<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2013-02-21" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="4471" />
  <endPage num="4541" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Criminal Law Consolidation (Aggravated Offences) Amendment Bill</name>
      <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000130">
        <heading>CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (AGGRAVATED OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000131">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000132">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000133">(Continued from 29 November 2012.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="2819" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. R.B. SUCH</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Fisher</electorate>
          <startTime time="2013-02-21T11:14:00" />
          <page num="4479" />
          <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000134">
            <timeStamp time="2013-02-21T11:14:00" />
            <by role="member" id="2819">The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:14):</by>  I will make a brief contribution. The member for Waite through this bill expresses his concern and seeks action in relation to helping to protect in particular healthcare workers, practitioners, ambulance officers and so on. I find it disgusting and disgraceful that anyone would want to attack health professionals. Some years ago when I was in the Royal Adelaide for my famous operation, I was astounded to see that there was a requirement for security guards—basically, bodyguards—in wards. I think that is an indication of the low point we have reached in our society, when we need security guards in wards as well as nurses, doctors and other health professionals.</text>
          <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000135">I understand the rationale of the member for Waite, but I doubt whether the sort of people who are likely to attack a doctor, nurse or any other health professional would be considering in their mind, at that time, that there would be an increased penalty if they attacked that person. The same would apply in relation to attacking a police officer: I do not think the sort of person who would attack a police officer or a doctor would think rationally, 'Gee, if I attack this person I'm going to get a heavier penalty than if I attack someone else.'</text>
          <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000136">Nevertheless, I think it is good to have a wider range of options so that if someone does the low act of assault or similar on a health professional, the court has a stronger remedy in terms of expressing the abhorrence and disgust of the community at that sort of behaviour. I am not convinced that the potential offender would weigh up in their mind that they would cop a heavier penalty if they attacked a nurse or doctor than anyone else. If it does deter someone that is great, but I think the benefit would be that the court would have the capacity to have a much heavier penalty imposed on the offender.</text>
          <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000137">I support the intention of the member for Waite. I think he is directing things in the right way, but I am a little apprehensive as to whether it will bring about a fundamental change in the behaviour of the lowlifes who attack medical professionals.</text>
          <text id="201302211ea17352eaf742e180000138">Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>