HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-04-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill

Second 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) (12:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I proudly introduce to this place the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023. This is a crucially important bill that speaks to our government's commitment to take clear and concrete action that helps to prevent and eradicate the horrific and deeply unacceptable prevalence of violence against women. This is a bill that will require electronic monitoring as a condition of bail for those charged with serious breaches of domestic violence related intervention orders.

We know that those who breach intervention orders are particularly dangerous, and we know that we need to deal with them. This bill progresses a key election commitment made by the government as part of our women's safety, equality and wellbeing policy. This is a bill that will make a difference to women. It will ensure that they feel and are safer, as they always should be and as women across the country are rightly demanding that they are.

The Attorney-General, the Hon. Kyam Maher MLC, and I have worked closely together to develop this bill, and I am really pleased to present it to the house today. The bill amends the Bail Act 1985 to introduce mandatory bail conditions for persons charged with an offence against section 31(2aa)(b) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009, which is an offence of contravening an intervention order where the breach involved violence or threats of violence. The mandatory bail conditions will apply if the alleged breach was of a domestic abuse related intervention order.

We debate this bill at a time of profound anger and deep frustration and sorrow, when thousands of people, particularly women, gathered across the country just this past weekend to collectively say 'no more' to violence against women and 'no more' to the disrespect and gender inequality that precedes this violence. I thank all who gathered and raised their voices for their commitment to preventing gendered violence.

Tragically, this year across the country, one woman has been killed by a man every four days—every four days. These are women who were workers, community leaders, and valued and active community members, as well as being sisters, mothers, grandmothers, aunts, friends, daughters, colleagues and neighbours. They were women who lived amongst us, women who were loved, women whom we mourn, and women for whom we must all speak up and act.

As I said on the steps of this place on Saturday, women are feeling deep anger and sorrow about this horrendous violence perpetrated by men. It is absolutely time that wherever girls and women choose to go, whatever time of the day or night, no matter how dark or light it is, no matter what we are wearing, no matter who we are with or how much we have had to drink, whether we are at home or online, we are safe.

Like every other woman, I am really sick of checking over my shoulder, getting startled when I run in the dark, holding my keys in my hand when I dash to my car, worrying when a car goes slowly down my street. Men need to stop killing and harming women. As I also said on the steps of this place on Saturday, every single day I and our government are determined to do what we can to make a real difference to the lives of women in South Australia and to work to rid our community of the gender inequality that leads to men's disrespect and violence towards women and of the places and spaces where hate, objectification and disregard for women are perpetuated.

We must shine a light on dark spaces where the radicalisation of young men and boys happens, where the disrespect of women and girls manifests and where harmful forms of masculinity persist. Our government is a signatory and a strong participant in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, a plan which rightly captured the voices of brave survivors and sets out the implementation of real action across the four domains of prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing. A key part of response, and indeed of prevention, is ensuring that we hold people who choose to use violence to account and ensure the safety of survivors.

This bill, amongst a range of other clear actions, is about doing just that. Requiring electronic monitoring as a condition of bail for those charged with serious breaches of domestic violence related intervention orders will absolutely help prevent violence against women. It will also mean that courageous survivors can more readily go about attending work and engaging in other aspects of community life. This bill is for them.

Persons charged with this offence in the domestic violence context pose a significant risk to the women they seek to harm. Because the charged person is subject to an intervention order related to domestic abuse, they have already shown themselves to be at risk of subjecting the person whom the intervention order is designed to help protect to abuse.

A charge of a violent breach means there is reasonable cause to suspect that unmonitored restrictions alone are not a sufficient deterrent and that the survivor is at a continued high level of risk. Stringent protections are required to ensure the safety of these survivors. That is why this government considers that persons charged with violently breaching a domestic abuse related intervention order should face very stringent bail conditions, if they are released on bail at all.

