Noarlunga Centre Incident

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:59): My question is to the Attorney-General. Why was the 20-year-old man charged with the offence of murder at Noarlunga Centre—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: I don't think I can have a point of order until I have heard the entire question, member for Heysen, with all respect. I would like to hear the question, and then if the member—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: That's a bogus point of order.

The SPEAKER: It's not a bogus point of order, member for Light, and you can leave for half an hour, please. I will not hear any points of order until I have the entirety of the question. The member for West Torrens is entitled to ask a question, just like any other member is. I will listen to the question. Member for Light, you will leave for half an hour, please.

The honourable member for Light having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I would like to hear the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My question is to the Attorney-General. Why was the 20-year-old man charged with the offence of murder at Noarlunga Centre on 20 October not subject to a supervision order under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act available to the Attorney-General?

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: standing order 1.

The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Mr TEAGUE: 'Usages of House of Commons to be observed, unless other provision is made.' I observe that the UK House of Commons has declared, by resolutions of that house in 1963, 1972 and 2001 at least, a convention that is born of the desire of parliament to 'prevent comment and debate from exerting an influence on juries and from prejudicing the position of parties and witnesses in court proceedings'. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule the question out of order.

The SPEAKER: It is the sub judice rule. I uphold the point of order. Would the member for West Torrens like to amend the question? I will give him the option to. I will give him the option. We have been talking about this today. The member for West Torrens has the call. If not, I will come back to him.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Despite the precedent, sir: why didn't the Attorney-General make an application for a supervision order under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act in relation to a 20-year-old man charged with murder at Noarlunga Centre on 20 October?

The SPEAKER: Would the Deputy Premier like to take that question?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (15:02): I will—

The SPEAKER: I will allow it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —to the extent that I appreciate that the member for West Torrens may not have been listening attentively to all of question time today. But for his benefit can I just say two things. Firstly, no-one in this government will act in a manner that will breach the sub judice rule that will in any way affect the proper application of justice in relation to a matter that is currently before the courts—that is No. 1.

No. 2 is that the distinguishable feature about the Hillier case, which I will repeat for the benefit of the member for West Torrens, is one that involved the charging and subsequent conviction on admission of guilt of a person for the murder of a mother and her two children. It was a most gruesome case. People are familiar with it. During the course of that matter, but prior to the conviction of the then accused, questions were asked in this parliament about the application in respect of the particular contact that the victims in that case may have had with agencies of the Crown.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: relevance and debate. The question was very specific.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right! Member for West Torrens, I have the point of order. The deputy—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I take it there's a moot motion of dissent from the government in respect of—

The SPEAKER: I have the question—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No? Okay.

The SPEAKER: I have the question. Minister for Industry, I will rule whether the question is out of order or not. The first one was definitely; the second one I have allowed. The Deputy Premier has answered the question or started to answer the question. I have the point of order from the member for West Torrens. I will listen attentively to ensure that the Deputy Premier sticks to the substance of the question, but I will rule that that question is also on the cusp.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And in relation to questions about the victims of a case and their association or contact with any criminal case that might be pending, in some circumstances can affect the sub judice rule, I agree.

The SPEAKER: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: But in relation to whether a child who has been a victim in a murder or unexplained death, may or may not have had in relation to government agencies—in the Hillier case in relation to the department of children's services—and I think police questions were asked in relation to that, as to the protection or lack thereof in respect of those children in the lead-up to their deaths. They are very serious issues.

Can I just urge members, all members here today, to read the Child Death and Serious Injury report that was tabled in parliament yesterday. It's a sobering read in relation to the deaths of children that occur in South Australia and the incidence of which is known to agencies, which frankly should have been there to protect them. It's incumbent on all of us to do two things here: one is obviously to protect those who are vulnerable and ultimately victims in our criminal system and, secondly, to make sure that those who are guilty are prosecuted and that they don't escape by some idiot in a parliament asking questions that would fracture that opportunity.