Bills

Statutes Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:23): Earlier today, I was speaking on this issue in relation to the bill before us, the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill. I mentioned the inaugural conference for MATE, which is being held yesterday and today in Queensland with Dr Nada Ibrahim, an expert in domestic violence and family in the Australian Muslim community and senior research fellow at the University of South Australia.

I mentioned that Dr Ibrahim has a unique expertise in building healthy family relationships, including with respect to intimate partner violence in Muslim communities, and has been involved in many cross-cultural training activities with service providers on intimate partner violence and Muslim-related issues. I mention that because it is important to acknowledge the culturally specific aspects to domestic violence in migrant communities in particular, and to acknowledge that different cultural and linguistically diverse communities deal with domestic and family violence differently and, therefore, solutions and approaches should be tailored to specific communities.

The Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos spoke about this very issue in the last week of sitting. Indeed, she did so today, noting that:

The fear surrounding migration and domestic violence are rife with inadequate or misinformation surrounding threats of deportation, visa cancellation and separation from children.

I can say that this is an issue I am acutely aware of as a result of my previous work in the Senate and in the context of the debates had at the federal level in relation to their most recent pieces of legislation on this very issue, specifically around issues of threats of deportation but also visa cancellation and also, importantly, legislation around the issue of domestic violence and visa cancellation. I have also been involved in matters where I personally advocated for individuals in those situations at that same level.

The effect of this is that many migrant women are left feeling isolated and will stay in violent relationships rather than asserting their rights, because many migrant women are not even familiar with their rights, often having migrated from countries where the rights of women are miles behind our own. This is overlaid with extended family, community and church pressures which place those sorts of pressures on migrant women, forcing them to endure violent relationships or risk being ostracised from their very own families and communities. Pressure is placed on them to drop charges against violent partners or risk losing their children because many women still believe that the threat of, 'If you leave me I'm keeping the children', is a valid one.

Religious leaders must also play an important part in understanding the very nature of domestic violence and to prioritise a woman's safety and the safety of her children over keeping the family together. I echo the call of the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos in addressing the barriers in our regulatory framework, including the justice system and Family Court system so as to facilitate easier access and engagement with those services by migrant women.

Turning again to the bill, I make the following comments. The current laws surrounding violence are not tailored to domestic violence and, therefore, do not recognise the inherent dangers of violent behaviour within a domestic relationship. Therefore, this bill introduces an amendment by inserting section 20A in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to create a new offence of choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting. Importantly, there is no requirement for harm to be intended or caused. Rather, the offence recognises the very danger of this action and therefore does not require harm to be proved for a conviction to occur.

The introduction of this offence is considered necessary and urgent as non-fatal strangulation is increasingly used by abusive partners as a mechanism to control their victim without killing them. Importantly, the definition of what constitutes a relationship is also expanded in the terms of the offence. I note that Queensland has introduced similar legislation. In the first year after introducing the offence of strangulation, suffocation and choking, 789 people were charged with non-fatal strangulation. When I asked during the briefings about the effect of the new law in Queensland, I was not provided with information about whether any of the number of people charged were actually convicted of the new offence, but we certainly know that there have been 789 who were charged with such offences.

Strangulation is often considered a red flag for future serious abuse and, unfortunately, death, which is why the bill introduces this standalone penalty, to ensure the future and continued safety of any victims or possible victims of domestic abuse. The creation of this strangulation offence, rather than relying on existing offences such as causing harm or serious harm or attempted murder, is also important to educate the community about domestic violence and to ensure that domestic violence is tackled head-on rather than through general violence offences. To that end, I commend the government on introducing this offence.

Recognising the serious nature of this newly introduced measure to consider strangulation as a serious offence in domestic relationships also sees an amendment to section 10A of the Bail Act 1985, which creates a presumption against bail in particular circumstances. Specifically, the presumption against bail in the act is amended so that, when an applicant is taken into custody in relation to an offence under certain provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, it now includes the newly created section 20A, which deals with choking, strangulation and suffocation in a domestic relationship.

Approximately half of domestic violence cases do not result in a conviction at the moment because of the withdrawal of charges or a victim's decision not to present evidence in a court. The reasons for this are complex, and I have touched on a couple of them, including family and community pressures.

