HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-11-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (17:27): I rise to speak today on the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill. Let me start by saying that domestic violence is unacceptable in any form, and so today I do rise to support this bill, which seeks to amend a number of acts, namely, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, the Evidence Act 1929, the Bail Act 1985 and the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009.

Domestic violence reform is a high priority of this government, and it remains committed to fighting the scourge of domestic violence within South Australia. This bill is the culmination of an election commitment and a four-week public consultation process. It was interesting hearing in some of the other contributions the passion there is to try to put an end to domestic violence. I note particularly that of the member for Elder, who is the Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention and who gave some insight into some of the steps being taken to overcome domestic violence.

Many spoke of the alarming statistics relating to domestic violence. If I can add to that, I note that of the 23 homicide convictions in South Australia in 2017, 10 were related to domestic violence. That is 10 too many. When comparing South Australia's domestic violence statistics with those of other states, it is frightening to see that, in 2015, 45.7 per cent of all homicide and related offences were attributed to domestic violence, which represents the second highest rate in all of Australia, following the Northern Territory.

On average, one Australian woman dies each week due to domestic violence. In fact, the cost to the country is that in October alone nine women were killed, seven of those were allegedly involved in an intimate relationship with either their current or a former partner, while the other two were also suspected to have died at the hands of male perpetrators. These deaths are just the tip of the iceberg.

Family violence includes hospitalisation, injuries, burns and emotional abuse. These more physical injuries are present, but then there are other injuries that are hidden away behind closed doors—financial, emotional and sexual abuse. While that violence may be hidden away from the outside world, 60 per cent of the time children are also witnessing this violence. It leaves some children in fear and 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.

The 2017 research from the Australian Bureau of Statistics has shed a light on the prevalence of domestic violence in Australia, and the statistics speak volumes. While men are also reported to be victims, statistically SAPOL data shows that the majority—well over 80 per cent—of victims of domestic violence are women and that a high percentage of the perpetrators are partners or former partners.

The survey found that, while men living in Australia are far less likely to be killed by an intimate partner, especially if they have never been abusive to that partner, almost one in four women suffered violence at the hands of a domestic partner by experiencing emotional, physical and/or sexual violence in at least one of their intimate relationships. Those statistics are damning, knowing that a young girl who is looking to have a fulfilling life with a partner is faced with the prospect that they may have a one in four chance of experiencing this sort of emotional, physical and sexual violence.

This domestic violence has a devastating effect not only on the victim but also, as I explained before, on all those people who are close to them and leads to long-term effects in all areas of life. We have heard before in this parliament that these effects are not just at the time of the violence but pervade their life for many years to come and, in many cases, all their life. Unfortunately, there has been a steady increase of offences against the person relating to domestic violence over the past few years.

In 2012-13, of all offences against a person—a term that encapsulates offences such as murder, attempted murder, assault, serious assault, sexual assault—21 per cent were domestic violence related. In 2013-14, this number rose to 24 per cent, and from 2014-15 we have figures of 34 per cent, equating to a staggering 10 per cent increase in such a short period. So it is clear that domestic violence needs to be properly addressed not only by this government but by all governments in Australia.

In 2015, almost half the assaults were related to family and domestic violence, with 7,740 incidents recorded in that year. It must be highlighted that the number of assaults occurring may be higher than this but, because of the current legal schemes, some victims are too scared to report an occurrence. There are examples of where a daughter has had domestic violence brought upon her by her father; however, the lawyer representing the father has impressed upon the daughter that, if she took continued action, he would be sent to gaol, and so the charges were dropped.

So you can see that the issues around domestic violence, and the effects it has on all family members, are very hard and that the rates of reported occurrences may actually be lower than what is occurring, which is even more unfortunate. Noting all this, it really has never been a more important time to strengthen the laws around domestic violence and, as a government and as a community, we stand united in our view that domestic violence is unacceptable in any form. The introduction of this bill is one of this government's steps to combat the domestic and family violence that places such a toll on our whole community in South Australia.

As other speakers have said, the current laws surrounding violence are not tailored to domestic violence and do not recognise the inherent danger of violent conduct within a domestic setting. 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, this 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 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 terms of this offence. Queensland has introduced similar legislation. In the first year after introducing the offence of strangulation, suffocation and choking, 798 people were charged with non-fatal strangulation. This does not necessarily mean more cases; rather, we are now able to identify the specific type of assault.

The reason for identifying this is that strangulation is often considered a red flag for future serious abuse and, unfortunately, fatality, which is why the government is introducing this stand-alone 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 on domestic violence and ensure that domestic violence is tackled head-on rather than through general violence offences.

