Criminal Law Consolidation (Children and Vulnerable Adults) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 May 2018.)

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (16:50): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Children and Vulnerable Adults) Amendment Bill 2018 and commend the Attorney-General for her swift action in bringing this very important bill to the house. It is a shame that Labor did not progress this further last year. It went through the lower house and the Liberal Party was happy to pass it through the upper house but it sat on the Notice Paper and was not progressed prior to the election. So again I congratulate the Attorney-General on bringing this forward so soon into the new sitting term.

This bill addresses gaps in the law so that people who inflict serious injuries on children and vulnerable adults do not escape liability. One of the issues we have had previously was the definition of 'serious harm' being used, and that has now been changed to just 'harm'. This bill affects children, defined as a person under 16 years of age, as well as vulnerable adults. That means any person aged 16 years or above who is significantly impaired through physical disability, cognitive impairment, illness or infirmity.

For the purpose of division 1A, a reference to harm will be taken to include detriment caused to the physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child or vulnerable adult, whether temporary or permanent. Also for the purposes of this division, 'a defendant has a duty of care to a victim if the defendant is a parent or guardian of the victim or has assumed responsibility for the victim's care.'

There will also be an amendment, as I have mentioned, that 'serious harm' will be deleted and 'harm' substituted. Maximum penalties will also increase significantly; where a victim dies, imprisonment for life is available and in any other case imprisonment for 15 years. I believe prior to this it was only five years. A new section has also been inserted after section 14:

14A—Failing to provide food, etc. in certain circumstances

If—

(a) a person is liable to provide necessary food, clothing or accommodation to a child or vulnerable adult; and

(b) the person, without lawful excuse, fails to provide that food, clothing or accommodation,

that person is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

I know, from working as the Minister for Child Protection, that unfortunately a lot of harm and neglect is going on in our community to children and vulnerable people. Over the 16 years of the former Labor government there were many royal commissions and inquests: the Robyn Layton review in 2003, there were two Mullighan inquiries, there was the Debelle inquiry, the recent Nyland royal commission, and there has been a series of select committees and coroner's inquests where harm and neglect, death and serious injury have been raised regarding children.

We note that this still continues, so it is great to see that we have some legislation that will strengthen the ability of a judge to sentence adults who have committed offences against children. Many people would remember the house of horrors, which was a shocking blight on South Australia, where children were not being fed and there was severe neglect and extreme abuse. The bill will strengthen the ability of judges to give harsher sentences.

There was also the case of baby Ebony, who presented with a broken femur and was sent home with her family and later died from further injuries. The bill will help to rectify that issue, particularly where the people are responsible for those children. In fact, those responsible could be the state because we have 3,583 children under the guardianship of the state.

This legislation will cover all children and ensure that these children have the right to be considered, even though children are known to heal a lot quicker than adults, which is why the definition of 'serious harm' has been quite difficult to identify in the past. If an older person breaks a hip or a leg, that would definitely be considered a serious injury because of the time it would take to heal and the incapacity that would be created. However, with a child and even with the baby Ebony case, a baby can break the largest bone in their leg, in their body, and heal quite quickly, so it was hard for judges to determine that that was a serious injury. It is great that the bill will rectify that problem.

SAPOL and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have been consulted on this bill. When the bill was last before the house, the former government advised that it had consulted justice and child protection agencies. I commend the amendments to the house and look forward to the bill's speedy progression.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (16:56): I, too, rise to support the bill, which will address gaps in the law so that people who inflict serious injuries on children or vulnerable adults will not escape liability. The bill amends the offence of criminal neglect to better capture behaviour that was neglectful but was difficult to prosecute as it did not necessarily constitute serious harm as defined in the act. For example, babies will most likely recover from multiple fractures without lasting impact whereas an adult with the same injuries would likely suffer some permanent impairment.

'Serious harm' will be substituted with 'harm' to ensure it is capable of capturing injuries inflicted on children, notwithstanding a greater capacity to heal. This will extend to all acts and omissions that cause physical or mental harm, including detriment to physical, mental and emotional wellbeing, or to development. This also ensures that abusive or neglectful guardians can be prosecuted for cruelty in addition to specific offences under the current law.

