Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

In rising to speak to these amendments and the final passage of this bill, I honour the courageous survivors amongst us, many of whom have told their stories, informed the very development of this bill and our consultation processes for it and, indeed, the bill I introduced into this place as shadow minister in 2020. To each of these survivors in the gallery today, and the many others, please know this: it is your bravery, your voices, your experiences and your insights that have shaped every step of this journey to this moment we rightly mark today.

I honour the precious women we have lost and those who mourn them—women including Hannah Clarke and her three beautiful children. Hannah's story, and the integrity and bravery of her utterly inspiring parents, Sue and Lloyd, whom we are so honoured to have join us today, have helped to drive awareness and change through these and other similar laws across our country. Sue and Lloyd, your bravery in the face of horrific brutality, and the heartbreaking years that have followed, are etched in our collective psyche. We hold you in our hearts. You are the very essence of inspiration.

What we know about the pattern of vile abuse that Hannah endured prior to her murder demanded that we act, as do the voices and the experiences of those courageous survivors who, after experiencing the most disturbing instances of this terrible behaviour—behaviour designed to diminish, belittle and strip away their agency—have shared their experiences with such a clear focus on empowering others who traverse a similar path. This bill is for them, and it is for all in our community currently suffering and surviving.

This bill, I hope, gives comfort and hope that we can, indeed, make lasting change. At its heart is our clear commitment to honour their experiences, to respond to their calls for change, to hold perpetrators to account and to ensure that everyone in our community knows what coercive control is and that we utterly reject it and will punish it. I indicate and confirm the government's support for the amendment which inserts 'or animal belonging to' into the examples section of coercive controlling behaviours to read:

a person may restrict another person's freedom of action by—

making threats against the person or a child of, or animal belonging to, the person in order to influence the other person to take a certain action;

During the government's public consultation process on coercive control, concern was raised by key stakeholders that having a list of example behaviours within the offence provision itself may risk authorities interpreting the list as an exhaustive checklist of behaviours and have the unintended effect of excluding other coercively controlling behaviours.

The 2024 bill as introduced, therefore instead included an examples section separate to the new offence provision, with limited behaviours listed to emphasise the point that these are examples only and any type of behaviour that could restrict a partner from various fundamental freedoms as outlined in the offence provision could be captured.

The definition of 'restrict' in the bill includes psychological restriction, which could include controlling a person through fear for the welfare of an animal. This is now included as an example. This is so important. We do not ever want to exclude a particular coercive controlling behaviour because it is not specifically detailed in the offence provision.

I say this in the context of those who use violence, finding new ways that we cannot even currently contemplate to demean, to belittle, to isolate, to wear down the person on whom they inflict terrible coercive control. We heard reports of new and previously uncontemplated examples emerging during COVID-19: people being restricted from being tested, or those who use violence telling others falsely that their partner had COVID as a means of further isolating them. We do not want to prescribe a list of behaviours in the offence and inadvertently exclude some horrible form of abuse, but we do want to include one of the sadly too common examples of coercive control in the example list.

As I mentioned earlier, I first moved in this place to criminalise coercive control through a bill I introduced in 2020, which sadly did not progress. This bill, rightly and clearly, now creates a new offence of harmful controlling behaviour toward a current or former intimate partner, following our government's clear commitment made to criminalise coercive control. This reform marks the culmination of extensive consultation with the legal profession with peak DFSV prevention and advocacy groups, survivors and our broader community.

It sits alongside our highly successful See the Signs awareness campaign, which reached almost 1.8 million people and particularly targeted young people to help them identify what coercive controlling behaviours look like and what they can do to help shift them. This bill creates a new offence in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 of the coercive control of a person with whom the defendant is in or has been in a relationship with. This offence will have a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment.

Coercive control is a deliberate and abusive effort to control another person. Perpetrators of coercive control do not want an equal partnership. They are not interested in resolving conflicts through a healthy process of discussion and negotiation. Perpetrators of coercive control are only interested in imposing their will on others, and to achieve this they will hurt, humiliate, intimidate, exploit, isolate, dominate and terrify over time the person they are meant to love.

Many kinds of abusive behaviours are threaded together into a web that relentlessly entraps the subject who, at the hands of an abusive partner or former partner, find themselves isolated, scared, psychologically harmed, stripped of their self-worth and restricted from making autonomous decisions about every single aspect of their life—from day-to-day decisions about what to wear or where to go to utterly life-changing decisions about their health, their housing, their finances and who they spend time with.

This web of control that is behind so many abusive relationships has been, until now, invisible to our criminal law. But no longer—no longer. We have acted and we will continue to do so. Even as this bill passes, the work is starting to ensure that everyone who interacts with a person experiencing or perpetrating coercive control understands the offence and can effectively support and empower survivors. Together with survivors, with the sector, with police and the courts, we will work to ensure that this offence is brought to life in a way that absolutely makes a difference.

