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

Bills

Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (15:44): I rise today in support of this amendment bill, a bill that will make survivors of domestic violence, as well as our broader communities, safer from these serious defendants. Prior to the March 2022 election, we made a commitment to introduce legislation requiring persons who have been charged with a serious domestic violence offence to be electronically monitored as a condition of bail. This legislation will fulfil this commitment and add to our suite of reforms in relation to family and domestic violence.

The Malinauskas Labor government has been clear in its commitment to taking family and domestic violence seriously. With a thorough and lengthy agenda, our government has introduced and progressed significant reforms in this space. This includes enshrining 15 days' paid domestic violence leave for workers engaged in the state industrial system, making the experience of domestic violence a ground of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act and providing $800,000 to restore funding to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service for the next four years.

Our government also committed $1 million to establish northern and southern domestic violence prevention and recovery hubs so that victims and survivors of domestic and family violence do not have to travel to the city for assistance, with the southern hub, The Yellow Gate centre, opening last year and the northern hub to open soon. This is in stark contrast to the former Liberal government who were set on cutting funding to one of our beloved institutions, Catherine House. This is a centre created for the core purpose of supporting women experiencing homelessness, including those who are victims of gendered and family violence. I am proud to be part of a party who reinstated this funding immediately when we came into government and I was proud to campaign for this funding to be returned.

This bill will require high-risk defendants of domestic violence offences, who are not on remand, to be electronically monitored on home detention bail. Based on court data, we know that approximately half of defendants charged with a domestic abuse related offence are granted some form of bail. While these types of defendants must have sought special circumstances under the Bail Act to be granted bail in the first instance, we believe another layer of protection is necessary—so, if bail is granted, there must be home detention and electronic monitoring conditions.

If a person is charged with violently breaching a domestic abuse related intervention order, they should not be left in the community unmonitored. Therefore, as this bill outlines, electronic monitoring combined with geographical bail restrictions will mean the device can provide real-time alerts as the defendant breaches their conditions. This is not a new concept; mandatory home detention bail is common for serious and organised crime suspects, and this is to protect witnesses and victims who have reasonable fears for their safety.

In this country, one woman is killed by a man every four days. It is a hard thing to have to repeat: every four days. Too many women have been killed by men's violence since the beginning of 2024. Enough is enough. This is not just a women's issue, this is a men's issue too, and this is an issue we must face as a community together.

As members in this place may know, our government is establishing a Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, which will be led by newly appointed Royal Commissioner Natasha Stott Despoja AO. This royal commission will commence on 1 July this year and will run for no longer than 12 months. The royal commission will be examining five key themes which align with the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. These themes include prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and healing, and coordination.

Our government is absolutely committed to advancing meaningful change and will continue to work on actions that can be taken alongside the work of the royal commission, including by working with colleagues across government, within the sector and our communities to tackle the harmful attitudes and disrespect towards women that can lead to violence against women. It is legislation like the reforms outlined in this bill which will support women and children to feel safer and protected.

I want to congratulate a fierce advocate for women and children across our state, and that is our Minister for Women, Katrine Hildyard, on her tireless efforts and her ongoing determination to make the lives of women safer and on reforms that will impact our communities for the better. Thank you, minister. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (15:49): Mr Speaker, congratulations on the new gig. I rise today in support of the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023 to amend the Bail Act 1985 by introducing mandatory bail conditions for a person charged with an offence of contravening an intervention order where the breach involves violence or a threat of violence. This bill seeks to deliver on our election commitment to require those who have been charged with serious domestic violence offences to be electronically monitored as a condition of bail, should it be granted.

In this place, on the steps of our parliament, in our workplaces and classrooms and on television, radio and social media, we hear and see time and time again the crisis that is domestic and family violence. When we talk about domestic and family violence, the focus is so often on the women and children who bear the brunt of this violence, physically, emotionally and financially. It is the women and children who bear the cost of moving and losing their homes and often their employment, and it is the women who must prove violence in court and fight for their children to remain in their care and not with their abuser.

While we must continue to shine a light on these experiences, it is imperative, if we truly want to see an end to domestic and family violence, that we also have the difficult conversations about who perpetuates this violence. The overwhelming majority of perpetrators of domestic, family and sexual violence are men. More than 80 per cent of violent crimes, and an even higher percentage of sexual offences, are committed by men. Around 95 per cent of all victims of violence of any gender experience violence from a male perpetrator.