The bill increases the penalty for neglect that causes harm to a maximum of 15 years' imprisonment and neglect that causes death to life imprisonment. This bill is so important because trauma can impair physical development early in the family life course where children and young people have intense negative experiences, such as child maltreatment, peer bullying and family violence, that are maintained over time. Stress and conflict can also undermine health and wellbeing through later life transition events such as family breakdown and relationship disputes.

I have read that the extended arousal of the nervous system and the release of stress hormones such as cortisol can incur damage at all life stages but can result in permanent damage to the development of the childhood brain and stress and immunity systems. Toxic stress is a risk factor, and we all see and hear about the health and social problems affecting cognitive and physical disability in our community, including poor educational outcomes, mental health problems, substance abuse and antisocial behaviour, and physical health problems due to greater infections, which can result in chronic lifelong health problems.

These risks from early childhood abuse have more severe effects in early years when the brain and biological systems are rapidly developing and hence are more vulnerable to being permanently damaged. These early experiences can cause lifetime vulnerabilities in immune and stress response systems that increase health and social problems later in life. Therefore, the consequences for criminal neglect must be a deterrent and send a strong message to our community that those who wish to harm a child or a vulnerable adult must face consequences.

This government is a caring government—it cares about people. It is a government that places the safety of children and those most vulnerable in our society at the forefront of its agenda. That is why this important legislation is a priority for the Marshall government, as it ensures that those who harm others are appropriately and quickly prosecuted for their actions. I am so proud to be part of a government that has listened to our community. When I was out doorknocking, I certainly listened to my community, who asked for stronger penalties for those who harm our most vulnerable, which is why I support the amendments in the bill today.

I thank and congratulate my colleagues, including the Attorney-General and the Minister for Child Protection, who continue to fight for and represent our most vulnerable in this house today. We care, we listened and we are acting now to create a safer South Australia. To my community in King, you have my commitment that I will continue to find more ways to strengthen the ability for our judges to give harsher sentences to anyone in our community who harms our most vulnerable.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:01): I am the lead speaker, and I rise to indicate the opposition's support for the Criminal Law Consolidation (Children and Vulnerable Adults) Amendment Bill 2018. The bill makes amendments to criminal neglect in section 14 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to remedy past problems regarding the prosecution of offenders for the criminal neglect offence.

It is worth noting that this bill is the same as the bill introduced by the previous Labor government during the last parliament. Hence, we think it is very well written, and excellently drafted, and we would encourage the Attorney to look at more of our excellent work and bring it to the parliament. We welcome that the new Liberal government is reintroducing the bill, as it did not get time to pass during the last sittings.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr PICTON: Well, I could talk about the outrageously long speeches from the then shadow attorney-general, but I might make some comments about her conduct in another bill. The Attorney-General in her second reading explanation asserted that the bill addresses problems experienced by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions arising from the definition of 'serious harm' in the current legislation as it applies to children who are the victims of offending.

Section 14 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 currently defines serious harm as:

(a) harm that endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person's life; or

(b) harm that consists of, or is likely to result in, loss of, or serious and protracted impairment of, a part of the body or a physical or mental function; or

(c) harm that consists of, or is likely to result in, serious disfigurement.

I understand that the limited definition of serious harm has proved problematic in establishing the offence. In practice, this has meant instances of serious neglect or serious harm have been unable to be prosecuted in a way that holds a parent or carer responsible for the maltreatment and harm caused to a child. The bill looks to address this gap by replacing the 'serious harm' provision with 'harm', which should improve the chances of successful prosecution of neglect of abusive parents or carers.

For example, where a child has healed rapidly from serious trauma, let's say broken arms and legs, prosecution of the offender has not been able to occur in a way that truly reflects the harm done to the child. The bill proposes to amend section 14 to delete 'serious harm' and substitute 'harm' in each case. The bill also proposes to delete the word 'unlawful' from section 14. I am advised that this has the effect of extending the offence of criminal neglect so that it will no longer be limited to death and serious harm resulting from an unlawful act, but it will now apply to death or any harm resulting from any act.

The bill also proposes a replacement to section 14(3)(a) to allow offences referred to in this bill procedurally easier to prosecute and establish harm was caused, without needing to establish the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to the victim.

