HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-08-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:02): I rise to speak to the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024 and indicate our support for this important piece of legislation. Coercive control is a devastating form of abuse. It does not always leave bruises, but it leaves deep and lasting scars. It is calculated, repeated behaviour that isolates, degrades, intimidates and ultimately controls a partner. It can strip a person of their autonomy, their freedom and their sense of self, and until now our laws have been poorly equipped to respond. This bill is a significant and long-awaited step in addressing that gap.

I would like to also acknowledge at this point that this reform has not come out of nowhere. Members on the Liberal side of the chamber have been engaged on this issue for some time. In 2021, under the previous Liberal government, the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman MP, introduced a bill to criminalise coercive control. The Liberal Party recognised then, as we do now, that a pattern of controlling behaviour in relationships is not merely a private matter, it is a form of abuse and it must be treated as such by the law.

This bill introduces a new indictable offence of abusive behaviour towards a current or former partner. It defines a course of conduct that is coercive or controlling, where the offender intends the victim to feel frightened, dependent, humiliated or isolated. The penalty is up to seven years' imprisonment, and these are not symbolic penalties. This is a serious crime and it is right that the law treats it this way.

The bill also contains a review provision under section 20D, which will allow parliament to revisit the operation of this offence within three years, which is sensible given how novel these forms of legislation are in jurisdictions in Australia and around the world.

We also support the government's technical amendments to clarify the definition of 'harm' and ensure consistency with other parts of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. These are small but important refinements that will assist courts and practitioners. We will also be supporting the amendments put forward by the Hon. Tammy Franks to extend protection to animals belonging to the victim, recognising that threats to pets are often used as a means of coercion and control.

While we support this legislation, we do not do so uncritically of the Labor government. Stakeholders such as the Law Society of South Australia have raised concerns about the complexity of prosecuting coercive control. This is not a straightforward offence. It requires police, prosecutors and the judiciary to evaluate a pattern of behaviour over time that will only be possible if the government commits the funds needed to train, resource and prepare our justice system. Passing a law without resourcing it properly is little more than symbolism. Survivors need more than symbolism; they need a justice system that will act. That means comprehensive training for SAPOL officers, prosecutors and the judiciary, and I welcome the comments of the Chief Justice in light of the handing down of the royal commission in regard to training.

It does mean investment in the frontline sector so service providers can understand the new offences and can support survivors through the process, and it means funding community education so that coercive control is no longer hidden in plain sight. Victims will only come forward if they believe the system can deliver justice. That confidence must be earned through real investment, not rhetoric.

This bill is a necessary legal response, but the broader cultural response must also follow. We know that coercive control is a common precursor to intimate partner homicide. We know that victims who are subjected to this kind of sustained abuse often describe it as worse than physical violence. The bruises heal and we know that by the time the police are called it is sometimes too late. That is why criminalising coercive control matters. It gives survivors a legal remedy before the physical violence escalates. It recognises the seriousness of non-physical abuse and it sends a powerful message that a relationship built on fear, isolation and manipulation is not private and it is not acceptable. This is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of justice.

I acknowledge the many survivors, advocates and frontline workers who have pushed for this reform over many years. We will support this bill, but we will also hold this government to account. Survivors deserve nothing less than a law backed by the training, funding and enforcement to make it work.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:08): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill is designed to criminalise behaviour in relationships that is likely to have a controlling impact on another person and is likely to cause physical injury or psychological harm. In accordance with proposed section 20C(1)(d), to be found guilty of the offence of coercive control the alleged coercive behaviour does not need to cause actual physical injury or psychological harm. It is only necessary that a reasonable person consider the course of conduct would be likely to cause injury or harm.

The Law Society has noted that psychological harm may be limited to anxiety or fear and has highlighted that the threshold for meeting this element of the offence is relatively low. The Law Society has also pointed out that the proposed offence has the potential to inadvertently criminalise conduct that would otherwise be legitimate, acceptable or warranted. The proposed bill provides several examples of the type of behaviour that may have a controlling impact by restricting another person's freedom of movement, action or ability to make personal choices or restricting their access to services and necessities, including the following:

locking the person in a room or building;

excessively monitoring or tracking the person's activities or movements;

interfering with communications received from a third party by the other person;

destroying the other person's method of contraception;

locking the refrigerator or pantry;

engaging in derogatory name-calling of the other person each time the other person eats food;

hiding the other person's keys to a motor vehicle; and

deceiving the other person as to their rights with respect to their own property.

It should be noted that only one element of restriction is necessary for the behaviour to be taken to have a controlling impact on another person, and the prosecution will only be required to prove intention for one action of controlling behaviour, not for all actions within the alleged pattern of conduct.