We can and we must acknowledge that men can and will also be victims of domestic violence, but for even those men who are victims, the majority of their perpetrators are also men. In 2020, more than 58 per cent of the 81,000 women and girls globally who were killed died at the hands of an intimate partner or a family member. That is one woman or girl killed every 11 minutes. In Australia, a woman is killed on average every nine days by a current or former partner, a current or former partner who once made them feel safe and made them feel loved, someone who they once trusted.

These statistics are disgusting and shameful, and if they make you want to rebut, 'Well, what about the men who are victims of domestic and family violence, too?' then you are simply not listening and you are not interested in ending this violence. We can talk about the men who are victims of or who survive this violence, but it cannot be only in reaction to or at the expense of the overwhelming majority, the women who are subjected to this violence from men.

South Australians are rightly proud of being the first place in the world where women successfully fought for the right to vote and to stand for parliament. While many advancements have been made towards gender equality, we still have so far to go. The bill before us today is another step in the right direction towards achieving gender equality. These amendments would subject those who have breached a domestic violence related intervention order by either committing or threatening a violent act to much more stringent conditions if bail were to be granted.

Both home detention and electronic tracking would be mandatory in these cases, with the defendant being forbidden to leave their home unless it is for specific reasons such as travelling to work or seeking medical assistance. With electronic monitoring and geographical bail restrictions, real-time alerts can be provided if a defendant breaches their home detention conditions.

These defendants are already prescribed under the Bail Act 1985 and must already demonstrate special circumstances to be granted bail. The most recent court data shows that half of defendants charged with violently breaching a domestic abuse related intervention order are granted some form of bail. Evidence shows that the risk of reoffending in cases of domestic and family violence is high immediately after a relationship breakdown. This time often coincides with the defendant being newly charged with a criminal offence and on bail.

The amendments included in this bill would take action to address perpetrator behaviour during this time, to prevent domestic and family violence and provide safety for victim survivors. The successful passage of this bill would empower courageous victim survivors to more readily go about attending work and engaging in other aspects of community life, helping them to feel and to be safer.

As we continue to move beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, a crisis which disproportionately affected women, we must have a clear plan to promote gender equality and end domestic and family violence at all levels of government. Labor is committed to addressing gender inequality, and empowering women and girls to equally participate in our homes, our schools, our workplaces, our parliaments, and in every single aspect of our economy and community life. We want, and we need, to create a state in which your gender has no bearing on the opportunities available to you or on your safety.

The Malinauskas Labor government has made significant progress toward this commitment in our two years of government. In addition to this bill, we have:

announced a Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, of which we have published the terms of reference and appointed Natasha Stott Despoja as its commissioner;

made the experience of domestic violence a ground of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act;

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

committed $1 million to establish southern and northern domestic violence prevention and recovery hubs; and

provided $800,000 to restore funding to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service for the next four years, and that is in addition to reinstating the funding to Catherine House, which was cut by the former government.

While we are proud of this work, we still have a way to go until every woman can go to work, school, TAFE, uni, catch-ups with loved ones, or for them to even stay home, without the risk of violence perpetrated by men.

In closing, I would like to thank a couple of my favourite people—the Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence and the Attorney-General—and both their teams for their work in bringing this reform to this place. I want to thank them for their ongoing efforts to deliver on our election commitments to promote gender equality and end domestic and family violence. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (15:56): I stand to support the bill also. In doing so, I do want to pick up on a point raised by some of the speakers here about this immediate pushback by some groups in the community that all men suffer from domestic violence as well, but let us put that into perspective. It is a very small percentage. It is predominantly women, but men, statistically, will not be forced to leave the family home. Men, statistically, are working full-time, they are earning more money, and they walk away from their parental responsibility. So, yes, there are some, and I have actually had constituent issues where the male has been the victim, but it is very rare where that is the case.

