HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-03-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 August 2023.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:19): I rise to indicate the Liberal Party's support for this particular bill, which has been some time in its gestation and which I think I will just talk a little bit about to begin with. I also note there is a very significant number of Labor members who are going to be speaking on this legislation today, so I look forward to lengthy and technical contributions to this bill.

Clearly, the matter of domestic violence and the scourge in Australia is one that we all despair at. We need to look at every measure possible to stamp out domestic violence in our community, and I think that is something that enjoys universal support across all political parties. I certainly recall in years past when we would have the domestic violence vigils on the steps of parliament that there would be a few members there, but we all attend what has become now the Pay Our Respects event, and I would like to acknowledge everybody's support for that event and commitment to stamping out domestic violence in our community.

The origins of this particular bill were from a piece of legislation introduced by the now Minister for Women, the Hon. Katrine Hildyard, member for Reynell, in 2021. The honourable member's bill at that stage proposed mandatory electronic monitoring of, firstly, a person accused of a serious domestic violence offence; secondly, on bail; and, thirdly, subject to prescribed intervention orders. That particular piece of legislation had a broad application, and it was referred by the then government to a cross-government working group, which was already considering increased usage of electronic monitoring of alleged domestic violence offenders.

I will speak to that bill in a little bit more detail. It was the Statutes Amendment (Electronic Monitoring of Domestic Violence Offenders) Bill 2021, and it was introduced on 23 June 2021 to the House of Assembly. That bill imposed mandatory electronic monitoring requirements on accused domestic violence perpetrators on bail or intervention orders.

Secondly, in relation to bail, the mandatory imposition of electronic monitoring applies to any person charged with an offence listed in the bill as a serious domestic violence offender and in a prior relationship with the victim. Thirdly, in relation to intervention orders, mandatory electronic monitoring is applied to all prescribed intervention orders, which included any intervention order against a person who is alleged to have committed a domestic violence offence, even if they were never charged, or any intervention order that contains any non-contact terms, such as the defendant not call, text or approach in public.

That then culminated in the Labor Party having as part of their election policy that they would reintroduce a bill. This bill is quite significant to the 2021 version in the following way: it is much less tough on those who breach intervention orders in that it limits it to, and I am referring now to the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 section 31(2aa)(b), which provides:

the act or omission alleged to constitute the contravention involved physical violence or a threat of physical violence,

This piece of legislation before it is quite contained in who it applies to. I wish to speak to my amendment briefly, and I appreciate that it probably does not have the support of this chamber, but I wish to make a point that the amendment filed in my name is much broader in that it applies to section 31(2), as well as the whole of subsection (2aa). That would mean that any person who contravenes any other term, which is what is in the subsection, of an intervention order is guilty of an offence, and also in (2aa) would include the second and subsequent breaches of an intervention order.

We would appreciate a response from the government as to why it has limited these particular bail requirements to just violence or threats of violence rather than a broader set of offences that exist under the existing Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act. We think there are grounds for the scope of this legislation to be broadened, and we will be interested in the government's response as to why it does not agree.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:26): I rise very briefly to speak on the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023 and to indicate that the Greens will support this bill. Domestic and family violence is a very serious matter, as we know. In Australia, one in six women and 11 per cent of all adults experience violence from a partner. Since the first national plan to reduce violence against women and their children was adopted 13 years ago, I understand that over 700 women have been murdered. First Nations women, women from culturally diverse backgrounds, women in regional areas, older women, LGBTIQ+ women and women with disabilities are even more likely to experience this violence.

It is clear that what has been done to date is not working and has not gone far enough. We need to continue introducing measures to protect people from this terrible abuse. This bill ensures that survivors have an extra level of protection in what are deemed high-risk cases. When a perpetrator has been found to have contravened an intervention order through physical violence or threat of physical violence in a domestic or family violence case, they will be subject to bail conditions that impose electronic monitoring devices.