It should also be noted that section 20B(2)(f) of the proposal allows for the list of offending behaviours to be expanded on by regulations, effectively bypassing the full scrutiny of the legislative process. This is concerning given the already low threshold for harm and injury as well as the fact that this offence will be classified as a major indictable offence, carrying a maximum jail term of seven years' imprisonment. In short, this proposal is a powerful legal weapon, and in the wrong hands it has the potential to be used to inflict the very same harm it purports to be preventing.

Further, given this offence has been characterised as a gender-based crime of domestic violence, it becomes very clear that this lethal legal weapon is predominantly aimed at men. However, recent data from research conducted by the Medical Journal of Australia shows that 45.5 per cent of respondents who had experienced intimate partner violence were actually men. Unfortunately, the widespread, complex and multilayered issue of intimate partner violence has been largely mischaracterised as a gender-based crime, where domestic violence against women is described as prevalent, increasing and rightly condemned but domestic violence against men is considered rare, retaliatory and predominantly ignored.

While the prevalence of intimate partner violence experienced by women is higher, results indicate that the rate of male victims of domestic violence is likely to be a lot more than previous estimates of one in three, especially given the ongoing reluctance of male victims to report incidents of domestic abuse. This raises concerns about further encroachment of the courts, policing and the justice system into the volatile and fragile sphere of domestic relationships, where false allegations are regularly weaponised to bury opposing parties in litigation, alienate one parent and destroy reputations.

In the experience of my office, it is overwhelmingly men who are the victims of this type of legal abuse. They are quite often desperate men who call my office, some seeking assistance in their effort to be heard by government departments or courts, or they are men who have been alienated from their children or who feel hopeless in a system they believe is actively working against them. In no way is it my intention to diminish the issue of domestic violence against women. However, the grave disparity in recognition and support for the many men who suffer alone and in silence is an issue that deserves to be raised in this chamber.

As an advocate for men's mental health, I cannot ignore the growing emasculation and demonisation of men by media and academia as well as the inherent bias and inequity against men within many public institutions. All of this takes place in a country where suicide is the leading cause of deaths for men aged 15 to 44. In addition to this, the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention has indicated that almost half of all suicides by Australian men are directly linked to Family Court disputes and other pending legal matters.

While there is limited current research on the operation of domestic violence orders in Family Court disputes, in a past survey of magistrates from New South Wales it was recorded that 90 per cent of domestic violence claims were being used as tactical tools in Family Court disputes and that many fathers were forced to exhaust their resources defending themselves against accusations that were later proven to be unfounded.

Unfortunately, this bill, which may have very good intentions, will also act to reinforce a widespread stigma of all men in this country as violent controllers of women and all women as passive victims who need greater legal protection to fight against the ever-increasing threat of male domination. Inadvertently, this bill may actually equip sophisticated perpetrators of coercive control, whether male or female, with another lethal legal weapon to use against their hapless victims, manipulating a narrative that casts themselves as victims and falsely accuses their partners with the crime of coercive control, with the potential consequence of seven years' jail time.

Even the minister, during her second reading speech in the other place, acknowledged the possibility of this legislation being weaponised to inflict further torment on victims through perpetrator misidentification, where police might mistakenly attribute guilt to a victim who is acting in defence or retaliation to controlling behaviour and ultimately incorrectly charge the victim with the offence of coercive control, or where the perpetrator flies under the radar, having gaslit their victim into a devastating web of lies and deceit. According to the minister, such injustice will be easily averted by consideration of the broader context of the relationship, in particular the power dynamics and relative freedoms enjoyed by the parties, which should direct authorities to an accurate conclusion.

It is abundantly clear from the minister's speech that the only accurate conclusion to be made is: women are always the victims and men are always the abusers. The minister accurately declared that we must refuse to accept any woman being abused in any way, and we must take real action that drives change and empowers women to live their lives freely and safely. But what about the men who are abused? Do male victims not deserve at least some acknowledgement and advocacy? In the minister's own words, the current laws severely limit how police can help women unless physical violence is involved.

For too long, the minister stated, too many people have sadly asked, 'Why doesn't she leave?', whereas now the more relevant question, according to the minister, has become, 'Why doesn't he just stop?' This narrative of male perpetrator/female victim was further reinforced by the Attorney-General's second reading speech in this place, when it was stated that this new offence is needed to help women subjected to coercive control. The language and narrative are both clear: coercive control is a male crime perpetrated against female victims, and if this bill becomes law police will be expected to undergo thorough training to ensure they do not deviate from this narrative and misidentify female victims as perpetrators.

We need only to look to recent developments in Tasmania, where Dr Fiona Girkin has been counselled after going public about her involvement in a training program for police where she teaches the use of an evidence-based approach when assessing domestic violence situations. According to Dr Girkin there are just as many women being arrested under coercive control laws in Tasmania as men, but far more men actually end up being charged and, despite initially receiving support from Tasmanian police for her evidence-based approach, Dr Girkin has recently been stood down until an assessment has been completed.