The bill then inserts a new section in the Evidence Act—that is, section 13BB—which is aimed at reducing the stress of victims as a result of the court process by allowing the evidence-in-chief of a victim to be admitted in the form of a police officer recording. This recording can be from a police officer's body-worn camera and will be admissible in court if it is found to be a prescribed recording. I hasten to say that I suspect that this probably will be, if anything, the most contentious part of this legislation in terms of any engagement we have with stakeholders. A prescribed recording is a recording that was made as soon as practicable after the offence had occurred. It is taken with the informed consent of the victim and is presented concurrently with a statement by the victim about their age, that they are being truthful and any other information required by the rules of court.

This particular measure, I might say, in terms of the introduction of the use of recordings used as evidence in the court, was encouraged by the South Australian Chief Magistrate, Mary-Louise Hribal. I will follow with interest how this will work in practice if, at the conclusion of the debate, it is part of this bill, particularly around issues of informed consent. I again note that the aim of this particular provision of the bill is intended at least to reduce the need for painful cross-examination of victims, which often only serves to re-traumatise them.

Another aspect of the bill relates to intervention orders, or restraining orders, and such orders are put in place to restrict the behaviour and/or actions of a particular person against another, and usually these are granted to protect victims or possible victims of domestic violence or family abuse. Currently, the act covers acts of abuse intended to result in physical injury; emotional or physical harm and unreasonable and non-consensual denial of financial, social or personal autonomy; or damage to property.

The bill expands the definition of 'relationship' that has been outlined in the act, which includes where the person who experienced the abuse is a grandchild, sibling or carer. Again, I commend the government on the initiatives in this bill, which it is hoped will protect women and children and, importantly, save lives.

I also commend the government on its recently launched Ask for Angela campaign, which began in the UK and is also used in New South Wales to help if people feel unsafe or vulnerable in hotels, pubs, clubs or restaurants. The campaign, as we know, encourages a patron of the hotel, pub or club to seek support and ask a staff member if they can speak to Angela. Staff at participating venues will then be notified and assist the person in getting help by calling a taxi, alerting security or taking them to a safe place in the hotel. Again, I also commend the government on the 24/7 domestic violence crisis line, which went live this week. That line has been operating in South Australia for close to 30 years. The after-hours service has been until now diverted to the generic homelessness gateway, which was nowhere near adequate, so this is certainly a very welcome development. I am pleased that anyone in South Australia who needs assistance through that domestic violence hotline is able to get that assistance 24/7.

I recently wrote to minister Corey Wingard seeking an urgent response about the trial of 90-odd GPS tracking devices for domestic violence perpetrators and the recent Telstra hardware failure on those devices. Unfortunately, I have not heard back. I am somewhat disappointed that the minister has not responded to that question yet, but it is one that I will seek a response to during the committee stage of this debate because it goes to the very heart of the issues that we are debating. It followed the question I asked on the issue during question time on 7 November, which also remains unanswered.

I close with making some comments about some other aspects of family violence. Again, I reiterate my comments in relation to children. We know, achingly, children who witness or experience domestic violence become two to four times as likely to enter into relationships with a violent partner and experience violence as adults themselves. Children witnessing violence are in fear and it has a disabling effect on that child's development. For others, it normalises the behaviour and leads to a cycle that repeats for the next generation.

I commend again the Attorney-General for her recent comments on the impact on children who witness family violence, even if they are not directly attacked. It is perhaps the biggest area of reform authorities must address next. If we want to grow our children into functioning, whole and happy adults, then we must focus on the effect domestic and family violence has on our children. In the same way that society accepts the dangers of passive smoking, I am heartened to hear the Attorney-General wants to address the devastating impact of passive domestic violence on children living in abusive households. SA-Best is happy to work with the Minister for Human Services and, indeed, the assistant minister for domestic and family violence prevention, who have been tasked with looking at the area of passive domestic violence.