These laws, and the change to this bill, are certainly a step in the right direction. I did come across a situation recently where a male was put in a threatening situation by a former female partner, and I was quite shocked to see that female partner was arrested and a violence apprehension order was placed by the police—not the victim—and the woman was in jail for six weeks before a hearing. You do not hear that when men go to jail for that. Normally they are out on bail. I would argue that my constituent is not at risk to the same degree that a woman is when a man is released on bail. It is very important that we have preventions in place, rather than punishments, and of course punishments must fit the crime, but we want to stop this violence in the first instance.

I have to say that I was extremely disappointed in the Prime Minister's performance on the weekend in Canberra in front of 5,000 people who were supporting women who were victims of domestic violence, and saying enough is enough and more must be done to protect these women. I can sympathise: it was a very difficult crowd and a very difficult and emotional situation. I do not know what happened or what discussions there were about whether the Prime Minister was speaking or not, but none of that is relevant. But why on earth did the Prime Minister raise in his speech that he was denied the ability to speak at this rally?

Well, for starters, he was up on the stage, and then the organiser, who was standing next to him, said that was not true. His response was to speak over her. It is exactly the type of attitude that many men have when they are dealing with a different point of view from a woman: to raise your voice, speak over them, ignore them and say their opinion does not matter. Of course, the poor woman burst into tears. She was adamant, and she was again on television this week on the news service saying that the Prime Minister was not refused the ability to speak. I say it was somebody in his office who messed it up, but it was shocking that the Prime Minister would lay the blame immediately on the women who organised the rally.

We need a change of culture in order for women to be safe. Women will not be safe if we are just relying on a punishment mechanism for men who perpetrate these crimes. Men must call out men who behave in such a way. That behaviour starts with coercive control; it starts with disrespect in a relationship and moves on to violence. It does not always move on to violence, but it is still a very violent environment when a woman is treated as a second-class citizen by her partner simply because her partner does not value her contribution in the relationship. Relationships are difficult. They are all very different, but they should be respectful and women should feel safe in them. There is no doubt about that. Men must call out this type of behaviour in other men.

It was not that long ago, certainly within my lifetime, that the public attitude to domestic violence was, 'That's a family matter. We're not intervening in that, that's a family matter.' We have all realised it is not a family matter. It is actually a massive community problem. The community has taken responsibility now: we talk about it, we put rules in place, we change laws, we run campaigns, we teach our boys at a young age what is respectful behaviour and what is disrespectful.

There is no silver bullet. I do believe we are making progress. Many of the younger men who I speak to certainly have a much more respectful attitude towards women. We have come a long way since my mother had to resign from her job when she got married. Married women did not work in that situation, and certainly married women after having children did not go back into the workforce. Many women had to give up the opportunity to have families if they wanted to be a schoolteacher, for example. How many 'Miss' schoolteachers were there? Even when I was at school in the early 1960s and 1970s, many of the women were 'Miss' Jones or 'Miss' Smith, not Mrs, because they chose their careers over a family.

We have to be careful too, of course, as some of the STEM careers are seeing more women enter them. A classic one is pharmacy. Pharmacy 20 years ago was dominated by men. If you walked into a pharmacy, the pharmacist behind the counter, the one dispensing, would be a man. These days you see very few men in pharmacies and you see very few men at UniSA doing pharmacy degrees; they are mostly women. Pharmacists' salaries have dropped significantly compared with other salaries since it was a feminised industry, since more and more women have been in that field.

We are saying to women: get into the STEM sector, learn more about science, get into science, get into engineering, and what we have seen is a drop in real salaries in some of those professions since the predominant sex working in that sector has been women. It is a very complex area that needs attention right across the board. Although it is very strongly supported and worthy, the bill is not the only area where we need to do work, where we need to change in order for women to be safe and for women to have the barriers removed in their choices in life.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (16:06): I also rise to offer my support for the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023. Every woman and every child deserves a life free from domestic, family and sexual violence. Right now, across our country, Australian women are questioning whether this presumed right is guaranteed. That is deeply worrying and it is a blight on the whole of our country.

We have heard countless times that we need to do better and we do, but those words offer limited comfort when in 2024 a woman is killed in Australia every four days—every four days. Last time I spoke in this chamber on domestic violence, the stats were one every 10 days, and we were shocked by those stats then. It is deeply saddening to see that these numbers are getting worse rather than better. We saw that outrage from the community at rallies right across our country over the weekend where women and allies were saying enough is enough.

