Bills

Sentencing (Serious Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Adjourned debate on third reading.

(Continued from 10 September 2024.)

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:05): I gave a lengthy explanation about the detail of this bill in my second reading speech, so I do not intend to do so again. What I do intend to articulate again is that this bill is really important, and it is part of a comprehensive suite of measures that our government committed to and is delivering on to ensure that we deal with vile sex offenders and that we do so in a way that penalises them in the way that they should be and also that meets, rightly, community expectation.

I spoke at length about other measures that we have already taken in speaking about this bill, and I do alert the house again to a really important measure that is in our draft Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill that will soon be in this parliament. That measure is a measure that ensures that those awful predators who deliberately target children, who are in contact with the child protection and family support system, are absolutely more heavily penalised for that targeting of those children, and I look forward to fulsomely discussing that particular bill when it is before the parliament.

It is absolutely the right thing for us in this place to always act with the voices, the interests, in our hearts and minds, of those children and young people who most need our support, who most need to be heard, and that absolutely includes us dealing with these horrific child sex offenders in the harshest possible way. This bill is about doing that and I commend it again to the house. I really want to say thank you to the Attorney-General and his team and department for their work toward this, I thank those who have been involved in providing their views in the development of this bill and I look forward to its passage and, rightly, its operating in a way that makes sure we are dealing with those awful offenders in that harshest possible way.

Again, I commend the bill to the house, I thank everybody who has been involved in it and I look forward to its important passage through this place and then its coming into effect.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:08): Here we are in the third reading debate on this bill on the afternoon of the Thursday of a sitting week: the debate on the bill started first thing on Tuesday morning this week under the first of what has now been a dozen guillotines applied to debate in this house this week. There was a 90-minute guillotine applied to debate so that this bill apparently could be passed through this place as a matter of priority by the government so that it could put this important legislation into place.

It has long been known that the opposition supports the bill. It has also long been known that the bill has sat on the Notice Paper in this place now for months and months and months. It was debated in another place back in April, and we know that the Premier spoke up about a response to an intolerable event that occurred back in January this year.

But to add insult to procedural injury, what the government has done this week is placed a guillotine on debate. It then allowed the passage of the progress of the bill in this house for a debate that actually took about 15 minutes. The government then said, 'End of story, no further, we won't be allowing passage of the so-called important legislation—what we'll do is we'll adjourn it.' So there we are: tick, tick, tick: adjourned all the way through Tuesday, no mention of the bill on Wednesday, and here we are on the last afternoon of the sitting week and it now seems as though it suits the government to wheel this out like some sort of plaything in the house. What we are left with is a situation in which people who are following the debate—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member is reflecting on a vote of the house and he is not debating the bill in front of him, sir.

Mr TEAGUE: On the point of order, far from reflecting on a vote of the house, I have mentioned the fact that we are under the 12^th guillotine for the week, that is true.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have a point of order.

Mr TEAGUE: I am addressing the point of order, Treasurer.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you resume your seat, please, member for Heysen. There is a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps the house could afford you the opportunity to rule on the point of order before we are subjected to another tirade from the member for Heysen.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would suggest the member for Heysen gets back to the subject matter before us. That is my ruling. I also would ask that the Minister for Child Protection be more measured in her comments, thank you. Member for Heysen, you can have the floor uninterrupted as long as you keep to the debate.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The plain fact of the matter is that one only needs to look across to a couple of pillars standing in this place to see that the date on those pillars tells us that it is Thursday 12 September, we are here in the third reading debate on this bill, and that is where we are right now.

What is also apparent on the public record is that the debate on this bill in this house commenced, first cab off the rank at 11am, on 10 September—two days ago. The opposition stood up in this place—I did it—and said what is well known and what has long been well known is that the opposition supports this serious and important legislation.

It is a matter of record that the government has allowed it to sit on the Notice Paper for the bulk of this year. It is also a matter of record that the government has allowed the debate in this matter to be drawn out over the course of this week. None of that reflects on a vote of the house—far from it, because we have not had a vote on the third reading. Here we are, so what I am doing is summing up the debate so far.