This bill reduces the threat of further violence to people who have experienced family or domestic violence and will give them one more assurance that their safety will be protected. The Greens therefore support this measure. I note the opposition will be moving some amendments, and the Hon. Michelle Lensink has spoken to those. I have some concerns and have flagged these with the honourable member around the potential resourcing implications of those amendments, and I will explore some of those concerns with the Attorney-General during the committee stage to get some clear advice from the government around the implications of what the honourable member has proposed. With that, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (15:28): I rise to speak in proud support of the bail amendment bill 2023. This bill will require high-risk domestic violence defendants who are not on remand to be on electronically monitored home detention as a condition of their bail. The bill will make this condition mandatory for those charged with violently breaching a domestic violence related intervention order.

Under the Bail Act these defendants must already demonstrate special circumstances to be granted bail in the first place. However, court data shows that approximately half of the defendants charged with this crime are granted some form of bail—approximately 150 defendants each year. This bill will result in defendants being on electronically monitored home detention bail when they would otherwise have been on less strict forms of bail. Electronic monitoring combined with geographical bail restrictions will mean that the device can provide real-time alerts if the defendant breaches the conditions of their bail.

It is appropriate that we should speak to this bill on the eve of International Women's Day. We know that both men and women can be victims of domestic violence; however, research clearly indicates that the overwhelming majority of violence is perpetrated on women by men. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that one in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence from an intimate partner by the age of 15.

In 2021-22, nine in 10 hospitalisations for assault injury by a partner were for women. The overall rate of family and domestic violence hospitalisation was almost three times higher for women when compared to men. The single biggest risk factor in being a victim of domestic and family violence is being a woman. The reality is that women are most likely to face violence or even death at the hands of a man they know. There are far too many instances in Australia of women who have been murdered by known perpetrators of domestic violence while these men have been released on bail.

Data from the AIHW shows that the vast majority of women who have experienced violence and assault from a previous partner experienced it more than once. Domestic violence is rarely a one-off. There is also data to demonstrate that when women temporarily separate from a violent partner, the violence can continue or even escalate. Bail is an important part of our justice system; however, it is common sense that we take reasonable steps to monitor those who pose a significant threat.

This is not a new idea. Mandatory home detention bail is not even novel under the Bail Act. Serious and organised crime suspects on bail are subject to mandatory home detention conditions in order to protect witnesses who have reasonable fears for their safety. Given what the data clearly shows, the experiences and the stories we have heard from domestic violence survivors, I think it is fair to conclude that women also have reasonable fears for their safety.

Ultimately, we must be looking towards preventing violence against women in the first place. We must also look towards making sure women are empowered to safely leave dangerous situations. As a third layer, we must provide all reasonable protections to the women who desperately need them as they embark on the often difficult experience of charging their abuser. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:32): I rise to speak in support of this bill that requires high-risk domestic violence defendants who are not on remand to be put on electronically monitored home detention bail. This fulfils Labor's election commitment to introduce legislation requiring individuals who are charged with a serious domestic violence offence to be electronically monitored as a mandatory condition of bail.

Electronic monitoring combined with geographical bail restrictions means that the device will give real-time alerts if an individual breaches these conditions. Approximately 150 defendants each year are charged with a violent intervention order (IO) breach and receive bail and around 120 defendants each year are charged with violent IO breaches who have receive non home detention bail. Keep in mind that an intervention order is a court order made by a magistrate that aims to protect us and our families from anyone who is violent or makes us feel unsafe.

The Labor Malinauskas government is continuing to progress a suite of reforms in relation to family and domestic violence, including conducting a royal commission. This now has its terms of reference published and, as recently announced, will be expertly led by former SA Senator Natasha Stott Despoja AO, who has been appointed commissioner. Ms Stott Despoja was reported as being confident about her prospects of delivering meaningful, practical recommendations within a short time frame. As Ms Stott Despoja said:

The good thing about working in this space is that violence against women and children is preventable.

