House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Statutes Amendment (Anti-Bullying) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (ANTI-BULLYING) BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 5 April 2012.) Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:09): I indicate that the sentiments and intention of this bill, whilst meritorious, will not have the support of the opposition. Put simply, because the opposition considers that the legislation really duplicates existing law. There is no question that the number of high profile bullying events in the last few years—last year, particularly—have culminated in public outrage and the expectation that there be some sanction against this behaviour. The legislative approach, though, when there is an existing law, does raise the question of whether that is an effective instrument to do so. The bill proposes that the definition of bullying be 'some deliberate act that is designed to cause mental or physical harm'. Currently, under section 19AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 'a person stalks another, if on at least two occasions', a person engages in a range of intimidating acts, or: (iv)	acts in any other way that could be reasonably expected to arouse the other person's apprehension or fear; and (b)	the person— (i)	intends to cause serious physical or mental harm to the other person or a third person; or (ii)	intends to cause serious apprehension or fear. The bill adds to the list of intimidating acts to include: (ivc)	uses abusive or offensive words to or in the presence of a person; or (ivd)	performs abusive or offensive acts in the presence of a person; or (ive)	directs abusive of offensive acts towards the person; It is interesting to note that under the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 the same criteria are added to examples of emotional and psychological harm. Examples of this section are inclusive, that is, not limiting and not intended to be all-encompassing. In any case 'directing racial or...derogatory taunts at the person' is already included under 8(4)(l) of the act, as is 'an act of abuse against a person' or a threat to do so in section 8(6). The sentiment is clear, the public condemnation of this behaviour is patently clear, and the expectation here of members of this house ought be that the government act on these matters to ensure that there is some consequence. It is fair to say that the current Attorney has introduced some legislation to attempt to deal with some other aspects of bullying arising out of the famous schoolyard bullying case, when an assault had taken place and was filmed, apparently with the intent of publishing it on social media outlets, and the rest is well known. What is interesting about that example is that, obscene as the conduct was between the two children in the yard and the proposal to publish the filming of that event, it did serve one good thing in that instance, and that should not be forgotten—that is, that event had not been acted upon appropriately by the school or the education department; in fact, it had been kept concealed. There had been no reporting of this to the police, there had been no immediate advice to the parent of the victim concerned. That is just another example of where children are in an environment in which the public have a reasonable expectation that they will be properly cared for and protected, and they were not and it was concealed. Albeit for that filming, as unacceptable as the conduct was, if it was not for that filming, if it was not for the publication of that, that incident would not have been identified. So, sometimes out of an evil act comes some good, so I do want to put that in context. It is not uncommon for the government to react to a public outrage about something by coming in and effectively duplicating a law. The most extraordinary example of this is when I first came into the house and there had been bushfire problems. The government, in their wisdom, thought that they would deal with bushfire problems—in particular, arson attacks—by introducing a new offence of lighting a bushfire, and that would have a 20-year imprisonment penalty. They said that this was important, that it was going to be an important sanction in dealing with the arson events that resulted, often sadly, in shocking loss of life or property and that this was the way that the government was going to crack down on it. The reality was, and remains, that there is already on the statute books an offence of arson which has up to life imprisonment, but it did not stop the then premier, Mike Rann, parading in front of the cameras to condemn the people who had lit fires resulting in bushfires and causing property damage, or threat to life, or death, and being able to present to the public as though he was going to be the great champion of protection in this area by introducing a new piece of legislation that was going to be the protector. Of course, as is typical, there was an existing law on the statute books which required that there be a level of property damage which, I think, at that stage was $30,000 of property damage. It is hard to imagine when there is ever a bushfire that there isn't a threshold reached of $30,000 in property damage. Fencing alone, as many of the country members would know, is a piece of infrastructure that regularly goes. So even if sheds and houses and stock are saved, fences are destroyed and/or damaged to the extent that they need to be replaced. So, it is not uncommon for us to deal with events where, under this government, the government has come in and protested their action on a matter by introducing a duplicated law. The other absurd thing about the bushfire legislation is to criminalise the lighting of a fire as a separate criminal offence as, of course, many bushfires are not started by people who deliberately light them. They are started by accidents. They are mostly started by lightning strikes, as we experienced recently in the state, where hundreds of lightning strikes occur which result in a spark and a fire is started. Fortunately, often rain follows and they are extinguished, but nevertheless, again, it is not past the government to try and pretend they are the great fighter against a particular evil by duplicating a law. The merits of this bill, taken up by the member for Fisher, are to be applauded, but on the basis of duplication the opposition are opposing the same. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.