in Tasmania. Tasmania has legislated against family violence and has its own form of offence provisions in relation to coercive control. It is very much directed to particular conduct and might in some ways be compared and contrasted with the approach that is taken the subject of this bill. As I flagged, I might focus some particular attention on the observations of the Law Society. I recognise, as is universally the case, valuable input from the Law Society, which is also long on the record as being supportive of measures in this area.

I highlight in particular at this second reading stage the necessary focus on achieving the practical outcome by this legislation. That is a challenge that is going to need to prove itself in practice once these offences are on the statute books and prosecutors are in a position to bring these matters before the courts. With those indications in particular about the focus at the committee stage, I will commend the bill and look forward to that interrogation at the next stage.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (19:55): I rise to speak in favour of this incredibly important bill. It is a bill that will create a new offence for the harmful and insidious behaviour which for far too long has not been given the attention it deserves, which is the controlling behaviour towards a current or former intimate partner.

I am really proud of this bill because it means that we are facing the red flags that we all know very much exist within our society and within our communities. I am really proud because my kids will not only know that the flags exist but more importantly they will know that there are absolutely supports in place to support them or anybody they know should they be experiencing any of these insidious behaviours.

It is certainly something I wish was available when I was much younger in my late teens and early 20s. It was unfortunately something that was experienced within my friendship circles and the like, so I know how devastating an impact this can have, and I know how small the behaviours can begin but how quickly that can evolve into something that is completely out of control. They can be things such as a partner commenting on the clothes that they are wearing, that can quickly transform into a partner's strong opinions about who they may or may not be spending time with, that then can very much change to, 'You can only go out if that person is with you and your partner is with you,' and it very quickly pushes you away from the relationships you have and you find yourself completely isolated and alone. Add on top of that dependence in terms of money, children and the like, it can very quickly spiral and be quite a difficult situation.

I know in our circumstances, coming from a really small town, it was really quite a scary concept, particularly when we were younger and trying to support our friend going through a difficult time. It is really difficult when your partner knows very easily where you work, because there are only a few options; where you go to school, where you play sport, again there are only certain places so you are quite easy to find and it is really hard to have that clear breakaway, particularly if there are no supports of the law put in place to be able to ensure that those parameters are followed and adhered to.

So it is something I am very happy to see because I do know that each and every time an action like this is taken and a red flag is shown, a little more of that person is taken away until they become a shadow of themselves and they are completely isolated and alone and tragically unsafe in that circumstance.

This new offence will be created in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and it will outlaw coercive control of a person who the defendant is or has been in a relationship with and it will carry a maximum penalty of seven years of imprisonment. By doing this we are saying no more to using coercion to be able to impose a will upon others, hurting, humiliating, intimidating, exploiting, isolating, dominating and terrifying their victims over time and often the people around them, which often in traps them and the victim in a nefarious cycle.

We know this behaviour often precedes serious assault and heartbreakingly all too often homicide. We know that police have often been limited in what they can do to help a woman who is subject to such conduct which does not involve physical violence due to the focus our criminal laws currently have when it comes to physical abuse. We know that prevention is key. If we can get it at these early stages and we can set the standards, we certainly know that we can see improvement in the safety and wellbeing of women all across our state.

Given this, the bill before us will see that elements for an offence of coercive control will be that for which a person engages in a course of conduct that intentionally has a controlling impact on a current or former intimate partner, if the conduct would be likely to cause the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm. It will give greater focus to what is essentially an assault on one's free will. Such behaviour will be considered controlling if a reasonable person would see it as restricting someone's freedom of movement or action.

This is restricting another's ability to participate in social, political, religious, cultural, educational or economic activities. It also covers whether their right to make decisions about their own body is compromised or if their ability to access necessities is limited, including property, support services or the justice system. These freedoms should never be compromised because another person deems that they have the right to impose their will onto another.

Outside of this place, you will likely have taken notice of the See the Signs campaign, which is currently being undertaken by the government to ensure that across the community there is a level of awareness about this insidious form of violence. It is no longer a matter to be swept under the rug or held behind closed doors. We are here helping South Australians to become aware of the signs of coercive control and what it looks like but, more importantly, how one can seek support for a loved one that they might know is currently experiencing it.