Although she recognises that eradicating DV completely is not something that can be achieved overnight, especially when you are changing attitudes and behaviours, Ms Stott Despoja believes eradication of DV is what we need to work towards.

In a multicultural society such as ours, we have additional challenges when addressing family and domestic violence within culturally diverse backgrounds and with individuals with disabilities or other intersectional factors who are at a greater risk of domestic violence. In fact, our Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander women are three times more likely to experience this type of violence than non-Indigenous women.

It was reported in recent media that Adelaide-born actor Hugh Sheridan, currently based in Los Angeles, flew to Australia after the shocking killing of his friend Luke Davies and Luke's boyfriend, Jesse Baird. This tragedy inspired Hugh to share his own terrifying abuse at the hands of a knife-wielding former partner. SA's royal commission will meet with stakeholders, ministers, police and those in society who, like Mr Hugh Sheridan, have a place to contribute to eliminating all forms of domestic violence regardless of how long that may take.

In the interim, the amendments will provide a pathway to help maintain greater community confidence in the justice system by providing better protections to victim survivors of domestic and family violence. Firstly, the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023 aims to address a charging error in relation to offences under section 31 of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009. Secondly, section 31 relates to offences for breaches of intervention orders under the act.

Section 31(1) is a less serious offence of violating an intervention order which requires participation by the defendant in an intervention program, whereas section 31(2) is a more serious offence of violating any of the terms of an intervention order. This offence carries a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment for a basic offence and five years for an aggravated offence.

As Attorney-General the Hon. Kyam Maher outlined, it was identified last year that defendants had been charged with and found guilty of a less serious offence under section 31(1) of the act when they should have actually been charged with and found guilty of an offence of breaching section 31(2) of the act. This bill came about after advice received from the Solicitor-General, the Crown Solicitor and the Attorney-General's Department on the best way of addressing the issues surrounding section 31(1) and 31(2). This bill will address the risk factors associated with a violent breach of an intervention order offence, which the current act does not adequately do.

Mandatory home detention bail is not novel under the Bail Act. As we know, serious criminal suspects on bail are subject to mandatory home detention conditions in order to protect witnesses who have reasonable fears for their safety. Given this bill applies to defendants charged with violently breaching a domestic abuse related intervention order and approximately 150 defendants each year are charged with this offence and receive bail, this bill could impact around 150 people. Further to this, as already mentioned, around 120 defendants are charged each year with violent intervention orders breaches that receive non home detention bail.

The Labor Malinauskas government has a proactive record when it comes to addressing family and domestic violence and we are a government committed to long-term action in this area. I therefore commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:40): I rise in support of the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023. Domestic violence remains one of our most pressing societal concerns, affecting both men and women. The very notion of introducing mandatory electronic monitoring for high-risk domestic violence offenders stands as a sobering testament to the challenges we face. Protecting our most vulnerable does not come without its costs.

In an ideal society, the freedoms of no individual should be curtailed. Everyone should have the right to move freely and live without restraint, but it was alarming to learn that 150 individuals, having demonstrated special circumstances, are currently out on bail. These individuals have contravened domestic abuse related intervention orders where their breaches involved violence or threats of violence. This presents us with difficult decisions. We must balance individual freedom against the collective safety of our society.

The comparisons made between this bill and the measures taken for serious and organised crime suspects are both illuminating and disheartening. When victims of domestic violence find themselves living in perpetual fear, the issue becomes glaringly urgent and cries out for protective measures. This bill serves as a stark reminder that our journey to address and eradicate domestic violence is far from over and, furthermore, the bill emphasises the need for broader societal change.

