House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time National Child Sex Offender Register NATIONAL CHILD SEX OFFENDER REGISTER Mrs GERAGHTY House of Assembly Torrens NATIONAL CHILD SEX OFFENDER REGISTER Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (14:10): Can the Premier advise the house as to how many individuals are registered in the South Australian section of the national child sex offender register? The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly Ramsay Premier Minister for Economic Development Minister for Social Inclusion Minister for the Arts Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change NATIONAL CHILD SEX OFFENDER REGISTER The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:10): The Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 is one of the many initiatives this government and this parliament have introduced to help protect children from abuse by sexual predators. One of the hallmarks of this government has been our commitment to change the law to redress any imbalance in the criminal justice system that favoured the interests of the offender over the victim. Nowhere has that been more evident than the laws relating to sexual offences against children. The registration of child sex offenders is but one of the measures we have adopted, and it is important to understand the overall reform context in which we introduced that register. We removed the statutory limitation on the prosecution of sexual offences. That meant that offences which occurred— Mr Williams House of Assembly Mr Williams: You didn't do that, Mike; Andrew Evans did that. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: We removed the statutory limitation on the prosecution of sexual offences. Mr Williams interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Deputy leader, behave. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: That means that offences which occurred prior to 1982, including offences against children, can be properly investigated and, in appropriate cases, prosecuted. This was not the case in the past, so rapists and paedophiles who committed these crimes in the 1960s and 1970s went scot-free. Perhaps most importantly, child victims of sexual abuse, who as children lacked confidence to come forward or were too afraid or intimidated to come forward to report sexual abuse, can still seek justice and bring their abuser to account for their repulsive behaviour. The latest information available to me on how many prosecutions have occurred since the change in the law that this parliament made, that would have otherwise been impossible, indicates that 48 offenders have been found guilty of more than 200 offences. Previously, they would have gone totally scot-free. We removed, as a parliament, this prohibition— Members interjecting: The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: Well, you might not have supported it, but we did. The parliament removed the prohibition which allowed any sexual offences committed before 1982 to go free and not be prosecuted. We changed the law. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: But for these changes—and as a result— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: —48 offenders have been found guilty— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: —of more than 200 offences. But for these changes, these offenders would never have faced justice. I am now very pleased—and I am sure even members opposite are pleased—that these people who committed these crimes now live in fear. These offences included indecent assault, unlawful sexual intercourse and rape. Thirty-eight paedophiles— Mr Pisoni House of Assembly Mr Pisoni: Did they all go to gaol? The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: The member for Unley just asked the question whether they went to gaol. Thirty-eight paedophiles have been sentenced to imprisonment for terms of up to 25 years as a result of their charges and as a result of our changes to the law. So, if you want to interject—maybe you don't know much about the law. You certainly don't know much about the bankruptcy law. Mr PENGILLY House of Assembly Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for Finniss. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! I can't hear the member for Finniss. Mr PENGILLY House of Assembly Mr PENGILLY: Standing order 98: the Premier is debating the matter. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The Premier can answer as he chooses, and it was a broad-ranging question. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thirty-eight paedophiles have been sentenced to imprisonment for terms of up to 25 years as a result of their charges. They would have gone scot-free rather than being in gaol if we had not changed the law. This government has increased penalties fivefold for the possession of child pornography. It is now also an offence to procure and groom a child to engage in sexual acts and to film a child for procurement purposes, regardless of whether there was consent. Under other changes introduced, the courts are required now to give priority listing to trials of sexual offences where the alleged victim is a child. In sentencing child sex offenders, courts are required to ensure that child protection is the paramount consideration. Repeat sex offenders are now liable to increased penalties. The Supreme Court has been given the power to indefinitely detain sex offenders who are regarded by two psychiatrists to be unwilling, not just incapable of controlling their sexual instincts. Because paedophiles will exploit every means to pursue their deviant behaviour, including the internet, we have introduced new internet-focused paedophile restraining orders. These orders will prevent convicted paedophiles from using the internet and give police the power to ensure penalties and seize equipment to enforce internet bans. The Child Sex Offenders Registration Act creates a powerful new tool for police to monitor child sex offenders. They are listed. The register gives police access to information about where those offenders live, the cars they drive, their place of work, any changes in their appearance and any affiliation to clubs with children. Offenders on the register are required to notify the police of changes to this information. The act prevents child sex offenders engaging in child-related work or occupations. Currently, there are 1,145 people registered in the South Australian section of the national child sex offender register. In addition, there are 202 people who are currently in prison who will be included on the register as soon as they are released from custody. This government's commitment to dealing with the perpetrators of child sexual abuse reflects our abhorrence of the sexual exploitation of children. These are amongst the worst types of crime—crimes against children, crimes that rob children of their innocence and potentially damage their prospects for health and personal relationships for the rest of their lives. It is vitally important though that allegations of sexual abuse, whether the offences occurred against children or against adults, are properly investigated. If anyone comes to a member of parliament with allegations of sexual abuse or, indeed, of rape, we should all advise them to report that to the police immediately, because that is why we changed the law to allow historic cases—those from 30 or 40 years ago—to be investigated. Allegations should be referred to the police for investigation and then to the office of public prosecutions to determine whether the matter should proceed to prosecution. Parliamentary witch-hunts and vilification of individuals, unsupported by investigations by properly trained, skilled and authorised police, are a dangerous development. The use of elected office to carry out personal campaigns, unsupported by an official complaint, is reminiscent of a 1950s approach in the United States to the use or abuse of public office. A few years ago, as many members of this parliament will remember, a member of this house threatened to use parliamentary privilege to name people whom he suspected of sexual offences. Common sense prevailed, and I want to quote a former member of the South Australian Legislative Council. He said, and I want to quote: The worst thing is there are so many people in the community who are convinced, with no real evidence, that someone is guilty. I'm not saying that those involved intended this outcome, but it's just gone way out of control. That member of the Legislative Council was Senator Nick Xenophon, in 2005, commenting on threats to name someone who had been the subject of unsubstantiated and, indeed, false allegations of a sexual nature. So, naming a person in parliament, unsupported by evidence, rather than telling the complainant to go to the police, is really about publicity for the MP, because it is not about justice for the victims. MPs should tell people with these serious allegations to go to the police; that is why we changed the law to allow those cases to be investigated. This is a very serious matter. Any allegations of rape are a serious matter. We are not talking about weird behaviour, we are talking about criminal behaviour—criminal behaviour that can cause damage for generations, for a life. It's not to be played games with. The police and the Director of Public Prosecutions are the appropriate authorities, not naming people in parliament without evidence. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Can I just remind members of the government to be careful in the wording of their questions. On reviewing the question, it was a very broad-ranging answer; the information that you have given us, I think, was very important, but it was a fairly specific question that was asked.