This is a bill that the opposition supports. It is one that we brought to the parliament in the last parliamentary session. We think it is an important change to ensure that we can take action against what are serious offenders and ones that should be brought to justice. I am sure that all of us would like to think that this sort of offending does not occur in our society, but, sadly, it does.

Sadly, it is something that our police and child protection officers have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. We need to make sure that our laws that we pass through this parliament are robust enough to ensure that we can take action against those who seek to harm the most vulnerable in our society—our children. With those words, I indicate Labor's support for the bill and commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:05): I rise to speak to the Criminal Law Consolidation (Children and Vulnerable Adults) Amendment Bill 2018. The reason we are bringing this legislation to this place is that it addresses gaps in the law so that people who inflict serious injuries on children or vulnerable adults will not escape liability. This very same bill passed the House of Assembly in last year, in the time of the former Labor government, but lapsed in the Legislative Council upon the dissolution of parliament. As I indicated, it is identical to the one that lapsed.

The principal effect of this bill is that it amends the offence of criminal neglect to better capture behaviour which was neglectful and which was difficult to prosecute, as it did not necessarily constitute serious harm as defined in the act. For example, babies will most likely recover from multiple fractures without lasting impact, whereas an adult with the same injuries would likely suffer some permanent impairment. The label 'serious harm' will be substituted with 'harm' to ensure that it is capable of capturing injuries inflicted on children, notwithstanding a greater capacity to heal.

This will extend to all acts and omissions that cause physical or mental harm, including detriment to their physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or their development. This also ensures that abusive or neglectful guardians can be prosecuted for cruelty, in addition to specific offences, under the current law. The bill increases the penalty for neglect that causes harm to a maximum of 15 years' imprisonment and neglect that causes death to life in prison.

These penalties are significant. If there is neglect which causes harm, there is a maximum of 15 years' imprisonment, which is no small amount of time to have to reside at our Queen's pleasure, or life imprisonment where neglect causes death. That is why people need to make sure that we look after our most vulnerable, whether they be our children or whether they be adults. We saw what happened with the Oakden scandal where a minister from the former government completely took her eye off the ball. Obviously, there were major issues of neglect.

As children come into the world, you have to look after them and do everything for them. You have to feed them as babies, change their nappies and essentially do everything to make sure that you not only keep them alive but keep them happy and healthy. At the end of life, with what should be excellent aged care in whatever setting it is, or even if you are just looking after your own parents, grandparents or an elderly friend, they have the right to be looked after appropriately, whether that is in a private setting or in a facility, and that includes facilities like Oakden.

In the main, these things do work, but we saw what happened at Oakden—the terrible things that happened and the many families that were involved and the injustice caused to their loved ones. This is why we need to make sure that we have the appropriate legislative response. I acknowledge that it was legislation brought on by the former government.

We need to get it right because our society is only as good as how we tend to look after our must vulnerable, whether they are the youngest people in our care, the most elderly in our care or, through no fault of their own, people who have suffered a terrible accident or injury and need to be looked after, whether they are young or middle aged. People deserve to have that right, so there are serious offences if this bill becomes law and becomes an act and is not complied with. Certainly, you would like to think that, with the threat of 15 years for causing harm, people will take that onboard and do the right thing, particularly in regard to the potential for life imprisonment. It is not that hard.

Many of us have had a parent or loved one in an aged-care facility. My father was for many years. A long time before he left us three years ago, I would take him out for a drive and he would say, 'I must get home.' That is a nice thing to hear from a man who did not want to go in there in the first place because, as he used to say to me, he was not too happy because right next door was the funeral director. I said, 'Dad, it's inevitable, mate. It's what happens.' He realised that, and I must say that he was cared for excellently at Resthaven in Murray Bridge. So it can be done and I commend that facility.

They are building on in Murray Bridge. They are putting on 20 extra rooms and doing a big redevelopment. I think it is about a $16 million build. It is on a sloping site, so it has its difficulties. Work has been going on there since early last year, so the project has been ticking along for about 18 months. A lot of work went on at the back of the facility and there is a lot more work going on in the actual physical construction of the rooms fronting Swanport Road. With regard to that, I understand that, in looking after our elderly people in the local area, Lerwin, which is another facility that does excellent work in looking after the local aged people, is looking at expanding as well.