Of course, behind those horrific statistics are real people: women who deserve to be safe, children who deserve to be safe. The Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill will see that high-risk domestic violence defendants who are not on remand are placed on electronically monitored home detention bail. This fulfils an election commitment of the Malinauskas government and it comes not a minute too soon.

Earlier this week, criminology professor Vincent Hurley appeared on Q+A pleading that representatives across the political divide cease the mudslinging and get on with the job, the job of ensuring women's safety. It should not be that big an ask. All governments of all persuasions have a duty, and that duty is to enact the right policies and to do it right now. There is not a minute to waste, which is why I am so pleased that we have the leadership of Minister Katrine Hildyard, who has consistently led us through a range of legislation changes that will make a real difference.

The right policies cannot relate solely to law and order. We need proper funding and proper support for frontline services as well. We need Catherine House looking out for Australian women. Labor reinstated that funding. We need dedicated domestic violence prevention and recovery hubs, and under the leadership of Minister Hildyard again, I was able to visit The Yellow Gate in Adelaide's south earlier this year. I could speak forever on the awesome team there and the incredible services they are offering to women in the south. We need legal services to be available to women navigating the court system, so $800,000 of funding is going towards the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service over the next four years.

Last year, I spoke to the Fair Work (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Bill 2022 because we want women appropriately equipped to leave violent relationships without fearing loss of income or loss of their job. We need a whole-of-system approach. New bail laws are not just new bail laws: they are another tool in the government's arsenal as it tackles what is a devastating scourge.

Our government has a strong vision for ending domestic violence and other forms of disrespect and discrimination that affect women and families in our community. Our government is committed to working alongside service providers, women's organisations, women experiencing domestic violence and other stakeholders to use all levers possible to prevent and end domestic violence. We will do everything in our power to better support, protect and empower those affected by domestic violence.

In line with our election commitments, we will soon be introducing legislation to criminalise coercive control. We know that coercive control is overwhelmingly perpetrated against women by a current or former intimate partner and often precedes other forms of domestic violence. Those who experience it are dominated and controlled through intimidation, through isolation and by removing their sense of worth. The controlling behaviour often includes threats and actual violence and, in some cases, tragically, it precedes murder.

We are committed to hearing the voices of victim survivors, at-risk groups, women who live in regional areas, women from diverse cultural backgrounds and Aboriginal women, as we move towards introducing legislation in South Australia later this year. We will continue to relentlessly speak up and act to prevent and end domestic violence. This bill takes us one step closer towards a society where every woman and every child can live a life free of domestic, family and sexual violence. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (16:11): I rise to say a few words in support of the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill. Just before I start, I would like to echo the sentiments of the member for Davenport in pointing out that this really is a time to end the mudslinging and just get on with it.

Building on a grievance I gave in this chamber last year, I feel it is important that as male MPs we recognise that domestic violence in this country is a problem overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. There are always exceptions, but when the problem manifests in such an undeniable critical mass it is impossible to turn a blind eye to the issue and that we as men must own this, even if regretfully some may not recognise themselves to be stakeholders.

The statistics are shocking, whichever way you look at it. We cannot turn a blind eye with numbers such as those from 2021-22 showing 5,606 women being hospitalised due to family and domestic violence, or one in three having experienced physical violence since the age of 15. These should not come as a shock, and I hope this underlines that it is a male problem and we all have a role to play.

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, so I say to those thinking that this does not affect them or, 'This does not affect me,' that it is imperative on all men to call out what is wrong and wean this ugliness from our culture. Every act of gender-based violence is a tragic indictment on who we are as men. When on average one woman every four days is murdered by their current or former partner, to our shame we must collectively own this. It does not mean that 50 per cent of the community is degenerate but, rather, as a collective we can only reach a proper solution if we as men are part of it. It is therefore time to educate our sons on the difference between right and wrong while also drawing a clear line in the sand and telling the men around us what we will no longer stand for.

Legislation should be reflective of community values and I feel what we have before us overwhelmingly meets that standard. The introduction of electronic monitoring of DV offenders who violently breach the terms of an intervention order is something we should welcome, but at the same time lament that it is necessary in the first place. The fact that electronic tagging only occurs after a perpetrator has already committed an act of violence cannot be overlooked. I welcome anything with the potential to save lives but, at the same time, this much-needed change is not a panacea and does not take away the fact we still have a massive problem.