In practice, such restrictions may look like stopping someone from undertaking employment, controlling what they eat, stopping someone from being able to enjoy time with loved ones and friends or financially controlling someone and holding them accountable for every purchase that they may choose to make. In a friend's circumstance, I know she had an allowance, which was very hard to keep on top of and had to seek permission, which was quite demoralising at that time, provided she was also providing an income to their household.

The scope of this bill will focus, regardless of sex or gender identity, on any person in an intimate couple relationship, be it those in marriage, engaged, domestic partners or any other intimate couple relationship, be it former or current.

These amendments have found their way before us today out of extensive consultation that the government has undertaken alongside survivors of domestic violence, domestic violence prevention advocates, the legal profession as well as the broader community. I absolutely thank all who have made valuable contributions to what we have before us today. It takes a lot of bravery to come forward and to share your story and make suggestions on how we can do better in this space, and by doing so, you have certainly helped to make a huge difference in the lives of so many moving forwards.

We have been hard at work ensuring that we are delivering policies which will have a positive impact on reducing family and domestic violence throughout the community. Prior to coming into government, I was really proud that the Malinauskas Labor team took to the 2022 election a commitment for $2 million for the Catherine House to reinstate funding that was cut by the former government. Other work since then has included making domestic violence a ground for discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act and enshrining 15 days' paid domestic leave for workers under the state industrial system, providing $800,000 into restoring funding to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service and also passing legislation to ensure that the defendants granted bail on charges of violently breaching DV-related intervention orders are subject to a mandatory strict condition of home detention and electronic monitoring.

Acknowledging the role that domestic violence has on housing and security, it has been a pleasure to see reforms pushed forward by this government, including the establishment of the Housing Security for Older Women Taskforce, ring fencing a proportion of public housing for women escaping violence, engaging with the finance and real estate industries to ensure that women do not bear the brunt of mortgages, loans and rent that go unpaid in a domestic violence situation.

These important legislative changes which pass through this place are going to better protect people across our community, and it is an absolute pleasure to be a part of a government that is so passionate about pushing forward these initiatives and, even more so, acknowledging that there is still much more work to do in this space and getting to work to pass important bills such as this one that we have before us today.

With Natasha Stott Despoja appointed as Commissioner for the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, which commenced this year in July, I am sure that the royal commission will inquire into five areas including prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and healing, and coordination to provide the government with the recommendations that will see a system much better suited to meet the needs of individuals who interact with it, and I look forward to supporting such reforms when they make their way before us in this place.

As I have noted in this place before, I commend bills such as this. I know it will go a long way towards helping raise awareness across the community about what this insidious form of domestic violence looks like, and will go a long way to helping those who may find themselves in such situations. Anybody can fall in these situations, everybody in the community has a role to play to help support somebody who they see might be needing assistance and also, most importantly, at those very early stages calling out the behaviour that is unacceptable and that we know can quickly spiral into dangerous situations. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (20:05): I rise in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024. In doing so I acknowledge the commitment and dedication of the Minister for Women, the member for Reynell. In her first speech on this bill, the minister highlighted that in 99 per cent of domestic violence-related homicides, coercive control was a factor prior to that horrific, final physical act.

The bill before us has as its focus intimate partner relationships, and today I want to acknowledge all who have been impacted by coercive control, including those who are no longer with us, both men and women. In particular, tonight I would like to shine a light on the women, the sisters, the daughters, the mothers and the grandmothers who have lived through the torment of coercive control behaviour and lost their lives at the hands of the abusing partner or former partner, or, because they could no longer live with the isolation, the psychological harm, the restrictions on making their own decisions about their health, their finances, contact with family and friends, or even the clothes they wore, ended their own lives.

A person's behaviour, including an omission or a threat to engage in a particular behaviour, will be taken to have an impact on another person's life if the behaviour restricts the other person from the following:

freedom of movement: for example, by locking them in a room or excessively tracking their activities, movements or communications;

freedom of action: physically harming a person because they did not undertake a household duty, or making threats against the person or a child in order to influence a course of action;

freedom to engage in social, political, religious, cultural, educational or economic activities by deleting or interfering with communications received from a third party or threatening to harm a third party if the other person has contact with that party;

ability to make choices with respect to body, including reproductive options, medical treatment or sexual activity by destroying the method of contraception or threatening sexual assault;

ability to access the justice system, basic necessities including water, sleep, food or hygiene;

access to support services by hiding keys or threatening harm if they leave to attend a particular location; and

access to property or place of residence by withholding information or changing a password or access code, or deceive as to rights with respect to their own property.