We just have to face up to it. We have an ageing population, and we will need more and more of these facilities to look after people as we all get older. It is inevitable that a percentage of people will end up in these facilities. Some families can manage—and this is not judgemental at all—to look after their aged loves ones, but for a whole range of circumstances sometimes you just need that expert care for your loved ones in these facilities that have the equipment. It is great to see the amount of different electronic equipment they can get to help people in and out of beds. You have equipment that is electronic combined with hydraulics, as well as electronic wheelchairs, which just makes the life of the person in the facility—and everyone around them—as good as it can be, and that is what we must do as a society.

We just have to make sure that we get it right, and as we do get older our population of aged people is going to expand. However, hopefully we will retain a lot more young people in this state under a Marshall Liberal government and stop some of that brain drain that has been exiting this state by about 7,000 people every year and that we will get a good young population staying in the state and working in the state.

With regard to having consultation on the bill, the South Australia Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have been consulted on the bill, and when the last bill was before the house the government had given us advice that it had consulted justice and child protection agencies. We just need to make sure that we get this legislation through this place. Obviously, because the former government presented it to this house in the last parliament, I cannot see any issues with that.

We certainly support the bill from this side. It is sad, really, that we have to legislate at this level when, just by people's nature, we should be able to look after vulnerable children and vulnerable adults. Obviously, as I have seen with different levels of legislation in this place, sometimes you just have to legislate for things where you think, 'Well, common sense will sort that out,' but there are always one or two rogue operators. It does not matter what part of society you are looking at or what part of legislation you are looking at, you have to legislate to a degree to the lowest common denominator. However, in saying that, I sincerely hope that, as a society, we never have to enact this legislation because that shows what society has got to.

Especially in a modern world, where we have access to so many things and gadgets that can make life that little bit better, as a society we should be able to use not just that equipment but also the skills we have learnt, with better access to better technology and better learning in the field of looking after our children and vulnerable adults to get the right outcome. If anyone is not prepared to do that, it is shameful, quite frankly. We need to make sure that we do our utmost to protect these children and adults.

Too many times, I have gone before the former child protection minister with issues about children and foster children. I have certainly seen some interesting outcomes for foster-parents who have been caught up in alleged cases of abuse. The systems are very tight, but it can be very distressing when people do not believe they have done anything wrong. Obviously, the agency has to be absolutely certain that foster-parents have not done the wrong thing by the children under the guardianship of the minister of the day.

It is a tough gig; it is a tough gig for anyone to attempt to get right. I have had several cases—not too many, thankfully—put in front of me. Thankfully, I have had the opportunity to put them in front of the minister of the day, or have some correspondence with the minister of the day, to get the best outcome for the situation. As I indicated earlier, we need to do the right thing. We need to look after our people. If as a society we cannot look after our most vulnerable children and adults, I am at a loss. I commend the bill.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:22): I rise to support the bill. At the outset, I note and welcome the opposition's indication that it will support the bill. That is unsurprising for the reason that this bill, for those who were present in the house prior to the recent election—and I am not among that number, being new to this place—will recall that this bill in identical terms passed the House of Assembly last year but lapsed in the Legislative Council upon the dissolution of parliament. This bill is in identical terms to that which passed this house last year, and it is brought back before the house in an orderly way in terms with which the house is already familiar.

I am pleased to note that SAPOL and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have been consulted on the bill. I understand that, when the bill was last before the house, the former government advised that it had consulted justice and child protection agencies. So here we are. It is important to note the background against which this legislation was introduced prior to the last election in this place and the circumstances in which it is now back before the house.

Presently, in this state there is no general offence of child abuse, cruelty or neglect. There is such a general offence in a number of other analogous jurisdictions, and those include the United Kingdom and New Zealand, as well as the state of Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. When coming to legislate for this offending, we are not in an environment where prosecutions can occur against a background of a general offence of abuse, cruelty and neglect.

In defining the present section 14 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, conduct is characterised by the result that it causes. Prior to this bill, conduct, the subject of section 14, was set at the threshold of causing death or serious harm, as defined. I pause there. Relevantly, in the circumstances of a carer of a vulnerable individual, where the rubber hits the road, for want of a better description in terms of assessing the sort of conduct that is being addressed here, we are very much concerned with harm being caused to either a child or a vulnerable adult.