We must also work on changing perpetrator behaviour and we must adequately fund services that work in this area like KWY. Among their many services, KWY specifically work with Indigenous communities to change perpetrator behaviour. One of their programs is a 12-week Accountability, Responsibility and Change (ARC) program. KWY uses cultural ways to engage Aboriginal men and offers a safe place to explore the complex issues of their personal trauma whilst addressing the use of family violence. They also provide the Our Spirit, Our Culture, Women's healing program, where KWY specialist women's workers offer a culturally safe place to explore the complex issues of their personal trauma, individual yarning sessions, women's gatherings, strengths-based group work, court support, financial counselling and access to specialist domestic and family violence women's workers.

KWY also runs programs for children. I should say that it runs on the smell of an oily rag and is in urgent need of funds. To that end, I would urge the government in its next budget deliberations to consider additional funds for KWY. Women, children, domestic partners deserve to live in safe environments free from harm and free from fear.

Before closing, I would like to also commend the federal government, given that I am now giving all these commendations today.

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: You're on a roll.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am on a roll. In particular, I commend minister Kelly O'Dwyer and the Attorney-General, the Hon. Christian Porter MP, for their most recent announcements in relation to family violence. We know that there is a bill before the federal parliament which has been stalled for some time. That stalling has come as a result of issues of funding. I was particularly heartened when on 20 November the federal government announced that women will be the major beneficiaries of a major funding boost for family law services and initiatives to help women establish economic security after ending a relationship, as part of the Coalition government's women's economic security package, which was announced on that day.

Specifically, victims of family violence will benefit from the new ongoing funding for legal aid commissions to support the ban on direct cross-examination by perpetrators of family violence. That is the subject matter of the bill that I just alluded to, namely, the legislation that has been stalled in the Senate as a result of funding issues.

However, we know now that funding—initially $7 million over three years—will establish that scheme and that legal services commissions will be funded to provide legal representation to parties subject to the ban on direct cross-examination through the mechanisms of that bill. The bill will protect victims of family violence in family law proceedings by banning direct cross-examinations in certain circumstances and requiring that cross-examinations be conducted by a legal representative.

I have met with the Legal Services Commission director here in South Australia and discussed this particular scheme. From what I have heard, I can say that she is absolutely delighted that our Legal Services Commission will now have the funding to be able to provide that scheme in South Australia. That is certainly a very welcome move by our federal government.

I would like to finish by noting that the government has worked with Legal Aid across Australia, not only to accurately cost that scheme but also to ensure that it does what it is designed to do. I think it is a very good initiative and one that the federal government certainly ought to be very proud of.

In addition to those funding commitments, under the 2019-20 budget the federal government has also committed to $31.8 million and ongoing funding to existing commonwealth-funded specialist domestic violence units and health justice partnerships across Australia. Again, this will benefit our jurisdiction. There is $50.4 million in new funding for family law property mediation services. Each year, $13 million will be provided to the 65 Family Relationship Centres across Australia (again including South Australia) on an ongoing basis to help families reach agreement about splitting their properties after separation and, importantly, keeping those families out of court.

In addition, $10.3 million will be provided to Legal Aid for a two-year trial of lawyer-assisted mediation in each state and territory. Further to that, $5.9 million will be provided in new funding for the federal Family Courts to conduct a two-year trial of simpler and faster court processes for resolving family law property cases with an asset pool of up to $500,000. Based on the estimates given, I think there are some 32,000 couples across Australia who are expected to benefit from that funding and from those trials, and that is quite significant. Again, I commend the federal government and this government for this most important bill, and I look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (15:42): I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. In order of delivering their second reading speeches, I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and the Hon. Connie Bonaros. A number of members reflected on their personal experiences, both in their own lives and in their professional capacities, and I thank them for their commitment to ending domestic violence in South Australia.

I also commend the Attorney-General for this legislation and for the rapid way in which she has brought these matters to the parliament. I know she was very frustrated in opposition that there were some delays and a lack of action previously—following the discussion paper in July 2016 under the former government—which did not result in legislative changes. I think she has demonstrated how much she can do in just a short space of time—in just nine months of having that role. I should point out for the record that the particular matters of a new offence of strangulation, amendments to intervention orders and changes to the Bail Act are things which have not been raised in South Australia previously. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house and look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (15:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.