Defendants charged with violent intervention order breaches are already prescribed applicants under the Bail Act, meaning they face a presumption against bail and can only be released on bail if they demonstrate special circumstances. This bill will add an extra layer of protection by providing that, if those special circumstances are established and bail is granted, the relevant bail agreement must include home detention and electronic monitoring conditions. This rightly provides a further level of protection for survivors of domestic abuse against their abusers.

Under home detention conditions, the defendant will be forbidden from leaving their home other than for specific purposes, such as to attend work or medical care. They will be fitted with an electronic monitoring device to track their compliance with home detention in real time, and to alert authorities if they are not at home when they are supposed to be. Importantly, conditions in their bail agreement or intervention order for the protection of the survivor, such as conditions that they not approach the survivor's residence or place of work, can also be programmed into the device and compliance monitored in real time. This will act as a strong deterrent against breaches as the defendant knows their whereabouts are always visible to authorities.

When breaches do occur, the monitoring enables swifter action as the authorities are also alerted in real time. If the defendant is charged with a breach, the monitoring data may also be used as evidence assisting prosecution to prove the breach. Mandatory home detention bail is not novel under the Bail Act. Serious and organised crime suspects on bail are subject to such mandatory home detention conditions in order to protect witnesses who have reasonable fears for their safety. It is the very firm view of this government that protected persons alleging violent breaches of domestic abuse related intervention orders have just as reasonable a basis to fear for their safety, and they should absolutely have the benefit of the same protections.

I am really proud to progress this bill today. It is another of the many clear actions that our government is undertaking to tackle this insidious scourge. As I have spoken about in this house, we have recently opened our prevention and recovery hub in southern Adelaide, and one in northern Adelaide, to provide a place of safety and support for women and their families. As well as the legislative reform we progress today, amongst other legislative reform already progressed to strengthen our response to perpetrators, we want to make sure that at the first moment that women begin to feel that something is not right they have a place to go.

We have also rightly taken many other actions across the four domains of the national plan, but we know there is more to do from all levels of government, from our community, and every person within it, and that we need every person to feel and to be comfortable to be upstanding, for men to call violence out, to call out all that leads to it, to find their voices, and to use them.

In just a few weeks' time, Ms Natasha Stott Despoja will commence in her role as royal commissioner. The royal commission's underlying premise is that the prevalence of domestic, family and sexual violence in our community is utterly unacceptable. Ms Stott Despoja will inquire into the drivers of domestic, family and sexual violence, its impact on children and our community, the gender inequality that underpins it, how to stop it before it starts, and what gaps in our system must be addressed.

It will also do something else really, really important: it will absolutely ensure that the voices of those brave survivors in our community are heard, that their stories inform the steps forward and are acted upon. It will send a very, very clear message that our community will not tolerate domestic, family and sexual violence, that it will tackle the gender inequality at its core, and that we will take every step forward possible that we can to stop men killing and harming women.

It is the intention that change through this will provide greater physical protection and peace of mind to survivors as they navigate some of the most difficult and dangerous times of their lives. I commend this bill to the house and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Bail Act 1985

3—Amendment of section 11—Conditions of bail

A grant of bail to an applicant who has been charged with an offence against section 31(2aa)(b) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 in respect of an order that is a recognised DVO within the meaning of section 29D of that Act must be subject to electronic monitoring conditions (unless the applicant is a child).

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

1—Transitional provision

This clarifies that the amendment will only apply to offences that are allegedly committed after commencement of the measure.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:30): I indicate I am the lead speaker for the opposition. I indicate the opposition's support for the bill, amending as it does the Bail Act in this particular way in terms of conditions of bail that apply in those circumstances that were described first by the Attorney in the other place in August last year when the bill was debated and passed in the other place and just now rehearsed by the minister in the course of bringing the bill before the house.

Just for the sake of understanding, and in due course for the record, the minister just now has referred to the fact, as the Attorney did, that it is important to note that those defendants who are charged with violent intervention order breaches—I am quoting here from the Attorney's contribution, which I think has been reiterated just now—are already prescribed applicants under the Bail Act, meaning that they face a presumption against bail. They can only be released on bail if they demonstrate special circumstances.