Obviously, when death results, that is one clear set of circumstances. In many cases, the court has been called upon to determine whether or not an offence is made out by reference to the definition of serious harm. It is that which has therefore provided the relevant and high threshold for making out the offence. For the purposes of the section 14 offence of criminal neglect, as it is presently made out prior to the introduction of this legislation, serious harm is currently defined to mean:

(a) harm that endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person's life; or

(b) harm that consists of, or is likely to result in, loss of, or serious and protracted impairment of, a part of the body or a physical or mental function; or

(c) harm that consists of, or is likely to result in, serious disfigurement.

It is against the background of that definition that, in relation to children, one considers the test of a 'serious and protracted impairment'. It has been noted that, paradoxically, children are by their nature more likely to recover and get past physical injury that might result in protracted impairment in the case of adults subjected to the same conduct. A child might more rapidly recover although subjected to serious harm, as it were, outside the definitional sense. If it is not protracted simply for the reason that the child recovers relatively more quickly, there are circumstances in which the definition is liable not to be made out and the offence, the subject of section 14 as it is presently termed, therefore also not made out.

The effect of the bill is to delete, wherever it occurs in section 14, references to 'serious harm' and substitute 'harm' in each case. That is found at clause 6(1) of the amending bill. The result is that it will no longer be necessary to overcome that very significant threshold of 'serious harm' in order to make out the section 14 offence. The only other analogous indictable offence contained within the Criminal Law Consolidation Act as it presently stands is the minor indictable offence under section 30 of the act. That is renumbered to come in now at section 14A and is the offence of failing to provide a child or other vulnerable person with necessary food, clothing or shelter when one is liable to do so. In practice, it is very rarely visited.

To reiterate, in practical circumstances the real work of this provision is to be found in the section 14 offence and in the amendment to the definition to remove the higher threshold of 'serious harm' and replace it with the lower threshold of 'harm'. Harm is to be defined broadly for the purposes of the amended section 14. It is defined to mean physical or mental harm, and it includes detriment caused to the physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child or vulnerable adult, whether temporary or permanent.

Picking up on the previous test, that previous high threshold of 'serious harm' and the requirement that it be, in all circumstances, causing harm that includes among its attributes a protracted nature, the new definition is defined more broadly to encompass the range of physical and mental harm that I have just adumbrated. The new environment will be one in which section 14 of the act is, for practical purposes, very much more to be applied in the common situation of harm being caused that would not otherwise have reached that threshold of serious harm.

Along with reducing that threshold, changing that definition, the bill also takes the important step of significantly increasing the maximum penalty that is to be imposed in the case of each of the relevant offences, and expanded section 14 sets out those new and significantly increased offences. It is appropriate that maximum penalties on conviction of these offences that are substantial, in a way that more proportionally reflects other similar offences, may now apply in these circumstances.

The new penalties will result in a person who is convicted of neglect causing death to a child or vulnerable adult facing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. That is in line with the penalties in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act that also apply for murder, manslaughter and aggravated causing death by use of a motor vehicle, so that offences causing death carry a like maximum sentence of life imprisonment. So, too, under the expanded section 14 is the penalty for an offence of this gravity against children and vulnerable adults.

Similarly, a person convicted under section 14 of neglect that causes harm, under the new definition, to a child or vulnerable adult would now face a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 15 years. Importantly, both those new and increased maximum sentences are maximum sentences within the court's discretion. It remains for the sentencing court to determine the appropriate sentence in each case having regard to the circumstances of the offence as well as the victim and the offender. That is appropriate.

As we know, courts sentence offenders for offences ranging from summary through to minor indictable and major indictable offences within a wide range and according to the very wide range of circumstances that people who are brought before the courts face.

So it is, in my view, entirely appropriate that that range of discretion remains there for the sentencing court to determine. 'Harm' as opposed to 'serious harm' is a considerably lower threshold, and it is a considerably increased maximum penalty. The result is that the provision, the new expanded section 14, will now have significantly more work to do while, at the same time, carrying a potentially significantly more serious outcome in terms of sentence for an offender now caught by this broader provision. Both elements are in my view appropriate. It will be for the courts to set out by sentencing over the period after these new provisions are introduced the range of sentences to be imposed in the particular circumstances that are brought before them.