Restrictions include physical restrictions, verbal and psychological restrictions, removing the means by which a person is able to do something, deception or other behaviour that directly or indirectly impacts on a person.

Through consultation, concern was raised that a coercive control offence could unintentionally contribute to perpetrator misidentification. This occurs when authorities mistakenly treat the victim of abuse as the aggressor, possibly resulting in intervention orders being issued and prosecution for criminal charges.

This can occur when authorities focus on incidents of a victim's defensive or retaliatory behaviour without consideration of the broader context and balance of power in a relationship The bill before us will direct the attention of the authorities to the broader power dynamics in a relationship and the relative freedoms enjoyed by the parties. Significantly, to safeguard against over-criminalisation, the bill contains a defence behaviour that accounts for exceptional circumstances and justifies seriously restricting a partner's behaviour.

I have had so many people from my community knock on my door, either as victims of coercive behaviour or friends or neighbours of people who are experiencing coercive behaviour, and I know very often it feels as though there is not an answer for them. It is really important that the legislation that we have before us today is implemented so that anyone who is found or convicted of this behaviour will face the consequences of up to seven years' jail.

A couple of years ago I received correspondence from a distraught resident, a father who had just lost his adult daughter. He wanted to meet with me about coercive control legislation. Along with the minister, the member for Reynell, I met with him and his grieving remaining daughter in the members' lounge in this place during a sitting week. Together the father and daughter told their story and it is fair to say that by the end there were tears all round. With permission, I will conclude with this loving father's words to me:

We want Kirsty's voice to be heard, even if she is no longer here. Nothing will bring her back, however if we can contribute in any way towards preventing this behaviour happening to others, then this will be her memorial.

I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (20:11): Firstly, I want to offer really deep appreciation to everybody who has spoken in this debate. Thank you very much to the member for Playford, the member for Unley, the member for Davenport, the member for Newland, the member for Frome, the member for Ramsay the member for Heysen, the member for King and the member for Torrens.

I really appreciated all of their words and I just wanted to reflect on how important it was to our debate that so many of those speakers brought to life, including the member for Torrens who has just spoken, the words, the experiences, the devastations that some community members have gone through as a result of coercive control, experienced either by themselves or by a person that they love deeply.

I am very proud that the development of this bill has very much been shaped by those many conversations that I and a number of members of this house have had with survivors and with family members, and I am really proud that there is support for this bill to make sure that those voices, those experiences are heard and, as the member for Torrens just spoke about, that those many people who have come forward and have so often said that they want to ensure that their experiences, or the experiences of one of their loved ones, through sharing them, actually helps to make a difference and I hope that that is exactly what this bill does. I really am very grateful to members for bringing those stories to life, and so incredibly grateful to those remarkable survivors who have shared those stories.

As I did in my second reading remarks, I again thank the Attorney-General and his office, particularly Elliette Kirkbride and the Attorney-General's Department, particularly Laira, for their work towards this really important legislative reform. I also wholeheartedly thank the Office for Women and Director Sanjugta Vas Dev and particularly Hilary Wigg in my office for their ongoing work to grow community awareness about these insidious behaviours and to help to develop and bring this legislation to this parliament.

I want to mention Hilary again because Hilary was in my electorate office and she is now a senior adviser. Back in 2019 we began to develop a bill which I introduced into the parliament from opposition in 2020. That bill we brought to the parliament because of those stories that we heard from so many people in our local community and beyond. I am very pleased that after a journey—almost five years later—tonight we continue to finally progress this legislation.

Again, thank you to all who have worked towards this. Also, thank you so much to those who have advocated for this legislation for such a very long time, all of those remarkable workers who work day in and day out in the domestic, family and sexual violence sector, those who every day walk alongside women as they experience these terrible behaviours and empower them to walk new and safer journeys. I say thank you to everybody who works in that sector. I also thank Embolden, their peak body, who have again been such strong advocates and have provided such wise advice about what should be included or not included in this legislation as we take it forward.