I stand here as a member of a government, a man and a member of my community. While I feel we need drastic community-led cultural changes, I do not dismiss that government has a role to play. Laws should be here to reinforce standards and with that in mind I welcome this bill, just as I do with the upcoming passage of a bill to criminalise coercive control.

This house must send a loud message on what is right over wrong. The state government has also moved to establish the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence. Tightening the net against perpetrators, reinforcing the rights of victims and hopefully adjusting our culture for the better are legislative levers that we must pull hard. In context of the royal commission, as lawmakers we must go in with fresh minds and be prepared to take drastic steps by realising we are going to have to ultimately pull those levers even harder.

Locally, within my community I wish to commend the excellent work handled by the grassroots team at RoZSI's Voice, an acronym of the key initials of the Para District Zonta Club, Rotary Mawson Lakes and Torrens Soroptimists, established with the aim of ending domestic violence. Last year I joined them for a number of activities as part of the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. I was proud to join Minister Hildyard and walk with them in last November's Walk for Respect noting their efforts have been extensive, including the hosting of info stands at local markets, candlelight vigils, birthing kit assembly and information sessions, just to name a few.

I could go on, but I feel that would be counterproductive as we know that the violence continues and these very decent people are much more focused on a selfless outcome than any form of personal glorification. That said, since the 16 Days of Activism, I have joined many of their members along with some outside of the group to begin setting up a coalition with the intent of putting a submission together for the upcoming royal commission. While it is in its early days, the northern Adelaide community collaboration is intent on ensuring northern voices will be heard in this process.

In mentioning that we are just getting started, I would like to express that if anyone wants to assist I am very sure their presence will be warmly welcomed. I note the reaction from mayors in the north has been encouraging, and I also thank Minister Hildyard and her staff for their support. While there is much more work to do, I am pleased that this bill is one piece in the puzzle for meaningful change. It is time the words 'enough is enough' are echoed to the point where it is deafening. There is a lot we must face up to. To some it may be inconvenient, but it is absolutely vital that we do. I commend this bill to the house and I urge that this should only be the start.

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) (16:17): I rise to close this second reading debate and to very much wholeheartedly thank all the members who have contributed for sharing their thoughts and their views and their absolutely shared determination to help prevent and eradicate the horror of violence against women, and to drive change that makes a difference in the lives of those who experience it. From the words that each member has shared, it is very clear that there is absolutely a sense of united purpose to utterly shift that horrendous figure of a woman in Australia being killed by a man every four days.

I thank the member for King, who passionately shared how this legislative reform sits alongside our other actions and commitments to respond to and to prevent domestic family and sexual violence. I very much also thank other speakers, including the member for Adelaide, the member for Davenport, the member for Elder, the member for Unley, the member for Playford and the member for Heysen. I thank the member for Narungga also for his contribution, and in doing so I provide my answer to his question that he raised in the course of his words.

As outlined in the terms of reference of the royal commission, the commissioner has power to recommend policy and legislative, administrative and structural reform. Any recommendations that included legislative reform will of course be considered following their receipt at the conclusion of the royal commission. Should there be other legislative issues that arise through further nationally coordinated efforts beyond the strategies outlined in our national plan, we will absolutely also turn our mind to those issues.

Having said that, I am proud that we have progressed, as has been outlined today, several pieces of legislation and have a very strong, comprehensive legislative agenda in this space. Each jurisdiction has various state laws at their disposal and we will continue to work to strengthen those as we are doing through this important bill and, as I mentioned, consider other changes that may be suggested through both the royal commission and other action that the national plan may set out. I trust that that answers the member's questions and, as always, I will of course be happy to have further conversations with him and any other member in this place about this subject matter as required.

As we said upon the announcement of the royal commission, we want this royal commission to identify any gaps or further effort required so that we can ensure we have the best possible systems in place to prevent violence before it starts and provide the best possible support for all women who have experienced or are experiencing it. We know that preventing and responding to family, domestic and sexual violence is a complex and shared responsibility that will require coordination across government and community, including across courts, police and correctional services, legal services, housing, the child protection and family support system, schools, health and non-government organisations, media, families, individuals and communities.

