House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Child Protection CHILD PROTECTION Mr PISONI House of Assembly Unley CHILD PROTECTION Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:55): Supplementary, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: There are a lot of supplementaries. Mr PISONI House of Assembly Mr PISONI: What did the Minister for Education do to immediately protect the children who were placed in danger by this gymnasium operator, who were being— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I think we have got the idea. Mr PISONI House of Assembly Mr PISONI: —left in the care of a man charged with child sex offences? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Unley will resume his seat. Attorney-General. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister for Business Services and Consumers The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:56): Let me just get a couple of things clear. First, this individual is not, and has at no relevant time been, an employee of the minister's department or, indeed, any of the agencies attached— Mr Marshall interjecting: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Beg your pardon? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The leader is warned for the second time. That is his final warning. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: The minister has no direct employment relationship with this particular individual through which the minister could give any direction to one of her instrumentalities or departmental officers, or anything of the sort. The second thing that we need to bear in mind in relation to this matter, and I have made some inquiries about this, is that this individual was on bail. The conditions of bail were—as I understand it and as I am advised—that this individual was not to be in a situation where they were in the presence of a child under the age of 17 years unless the child was accompanied by another adult and they were not to physically touch any child under the age of 17 years. Those bail conditions were, I believe, police bail conditions attached to the original release of the individual from custody. The situation is that a person who is released on police bail, in the absence of a breach of that police bail and until such time as their matter is determined or the bail order is otherwise varied, is entitled to remain at liberty subject to those conditions. The situation in this case was that that is exactly what was happening to this individual. Mr Speaker, can I say this, and this is some information which might assist the honourable member in understanding the extent to which SAPOL was attempting to keep an eye on this individual. I am advised that, since the time of this individual's initial arrest, SAPOL officers have been monitoring compliance with the bail conditions by covert attendance at the place of work. Bear in mind the place of work is not a place where this individual is an employee: it is a place of work where this individual actually is the business owner and operator. It is my information—I have been advised by SAPOL—that, as I said, SAPOL officers made, and have continued to make, covert visits to this individual's place of work and during those visits I am advised that SAPOL did not detect any occasions where there was a breach of the bail conditions. SAPOL saw this as an important part of monitoring this individual as part and parcel of the bail conditions. In addition to this, I have been advised that SAPOL took the further step of initiating a human source in position to provide information regarding this individual's compliance and there was no information supplied by this person, either, indicating any breach of the bail conditions. In those circumstances, given that the minister had a direct role in respect of this individual by reason of this person being a departmental officer, and given that SAPOL had taken the entirely appropriate and, actually, very thorough steps of making inspections and having a human source around the place, none of that having revealed any information which was sufficient for them to then take that forward to ask a court to exercise discretion to vary the bail conditions, it is difficult to see what the minister, in particular, but SAPOL or anybody else, in the absence of evidence, could have successfully applied to a court to have varied. The legislation that is to be introduced into the parliament this afternoon will overcome this issue because there will be a presumption in favour of strict bail conditions and it will be an exception to get out of those conditions, not an exception to get in to them. The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Davenport says it is anticipating debate. Well, the bill is not before the house; it hasn't been introduced. The member for Unley.