I also thank those other advocates, those who do not necessarily work in the sector but are absolutely friends to the sector and long-term enduring advocates for women and the prevention of domestic, family and sexual violence. I think of those incredible community-minded women in Zonta, in Soroptimist, in BPW, and in the 16 Days of Activism groups, who for such a long time have advocated for this and, indeed, for other legislative change also.

Finally, I again pay tribute to those many brave survivors, many of whom were here in terms of those who have helped to shape this journey that we have been on, this bill that we debate tonight, who were here when we introduced the bill but also all of those survivors, particularly those who are in situations that meant they could not be in Parliament House that day. I also really honour again those women we have lost to domestic, family and sexual violence. As I said in my second reading explanation, this bill is absolutely for them.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: The first question is at clause 1 and I refer in particular to submissions that happen to be the subject of letters dated the same day, 10 October 2023, from the Bar Association and from the Law Society, and I ask the question, in circumstances where it has been raised particularly by the Bar Association, to what extent have those responsible for the institution of criminal proceedings, such as SA Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, been consulted on the bill? To what extent have each of their consideration and recommendations found voice in the form of the bill that we have now seen introduced to the parliament?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I thank the member for the question. Just broadly, to cover off on the way we have consulted and developed this bill, in late 2022 and early 2023 we undertook a process where we brought together various groups of women with a particular interest in this subject matter. In a very deep way we engaged with Aboriginal women, with a group of women living with disability, with a group of LGBTIQA+ people, with young women, and with women from diverse multicultural groups to actually seek their input and their help to shape the bill before we went about the drafting process.

Through that process there was an extraordinary amount of insight gained, and that insight was instrumental to developing the bill in the right way. In late August 2023 we also undertook a comprehensive consultation process where, as well as a YourSAy process, we held a range of public forums where people could contribute. We also engaged in targeted correspondence with a range of particular stakeholders.

So that consultation process has been very robust, and it has absolutely included consultation with the DPP and SAPOL that has been extensive. Indeed, those conversations with SAPOL and others across government continue, because we know that when this bill, hopefully, passes both houses of parliament the work continues to make sure that every person in every department right across the sector, right across the community, has a role to play in helping ensure that the implementation of this legislation is effective, and that it has the desired impact for which we have developed and introduced this legislation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr TEAGUE: The bill adopts, as I noted in the course of the second reading debate, an approach including an objective test. This is one of those circumstances where the operative provisions are all contained within one clause, so I will endeavour to address all of this as efficiently as I can within the questions allowed for the single clause. It adopts a reasonable person test in what will be the new 20C. It also adopts some novel definitions of the impact of behaviour, including the definition of controlling impact.

I will perhaps ask the first question. To what extent did the government consider legislation in other jurisdictions, in particular legislation in Tasmania, which not only I but also others have observed deliberately adopts a rather singular notion of abuse? Then, part 2 of its Family Violence Act sets out what are really quite circumscribed actions that will be prosecutable as constituting the offence, including economic abuse, that is described in the five particular examples of conduct that are defined as constituting economic abuse for the purposes of that section in that act. In a way, if the nub of the first question is, 'To what extent did the government consider alternative regimes, and in particular the Tasmanian regime' can the minister inform the committee about the rationale for adopting a somewhat different course?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: First of all, yes, we did look across a range of jurisdictions: New South Wales, Scotland and also Tasmania. As the member has rightly pointed out, they talk about separate 'types' of abuse—to summarise, emotional and economic abuse. There are a range of reasons why we did not follow that course, the first one being that what we know about coercive control is that economic and emotional abuse can often be deeply intertwined. The emotional abuse can feed into and worsen the impact of economic abuse and vice versa. We chose to speak about them as one offence but to focus on the controlling impact of that abuse.

The reason for that focus on the controlling impact of behaviours included a desire to educate community, and indeed stakeholders, around the sorts of behaviours and the sorts of impact that those behaviours can have on a person when they experience coercive control. Certainly, the feedback from stakeholders has indicated that despite progress being made through our See The Signs campaign and through other strategies that we have engaged in, coercive control is still not as well understood as we would like it to be more generally in the community.