We must strive for a society where respect, understanding and nonviolence are standard. The significance of education, community outreach and cultural transformations cannot be overstated. Genuine change will not arise from monitoring devices or stringent laws. It will stem from grassroots movements, education and enduring efforts to reshape perceptions about domestic violence, where both men and women are victims. Ultimately, our goal should be to create a society where bills of this nature are of the past, indicative of challenges once faced but overcome through collective effort and societal evolution.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:42): I rise to speak in support of the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023 and note that this was one of the current government's election commitments, which I think follow on from some of the good reforms the former Attorney-General also had flagged and started to put in train prior to this government being elected. As outlined and mentioned by members, the bill seeks to amend the Bail Act, ensuring individuals charged with prescribed offences are subject to mandatory bail conditions upon release from custody.

While it is reassuring that the presumption against bail already extends to defendants charged with violent breaches, I think we all agree it is important to bolster existing measures. The bill mandates home detention conditions for those granted bail, particularly focusing on electronic monitoring. Under the provisions, alleged perpetrators would be fitted with electronic monitoring devices restricting their movements outside their residence except for essential activities such as employment or medical treatment. The inclusion of electronic monitoring builds on existing frameworks, which have already been mentioned.

Real-time monitoring overseen by the Intensive Compliance Unit of the Department for Correctional Services ensures immediate detection of any breaches, and that certainly was the subject of some discussion when my office had a briefing on this bill. I understand there are approximately 7,000 individuals out of the 10,000 serving terms of imprisonment in South Australia already subject to home detention conditions. I am interested to hear from the Attorney regarding the anticipated number of offenders likely to be impacted by these changes, and the corresponding budget allocation.

Because I referred to it at the outset, I will make mention that one of the issues I was working on prior to the last state election was the GPS tracking trial, which the former Attorney-General did support by way of a trial. We have not had a lot of updates since then as to the success or otherwise, or implementation, of that particular scheme. If the Attorney has that available to him, I would ask: what, if anything, is happening on that front in terms of the GPS tracking?

The only other issue that I would ask we turn our minds to is: recognising that not all threats are physical, how will this interact with our coercive control laws as well? Will the scope be expanded at some stage? I note that they are due to come in, and I again note the work that has already been done previously on this issue. Overwhelmingly, I think we have been in the position where we have supported the good measures that both the former and the current Attorney-General have worked on on this front.

The only other question for the Attorney is in terms of that real-life monitoring, about how quickly a victim is notified of the things that will happen. In terms of the budget allocation there is obviously a cost in terms of monitoring perpetrators, and I have some questions around that issue. With those words, I indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (15:46): I rise to speak in support of the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023 to introduce electronically monitored home detention bail for serious domestic violence defendants. This bill would require high-risk domestic violence defendants who are not on remand to be electronically monitored in home detention. It fulfils an election promise and 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.

The bill will mandate that anyone applying for bail whilst charged with violently breaching a domestic abuse related intervention order would only be granted bail if they are subject to home detention and electronic monitoring. Defendants to whom this bill would apply are already prescribed applicants—meaning that to be granted bail they must already demonstrate special circumstances.

Court data shows that approximately half of such defendants meet this criterion and are granted some form of bail. These defendants would have been pre-assessed as posing a risk to the victim. This bill will add further protections for victims of domestic violence and will protect community safety across the board.

The combined utilisation of electronic monitoring and geographical bail conditions means that the devices will be able to provide real-time alerts to the relevant authorities if the defendant breaches the conditions of their bail. As per usual home detention requirements, under this bill defendants will only be allowed to leave their approved residence for employment, medical treatment, if there is a risk of danger or if approval is granted by a community corrections officer. Additional restrictions can also be imposed to prevent the defendant from interacting with their alleged victim, such as visiting their place of work or their house.

Why is this bill explicitly necessary? We know that approximately 150 defendants each year are charged with violently breaching an intervention order. That is around 150 people each year who will be impacted by this bill, and it is not just the defendants but the alleged victims as well. That is around 150 people's lives that can be made safer. These proposed changes are not entirely without precedent, with serious and organised crime suspects on bail already subject to mandatory home detention conditions to best protect witnesses or alleged victims who have reasonable fears for their safety.