So what the bill is doing is indeed adding an additional mandatory layer of what has been described as 'protection' by now going ahead to mandate that the subject of the bail agreement must be willing to have included in that agreement provision for both home detention and electronic monitoring conditions.

I do not have the data; it might be that that is already readily available to the minister. I do not set out to detain the house for any particular time on the point, but just to underscore, it would not surprise me to learn that once those special conditions are satisfied under the present regime that there is not a large number, if not an overwhelming number, of such agreements that include both of those conditions already. That is what we are talking about.

The bill certainly now makes clear that, to the extent that where those section 31(2aa)(b) offences are charged and the special circumstances are established and bail is granted, then by virtue of this additional provision we now will see it made mandatory that the grant of bail is also subject to those further conditions. I would be interested to know if there is data that might perhaps give us some indication about what the present sort of circumstances are in terms of the grants of bail under those particular circumstances.

The minister in the course of the contribution just now has adverted to the context in which the bill was brought to the house by the government. It is a response to an election commitment and that is against the background of a bill across analogous subject matter that the minister brought to the house by way of a private member's bill in the last parliament.

I will not stay to compare or to analyse the differences, as that has been done in the course of the debate in the other place. Suffice to say that importantly what is covered by this government bill now directs itself to circumstances in which bail is being considered in relation to someone who is charged with a particular violent or threat of violent breach of an intervention order. That is as it should be.

I do not know—again it might be a parallel analysis—whether we will start to see that bail is in fact not granted as a result of these two mandatory conditions now being included in the bail agreement even if the special circumstances exist because there has to be some willingness and, I would expect, capacity for the court to be satisfied that those conditions can in fact be applied. So we will see that all the more in the frame as we go forward.

Reference to recent events having been made, as I have in a number of different circumstances over recent months I again note that the opposition welcomes the royal commission and the commencement of it and I express personally my appreciation and gratitude to the royal commissioner for what I expect will be the diligent and thoroughgoing taking up of what is undoubtedly complex and difficult work.

At this time, I would also make particular reference to some observations that have been reported in The Australian newspaper by Claire Lehmann, who is the founding editor of Quillette, which would be well-known to many in the house as this has been reported in recent days in The Australian newspaper. Claire Lehmann puts a particular spotlight on the need to ensure that there is, in fact, practical prevention of violence. The contribution is under the heading 'Ideology will not protect women from violent men'.

Claire Lehmann makes observations about that following the death in New South Wales of Molly Ticehurst. Molly Ticehurst was found dead only a few days ago in circumstances where only a few short days prior to that a man who had been charged with stalking and raping her appeared before the court. The police prosecutor charged him, as is reported, with a series of serious crimes and indicated to the court that the behaviour was 'indicative of features in domestic violence offenders that we see often come to light after the most disturbing conclusions to their conduct'.

Bail was granted in that case. The author proceeds to observe that Molly Ticehurst was among 26 women killed in the first 114 days of 2024, and makes the further observation that if that rate of violence continues then this year, 2024, will be one of the worst years in recent memory for major crimes against women. That may be observed to equate to one woman being murdered every four days.

I draw particular attention to that contribution because in what is a challenging and complex area undoubtedly of public policy, there remains a perplexing difficulty around achieving improvement, including speaking frankly through measures that might be described broadly as changing culture, increasing awareness and endeavours of that kind.

Claire Lehmann cites a recent essay co-authored by Walkley Award winning journalist Jess Hill and University of New South Wales criminology professor Michael Salter offering what she describes as sustained criticism of what has been termed a primary prevention approach, arguing as a central argument—Lehmann describes it as a brave central argument—that reducing an inequality between men and women will not in turn reduce violence against women. By extension, adopting steps towards a greater understanding of the problem—and in turn, endeavours to change culture, including a focus on gender equality alone—does not seem to be providing the answer.