These are worrying signs, given the South Australian proposal includes the ability to widen the scope of this offence merely by regulation. This would provide the executive arm of government with a considerable amount of power to not only expand on the definition of what constitutes criminal conduct under this offence but also determine how this offence is administered and enforced. Such measures only reinforce the view of many men that the Family Court and justice systems are designed to work against them, to presume men guilty, rather than provide men with a fair and equal hearing based on reliable, convincing facts and evidence.

While the stated intent of this bill is to prevent the escalation of domestic violence into more serious acts of harm, the concern is that the bill is the wrong tool to achieve that outcome, given there is widespread agreement that this bill is open to exploitation and legal abuse and could potentially cause more harm to the victims it seeks to protect. The Law Society maintains the position that the intervention orders act is a more appropriate and efficient mechanism in addressing coercive control as it has been designed to prevent acts of abuse.

The Law Society also notes that conduct capable of giving rise to an intervention order is sufficiently broad and flexible, defined to capture acts of coercive control and other concerning relationship behaviours before they escalate. Consequently, this bill comes with significant, widespread and legitimate concerns, and with the likelihood of this bill passing the need to accurately track and monitor how these concerns play out should be at the forefront of each institution of government as we work towards the review set down to be within four years' time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:17): I rise in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024. In doing so, I do acknowledge the enormous amount of work that brought this bill before this place on both sides of the parliament and by previous governments as well as this one.

The coercive control bill before us seeks to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, as well as the Evidence Act and the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act. It provides that where there is behaviour with a controlling impact within a relationship—and that relationship is defined as two people married, engaged, domestic partners, intimate personal relationship—where that controlling behaviour may restrict another person's freedom of movement, freedom of action, ability to engage in social, political, religious, cultural or economic activity, or restrict another person's ability to make choices with respect to their body.

I note that the Hon. Sarah Game did mention the restriction of, for example, birth control, or that this controlling behaviour restricts another person's ability to access basic necessities or support services or property. That restriction may be physical, verbal, by the use of deception or other behaviours. Where that is able to be proven, in fact the perpetrator may well face a time in jail of up to seven years.

This is a serious piece of legislation for a serious community issue. I note that the Law Society advice made a suggestion to this council and to this parliament that animal abuse, which was in an original draft of this legislation, had been left out. I have an amendment that I filed to rectify that, and that amendment would ensure that where harming an animal was involved it would fall under the definition of coercive control within this new soon-to-be, I believe, act. I will speak further to that amendment when we get to that particular clause in the bill.

I do not propose to speak too long today. This legislation has been a long time coming. As I say, advocates not just in this state but right around the country have long fought for this and fought for us to get it right. I think this piece of legislation that we have before us is a good start. I am very comforted that it will have a review, because I think it is a very cautious approach that does need to be reviewed to make sure that it is in fact doing the job that we need it to do—and we need it to do that job for those who are subject to coercive control in our state.

A couple of months ago I was doomscrolling on Facebook, as one does on a Sunday morning, and a post was put there by an old friend who was a work colleague once upon a time and with whom I had kept in close contact at first, after we had finished working together. I had not seen her for years, but I had seen her photos on Facebook, I had seen her happy family, I had seen what I thought to be her loving relationship, and I thought she was doing well. Her post read:

For a long time, I did not even realise it was abuse. There were no bruises. Just quiet control trying to erase who I was.

And while everything on Facebook looked happy, that too was controlled. What you saw was carefully edited to fit the version of our life he was happy for me to share.

I doubted my own memory and judgement. He stalked me at work, tracked my car, he told me he cloned my phone, and flooded me with calls and texts every day.

Even a quick trip to the supermarket could trigger him to the point that if I took too long in his eyes he would turn up under the guise of he missed me.

At home, he hovered over me, checked who I was messaging, he would wake me up in the middle of the night accusing me of being online even in my sleep while I was right next to him, and he put down anyone who I cared about at every opportunity.

If you were a friend, family member, or colleague, maybe you remember me going quiet after receiving a text or leaving suddenly after a call. Truth is I was just trying to avoid the fallout of the silent treatment that would follow.

The worst, secretly recording me in our home, one time I know for sure but the scary thing is I don't know how many times before this happened before I found out.

I am not sharing this for sympathy. I am not going to pretend it didn't happen just to make others feel more comfortable.

It wasn't my fault and I am not ashamed.

I am angry because this kind of abuse is still happening to people and many do not even realise it has a name.

This is what Coercive Control looks like. It is subtle, manipulative, and scary how easy it is to hide.

If something feels off, it probably is.

I say to my former work colleague and friend: this legislation sees you, it makes sure you are not erased and it gives a name, in the law, to what happened to you, which we hope will never happen to others. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:24): I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024. This legislation presents much-needed reform and is an important step forward in our collective efforts to address an insidious and often invisible form of domestic violence. It is horrifying that in 99 per cent of domestic violence related homicides, coercive control was a key factor in the lead-up to that devastating final outcome, and yet it is not currently recognised as a criminal offence.

For too long our legal system has focused narrowly on physical violence, leaving victim survivors of coercive control without adequate protection or justice and severely limiting how police can help if physical violence is not involved. This bill recognises that abuse is not always physical and that ongoing patterns of psychological manipulation, isolation, humiliation, intimidation and control can be utterly damaging and destructive.

Coercive control is a deliberate and sustained pattern of behaviour designed to force someone to behave in a certain way, taking away their autonomy and imposing the perpetrator's will. It is a form of domestic abuse that erodes a person's sense of self, their freedom and their ability to make choices. It is a form of abuse that traps victims in perpetual fear, often without leaving a single bruise. Those invisible damages can be dangerous and harmful and must be addressed.

I wish to acknowledge the significant amount of consultation that has gone into the drafting of this bill and convey my deep respect and admiration of the survivors of coercive control who have courageously and generously shared their experiences and lent their voices to this important reform. Thank you also to the frontline service providers and legal experts who have contributed to this legislation.

Just this week, the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence has publicly released its findings and made 136 recommendations to address what Commissioner Natasha Stott Despoja labelled as a statewide crisis. More than 5,000 community members bravely shared their experiences, with the commission receiving more than 330 submissions.

The bill will be an important step to addressing this scourge and fundamentally changing how we understand and respond to domestic violence. The bill introduces a new offence into the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, targeting coercive control within intimate partner relationships. It defines coercive control as a course of conduct that a reasonable person would consider is likely to have a controlling impact on another person. This includes restricting a person's freedom of movement, bodily autonomy and ability to engage in social, cultural, economic, religious, or political life.

Importantly, the bill recognises that abusive control can be exerted through physical, verbal, psychological and even indirect means. Whether it is forbidding a partner from working, isolating them from friends and family, controlling what they wear, eat or buy, monitoring their every move or manipulating their access to finances, these behaviours will now be recognised as criminal.

The legislation is not about criminalising ordinary relationship conflict that happens in almost all relationships, it is about identifying and addressing patterns of behaviour that are intentionally designed to dominate, control and cause harm. The bill includes safeguards to ensure that only serious and harmful conduct is captured and provides a defence where the course of conduct was reasonable in all circumstances. It is important that we avoid perpetrator misidentification, where the victim is incorrectly treated as a primary aggressor, and ensure that this new offence is not weaponised by perpetrators to further torment and harm their victims.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the harm caused. It also acknowledges the impact on children who have witnessed coercive control, recognising them as victims in their own right. This is a vital element, as we know that children exposed to domestic abuse suffer long-term emotional and psychological consequences.

Although abusive control can occur in different social contexts and in other kinds of relationships, this bill focuses solely on coercive control in abusive intimate partner relationships, because of its prevalence as a precursor to domestic homicide. I understand that there will be significant lead time for the commencement of this bill, to ensure that the education campaigns and training for police and support services are appropriately designed and implemented.

It has been a privilege to work closely with many incredible multicultural organisations that provide vital support services to our culturally and linguistically diverse communities. As the longest serving member of parliament in the portfolio of cultural affairs, I am keenly aware that education and training about this new offence must be culturally sensitive, firstly to avoid unintended consequences, such as misidentifying perpetrators, and also to recognise controlling behaviours that may be culturally specific.

I welcome the provision for a statutory review of the offence after three years. This will ensure that the legislation is operating effectively and continuously to meet the needs of victim survivors and the justice system. Coercive control has no place in our society, and this bill will provide stronger protections for women and families affected by domestic violence. It will enable police and prosecutors to intervene earlier, before abuse escalates to physical violence, and it will hopefully save lives. I indicate that I will consider other amendments that have been proposed, and with those remarks I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:31): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024 on behalf of the Greens and to indicate that the Greens are supportive of this move to create a new offence of coercive control. I might just note that it is always refreshing when we see all sides of politics in this chamber coming together. I think it demonstrates the gravity with which the parliament takes this matter.

I acknowledge the leadership of the two major political parties in this place, in that this was a reform that was initiated by the previous Liberal government. They did some work in this space and it has been continued under the leadership of the Malinauskas Labor government. I think that is a good template for how we can approach reform in this regard. It is an important issue, and I welcome the fact that all political parties are supportive of wanting to finally legislate in this area.

I also note that we are dealing with this bill this week, when the royal commission has handed down its report into domestic, family and sexual violence. I have not had the opportunity to finish going through the report—obviously, it is a dense and comprehensive document—but I have had a chance to read through some of the recommendations. I want to use this opportunity to thank the commissioner, Natasha Stott Despoja, for her leadership and the work of her team, and also all of those brave South Australians who have shared their stories with the commission.

It takes a lot of courage to talk about difficult and traumatic events in people's lives, but I know that as legislators those stories are really vital to us, because they help us make decisions and change the law appropriately. I want to thank everybody who has participated in that process and to indicate from my perspective that I am very keen to work with the Malinauskas government to take the steps necessary to implement the recommendations of the report to the extent that legislation is required. I am very keen to work with the government to do that.

We know that coercive control is a form of abuse perpetrated in domestic and family violence. As a society, our understanding of abuse has changed over time, and we now know that coercive control is a key factor in many abusive situations.

As a behaviour used by perpetrators to maintain control over another person, coercive control underpins family and domestic violence and intimate partner violence. It can be used to deprive the person of their autonomy or their agency. It can take the form of emotional abuse, harassment, financial abuse or technological abuse. It can be difficult to detect from the outside of a relationship as these can be controlling behaviours that can present as part of everyday life, and power can be exerted in covert ways and often behind closed doors.

The Personal Safety survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics collects data about emotional and economic abuse. We know that women are more likely to have experienced emotional and economic abuse; that is well documented. Indeed, one in four women and one in seven men have experienced emotional abuse by a partner in Australia, and these are worrying statistics.

Domestic homicide statistics demonstrate the pattern of coercive control that can lead to deaths resulting from domestic violence. Of primary domestic violence abusers who killed their current or former female partner, 82 per cent exhibited emotional or psychological abuse, and 63 per cent had restricted the social support networks of their partner. The relationship between violence and coercive control is well documented.

The move to legislate against coercive control has been started across the country. In New South Wales and Queensland, coercive control is now an offence. Western Australia is taking a phased approach by reforming their restraining orders legislation. Victoria's family violence laws address some forms of coercive control through their family law, but it is not considered a separate offence.

Tackling coercive control at the earliest stages is one way we can begin to prevent domestic and family violence. Early warning signs, such as love bombing, gaslighting or financial abuse, are important in detecting what may escalate to coercive behaviours and potentially violence. We acknowledge that consultation work for this bill began under the previous government and that coercive control reform has been a long process, and has been comprehensive and well considered.

The bill has taken the approach to create an offence where a person engages in behaviour that has a controlling impact on another person. Controlling impact is defined as restricting freedom of movement, freedom of action, the ability to engage in social, political, religious, cultural or economic activities, the ability to make choices related to someone's body or their right to access services.

We believe this reform will have a positive impact in starting to prevent abuse from escalating to more serious and potentially devastating situations. It is vital for us also to be looking at prevention. No more women should die at the hands of a domestic partner. No more people should be subject to violence in their homes. This is an important reform and an important step that the parliament is taking and the Greens are proud to support it.

I understand that some amendments have been filed. I note the amendment from the Hon. Tammy Franks. I thank her for putting that forward. I think she has raised an important issue and, of course, I will be supporting that amendment. I understand there were some further amendments in the name of the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I am not sure whether he is still intending to advance those. I am seeing some shaking of heads, so I understand not. I will obviously monitor the committee stage in that regard.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:38): I am pleased to rise to speak on the government's behalf on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill will create a new offence of coercive control in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Coercive control is a deliberate and abusive effort to control another person within a marriage or an intimate partner relationship. People who engage in such behaviour do not want an equal partnership and they have no interest in resolving conflicts through a healthy process of discussion and negotiation.

This bill focuses on intimate partner relationships in acknowledgement of the link between coercive control and intimate partner homicide and the need to focus resources on this extremely high-risk area. However, the government acknowledges that coercive control occurs in many relationships, such as between siblings, by children towards parents, or parents towards children, or even in non-family contexts, such as cults.

The new coercive control offence this bill proposes will not replace current domestic violence crimes; it works in addition to them. Because of this, an abuser can be found guilty of the standalone crime—e.g. assault—and of coercive control, either in the same trial or in separate trials, even though the evidence overlaps.

Recent evidence in South Australia shows coercive control is a serious statewide problem. The Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas MP, and the Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, the Hon. Katrine Hillyard MP, announced the release of the royal commission report this week, outlining how it brings clear confirmation that the risk of harm is real and urgent.

During consultation on this bill, we heard from the domestic violence sector and from victim survivors of coercive control that restrictions imposed on the victim and maintained by the perpetrator are mainly psychological, creating an atmosphere of fear within the relationship. Unfortunately, the web of control that is behind so many abusive relationships is currently invisible to our criminal law. For too long, the criminal justice system has only been able to address individual incidents of physical violence or threats of physical violence. If the abusive conduct does not involve any physical violence, police have been limited in what they can do to help an individual subject to coercive control.

Earlier this month, a survivor shared her story of living with years of coercive control by her ex-husband, who was recently convicted of aggravated assault. A woman in Bordertown was murdered by her partner, who then killed himself. We know these are not isolated incidents. SAPOL confirmed that during 2023-24 domestic violence contributed to an almost 70 per cent increase in reported murders.

As criminal law does focus on criminal violence, police have had few ways to protect women from non-violent coercive control. This bill will formally name the behaviours within our criminal justice system as an offence of coercive control. It will ensure the behaviours are understood as being a serious crime involving psychological entrapment. The elements of the offence of coercive control will be that:

the defendant acted in ways that had a controlling impact on the other person's life, or that a reasonable person would consider the behaviour was intended to have a controlling impact;

the defendant is or was in a relationship with the other person—that is, they were married, engaged, domestic partners or an intimate couple; and

a reasonable person would consider that the behaviour, referred to as 'course of conduct' in this bill, would likely cause physical or psychological harm.

A 'controlling impact' means restricting the victim's freedom, whether it is their freedom of movement, action, bodily autonomy or freedom to engage in social, political, religious, cultural, educational or economic activities of their own choosing.

Coercive control is proposed as a course of conduct offence. However, 'course of conduct' is not defined in the bill, as we do not want to rigidly restrict the offence by requiring a minimum number of incidents or a specific length of time. Consultations showed that a person using coercive control can rely on many tactics, so 'restrict' has a wide definition and plenty of examples are provided in this proposed legislation. The ultimate test is simply whether the victim had significantly restricted free will. Freedom is a spectrum with many shades, not an on/off switch. Consequently, judges and juries considering a charge of coercive control must consider how the perpetrator's behaviour impacted on the opinions and choices open to the victim.

In the context of the coercive control offence, a 'course of conduct' sees behaviour happening on multiple occasions with a sense of continuity and purpose between them—in this case, a deliberate act of control. It does not require relevant conduct to occur every day or for the controlling impact to be the same on each occasion. However, in general, a 'course of conduct' would require more than a few genuinely isolated incidents.

The bill does allow a perpetrator to be charged when the abuse happens in one long episode, as long as that episode is serious enough to count as an ongoing pattern. It also must meet other requirements, such as a reasonable person believing it would likely cause physical or psychological harm. This would mean a judge or jury should not consider the likely impact and intent of each individual behaviour in isolation but instead must consider the impact and intention of the behaviours as a whole and in combination with each other.

Before writing this bill, the government spoke with many community groups. A major worry they raised was misidentification. This is when police mistake the real victim for the aggressor. This problem especially hits Aboriginal women because of longstanding distrust of authorities. Misidentified victims can face charges, intervention orders and child protection action, and they often lose faith in the system. This bill has been designed from the beginning to ensure this new law could not be used by abusers to falsely accuse their victims of coercive control.

Under this bill, a person can avoid conviction if they prove their controlling behaviour was reasonable and necessary, for example, excluding a partner from the home for the safety of children or restricting access to money if they are likely to spend it on drugs, alcohol or gambling. The burden of proof in such examples would rest on the defendants proving the controlling behaviour was reasonable.

In this bill, the coercive control offence is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years. This maximum penalty reflects the seriousness of the offence. During consultation, the government heard that coercive control against an intimate partner also significantly affects the physical and mental health of any children within the household and that these children should also be considered victims and not mere witnesses. To acknowledge this, when sentencing a person for coercive control, the court must also consider how the offenders actions harmed any child who saw or was affected by the behaviour they witnessed.

This bill is the first attempt in South Australia to capture and criminalise a deeply complex phenomenon. For this reason, the bill mandates that a review of the offence must take place after the third but before the fourth anniversary of the commencement of this legislation.

On behalf of the government, I want to express our deepest gratitude to the quiet, persistent work of dedicated professionals and volunteers who support people affected by domestic violence. Their work does save lives, restore hope, and will remain indispensable as this new legislation takes effect.

In closing, I acknowledge the leadership of our Attorney-General, the Hon. Kyam Maher MLC, and the Minister for Women in the other place, the Hon. Katrine Hildyard MP. Their steadfast commitment to reforming our laws and championing survivors has been pivotal in bringing these changes to parliament and ensuring safer futures for South Australians. I also want to thank the commissioner, Natasha Stott Despoja AO, and her staff as well as the brave South Australians who shared their stories to help us do better in this space and bring about the necessary change in our society. I commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (16:50): I would like to thank each of the speakers who have contributed to this debate today. It has been a significant piece of work that has come together thanks to the insights of those who have lived the horrors of coercive control and experts across the DV sector and beyond.

In particular, I wish to acknowledge some of those key contributors and above all the brave victim survivors of coercive control and other domestic, sexual and family violence who came forward to share their experiences, which were central to informing how this bill was drafted. I also want to place on record our thanks to those who have dedicated their time, effort and much of their working lives to supporting victim survivors, people like my late mother, who spent many years working as a social worker and then the administrator of the women's shelter in Mount Gambier.

I want to acknowledge the loved ones of those whose lives were cut short, including Sue and Lloyd Clarke, parents of Hannah Clarke and grandparents of Aaliyah, Laianah and three-year-old Trey, all of whom were tragically murdered in an unthinkable final act of domestic violence in 2020. Sue and Lloyd's strength to advocate for the criminalisation of coercive control right around Australia, not just in their home state of Queensland, and raise awareness of its dangers is truly remarkable.

I want to acknowledge and thank each of the stakeholders who attended the government's public consultation round tables, which spanned areas from the disability sector, aged care, older persons advocacy groups and legal sector experts, as well as representative bodies and individuals from Aboriginal communities, culturally and linguistically diverse communities and LGBTIQ+ communities.

A special thanks to the members, as I said, who have contributed today on the bill, but in particular I want to thank firstly the Hon. Tammy Franks, whose advocacy, dedication and work supporting women and girls is extraordinary and very well known and appreciated. I also want to thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who has made a very significant contribution in this area and is extraordinarily well respected in this sector for her work. You just have to listen to her speak on this issue to know how much she cares about these sorts of laws and making sure we support victim survivors in this area. Thank you, Tammy and Michelle, in particular.

To the Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence in the other place, the member for Reynell, the Hon. Katrine Hildyard MP, who has been an absolute champion of this reform and in this area for decades: thank you, Katrine, for your dedication and passion.

I also thank those in the South Australian public sector who have done so much work in this area, people from the Office for Women, the Attorney-General's Department and ministerial advisers but in particular those legal officers in legislative services within the Attorney-General's Department, who have done so much work to see this come to fruition. They are officers who came in in the first days of January, when everyone else was still on Christmas holidays, to tackle the really tricky issues of perpetrator misidentification and meet with those in the sector to get this work done and get us to where we are today.

It is remarkable dedication to an area that is incredibly complicated and incredibly difficult to reduce to things like pieces of legislation. It is not often you get to be involved in something that fundamentally slightly changes the fabric of our society, let alone something like this law that will not just change attitudes but will literally save lives. It is a remarkable thing to be involved in, so thank you to those legal officers who have done so much to get to where we are today.

It is quite a timely moment for this bill to be passing its final stages of parliament with the report of the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence being handed down earlier this week. The royal commissioner, Natasha Stott Despoja AO, and her team have worked incredibly hard over the past 13 months. I wish to sincerely thank Commissioner Stott Despoja and her team, headed up by Kim Eldridge, who have done remarkable work preparing a report of more than 600 pages with 136 recommendations, a few of which we traversed during question time today. I am pleased that we have already committed to accepting an initial seven recommendations that then will help guide consideration of the further 129 recommendations, which we are committed to considering by the end of this year.

I acknowledge the reference that the report makes to this legislation that we are speaking of today and its focus on the importance of a carefully considered implementation period. Page 61 of the Royal Commission report reads, in part:

How the new offence is implemented, including the time frame for implementation, is paramount. The Commission has heard that the implementation of a new coercive control offence represents a clear opportunity to transform South Australia's current understanding of domestic, family and sexual violence from an incident-based approach to recognising that coercive control almost always underpins domestic and family violence and can include physical or non-physical abusive behaviours, or a combination of both.

With the royal commission report having been heavily informed by the experience of victim survivors, I would like to take just a moment to read some of the quotes from some of the brave respondents that highlight why this legislation is so crucial. One person said in that report:

I was told who I was and wasn't allowed to hang around with, was required to be home by a certain time and the multiple times that I attempted to leave, he would threaten to harm to me, or himself. When I finally built the courage to leave and did leave, the violence significantly escalated. I was accused of cheating, physically assaulted and had over $7000 of property destroyed by my ex.

Another victim survivor shared:

During the time that my ex and I lived together I was often denied food…and was only allowed to have it when he was home.

These sorts of harrowing experiences are chilling to hear, yet these are the sorts of behaviours from perpetrators that have gone largely unrecognised in our current criminal law. This bill is set to change that.

I look forward to the final stages of the passage of this bill here and then the significant task of implementation of the bill officially commences. That is where the rubber really hits the road. One of the most common pieces of feedback the government received during the extensive consultation period for this legislation was to not rush the implementation stage.

As the Royal Commission has aptly highlighted, while the legislation is naturally a crucial first step in criminalising coercive control, it is the work done in preparation for the offence commencing that is arguably the most fundamental piece of groundwork to ensure its effectiveness. Public education and training of frontline service providers, including the police, the DPP, courts and other services, will be critical to it being a success. I again thank all who have contributed to this, all members who have made a contribution today and look forward to the smooth passage of this bill through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 3, after line 20 [clause 5, inserted section 20B(1)]—After the definition of in a relationship insert:

physical harm has the same meaning as in section 21;

Currently, the coercive control defence in this bill requires proof that a reasonable person would consider the course of conduct to be likely to cause the victim either physical injury or psychological harm. This government amendment makes a technical change to this element to use the phrase 'physical harm' instead of just 'physical injury', and to define physical harm to match other uses of the phrase in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 4, line 31 [clause 5, inserted section 20B, examples]—After 'or a child of' insert ', or animal belonging to,'

My amendment would include animal abuse in the definitions of the behaviours that constitute coercive control, in line with the 2023 iteration of the draft bill where it clarified that 'harming an animal' may 'constitute behaviour that has a controlling impact'. I note that the Law Society of South Australia has made specific reference to this in their submission of 15 October 2024, in points 13 to 15, with their Animal Law Committee noting that the revised bill had removed this reference.

While animal abuse is referenced in the legislation in an example about being convicted of another offence like animal cruelty, it is not explicitly currently listed as a form of control. The Animal Law Committee queried why the direct reference to animals had been removed and noted that, while it could still be established that acts of animal cruelty can enliven the offence, prosecutions may be made needlessly difficult by omission of the direct reference to harming an animal. The Law Society of South Australia president, Marissa Mackie, has stated, 'The coercive control legislation needs to be as specific as possible.'

It is not just the Law Society which has called for this. I note that domestic violence victim survivor groups and animal charities—notably the RSPCA, with whom I have directly consulted on this amendment—support this move. Sadly, as the Law Society's Animal Law Committee has noted, pets can be weaponised in domestic and family violence circumstances, with particularly women often staying in violent and abusive relationships to protect their pets.

Domestic violence workers relate common stories of tactics used by perpetrators, including psychological threats to harm or even kill pets as a way of intimidating or hurting their victims, which is part of the coercive, controlling behaviours of intimidation that this bill is very much designed to address. If people cannot take their pets with them, victims are often forced to choose between weighing up their own safety against the safety of their pets.

Adelaide-based charity Safe Pets Safe Families founder Ms Jennifer Howard, who runs an animal foster program, in her address to the South Australian Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence in March this year gave her firsthand testimony of how she had seen this animal-human bond get weaponised. I quote her:

I've had some cases where a perpetrator has harmed the pet in front of the victim and said, 'You'll be next' to control them.

That if they don't return home, 'this is what's going to happen' to their animal, so a lot of the time that's what draws people back to the house.

There is extensive evidence and research on this matter, and the RSPCA, as I have noted, is well aware of this issue too. Indeed, RSPCA Victoria's Community Outreach Manager, Dr Lauren Roberts, found that up to 71 per cent of victim survivors reported that their partners had threatened, harmed or even killed their pets. So this is very much a live issue in this space, and I look forward to this council protecting victim survivors by protecting their pets.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The original bill that went out to consultation included a substantive clause that had a list of examples of what might be coercive control, and that did include animal abuse. There was a concern raised by many key stakeholders that, by having a specific list, it may be misinterpreted as an exhaustive list and that any behaviours that fell outside of those specifically listed may not be investigated or prosecuted as much as those that are listed. That was the reason that the change was made from that substantive clause, not to specifically list things that included abuse of an animal.

The way that this has been reinserted we think runs much less risk of that occurring, and being seen as an exhaustive list—the way it has been reinserted after 'or a child of' to ', or animal belonging to'. Certainly, the removal was not in any way thinking that animal abuse cannot form coercive control, but was in fact in response to stakeholder concerns that it might have the unintended consequence of limiting how this act was interpreted and implemented, but we think that this is a way that largely reduces that possibility, so the government will be supporting the way it is done here.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am pleased to hear the explanation from the Attorney-General. I did attend some briefings on this legislation. I would also like to extend my thanks to the good officers of the AGD, who I understand have grappled with the complexities of this legislation. I do recall some of those discussions taking place about the merits or otherwise of exhaustive lists in terms of being able to identify behaviours. I am pleased that the risk of including this amendment is not going to cause the potential unintended consequences that might otherwise have been. For the record, as I said in my second reading speech, the Liberal Party acknowledges that harm to pets can often be a precursor to further escalation of behaviours, and it is important that it is recognised in the law, given that it is such a prevalent thing that takes place in these situations.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 5, line 35 [clause 5, inserted section 20C(1)(d)(i)]—Delete 'injury' and substitute 'harm'

This is very similar to the amendment that I moved before that was in relation to physical injury and the language 'physical harm' for consistency as it is described in other places in our legislation.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:08): 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