Secondly, we really wanted to make a cultural shift in terms of how the whole of the criminal justice system thinks about domestic abuse. We absolutely want to shift thinking away from incidents of behaviour as creating harm, which of course they do, but also make that cultural shift to an understanding that it is the patterns of coercive controlling behaviour, which can include a range of different forms of abuse, that actually have that harmful impact on the person who is subject to coercive control.

We also wanted to make sure—and there are other parts of the bill that go to this—that we were very aware of the need to help avoid perpetrator misidentification. We deliberately then moved away from those prescriptive words of 'humiliation', etc., to make sure that we were focusing on the impact of that controlling behaviour. We felt that as soon as you distilled that into particular individual words, that that may be more likely to lead to circumstances where those particular words could equally be used to describe victim retaliation when they were used in isolation as words rather than contemplating that overall course of behaviour that had that harmful impact.

Mr TEAGUE: I would just then address the objective test that is the subject of the new operative provision 20C, as is clear. I highlight that this is an issue that has been raised most recently by the Law Society, the subject of its letter dated 15 October 2024, that the offence is characterised in terms of an objective test at a number of (and I think at least two) operative stages of the constituting of the offence. First at 20C(1)(a), which provides:

(a) the person engages in a course of conduct that consists of behaviour that has, or that a reasonable person would consider is likely to have, a controlling impact on another person;

And at (d):

(d) a reasonable person would consider the course of conduct to be likely to cause the other person—

(i) physical injury; or

(ii) psychological harm,

So (a) includes the behaviour that actually has the effect but includes both the actual and the objective test, and (b) is entirely an objective test and so the question is how is that objective test arrived at in preference to a test that is based on the victim's perception or experience of the actuality of it? What work does that objective test have to do? As the Law Society observes, the proposal particularly in (a) has the result that a person need not engage in conduct that actually has a controlling impact on another person to be found guilty of the offence.

I appreciate the minister's address, that there is a whole lot of endeavour here to send a signal to the broader community. I am focusing, as I said in the course of my second reading contribution, on the fact that courts are having to deal with admissible evidence and then deal with the elements of an offence and in circumstances where the relevant victim is not presenting evidence of having actually been caused physical injury or psychological harm, and the reasonable person objective test is relied upon. How is that going to work in practice and how has the government arrived at that approach to the constituting of the offence?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I do appreciate that question and the opportunity to talk through this particular aspect of this bill in terms of the objective test being applied to the controlling impact of the behaviour, as you have said, relying on proof that the conduct was likely to restrict the survivor as an alternative to proof that the survivor was, in fact, restricted.

What I can tell the member is that this approach was very much deliberately selected to ensure that the bill does not unintentionally exclude those very resilient survivors who, despite the intention and the behaviour focused on manipulating, demeaning, taking away that particular survivor's sense of self-worth—we selected this because, despite those endeavours of a perpetrator, we know that there are amazingly some very resilient survivors who find ways to resist a perpetrator's attempts to control them.

They are survivors who, despite great personal risk and great fear, engage in activities that the perpetrator has actually, in the course of their controlling behaviour, forbidden them to undertake. We wanted to make sure, in selecting this approach, that just because a survivor gets through or is resilient in the face of terrible coercive controlling behaviour and is able to get through it, that does not mean they have not been subject to a crime that is coercive control that was very much intended by the perpetrator to harm them.

Mr TEAGUE: My final question, perhaps given the constraints, remains at the operative provision, section 20C. There are two forms of exception, one a carve-out and one an objective test. I say 'carve-out' in that there is provision for regulations to set out what does not constitute an offence. Unlike the examples that are set out at section 20B, the definition section—examples of behaviour that have a controlling impact; we see them—we do not see examples of behaviour that does not constitute an offence, because it is said to be the subject of regulations.

So there is a question about whether there are regulations in the offing that would therefore be anticipated at any time or if that is something that is, as it were, just there for the purpose of the structure and we might see it populated at some point. Then, of course, there is the resort to the reasonableness test at subsection (3). Just because the examples have been set out by the Law Society at paragraph 9 of that recent letter, I will cite that specifically. At the moment, there is at least that degree of uncertainty about the inadvertent criminalisation of conduct that might be regarded as objectively not in the public interest to criminalise.