What we also said when announcing this royal commission is that this announcement does not prevent us from continuing the work we are undertaking—the legislation we progress today being one of those commitments that we continue to implement. I am really proud that today we take this step to progress this important legislation to better protect those incredibly brave survivors and to appropriately address the utterly unacceptable behaviour of those perpetrators who seek to harm women.

Our government continues to be committed to take strong, decisive steps forward as we seek to tackle the horrific rates of men's violence against women. We will continue in this work until there is not one more. In closing, I very much thank the Attorney-General for working closely with me toward this legislation. I thank his office and all officials from the Attorney-General's Department and the Office for Women who have worked toward this legislation. Thank you in particular to Elliette and Laira and also to Hilary and Ruth in my office. I am so pleased to again commend this bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: At the outset in relation to clause 1, I will provide some context about where we have got to and then ask a question or two about the structure of where the effects of the change are now directed, having now become really quite focused on those kinds of breaches to the types of intervention orders that are defined as DVOs in the intervention orders act.

Just for some context before I refer to some remarks of the Attorney in the other place, the Law Society in its response to a private member's bill that the minister brought to the house in the last parliament, and by its response in the context of the government's then consideration of the broad-ranging potential application of this kind of mandatory bail condition, indicated what I think is the risk that has led to the government's bill now being really quite particularly more directed, which was the concern of the previous government about the private member's bill in the last parliament. I quote from the Law Society's observations on 15 July 2021 where it said:

One issue which should be given considered thought—

and I should emphasise so as not to do a disservice to the Law Society that the Law Society at the outset joined with all of us, including all those who have contributed to the debate, in indicating that it condemns domestic violence in all its forms and is always open to examining new strategies to address the scourge, so let there be no doubt about that. The concern which I think has informed the previous government and informed this government clearly in terms of the bill that we now see is—and, to get back to the quote, the Law Society says:

One issue which should be given considered thought in this context is the sheer volume, and different types, of intervention orders in force at any given time. The Society would have concerns with any scheme that automatically imposed electronic monitoring on all defendants who have been issued with a court-ordered intervention order prior to them being found guilty of an offence. Each matter would need to be considered on its individual circumstances and the Court be empowered to make an appropriate decision based on the potential risk to the protected person in each case.

There is something of a flavour there of the concern that I think informed, as I say, the government's response to that private member's bill in the last term, and what we see has characterised the debate in the other place that has preceded the debate here. Indeed, my colleague in the other place on behalf of the Liberal opposition moved amendments that would have had the effect of broadening, at least to some extent, the application of this mandatory regime.

The government in not supporting those amendments has, I guess, in the words of the Attorney, indicated that the government is open to considering the data going forward and to continue to look for ways to reform so as to address risk without having unintended consequences. But the government has charted this much more narrow course with those considerations in mind. There have been a number of references in the course of the second reading debate, of course, to what is anticipated to be coming before the parliament before too long in the form of a bill addressing itself to coercive control. With that in mind, given that we are dealing in those circumstances with an insidious threat and insidious circumstances, the concern is the addressing of risk. Clearly, imposing mandatory conditions upon a bail agreement is a direct form of addressing risk.

The fact that the government's bill is now directed to that very specific, very narrow range of breaches leaves open the question for future monitoring consideration and action in relation to whether or not it sufficiently addresses that risk, particularly insofar as the government's bill has taken the step of referring directly to a breach of a DVO but narrowing, nonetheless, the focus of those mandatory provisions being to apply only in circumstances of a breach specifically of a kind that is covered by subsection (2aa)(b). That is as to frame where we have got to.

I sort of adverted to it, if not perhaps demanding an answer in the course of the second reading to the question of whether or not there is data that the government has in relation to the terms of bail agreements that have been entered into prior to this time in relation to subsection (2aa)(b) breaches. Perhaps it might give the minister an opportunity to put anything on the record in relation to any such data that is available as to whether one or both of those conditions have been applied in cases where bail has been granted pursuant to the relevant subsection.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am not quite sure if I have heard the question in there, but I will say that I think the member has outlined the purpose of this bill, and that is absolutely to target the offenders who are deemed to pose the highest risk to those who are the protected persons, those women to whom the domestic abuse intervention order relates. So that is certainly one purpose. The member has also highlighted, rightly, that this particular scope certainly seeks to ensure that there are not unintended consequences as a result of a scope being particularly broad. So that is the purpose.