In the short time that is still available to me, I will note some specific comparison references in relation to these maximum penalties just to illustrate the landscape within which these new provisions—the subject of the bill—would operate. For example, the offences of aggravated recklessly causing serious harm, aggravated intentionally causing serious harm and aggravated serious harm by use of a motor vehicle each carry maximum sentences of 19 years, 25 years and life imprisonment respectively.

Aggravated recklessly causing harm, aggravated intentionally causing harm and aggravated harm by use of a motor vehicle carry maximum sentences of seven, 13 and seven years' imprisonment respectively. In relation to the new maximum penalty regime, together with the new lower threshold, this means that the new expanded section will indeed have more work to do. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BOYER (Wright) (17:42): I, too, rise to speak in support of the bill and to acknowledge also some of the legislative reforms that were undertaken and put in place by the previous government. The changes proposed in the bill are sensible and will make improvements to the ability of the police and prosecutors to ensure that those who are guilty of physical abuse against children and other vulnerable people are brought to justice.

I am not going to regurgitate the technical aspects of the bill, as many other speakers have already covered those in some detail, but I would like to speak to the overall manner in which government should respond to allegations of abuse and neglect. As has been mentioned by other speakers today already, this bill was drafted and introduced into parliament by the previous government. It was part of a suite of legislative reforms undertaken following the Nyland royal commission into child protection systems.

The introduction of new child protection legislation, which now puts the safety of children as the principal consideration above all other considerations, the establishment of South Australia's first children's commissioner, the bolstering of laws governing working with children checks and giving better access to information for individuals who had previously been under guardianship orders are all positive reforms that were introduced in the past few years. These legislative changes were made in parallel with unprecedented levels of financial investment in the South Australian child protection system.

More than $500 million was invested in system changes, increased staffing, research into early intervention programs and increased support for care givers. As someone who has some intimate knowledge of this policy area, having worked for previous ministers for child protection, I understand well the complexities and potential for tragedy when dealing with our most vulnerable citizens. That is why I will take a very strong interest in this area over the next four years and ensure that the strongest scrutiny is applied to decisions taken by the government.

This government, and in particular the Minister for Child Protection, have made some very bold statements in this place already. I, for one, sincerely hope they can deliver on them. When sensible legislation and policy are proposed, such as this piece of legislation, I will, however, welcome it and give credit where credit is due. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (17:44): I rise to speak to the Criminal Law Consolidation (Children and Vulnerable Adults) Amendment Bill 2018. I do not intend to enumerate the bill in exhaustive detail. However, I do wish to make several points, the first of which is an acknowledgement, as the member for Heysen has done, of my gratitude for the opposition's support of the bill. I make the observation that this is one of those occasions when it is an opportunity for all of us to collectively vehemently agree with each other in support of what, frankly, in the real world, should not be necessary but all too unfortunately is necessary.

The 'that' which is unfortunate is the fact the bill effectively addresses a bias in the practice and application of the law in the courts in South Australia in that abuse or harm suffered by children has been deemed, by virtue of their capacity to heal, as a means whereby offenders have sought, clearly with some success, to be absolved in a court of law of the consequences of causing harm. That is to say, and I reiterate, in the past children have, by virtue of their capacity to heal, clearly been effectively discriminated against insofar as the practical application of the law is concerned.

The bill seeks to address that bias and, in particular, modify or, as the member for Heysen has pointed out, lower the threshold insofar as harm caused from that which is deemed to be 'serious harm' to merely 'harm' itself. I say 'merely' by way of comparative purposes only. The bill amends section 14 and not just addresses the difficulties in prosecution that have afflicted this area of the law but also creates a general offence of child neglect.

Under clause 5, the bill also makes reference to a vulnerable adult. A child, first and foremost, is defined as a person under the age of 16 years and a vulnerable adult as a person aged 16 years or above who is significantly impaired through physical disability, cognitive impairment, illness or infirmity. I note, too, that not only is the lower threshold of harm taken to include detriment caused to the physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child but the point is also made that it applies whether or not that harm is temporary or, indeed, permanent in nature.