The example given at paragraph 9 is denial of access to money, account details or bank statements to a person who is suffering a gambling, drinking or drug problem. In those circumstances, the person denying access to that would have engaged in conduct that on the face of it has a controlling impact but for good reason. Is that the sort of thing we might see specified in the regulations or is it anticipated that that is the sort of thing that might need to be dealt with by way of subsection (3) as to reasonableness?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: It is right to say that the intention is to rely on 20C(3) and the reasonableness test as you have spoken about. That does not mean that there is not an opportunity at a later time to consider the development of regulations, particularly if there is a pattern of particular circumstances that begin to arise as the legislation is implemented that may lead us to believe that we do need to commit those particular circumstances, that particular pattern of circumstances, to regulation. But it is intended that 20C(3) is there to be used to test the reasonableness of particular actions.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to ask for some points of clarification on a really important piece of legislation. I fully understand after listening to the second readings why you are doing this, minister, and obviously the opportunities to address such sad issues that arise in relationships in society that are not acceptable anymore.

A question to you, minister, and this is a perspective that I am really worried about where innocent people might get caught up in this, not the guilty. By just the mere point that I can see this is criminal law means it is not family law and I am looking for clarity around that. I do not believe it is. We already know in family law and the Family Court that the truth is very hard to come by in relationships, and it worries me with these types of rules and laws that potentially innocent people could be caught up in this. There are some severe penalties here that can incarcerate people for seven years, I see, as a maximum penalty. For the right reason, I understand why the penalty is high.

But can the minister just give me some assurance that if a guilty finding on a party, a person, is found to be bogus and misleading to the court that there are consequences for misleading the court over supposedly this coercive control which can deal with a number of things, as I am seeing here, and that there are deterrents for people—I have to say it could be male or female, it does not matter, and different nationalities—for misleading the court and putting innocent people in incarceration when they did not do anything?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you very much to the member for his question and for his interest in this legislation. In the second reading speech you would have heard my explanation of the test that we go through to ascertain whether or not there has been an offence. I think that that test is very robust and, as I have spoken about tonight and in the second reading speech, we have looked at other jurisdictions both nationally and internationally to come up with the best possible set of words, legislation, for our context, so I am confident about how that offence is constructed.

In answer to your question, I am advised that there are other penalties in relation to perjury and providing false statements to SAPOL that would of course be applied to this context, as they would be to other contexts in other proceedings on a range of matters.

Mr McBRIDE: I have another point of clarification, if I may, minister, in the sense that we know that relationships today and choices of sexuality and sexual preferences are more open today than they have ever been. Can I just ask for your confidence, and perhaps explanation, that this new legislation is very open and considered, without any sort of prejudice to one sexual person to another?

In other words, for example, it is seen in society today that the male is still sometimes most physically dominant in relationships, but that is not necessarily always the case. We know that in the mixed relationships of today's society, whether they be female-female, male-male, heterosexual relationships or a combination of things that I do not even need to worry about, that this legislation does give due consideration to any person, no matter their nationality, sexual preference, how they describe themselves. Can we be confident that this legislation has no bias but will find any guilty party guilty based on fact rather than perhaps any prejudice we might have felt 20, 30 or 50 years ago?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am pleased to be able to absolutely clarify and clear this up for the member. I would point the member to new section 20B(1), where the bill sets out what constitutes 'in a relationship' for the purposes of the offence or the conduct being considered. What the bill states is that, to be in a relationship:

…2 people will be taken to be in a relationship if—

(a) they are married to each other; or

(b) they are engaged to be married to each other, including a betrothal under cultural or religious tradition; or

(c) they are domestic partners; or

(d) they are in some other form of intimate personal relationship in which their lives are interrelated and the actions of 1 affects the other;

I can assure the member, as you would have heard through me taking you through the definition and as I am sure you have read yourself, member for MacKillop, this bill is neutral as to who particular provisions apply to. It is absolutely equal. The requirement is that the relationship is either marriage, domestic partnership, an engagement or that there is some form of intimate personal relationship. It does not state whether it is one gender or another in terms of who is more or less likely to commit the particular offence. It simply talks about two people being in relationship, and then we go through what constitutes a relationship, so it is neutral in terms of how it is applied.