This bill is just another much-needed policy outcome that builds on the Malinauskas Labor government's record on preventing and eradicating family and domestic violence. I will get to the most recent announcement in a moment, but we should not forget that we as a government have done the following.

We have made the experience of domestic violence a ground of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act; we have enshrined 15 days' paid domestic violence leave for public sector workers; we have committed $1 million to establish two domestic violence prevention and recovery hubs, one in the southern suburbs, which opened just last week, and the other in the northern suburbs, which is currently in development; we provided $800,000 to restore funding to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service for the next four years; and we have reinstated funding to Catherine House, a service that provides much-needed social assistance for women experiencing homelessness. This funding was shamefully cut by the Marshall Liberal government, by the minister, by the previous minister herself, sitting over the road.

All of this is important work and will make a significant difference to those in our community who have experienced family or domestic violence. As I alluded to earlier, in recent days the state government has announced that former South Australian senator and former Australian Ambassador for Women and Girls will head our government's Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence. This royal commission will have a 12-month time frame and will provide policy, administrative and structural recommendations on how to best resolve the scourge of domestic violence in South Australia.

The royal commission will examine five key themes: prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and healing, and coordination. All of these themes are vital to South Australia eradicating what is sometimes referred to as a shadow pandemic. The stories we hear from the royal commission will be harrowing, and it will be difficult, but it is important that we listen to victim survivors and do all we can to ensure their voices are heard and respected.

It should also be noted that tomorrow is International Women's Day, with a theme of Inspire Inclusion to emphasise a sense of belonging, relevance and empowerment amongst the community. The overarching message is that we need to forge a more inclusive world for women, and that includes eliminating domestic violence from our society and doing all we can to protect victim survivors of domestic violence, which is at the very heart of this bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (15:52): Taking steps to seriously address domestic violence with the intent to bring about genuine and lasting change towards eradicating domestic violence is a goal that I am sure all in this chamber support. Labor took a commitment to the election that we would introduce legislation that will require persons who have been charged with serious domestic violence offences to be electronically monitored as a condition of bail.

The Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023 fulfills that commitment by proposing to require high-risk domestic violence defendants who are not on remand to be on electronically monitored home detention bail. We are not seeking to implement these changes because we think it is important, we are doing it because we know it is important and we know it is necessary.

Last year, we saw a shocking number of domestic violence deaths in a short period of time. Not that the number makes it any worse—one death is one too many, as all in this place can agree—but seeing so many South Australian women die at the hands of their abusers in such a short period of time was a deeply alarming experience for all.

The Malinauskas Labor government is committed to taking significant steps to address our state's domestic violence problems, many of them being outlined today. I will just include some of them: we are making the experience of domestic violence a ground of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act; we are putting in place 15 days' paid domestic violence leave for workers within the state industrial system; we have strengthened support within our tenancy laws for South Australians experiencing and escaping domestic violence with things like being able to give the flexibility of changing your own locks when you are a renter; and we are engaging with the finance and real estate sectors towards ensuring that women do not bear undue responsibility for mortgages, loans and rent that may go unpaid in a domestic violence situation.

Very importantly, the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence will soon commence. Natasha Stott Despoja AO, who I am sure everyone in our chamber and in parliament are aware of, is tremendously experienced and has the expertise to take on the role of a royal commissioner. The royal commissioner will focus on five central themes that align with the national plan to end violence against women and children in 2022-2023, and they are: prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and healing, and coordination.

Our aim is that the outcomes and the recommendations of the royal commission will help advance community understanding of domestic, family and sexual violence. The process will place a significant focus on empowering the voices of survivors so that these outcomes can be strongly informed by stories of lived experience. Our efforts in this crucial area of policy will help to change South Australian lives and will help to save South Australian lives.