In terms of the seriousness of this legislation, it is well known. The contents of the bill are well known. They are the subject of debate in the other place—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen!

Mr TEAGUE: There is a good reason why I praise the Attorney for the work that has been done on this bill—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Frome, I do not need your commentary either. Member for Heysen, this is a third reading. A number of Speakers have ruled on this. What you can talk about are things that are raised in the committee stage. I have allowed some latitude this week, but I think you need to get back to your third reading matters—in other words, raise issues that came out of the second reading stage. Alright?

Mr TEAGUE: Exactly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So far I have not seen you go even close to that. I suggest you either do that or you resume your seat. If you digress again you will be ignoring my order and I will ask you to leave the chamber.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. In the course of the second reading debate, we heard the government rehearse the government's speech that was given in another place back in March this year. We know the contents of that speech; in fact, they have been well known for many months. So that is what has constituted the second reading debate in this place.

There have been a number of matters of importance to be put on the record about the serious consideration that was put into the work that was done to bring this bill together at that time. I again take this opportunity to thank the Attorney-General and his staff and advisers for the work that has been done on this serious matter and to indicate that here we are, concluding a debate on this Thursday afternoon, in circumstances where there is absolutely nothing that was standing in the way of the government doing exactly this on Tuesday morning—it put a guillotine in place for the very purpose—and then, secondly, doing so months ago.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order, sir: once again, the member for Heysen is reflecting on a vote of the house by referring to a procedural matter, which occurred earlier on, as a guillotine.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not sure about that, but what I am sure about is that he does appear to be ignoring my ruling and, in a sense, is traversing areas that are not really the substance of the issues that were raised in the second reading or the committee stage. I would ask the member to raise any concerns or issues that were raised specifically in the committee stage. If not, you will be in contravention of 137; that is, actually contravening my direction. I would hate to ask you to leave the chamber for ignoring my ruling. You have the floor again.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. What has been made plain on this side of the house in the course of the long-awaited second reading debate is that the opposition supports the bill. The opposition expressed that support once again in the course of the second reading. I welcome the government finally getting round to bringing on the debate. I am glad that the third reading is here. Within the constraints of the guillotine, I hope that the passage of the bill can now occur in the interests of all who may be better served by the penalties that the bill will now contain.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (12:17): I also briefly take the opportunity to speak on this as we are going through what are important safeguards, I think, for all of our children. It is very well established, I think throughout this parliament, that the safety of children is paramount here, so the actions that go towards that should be taken seriously, and bipartisan support in this place should be looked for. The opposition's lead speaker, the member for Heysen, has said that there is support and has also recognised the need and desire to work collaboratively, in a bipartisan way, to get this bill through the house.

In speaking on the topic of these serious child sex offenders, there is the upset it causes in the community when these discussions around parole come up and the uncertainty that that produces in the community. Quite often the community, who rightly want to protect children, see these attempts at parole for these serious child sex offenders, and it really does not diminish the real fear in the community about serious child sex offenders and whether they actually have been able to control their urges, so that when released into society they would not present a risk to society. The provisions that have been put in place to address that should be able to satisfy, to some extent, those fears.

Reading through the bill and what we discussed during the second reading debate, some of the measures in place allow for and provide for indefinite detention for serious sex offenders. It puts more of the onus on those sex offenders, that they well and truly have got rid of their desires and can prove that, so that society and young children can be safe to go about their lives, touching on some of the points raised in the second reading debate that define changes to the serious sex offender, what those prescribed sex offenders are.

It also brings in and takes into account offences that have occurred in other jurisdictions. Another troubling aspect to this is that people travel and offences take place in other jurisdictions. To be able to take that into account certainly is important. I hope it will also encourage police departments throughout Australia to work more closely together on this important matter of safety, not just here in South Australia but, as I think everyone would have to agree, throughout Australia. With those brief remarks, and not wanting to take away from other members of parliament the opportunity to talk about this important bill, I conclude my remarks.