Mr McBRIDE: I then draw the minister's attention to 20B(1)(a),(b) and (c). I am not sure how I differentiate them, but it says—

psychological harm means—

(a) mental illness; or

(b) nervous shock; or

(c) serious distress, anxiety or fear.

I fully appreciate what those descriptions mean. In society, perhaps those who are not educated may not see those sorts of elements that could be rolling out in a relationship—one, the perpetrator rolling out those three descriptions and, two, the victim suffering them.

I was just wondering if the minister could give me some confidence or information regarding the fact that if the coercive control is serious—and we see the serious end of the spectrum of seven years' incarceration, I appreciate—then if there are softer elements that they might say are not as serious, is there anything else besides incarceration being considered here, like psychological therapy or relationship therapy or some sort of mental wellness through that process, where it is not just an incarceration jail term that picks up the pieces waiting for it to become really serious and the only answer ends up being incarceration or jail? So my question to the minister is: what are the other alternatives in addressing these situations rather than just incarceration?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will speak broadly and then I will come back to some specific alternatives that the law more generally allows for. First of all, I think I have acknowledged in my second reading speech but also in a question earlier from the member for Heysen what is and will be really important alongside the passing of this bill and its implementation, which is a program of community education and awareness, the development of practices for SAPOL and for courts to recognise this offence, but also to continue the campaign that we have been running for some time to build awareness in the community about what coercive control is, what constitutes it. That education has included—our feedback has been really successful advertising about what the signs of coercive control are.

That advertising has occurred across social media platforms and in many, many other formats to more generally shift community understanding of what coercive control is. In a very general sense, that work will continue because it must. We want to make sure that this behaviour is understood, first of all with a desire to prevent it from occurring in the first place but also to make sure that people understand their rights and responsibilities and the consequences should they engage in this particular sort of behaviour. That program will continue.

What I would say in a very broad sense, and it is certainly the case in relation to this legislation, is that the Sentencing Act does offer a range of alternatives in terms of penalties across a range of offences. What are common in relation to domestic and family violence-related offences are also—sometimes instead of but also—mandatory referrals to perpetrate a behavioural change program, to just sum that up in a more general sense. It is certainly open to the courts to also order those kinds of remedies as well, and that is something that the government wants to see more of.

We are certainly investing in perpetrator behaviour change programs, and that is something that we will continue to do. It is a strong part of the national plan. It is a particular aspect of our prevention efforts that we have asked the royal commission to look into also. I think in terms of community awareness and education, we will continue with that throughout the passage of this legislation and its implementation.

We will continue to work across government to make sure every person in every agency is aware of what this behaviour is and what constitutes this offence. Also, though, right across the work that we are doing in the domestic family and sexual violence prevention space we will continue to invest in perpetrator behaviour change programs, but also the courts will continue to have open to them those other remedies which do include mandatory participation in behavioural change programs for perpetrators.

Mr McBRIDE: A question of clarification to you, Mr Chairman. We have just talked to clause 5, and I have asked three questions. Does that mean it takes us right up now to what is schedule 1? Is that where it goes to now with those three questions having been asked?

The CHAIR: That's correct.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr McBRIDE: I know this is going to be a little bit of a stretch, but schedule 1 refers to 'Related amendments', and 'Part 1—Amendment of Evidence Act 1929', under which we see 'definition of serious offence against the person'. This comes back to a basic question of concern. This is all very, very positive and I like what is happening here and I back the minister and her endeavours, and I appreciate her last answer in regard to the other solutions, rather than just incarceration. But when you roll out this sort of legislation and you have maximum penalties of seven years this means that potentially there are going to be more people incarcerated, and we know that Correctional Services is already under stress.

I am not trying to be political here—this is apolitical—but some five, or maybe 10, years ago there was the terminology of 'stack 'em and rack 'em'. I am just wondering, minister, in regard to bringing in new penalties and obviously finding new solutions to problems that exist in our society, does the government believe that it has invested well enough to capture what this new legislation may entail with perpetrators going through the court system? Obviously these perpetrators could be guilty and may be incarcerated. We already know that facilities are stretched, or under stress for numbers in incarceration.