Claire Lehmann then makes particular reference to the experience in Nordic countries—and I can relate some personal experience of that comparative culture—where we see sustained achievement in terms of what is described as gender equality, performance that outstrips Australia in a whole variety of ways and in a sustained way, and not only that, but leading the way by reference to other EU countries, and yet there are still sustained high rates of domestic, physical and sexual violence against women in Scandinavia. It is not a matter that is addressed by such measures of equality and change of culture alone.

I think the measures that are contained in this bill—and, let's be frank about it, modest as they are—are nonetheless important insofar as they are directed to the deprivation of liberty and the prevention, the actual prevention of violence, in circumstances where such a prevalence of violence has been demonstrated as to manifest itself in terms of a violent breach of a domestic violence intervention order.

Insofar as the bill is directed to that end then it is, in some small way, addressing that problem that Claire Lehmann describes. I quote again from Claire Lehmann's recent observation:

Much like teaching table manners to a person with no food, teaching proper attitudes to a person who has failed to develop self-control will be an exercise in futility. If we want to get serious about reducing violence against women, ideological attempts to assign collective guilt need to be discarded. Efforts should instead be redirected into identifying high-risk groups, and providing supports for drug, alcohol and trauma recovery. Perpetrators who have already offended, and who are at risk of reoffending, need to be locked up. They shouldn’t be let out on bail.

That goes to the broader challenge. It speaks to the effect—as I say, albeit very specifically directed and modest—that is the subject of this bill. To the extent that the bill is achieving that effect, then it will be doing important work. With that contribution, I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (12:50): I rise to speak today on the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill, which delivers upon our commitment to ensure that people charged with serious domestic violence offences are electronically monitored as a condition of bail. I am determined that the reforms we make in this space are designed to ensure adequate protection for survivors of family and domestic violence and to ensure they feel empowered to seek justice and have the tools at their disposal to seek the justice they are owed and feel safe in doing so.

Having brought this commitment to the previous election, I am proud to see that we are delivering this, alongside other initiatives we have seen pass through this place to tackle the scourge that is domestic and family violence, initiatives such as including the experience of domestic violence as a ground for discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act, which I spoke about in this place nearly a year ago—in May of last year. In my speech on the amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act I highlighted that often it is the statistics of domestic violence that are shared when this issue is discussed, but we need to be able to look into this more deeply.

Through organisations such as Pay Our Respects, which holds an event on the steps of parliament each year, they really look deeper into those numbers to highlight the many appalling ways women are killed in our country, their many different backgrounds, situations and circumstances that lead to the horrific crime being committed. It is clear that we need to approach the matter in as many ways as we can to help ensure we eradicate it once and for all.

When people have shared their experiences with me they have shared that often they don't know where to start and that trust is such an important barrier that we need to crack to even begin the process. They want to feel assured that they will not be put at any further risk. Upon getting help I have heard that some have felt that to continue receiving assistance they have to continue advocating for their protection, to be heard and to get action on their case.

Survivors are fighters and we want to stand alongside them. That is why I have been proud to be part of the Labor government, which has continued to deliver a significant suite of reforms to help better protect survivors of, and those currently experiencing, domestic violence, such as initiatives through:

enshrining 15 days' paid domestic violence leave for workers engaged in the state industrial system;

reinstating funding cut by the former government to the vital service of Catherine House, which provides an invaluable service empowering women who are experiencing homelessness;

restoring $800,000 of funding for four years to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service, which provides essential legal assistance support to women experiencing domestic violence, helping to navigate the process of applying for intervention orders and ending tenancy agreements;

the commitment of $1 million to establish both the southern and northern domestic violence prevention and recovery hubs, the southern hub having opened last year in December and the northern hub very soon to open, which I know will deliver a much-needed service to those seeking support; and

introducing rent reforms to help provide additional support for victims of domestic violence, such as through providing greater security in renting and greater protection of tenants' information.

I am particularly keen to see the impact the northern multi-agency hub will have in the north, led by Women's Safety Services SA and South Australia Police, to be able to provide a collaborative approach and response to domestic violence, early intervention, recovery and also prevention.