The bill before us today is another measure that supports the Malinauskas Labor government's efforts to combat and prevent domestic violence. The bill strengthens protections for victims by providing that offenders who are granted bail are subject to electronic monitoring, combined with where they are located. This means that the monitoring device can provide real-time alerts if the defendant breaches the imposed conditions.

The reforms in this bill offer meaningful protections to improve the safety of many in our community. It is a very responsible bill to be putting forward to our parliament and one that I am pleased to be supporting today.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:56): I thank members for their contributions on this matter. I know that most members who made a contribution raised questions about the merits of the amendment that has been put forward, and I will address those in a moment. I know the Hon. Connie Bonaros had questions about a GPS tracking trial in real-time monitoring. I do not have the answers to those questions but I will refer a copy of the Hansard to my colleague the Minister for Corrections to bring back a reply for the member on those questions.

In relation to the amendment that has been filed, I think it is a commendable amendment and I completely understand the Hon. Michelle Lensink's intention in moving that amendment. I think we all have the aim of keeping women who are victim survivors of family and domestic violence as safe as possible. I do not think any one of us here does not want to see that as the aim of what we are doing.

In relation to the practical effect of the amendment, there were a number of questions asked, such as, 'What would the numbers be and what would the cost be in relation to trying to manage that?' My advice is that according to the government's bill for the violent breaches there would be somewhere in the order of about 120 people a year who would be captured by that. My advice is that the cost of the compliance, that is the home detention electronic monitoring, would be somewhere close to $2 million. If it was broadened out, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink's amendment suggests, that would be almost 10 times the amount of people that it would apply to, and the commensurate cost.

There is no cost you can put on keeping people safe. I am just not sure that there would be the number of people physically that Corrections could employ to monitor the amount of monitoring that would be needed. The mechanics or the cost of it are one issue, and although I can completely understand the commendable intentions behind the amendment there are issues about the types of people who would be captured by any breaches whatsoever, according to section 31(2).

I asked and very helpfully was supplied with a couple of examples of some of the breaches that would be captured and then have someone subject to home detention bail and electronic monitoring. A couple of the examples that were given to me were of recent cases. There was the case of Jones v Police in 2020, where the protected person attended the defendant's house unannounced and distraught about a child protection matter.

The defendant knew of the intervention order but had a concern about the protected person's mental state and allowed her to stay, in technical breach of the intervention order. It was common ground that the contact was initiated and with the consent of the protected person, but it was, in fact, a breach and that person would be captured.

I am informed that is not a wholly uncommon occurrence, where someone to whom the intervention order to protect them makes contact themselves with the person for whom the intervention order is directed against. In circumstances like that it would seem difficult to justify not necessarily the expense or the organisational need for home detention monitoring but whether the resources are better directed at keeping someone safe in other forms rather than directed at home detention monitoring.

Another example that I was provided with is Joseph v Police in 2020, where the defendant was prohibited as part of the intervention order from being within 100 metres of the protected person's residence. However, he drove down the street within approximately 20 metres of the residence on his way to his hairdresser. The breach was said to be incidental and there was no suggestion the defendant had any other intent than to go to the hairdresser. However, if it was broadened out to cover every single breach something like that would be covered and have a person subjected to home detention bail, effectively, and electronic monitoring.

As I said, whilst I completely understand the intent of the Hon. Michelle Lensink's amendments and our common desire to keep people as safe as possible, in the government's view we would be better directing those resources to where someone is potentially in physical harm rather than technical breaches. So whilst I completely appreciate the honourable member's intent behind the amendment, we as a government will not be supporting those amendments but admire it being brought forward to keep people as safe as possible.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I know we are going to get to the amendment from the Hon. Michelle Lensink shortly but I might ask a few questions around the implications of the amendment just to give the Attorney the opportunity to elaborate a little bit further on some of the comments he made in his summing-up remarks. I should indicate, of course, the Greens are sympathetic to the amendment of the opposition. We understand the intention. One of the elements I am concerned about is the potential implications maybe in some remote communities in South Australia. Is the minister able to talk a little bit about that in terms of what some of the implications might be if an amendment like this were to be incorporated into the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. Unfortunately, the statistics are startling, not just in remote communities but particularly in terms of First Nations peoples' interactions with the intervention order regime. I am informed that about 40 per cent of people charged with intervention order breaches are First Nations people. Under the regime that this proposes, in terms of home detention bail, if you did not have a home that was suitable for home detention and/or able to be electronically monitored, you would face ending up in jail instead.