I offer my wholehearted, deepest appreciation to all who have invaluably contributed to developing this bill, the many, many brave survivors who attended session after session, and particularly those who attended sessions with me way back in 2019 and 2020 as we prepared our first bill. I thank the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General's Department, and particularly Laira Krieg, the Office for Women, the incredible staff in my ministerial office—Mandy Nicholls, Hilary Wigg and Ruth Sibley in particular—and, in the Attorney's office, Elliette Kirkbride.

I thank the domestic, family and sexual violence sector. Every single one of you is extraordinary, with compassion, with care, and a steadfast and relentless desire to empower women and to advance profound change across our community that helps to prevent violence in all its forms. You are there day after day, year after year, decade after decade, alongside women at their hardest points, holding them as they take steps forward—sometimes a few back—until they find their power and never look back.

I also thank those other allies to the sector and long-term advocates for women and the prevention of domestic, family and sexual violence. Finally, I again pay tribute to those many brave survivors, many of whom are here and have been here throughout this long journey, and I honour again those women we have lost. This bill is for them.

Mr TEAGUE: Minister, the first of the amendments includes now a definition of 'physical harm'; that is in section 21. The consequential amendment is to amend what was a reference to 'physical injury' to 'physical harm'. I would like to refer to the explanation of clauses, which I do not have just presently. We had already a novel definition of 'psychological harm' for the purposes of this division. I am interested in what might particularly turn on the change from the standalone reference to 'physical injury', to the adoption of the existing definition in section 21, and perhaps, at the same time, why the definition of 'psychological harm' is not otherwise more broadly applicable and included in section 21 as well?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: First of all, in relation to 'psychological injury', what this definition now includes is an explanation that is tailored to the circumstances of coercive control. One of the things that survivors told us over and over again is that when they experience a pattern of coercive controlling behaviour, it is ongoing fear that does cause that psychological harm. So this definition is about ensuring that we articulate psychological harm in the context of coercive control, the experience of fear of survivors, and that we contemplate how a pattern of coercive controlling behaviours generates that fear.

Mr TEAGUE: To be clear, psychological harm is the existing definition that is in the bill. No change. It was a bookend aspect of the question to ask why that might not have found itself in the broader definitions in section 21. The substance of the question is, and it is amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 3, in that amendment No. 3 alters what was previously a reference to 'physical injury' undefined—the ordinary meaning, therefore—to a now defined 'physical harm' by reference to the existing definition of 'physical harm' in the broader Criminal Law Consolidation Act. I am sure there is a perfectly good reason for it, but there has obviously been a supportable case made for it in another place for that now to be so described and to be defined by reference to the existing definition. I am just interested to know the reasons why.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: In relation to the issue about physical harm, it was seen that it was really important for that definition to be contemplated and made consistent with the rest of the act.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Clause 20B(1) states that persons are considered to be in a relationship if they are married, engaged to be married, domestic partners or in some other form of intimate personal relationship in which their lives are interrelated and the actions of one affect the other. Would that also apply to an elderly pair of sisters, for example, who may live together? They decided not to get married. They have lived together for many, many years. They share a home and the ownership of a home. There is no sexual intimacy, but it is a very intimate relationship on every other ground.

The CHAIR: Before I invite the minister—

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

The CHAIR: That is the point I am going to make. The point I am trying to make is that I am not sure how that relates to any of the amendments. Which amendment are you referring to? Amendment No. 1 refers to physical harm having the same meaning as in section 21. Any discussion about that is fine, but for the other thing I am not sure how that relates to the amendment.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am specifically speaking to the clause as amended, sir.

The CHAIR: No, the clause which you referred to was in the original bill and has not been amended by the upper house. You are not referring to the actual amendment itself. That has been discussed by this parliament twice already. You need to relate your question to the actual amendment itself.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Okay, would the physical harm element that you have added in the amendment also be relevant to a couple of sisters, as I described earlier?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will just answer that broadly. What survivors and the sector told us repeatedly is that they wanted this legislation to focus absolutely on those relationships that are intimate partner relationships, as you have just described in going through the definition. That is what we have responded to, so the short answer to your question is no.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: What about the adult children or broader family members? Are they exempt from the coercive control laws? Are they protected by them? For example, is physical harm coming to an 18-year-old woman living at home, who has been told who she can or cannot socialise with, what she must study at university, when she can go out and when she has to stay at home, captured by this amendment?

The CHAIR: You have just answered this question, minister. You made it very clear that the purpose of this bill is intimate relationships. What you just described would not include those and therefore does not pertain to this bill nor this amendment, so I am not going to allow the question. Next question. I think we need to make sure—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So you have answered the question on behalf of the minister?

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, resume your seat. I have not finished. I am really loath for the very purpose and focus of this bill to be changed. The minister has made it very clear what the whole process has been to write this bill. You are now speaking about other things which are unrelated to this bill. If you wish to raise those, feel free to do so in other places. You will not raise them in this context. Next question.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do not think you are authorised to answer a question for the minister.

The CHAIR: Okay, I am actually authorised to rule it out of order, and I have ruled it out of order. I have actually ruled it out of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You have actually attempted to answer the question.