The member also rightly points out that we will soon be bringing legislation to the parliament to criminalise coercive control. Certainly, I can say more broadly, as I spoke about in both my second reading speech and in the speech to close debate, that—as we always have—we will continue to look for opportunities to improve legislation; and, of course, the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence may also provide recommendations about legislative reform. I am very proud of the legislative reform that we have undertaken to date and we will continue to look for opportunities to progress further legislative reform.

Mr TEAGUE: To the extent that it was not clearly discernible what the question was at the end, I accept responsibility for that, and I might repeat it: does the government have data indicating the conditions that have been applied to bail agreements the subject of subsection (2aa)(b) to date, and if so, what is it?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: What I can tell the member is that, yes, of course data is kept. What I can say is that statistics show that over a three-year period, 47 per cent of defendants who found themselves in this particular circumstance were not granted any form of bail. Another 12 per cent received home detention bail, and the remaining 41 per cent received supervised or simple bail.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TEAGUE: We have seen adverted to in the debate in the other place, and I think also by the minister in this place, that it has been noted that we are dealing with a cohort where there is a presumption against bail and you do not get granted bail unless you have established special circumstances. In the legislative structure that has been referred to, I think section 10A deals with the categories of offender that are the subject of presumption against bail, of which one category is an offender against section 31 of the intervention orders act, where the offence is characterised by violence or the threat of violence. They are broadly the words. That is how we get the cohort that is the subject of this bill already being in a category where there is a presumption against bail.

The question is a legislative drafting one, one of structure, and that is why therefore is the clause drafted in the way it is, referring to subsection (2aa)(b), which itself describes violence or the threat of violence, and then frames itself within the section 29D definition of DVO? It is framed in what appears to be exactly the same way, but it is not on the face of it quite so inclusive in its language—or different in its language anyway—from the language that is used in section 10A of the Bail Act in defining that cohort for which there is a presumption against bail.

Why not just deal with them all in the same way in terms of the prescribed offender definition and, if appropriate, as is the subject matter here, the subset of which the subject of intervention orders that are DVOs relevantly? Why the different use of language, just in terms of the way that the new provision has been structured?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: With the language in section 10A, particularly (ba) and (ca), it is our understanding that that particular language predated the particular offence of violently breaching an intervention order. That is the first part of the reason, and we are going to check the timing of the language, but that is one point. The other point is that aligning the language as we have with the particular offence will certainly going forward make it much easier to collect data in relation to that particular offence.

Mr TEAGUE: That maybe begs two questions, the first of which is if there is a perceived need and I do not see it on the face of it just because it was there before. That is in terms of section 10A(ba). Because it was there before, there is an opportunity to refer and align with it. I get the data point, I think, in terms of if you have information that is charging a breach of a particular subsection, but that has been described as it has been described, I suppose. Is there any actual deliberate carve-out that would define any difference between a prescribed offender for the purposes of 10A(ba) and what is described in that rather more precise, can I say, way that it has been formulated for the purposes of what would be the new subsection (2ae)?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The really short answer is no. There is certainly no particular reason or subterfuge for describing those in those slightly different ways, so the short answer is no. Also, as I said in the previous answer, we will certainly check on the timing of those two particular sets of language.

Mr TEAGUE: I might be being a bit slow, but I am not sure I quite understand this point about the timing. Perhaps if I were to ask a question in these terms, then: has the government any advice, or is it perceived as desirable in those circumstances therefore, for there to be some amendment made to section 10A of the Bail Act?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: No.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just in reference to the denied bail, do you have any statistics on men versus women for the denied bail?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I certainly do not have those on hand. I certainly do have the statistics about offences that were committed by either men or women and, as I understand it, there are statistics that could be provided in relation to that, but I do not have them at hand.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So can you provide them?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Yes. There has been a commitment that we can speak to courts to understand if we can provide that and, if so, we will.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third 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) (16:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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