Statutes Amendment (Intervention Orders and Penalties) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 September 2021.)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (22:55): I rise very briefly on behalf of the Greens to speak in favour of this bill. We note that this bill is going to impose stricter penalties on those who breach intervention orders, and we think that is entirely appropriate when one considers the terrible impact that domestic violence has, not only in our state but also right across the country. I want to acknowledge on behalf of the Greens the leadership of Katrine Hildyard MP in the other place in bringing this important matter to light in the parliament. With those words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (22:56): I rise to place some remarks on the record in relation to this legislation, which has already passed the House of Assembly, having been introduced by the member for Reynell. She has been working collaboratively with the Attorney-General on elements of this particular legislation, which essentially increases penalties for a number of provisions in the intervention order regime.

Of course, the matter of repeat breaches of intervention orders is something that was also addressed in 2018 by the Attorney. It was a government election commitment to help to reduce the scourge of domestic and family violence that takes place in our community. Certainly, feedback that we have had from victim survivors or heroes, whatever terminology people wish to use, is that they have felt at times that the orders were not worth the paper they were written on because they could be breached, and particularly breached repeatedly, so that is something that has been of concern and something that has been addressed in part by the Attorney's bill.

This bill was amended in the other place to include a commencement clause so that the bill commences on a day to be fixed by proclamation. This will ensure that SAPOL, the DPP and the courts have sufficient lead-in time prior to the new increased penalties commencing. The original bill from the member for Reynell removed the ability to charge an expiation fee. An amendment was moved to reinsert an increased expiation fee, as failing to comply with a term of intervention order to undertake an intervention program may be very trivial—for example, failing to attend the program on one occasion. It was considered appropriate for it to be possible to expiate such an offence, rather than laying a charge to be dealt with by the courts.

The bill also seeks to remove the monetary penalty from the offence and create an aggravated offence of 10 years' imprisonment. Four new subsections are inserted in section 31 of the substantive legislation. These new subsections do two things. Firstly, they define the circumstances in which an offence will be aggravated, that is, where the offender knew or suspected or ought reasonably to have known or suspected that a child would see, hear or otherwise be exposed to the offending conduct. Secondly, they ensure that offences under section 31 will continue to be prosecuted as summary offences in the Magistrates Court.

Without this amendment, the increased penalties would mean that, for the major indictable charges—that is, those offences with penalties greater than five years' imprisonment—the Magistrates Court would no longer be able to deal with them and they would be committed to the District Court. This would lead to a significant increase in the number of matters to be dealt with by the District Court by way of jury trial and for the DPP who would prosecute them.

However, in order to ensure that offenders are subjected to the appropriate penalty once found guilty, if the Magistrates Court determines that a penalty of more than five years' imprisonment should be imposed, it must commit the defendant to the District Court to be sentenced. Minor technical amendments were made to this amendment in the House of Assembly by the Attorney-General to update the paragraph references as the Sentencing Act has been amended since the bill was first introduced. With those comments, I indicate government support for this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (23:00): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Intervention Orders and Penalties) Bill, which seeks to remove the financial penalty for breaching intervention orders and impose harsher custodial sentences and penalties. We know that one in four Australian women have experienced violence by an intimate partner. One in five have experienced sexual violence.

Tragically, Indigenous women over 15 years of age are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised for family violence than non-Indigenous females. In 2020, 52 per cent of women murdered in Australia were killed at the hands of family members and 32 per cent by their partners or ex-partners. So far this year, 31 women have been killed by violence, according to the Counting Dead Women project.

This bill seeks to increase the penalty for a first breach of an intervention order from a maximum of $10,000, or maximum of a two-year imprisonment term, to five years, or seven years for an aggravated offence. For second and subsequent breaches, the increase is to 10 years, or 12 years if the offending is aggravated. An aggravated offence is to include offences involving or witnessed by children, which I think is an extraordinarily important element of this bill.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016 Personal Safety Survey found 68 per cent of women who had children in their care reported the children had seen or heard violence. The bill also inserts these offences into the Sentencing Act, so that the serious repeat offender provisions apply, and that is also a welcome measure.

While we welcome the changes in penalty, I think we also have to be very realistic because this is not the only answer and there is certainly a long way to go. I think we wish it were this simple, but the reality is it is not. Not all perpetrators are going to be deterred by an increase in penalty. Not all perpetrators are going to stop and think, 'I might go to gaol for 12 years or I might be sentenced as a serious repeat offender now and be required to serve four-fifths of my head sentence.'

Victims need more supports. They need timely access to services, including interpreters. There needs to be greater communication by police to a victim or applicant when an intervention order is about to be served. I am told victims are often left in the dark as to when an intervention order is about to be served, which is particularly terrifying if they are living with the perpetrator.

There are calls for greater education for our judicial officers as well, something that needs to be seriously considered by our judiciary and also by this parliament. Lawyers are becoming increasingly frustrated that magistrates are not always consistent in their approaches in relation to these issues. They say some insist on the victim getting into the witness box and being in the same room as the perpetrator and some do not.

We also know that victims of domestic violence are reluctant to call the police for fear of triggering a mandatory report to child protection. Women in prison are a particularly vulnerable group. They are often presented with the choice to stay in prison or accept an early release by living with a perpetrator. Without available housing, many choose the latter, only to return to alcohol or drugs to soothe the trauma which sees them return to prison again.

As I said, these are complex issues and we welcome these measures in this bill as positive steps forward, and I acknowledge that this is not the only bill that we have seen. We have seen, I think, some very good pieces of legislation introduced this year across the political spectrum, including pieces of legislation that have been introduced into this place by the Attorney-General which seek to advance some of the issues that we have highlighted today. These are all really important measures, and it is certainly my hope that we can all work together on these issues. There are certainly conversations that need to be had and conversations that need to keep going.

I am grateful to the opposition and the Hon. Emily Bourke, who has carriage of this bill in this place, for bringing the bill to this place, and obviously the Hon. Katrine Hildyard for introducing this bill in the first instance. I hope that we can keep up the good work that we have seen of late in this place when it comes to issues that are the subject of legislation or bills like this. With those words, SA-Best supports the bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (23:06): Like a number of the bills that have been discussed tonight, this bill has found its way into this chamber because of the unnecessary loss of life. In saying that, I would also like to acknowledge that these laws will be introduced in the wake of the horrific murder of Hannah Clarke in Queensland, a mum, and her beautiful three children who were murdered by their possessive and controlling father who was also the subject of countless intervention orders.

These stories often capture a nation. They capture a nation because, perhaps, it is an unthinkable crime that is committed with innocent lives being taken by someone who should be their protector, not their predator. As we have highlighted tonight, we have seen too many lives lost at the hands of someone who should be their protector.

With more than one woman killed in Australia every week by a partner or a former partner, it is fundamental that we continue to explore ways to eliminate this appalling statistic. Labor is deeply committed to ending this domestic violence, and while this bill alone will not achieve this outcome it is an important step in the right direction.

I would like to thank the many members who have spoken tonight: the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Michelle Lensink. I would also like to thank the members from the other place: the Hon. Vickie Chapman and also the person who has worked tirelessly on this bill to bring it into the parliament, and that is the member for Reynell, Katrine Hildyard, for the work that she has done on this bill and her ongoing advocacy in this place.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (23:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.