The CHAIR: No, I have not.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You said it does not relate to—

The CHAIR: It does not; that is right.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: And I am asking the minister to confirm that.

The CHAIR: The member for Unley will resume his seat and move to the next question—or any other member.

Mr TEAGUE: I now have the explanation of clauses from the original bill in my hand, so I am going to make particular reference therefore to it. This is really what I am then meaning to ask, as a hopefully final question on the discrete point and in light of the minister's answer. There has been a view to make the definition coherent with the section 21 definition. I do not know if the minister has the explanation of clauses, but the explanation of clauses refers—this is not a trick question or anything, but it may be that it is convenient to make reference to it—to a test by reference to physical injury.

In making the definition coherent with the section 21 definition, which is, as we see, still a reference to the ordinary meaning—that is, it does not seek to prescribe the definition exhaustively; that section 21 definition is a definition that says what it includes but is not exhaustive—is the minister satisfied that, by moving at this point to make the relevant reference to, now, physical harm, it is not in any way, inadvertently or otherwise, narrowing what was otherwise the test of physical injury by its ordinary meaning? We have gone from one ordinary meaning to another ordinary meaning, supplemented by certain particular references to what is included. Is the minister satisfied that it is not narrowing the meaning?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Yes, I am very comfortable that the definition is actually expanding the meaning rather than narrowing it.

The CHAIR: Are there any other questions? I am allowing questions on any clause, and I will allow you more than three because of that.

Mr TEAGUE: That is alright. I will just make some general observations in relation to where we have got to in terms of coming to this point of legislating. I appreciate the contribution of the minister just now in that regard as well, and I acknowledge that there are present, here in the house, many people who have been so terribly and in such a devastating way impacted by this scourge of coercive control and its violent consequences.

The opposition has supported this bill and the process of the debate, leading to this point of now legislating in South Australia. This is not novel to Australia. There are other examples of legislation of this kind in Australia, but it is relatively new territory that we are in. It is not lost on me, and I am sure it is not lost on anyone in the house, that the implementation and the capacity of all of those who will be now responsible for administering the new offences that are the subject of this bill will now tell the story over the time ahead.

I think we ought to fully expect that—just like in other areas where there is an attempt by a parliament to, by legislation, improve in an area of such terrible human consequence—that will not be perfect and we will continue to work and will continue to consider and examine the means by which, through legislation, improvement can be made, just as we ought to continue the work to scrutinise the circumstances of terrible events that continue to occur day by day.

This legislation, I hope, will be put to work towards improvement and, as others have said in the course of this debate, will contribute, at some final stage eventually, to a community and a world in which we are no longer needing to talk about a scourge of coercive control because it is something that no longer exists. I commend the bill and look forward to continuing the work towards the eradication of this terrible scourge.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I, too, would like to close by commending the bill and congratulating the minister on bringing it to this place. Coercive control has been ignored for far too long. In every culture in the world, it was seen as a way of life. Places like Australia, for example, and other Western countries, were the first to realise that it is wrong, despite the fact it might be part of a culture, for a male to be the dominating member of an intimate relationship. I know that this bill will save lives and will protect women and I am very pleased to be in this place supporting this bill.

At some stage, I would like the bill to be amended to include other members of the family. I think that there are still things that are excused because of cultural practices, or we have always done things that way, that severely disadvantage particularly adult women who may still be living at home or still be reliant on support from their family, and that support is used as a controlling mechanism as to whom they may socialise with, what job they may do, what they might study at university, what they might do outside their working hours or where they might live. That is wrong. That should not be the case.

It is the role of every parent to bring their child up to be independent, self-sufficient and able to make their own choices. It is not the role of a parent to use coercive control for them to live the life that they wish they had lived or the life that they think they should live.

I congratulate the minister and the government on this work, but I think there is still more work to do, because even outside an intimate relationship it is often the female who is the victim of coercive control.

Ms PRATT: I want to make some brief remarks as well as we conclude the committee process. I remember, when this legislation was introduced, remarking to the member for Unley about opportunities we saw for future work. The member for Unley says that there is still more to do, and I think that is right, but, to the minister, I hope there is a day when there is nothing left to do because in fact this scourge, as the member for Heysen talks about, is eradicated because as a community we do better.

For those who have come in to participate in this process today, for all members on both sides of the house, men and women, who have participated in internal party room conversations and in the chamber, it is important that we honour the lived experience that South Australians have, relating to their experience with coercive control, and also honour the work that has been done here today.

As a country member of parliament, I want to reflect on those in my community who have been waiting for this bill with these amendments to be concluded. I say that because it has been a refrain over four years from particular women in my community seeking updates from me about the status of this bill: what progress is being made; when will it be concluded; and my interpretation, when will we see this being implemented; and when will we feel the change?

So, very briefly, thank you to the minister for bringing this through and thank you to all of our public servants who have contributed to making this the best it can be. I look forward to us not needing to talk about coercive control, because it will not exist in our community one day.

Motion carried.

The SPEAKER: Just for the information of the gallery, the bill has now been passed in that format.