House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Child Protection CHILD PROTECTION Mr PISONI House of Assembly Unley Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:06): This week we have explored further the extraordinary situation of the bail and management of bail of a southern suburbs gym operator who has been a life member of Gymnastics SA for 20 years. He was charged with seven counts of child sex offences, six of those with children under the age of 12. A query was made to the minister's office about this person by a mother who had heard rumours in May this year that this particular gym owner had been charged with child sex offences. The parents contacted police first, who said they were not able to confirm or deny whether that person has been charged with child sex offences. They quoted section 71A of the Evidence Act, which provides that publication of such details is not allowed or is suppressed. It was very interesting that, when that person then also contacted the minister's office, the minister's adviser gave them the very same advice, that is, they could not tell them because of section 71A of the Evidence Act, and that is all clear in the email that was sent back to the parent. What is amiss in this whole sorry saga is that in November last year, before Mr Debelle started his inquiry, before he was granted royal commission powers (which he was declined on the two occasions when we asked previously), he made it very clear—and he pointed to a case in the 1980s to support his findings—that the Evidence Act did not prohibit private communication to people who were in a relevant position, people who were entitled to know. There was nothing to stop the minister's office or the police from telling these parents, confirming or denying, whether this person had been charged with child sex offences. Nearly six months after the minister's office and the government were advised that it was wrong to quote the Evidence Act in order to not be able to tell parents if somebody had been charged with child sex offences, the minister's office was still telling parents who made inquiries to her office about that. What is also interesting about question time today is that we heard it was a full month before the minister told the police minister or the Attorney-General about the charges laid against the alleged sex offender, and she only told them because she waited for her briefing, that she received on 7 June. She was not even able to give any details of what was in that briefing to the parliament today when she was asked a question. What we do know is that she did not tell the police minister nor did she tell the Attorney-General that this man was an employee of the Metropolitan Fire Service (because the police minister did not know) nor did she tell the Attorney-General that he had driven a bus full of children to Victoria in December of last year because the Attorney-General told radio this morning that he only heard and found out about that in the last 48 hours. The minister did not pass on the full details of her briefing or she is still giving incomplete or incorrect information from her department, the very same complaint that the previous minister, the member for Hartley had about her department, and, minister, nothing has changed. The Hon. J.M. Rankine House of Assembly The Hon. J.M. Rankine: You are a disgrace! The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The minister is warned for the first time. Has the member for Unley finished? Mr PISONI House of Assembly Mr PISONI: Thank you, sir. The Hon. J.M. Rankine House of Assembly The Hon. J.M. Rankine: I am not finished with him though. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The minister is warned for the second time.