Located in the northern suburbs, the northern hub will provide services to women and families in the Playford, Salisbury, Gawler, Barossa, Light and Mallala regions. The new northern hub will be accessible by referral or appointment only, with most referrals expected to come through the DV Crisis Line, SAPOL, the DV Disclosure Scheme and Women's Safety Services outreach programs.

The northern hub has a unique service model, which I am really excited to see, because it aims to improve services to victim survivors and families through increased collaboration. Services available will include:

immediate safety responses and safety management strategies;

accommodation, both emergency and medium-term;

the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme; and

access to onsite police services for taking reports, statements and intervention order applications and variations.

I particularly like that the establishment of this hub will provide the opportunity for increased collaboration with key service providers such as legal, health and financial services to provide a streamlined service response for women and children who have been subjected to domestic and family violence.

It would also be remiss of me to neglect mentioning another very important step we are taking in this space with the appointment of the Hon. Natasha Stott Despoja AO as commissioner as part of our government's commitment to holding a royal commission into family and domestic violence. Through this, we will be able to take a closer look into prevention, early intervention, South Australia's response, recovery and healing, and how these efforts can be better integrated. I am very eager to see what arises from the royal commission.

Coming back to the bill before us today, this is an opportunity for us to ensure that high-risk domestic violence offenders who have been charged with violently breaching a domestic abuse related intervention order will make mandatory the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of their bail. This will be an additional level of protection, in the event that bail is granted, through the provision of geographical restrictions, which will then provide a real-time alert should a defendant breach their conditions of bail. Such restrictions are already in place for serious and organised crime suspects to protect witnesses who have reasonable fears for their safety and to better ensure their safety, and therefore this proposal for these conditions is not novel under the Bail Act.

With that, I thank the minister for all of her hard work in this space and continuing work in this space as well. I certainly commend the bill to the house, as I will for all such bills which seek to prioritise the safety and protection of those experiencing and who are survivors of family and domestic violence, and which seek to deliver much-needed justice and safety reforms in this space. As a government, we will continue to stand up for you, and we will stand with you. This is not a women's issue; it is a societal problem which we all need to face together. Enough is enough.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (12:57): I will make an exceedingly brief contribution to the debate. I will start by congratulating the parliament on acting so swiftly. It is a hideously topical issue at the moment. We have seen an avalanche of news stories recently about this very thing. It is pleasing to see that this parliament and this state are willing to act to get the ball rolling rather than waiting for any further damage to be done.

It is no small thing to remove or reduce the liberty of a human being who is slated to face trial for an act he or she may or may not have committed. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but in this case it seems that the weight of numbers when it comes to the incidents that have been occurring around our country mean that something needs to change. We cannot wait. I am pleased that this state, this government and this parliament are taking steps to do just that.

Rather than drag this whole parliament into committee, I thought I would pose a question in my second reading speech that the minister may see fit to address in her contribution. It is a question that is by no means meant to delay or frustrate the process; it is simply an inquiry. There are a number of reviews that are happening around the state. We have mentioned that Natasha Stott Despoja has been appointed to do a royal commission here. I know the Premier of New South Wales has called for a review particularly on this issue about bail requirements for people who are charged with these sorts of offences.

I would like to think that, if those reviews come back with a consensus or even if one comes back more authoritative than the other and recommends a slightly different or even a totally different course of action when it comes to addressing this problem that we are trying to solve here, the government would be willing to change or alter course if necessary to ensure that we have best possible practice here in South Australia.

If the minister sees fit and if she decides she is willing to, she might like to inform the house what the plans are, when we do get that report back, particularly from Ms Stott Despoja about what her recommendations would be to address this issue, and whether the government will then, as best they can without having read it, commit to following those recommendations, even if it means changing what we are doing here today. That is the question I wanted to ask. If the minister sees fit to answer that in her third reading speech, it would be much appreciated. If not, it is wonderful to see this state taking action, and I look forward to seeing the passage of the bill.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS (Enfield—Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts) (12:59): I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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