So my question to the minister is: does she have any awareness of the investments that might be needed to roll out these new laws, which for all intents and purposes might mean a really small number of potential perpetrators, but it could be a large number and then where are they going to be housed and how is that going to affect corrections, jails and incarceration?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Thank you again for the question and thank you again to the member for his interest in this area. What I want to place on record from the outset, and I have said this in the second reading speech as well, is that we are absolutely determined to punish those who engage in coercive controlling behaviour with the intent to harm a person that they are in, or have been in, a relationship with. I say that because of the many, many stories I have heard, but also the sheer volume of people—particularly women, overwhelmingly women—who are experiencing harm as a result of coercive control.

The most compelling fact about that harm is that in 99 per cent of domestic violence homicides we know that an experience of coercive control was a precursor to that horrific, final physical act. So we certainly make no excuse about being very firm about how deeply unacceptable coercive controlling behaviour is and hence this regime and the penalties. I just want to make that very clear.

Also, it is our desire, evidenced by the vast array of work that we are undertaking across prevention, intervention, response, recovery and healing, that we continue to work to prevent this behaviour before it starts, to have it much better understood, to have programs in place that intervene with perpetrators and that we have those programs in place that support women who experience all forms of violence, including coercive control. Whilst this legislation absolutely is very strong about the penalties for coercive control and the harm that it causes, we also have a very strong program of work to help to prevent this violence before it starts.

Part of that work in relation to this bill will be ensuring that when—should—this passes both houses of parliament that we actually have a period of implementation where we are again educating the community more broadly, hoping to shift understanding but also to shift perpetrator behaviour and also we will be undertaking a very strong program in collaboration with SAPOL and the courts to make sure that everybody is aware of what constitutes coercive control and to make sure that in that implementation phase everybody is working to prevent the occurrence of coercive control. We do not want any harm caused through coercive control, so through that implementation phase and beyond we will be working on strategies to help prevent it from occurring.

The final thing I would say in relation to your question is that right now there are circumstances where individuals are being charged with particular domestic violence offences that already exist, so they are already being held to account for those particular offences, but when we look at the behaviours of that person who is being charged with the offence, we also see that alongside the particular offences that they can currently be charged for, there is also coercive controlling behaviour for which currently there is no capacity to charge a person in relation to.

I imagine that what we will see is, as well as coercive control in an isolated way being charged and people being held to account for that behaviour, that those who are already committing and being charged, or potentially being charged with those offences, at the same time in the future will be charged with those coercive control offences also.

Mr McBRIDE: I come back to 'serious offence against the person', the interpretation amendment. I want to get some clarity. I do know that investment by any government—it does not matter the colour of politics—in Correctional Services facilities has to cope with what the minister is trying to address. I really want to understand that the minister has a good understanding that there is investment for the incarceration of a number of people who may find themselves caught up in these changes for the right reason that is interpreted here.

I am not going to turn a blind eye and I do not want the minister to give a sideways glance when they used to talk about 'stack 'em and rack 'em'. It would be really sad if that is all we are going to do. If we are going to solve a problem with a good solution, like this change in legislation, then there has to be some sort of resources investment to be able to deal with the people it is going to capture.

The CHAIR: Member for MacKillop, I really could not discern the difference between this question and your earlier question. You may not have liked the minister's answer, but I cannot see the question being different.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I could probably add something.

The CHAIR: If you can add something, yes, okay.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: What I would like to reassure the member about is that in developing this legislation I spoke a lot about the consultation with the community, with stakeholders, with survivors. We also consulted very, very broadly right across government, and that absolutely included Corrections and making sure that there was an awareness of any potential impact on that department as well. There has certainly been deep conversation with every department, including Corrections.

The other thing I will say is that in the scope of the royal commission, in terms of that request in the terms of reference to look at prevention and early intervention, there is discussion in those terms of reference in what we have asked the royal commissioner to do, to look at the issue of rehabilitation and how we can rehabilitate perpetrators as a way of preventing further violence but also intervening as early as possible so that the violence does not occur in the first place. I am hopeful there will be particular discussion in the royal commission about the matters the member is raising.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (21:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.