Recognising the serious nature of this newly introduced measure to consider strangulation as a serious offence in a domestic setting 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 setting.

Another point to this statutes bill is the fact that reliving an experience of domestic violence is just as traumatic as the domestic violence itself, particularly when the victim is placed in front of the person who caused that harm. It can be intensely traumatic for a victim; however, at this point in time, this is what they must endure in a courtroom through cross-examination as part of the evidential process. I spoke before about how reported cases may be under-representative of what is actually occurring, and this trauma is another reason why.

Approximately half of domestic violence cases do not result in a conviction because of the withdrawal of charges or a victim's decision not to present evidence in a court. Issues such as this have prompted this government to insert a new section in the Evidence Act 1929. Section 13BB 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.

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 the court. This introduction of recordings used as evidence in the court was encouraged by the South Australian Chief Magistrate, Mary-Louise Hribal.

Another aspect of the bill relates to intervention orders or restraining orders. 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 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. Whilst this list is extensive, there are circumstances in which victims or potential victims require protection, which are not currently included in the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009.

The bill aims to extend the acts to which intervention orders apply by adding to section 8 in relation to the meaning of abuse. In particular, section 8(4), relating to emotional or psychological harm, will now include three other definitions: forced marriage is one, which involves forcing a person to marry another person. Historically, this practice has connotations of treating children, especially girls, as chattels or property. We seek to outlaw this and make it an offence.

Another item to be referred to in terms of emotional harm is taking an invasive image and then threatening to distribute those invasive images without a person's consent. The third and final addition is preventing a person from entering their place of residence, which can be used, again, in an emotional manner to control a partner in a domestic setting.

In relation to intervention orders, clause 14 of the bill is tangible evidence of this government delivering on our election promises. This government went to the election with a promise to introduce legislation to toughen penalties for abusers who repeatedly breach the conditions of intervention orders. These intervention orders are put in place to protect victims or those susceptible to domestic violence. However, abusers are continuously breaching them and not facing the appropriate penalties that the people of this state deem fit.

Currently, pursuant to section 31(1) of the act, a breach of an intervention order imposed under section 13 warrants a fine of up to $1,250 or an expiation fee of $160. For any other breach under section 31(2) an abuser may face up to two years' imprisonment. This statutes amendment bill aims to amend section 31(2) to add a pecuniary penalty of up to $10,000 to the existing maximum two years' imprisonment. Where the breach constitutes a second or subsequent contravention or involves physical violence or even the threat of physical violence, the bill aims to double the penalty for a breach to $20,000 or four years' imprisonment.

In the most recent financial year, 1,297 people were found guilty of at least one breach of an intervention order and another 487 breached more than once. This government intends to strengthen the penalties for breaching intervention orders to maintain the protection of victims and potential victims. Through increasing the penalties, this government is sending a message to all abusers that domestic violence is not acceptable, will not be tolerated and that those who offend will face severe consequences. As I said earlier, the bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to increase the penalties for breaches of domestic violence-related intervention orders.

It is worth noting that the bill, before we got to the stage of debating it, was the subject of a broad four-week public consultation, which included a mail-out to relevant stakeholders and an online survey. Thirty-five written submissions were received and there were 600 responses to the online survey. Of those respondents, 49 per cent identified that they had experienced domestic violence themselves, whilst other contributors knew someone who had experienced domestic violence, knew someone who was a perpetrator or worked in the domestic violence sector.

Some of the findings that came out of this were that over 75 per cent of respondents agreed with the expansion to 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. Over 85 per cent of the respondents agreed that video or audio recorded by police could be used as evidence in court to allow authorities to gather evidence needed to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence.

In addition to this initiative, the government has also launched recently the 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. It may be because patrons are worried about their drink being spiked or it may be that they have received unwanted sexual advances. This campaign 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 alerted and assist the person in getting help by calling a taxi, alerting security or taking them to a safe place in the hotel.

Domestic violence in any form is unacceptable. Taking advantage of a trusted relationship within the family unit and having abusers bringing violence and fear against other family members are rejected not only by the government but by the community as a whole. This government is committed to fighting the scourge of domestic violence and helping victims and their families. Prevention is key to combating domestic and family violence. The harsher penalties that are introduced by the bill will act as a deterrent and help shape community attitudes towards domestic violence, but the best result that I look forward to in the future is where domestic violence does not occur in the first place and where women, men and children are living in safe environments free from fear and harm.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Ellis.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT