House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Child Sex Offence Charges CHILD SEX OFFENCE CHARGES Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:11): On Saturday, a 57-year old man, known as Mother Goose in a number of media reports over the last few years, was formally charged with 25 counts of child sex offences, allegedly in respect of six victims between 1983 and 1995. I raise this issue today not because I am in any way critical of those charges having been laid but because on 19 July 2005 Commissioner Mullighan, in his inquiry in relation to child sex abuse, sent a letter to the Police Commissioner— The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I believe it is true that a man has been charged with many serious offences, most of them indictable, and I am wondering if, under the rules of sub judice given that this will go to a jury trial should he be committed, it is appropriate under the standing orders and practice of the house for the member for Bragg to be running a commentary on that man and his trial. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not yet heard the direction that the deputy leader's remarks are to take, but I know she is well aware of the need for caution in these circumstances and I will listen attentively to remind her if necessary. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will confirm, given the matter raised by the Attorney, that in fact everything I have said so far was published in Saturday's Advertiser, and I do not intend to traverse the issues in respect of his guilt or otherwise. What I propose to raise today is, in fact, the conduct of the Attorney-General. This is a matter that had been referred to the police by Commissioner Mullighan, as I said, on 19 July 2005. The Premier was asked a question in parliament on 8 April 2008 relating to why this man had not been charged. On 10 April 2008 the Attorney-General provided a statement to this house in which he said: Information provided by the Commissioner of Police establishes that Brad Shannon's complaints— which is nothing to do with the identity of Mother Goose— about police handling of this matter are without foundation. On the same day, the Attorney-General was asked whether he knew Mother Goose had provided evidence of prosecution in 1996, to which he replied that he would get a report. We have never had that report. We have never had an answer to the questions raised, and I ask the question again: why has the Attorney-General, having had notice of this matter by Commissioner Mullighan's referral of this in July 2005, and its having been raised in this parliament, not obtained that report? If he has, why has he not told this parliament (he had an opportunity today to do so if he had it) why it took 4½ years for this man to be charged? Where is that report? If the Attorney-General has the report, why has he not made that inquiry of the Commissioner as to the explanation for that? That is the question that remains unanswered. He has utterly failed to produce that report. He had an opportunity here today, if he has it, to table it. It has taken 4½ years for this man to be charged. If it is dealt with in the same incompetent manner in which the Attorney-General told the house today that he is not even going to direct that the Coroner deal with 75 dead people in the last five days (if he is not going to do it already), then it is a shameful act on behalf of the Attorney-General. He needs to inform this house what is going on. The second matter I want to raise is that, after the glory of the magnificent race that we have had with the cyclists and Lance Armstrong here, I want place the following on the record. We are told that $1 million has been given to Mr Armstrong, and he is welcomed here and we have had a great event (this is a great Liberal event, I might add, that has continued). However, while that is going on and while the Premier is parading out there in relation to bicycle activity, we have had the third bicycle accident on Waterfall Gully Road since the minor repairs were carried out by this government in August last year following the death of a cyclist, which has been condemned publicly. The member for Mawson had the audacity to stand in this house on 12 November last year and say this: 'The road is really a very good one to ride on', etc. The Hansard record speaks for itself, and we want some action— Time expired.