I note also the introduction, for the purpose of the division, the notion of a duty of care that a defendant needs to pay attention to or, indeed, owes to the victim. The point is to effectively address the bias in practice, against children in particular, in the way in which the current legislation operates by reducing the threshold from 'serious harm' down to 'harm'. I note also with some interest that the bill deletes all reference to the use of the word 'unlawful'.

By way of observation—and doubtless I will be able to find out in due course—I wonder how in the application of the previous law it could be lawful for someone to cause serious harm and how that, as a result, could be a defence. Nonetheless, I note the deletion of the word 'unlawful' wherever it applies in the current criminal law.

As has been previously pointed out, the bill will extend to all acts and omissions that cause physical and mental harm. It also ensures that abusive or neglectful guardians can be prosecuted for cruelty, given the mental dimension, in addition to acts that cause physical harm, which can be observed, as opposed to mental cruelty.

The bill also increases the penalty for neglect. I reiterate the point that, as a parliament and as a state, we collectively have an obligation to children and the most vulnerable in society. I make the point again that it is unfortunate but, nonetheless, indicative of our society that it is necessary for us to address the shortcomings pointed out by SAPOL and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that enable them to effectively prosecute people who, prior to the introduction of this bill, have been able to use the healing power of the young in order to escape justice or at least have their prosecution mitigated to that extent.

Collectively, we have an obligation to children and the most vulnerable, whether we are talking about child protection generally or the practices at Oakden, etc. This is an opportunity for us to collectively address some of the most heinous acts perpetrated against those who most need our assistance. As a consequence, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms HABIB (Elder) (17:52): I would like to acknowledge the Attorney-General for ensuring this bill, that is, the Criminal Law Consolidation (Children and Vulnerable Adults) Amendment Bill 2018, was brought to the house so soon after forming government. Gandhi once said, 'A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.' Unfortunately, in South Australia, in recent times, the way in which we as a state have been known to treat our weakest, that is, our most vulnerable members, is a source of great shame, with what has occurred in both the area of child protection and aged care.

We have seen in the media cases like Chloe Valentine and heard about the horrific tales of neglect and abuse that occurred under the former Labor government at Oakden, a state-run aged-care facility. As a community, such abuse and neglect of children and vulnerable adults is unacceptable and we all want to see people held to account accordingly. The seriousness of such unacceptable behaviour should not be diminished in any way, with the full force of the legal system able to punish such behaviour.

I am proud to contribute to this bill today, which will address the gaps in the law so that people who inflict serious injuries on children or vulnerable adults will not escape liability. This bill amends the offence of criminal neglect to better capture neglectful but difficult to prosecute behaviours which do not necessarily constitute serious harm as defined by the act. For example, babies will most likely recover from multiple fractures without lasting impact, whereas an adult with the same injuries would likely suffer some permanent impairment.

'Serious harm' will be substituted with the word 'harm' to ensure it is capable of capturing injuries inflicted on children, notwithstanding a greater capacity to heal. This will extend to all acts and omissions that cause physical or mental harm, including detriment to their physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or their development. This also ensures that abusive or neglectful guardians can be prosecuted for cruelty, in addition to the specific offences under the current law. This bill increases the penalty for neglect that causes harm to a maximum of 15 years' imprisonment and neglect that causes death to life imprisonment.

Protecting children and vulnerable adults is a priority for all of us on this side of the house, and I say this not as a motherhood statement but, rather, it is a statement that is demonstrated by our actions. Bringing this bill to the house today without delay is just one example of the many actions we are taking as a government to protect children and vulnerable adults. I join with my colleagues today, committed to creating a community and a state where safety for children and vulnerable adults is paramount and where any person who inflicts serious injuries on children or vulnerable adults will know that they will be held to account accordingly. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:56): I would like to thank all members for their contribution to the bill. I particularly acknowledge the member for Kaurna from the opposition indicating his support for the bill, unsurprising as that is given this replicates what was previously presented last year, although we are disappointed on this side of the house that this could have had six further months of operation, of course, if it had been progressed in a timely manner through the parliament in November last year. Certainly, there was opportunity for that to occur.

Obviously, the government of the day decided that there were other priorities, like extinguishing the fairness clause from the constitution, which they rushed through the parliament in a day and a night. They had other priorities. That is disappointing. We have remedied that. We are proud of it and I look forward to the passage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.