One of the unfortunate consequences will be, for very remote communities on the APY lands on the Far West Coast and in other areas, for nonviolent breaches—and I have given a couple of examples of ones where there are nonviolent breaches that do occur—you might find yourself in, for example, Port Augusta Prison because of the lack of a suitable home or a home that has the ability to have that electronic monitoring as part of it.

That would be a perverse outcome for what we are trying to do to keep people safe, to have people enter the prison system in circumstances where it was the lower end, the nonviolent breaches that would see someone not being able to be monitored. Again, we understand the motivation behind the amendments, but it could have quite serious consequences for what could be a breach that does not involve a risk of harm or any violence for not having an ability to have a home address that is suitable for that home detention, not having an ability for electronic monitoring to work in that location for a remote community, and to end up in jail instead.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to the questions that I asked at the outset, I think the only other question that I asked was in relation to the coercive control laws and any interaction that we might see with those, noting that in some instances you have physical harm, in others it does not necessarily involve physical harm, and that we are waiting for those laws to come in. What will be the interaction there, firstly, to begin with?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, and of course we do not have the final version of the coercive control legislation yet, that is being worked upon, and there is the potential for overlap between the systems, but coercive control is intended to be a standalone separate offence.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In terms of reading the room, I think everyone who has spoken on the amendment that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has moved is on the same page: the Attorney, certainly the Hon. Rob Simms and myself. I share the concerns of the Attorney, but I also am supportive in principle of what the opposition is trying to achieve.

I just wonder, in terms of a way forward if the amendment were not to be successful, if the Attorney would be willing and prepared to further consider the notion that has been put in that proposal, outside of this debate, so that we can deal with this today, but give some reassurance to the rest of us that the notion the honourable member has put could be looked at, bearing in mind the problems that exist but also that overarching need to keep people safe.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her suggestion. We will always be keen to look at ways that we can better protect people who are victim survivors of domestic and family violence. As I said, the amendment, as it is currently drafted, would increase exceptionally substantially for people all breaches of section 31(2), which would include the couple of examples that I gave of cases from the last five years of breaches that were not violent and have not resulted in harm. You probably would not want to see someone under home detention electronic monitoring for those and diverting resources, but we are always open—if there are specific classes of breaches that are warranted further than what we have done—to consider those.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lensink–1]—

Page 2, line 11 [clause 3, inserted subsection (2ae)]—Delete '(2aa)(b)' and substitute '(2) or (2aa)'

I appreciate that we have canvassed probably most of the issues that relate to this amendment. I appreciate the Attorney-General providing some examples of where this amendment, which might be a bit of a blunt instrument and a bit broad, may capture what was not intended. I can see where the numbers lie, so I am moving it for the sake of moving it.

I would also like to add my voice to the Hon. Connie Bonaros in requesting that the Attorney, as part of his duties, consider further amendments because I think the key point in all of this is risk. As we move forward and we know more and more about domestic violence in all its forms, including in terms of coercive control, which is very much an emergent piece of law across the globe—and we have organisations like ANROWS and the like that do extensive bodies of empirical research, that do root cause analysis—I think the key issue is risk.

The Liberal Party's intent was that we thought the existing clause possibly did not capture enough of that risk. I appreciate that this amendment I am moving may be too broad, but I think we always need to be ever vigilant, in terms of working out by whatever means we can, to capture behaviours and those things into future.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:11): 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