CHILD SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I have to apologise to the council. This particular amendment is not in my folder. I have been without staff for four days. I thank the Hon. Stephen Wade for a copy of the amendment and will try to make some sense of it. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bressington–1]—

Page 5, after line 22—After inserted subsection (1a) insert:

(2) Section 9—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) If the person is a child, or committed the relevant offences as a child, the court must also be satisfied that the person has displayed a persistent pattern of violent or anti-social behaviour that justifies the making of the order.

I filed this amendment because I am quite concerned that perhaps what might be described as overly mischievous or unfortunate behaviour could actually land a young person on the child sex offenders register and cause a great deal of hardship for that person in later years. I have asked the council to consider the amendment that the child can only be considered to be on the register if he or she has displayed a persistent pattern of violent or antisocial behaviour that justifies the making of the order.

I have been approached by one mother whose son has an intellectual disability and who has been subject to being accused of sexually offensive conduct. It has made the mother's life quite difficult but also, given that the person in question has, I think, the intellectual development of about a six or seven year old, it seems that in this particular case, for some reason that has not been taken into account, he has landed himself on the sexual offenders register and she has been unable now for about two years to get any joy in having his name removed.

This is a precautionary amendment, because things happen; life happens. I just think that we should make it very clear that people who are under age still get up to the same sort of mischief that they did 20 or 30 years ago, and also that there is a group of people who could be caught up in this web where there should obviously be some sort of leeway given. I commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government strongly opposes this amendment. We feel that this is a very ill-conceived amendment that has quite serious potential consequences. I will just take a minute to outline that. Section 9 of the act sets out the circumstances in which a court may order certain persons to be subjected to the operation of the act who are not automatically captured under the legislation. This includes persons who are being sentenced for a class 1 or class 2 offence that was committed while a person was a child.

Prior to making the order, the court must be satisfied that the person poses a risk to the sexual safety of any child or children—poses a risk. This amendment would require the court to be satisfied of an additional requirement and that is that the person has displayed a persistent pattern of violent or antisocial behaviour that justifies the making of an order. This additional requirement is not relevant to whether a person is a risk to the sexual safety of children. They may be but they are not necessarily of themselves the only things that might pose a risk to the sexual safety of children.

For instance, violence—I will break it down and make it a bit simpler. Violence does not in and of itself indicate whether a young person poses a risk to the sexual safety of another child. Therefore, if the behaviour did not include violence but still constituted a risk to the sexual safety of children, they would slip through. They would get off scot-free. As I said, this is very ill conceived. I can see what the honourable member thinks that she is doing with this amendment, but in fact it has quite devastating consequences that are really the antithesis of this bill which is to protect the safety of children.

The government cannot support this. The amendment would mean that even if a court is satisfied that a person presents a risk to the sexual safety of children, the court could not place the person on the register without also being satisfied that the person is, for instance, violent. In addition, history demonstrates that the courts with respect to young offenders has not often made these orders. The provisions are not overutilised and should not be further restricted. There is no evidence that further restriction is needed of these particular provisions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition has a similar reading of the effect of the amendment to that of the government. In the opposition's view, once a court is satisfied that a person poses a risk to the sexual safety of any child or children, that should be sufficient for an order. There should be no need for further criteria even if the offender is a child or was a child at the time of the offence.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I wonder if, before I state a clear position on this, I might be able to ask some questions of the mover with your permission, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Go ahead.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: For the sake of clarity, I wonder if the Hon. Ms Bressington can expand upon her thinking in terms of the need for the further criteria in that I would have thought that sexual advances that cause us to believe that a person is a risk to a community would constitute violence and antisocial behaviour. I would have thought those kinds of actions were exactly those things—violent and antisocial—so why does the mover believe there is this need for the extra criteria? I don't know if I am articulating this correctly.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I remember two weeks ago when there was a big kerfuffle about a 13 year old photographing his genitals and sending it around. That is undesirable behaviour—I get that—and I would certainly be quite shocked if any of my children did anything like that. But I want to draw the line that when we were growing up, when I was growing up, the larrikins driving around in their HR Holdens would moon people out the window. They did not necessarily take a photo of it because there weren't any mobile phones but it was never a big hullabaloo to consider that kind of behaviour as a sexual offence.

I heard the commissioner on FIVEaa saying that he has the determination of whether or not a person goes on the sexual register and it would be highly unlikely that this kind of conduct would get someone on the register. As far as I am concerned, 'highly unlikely' for this kind of behaviour is not a guarantee that I am looking for when we are talking about the possibility of a 13 year old being put on the sexual register for what may be just a stupid, mindless, tasteless prank. That person will be on the register for a very long time. That sort of stigma follows a person around for a very, very long time. I just think that sometimes what is now interpreted as sexual misconduct is a bit overstretched in the real world.

No-one could say that I have not championed in this place the cause of protection for children against predators, that I have not introduced bill after bill after bill to amend the Child Protection Act to ensure that children are safe from paedophiles. Mark Trevor Marshall comes to mind, when this government would take no action to ensure that this repeat offender, who had abused around 250 children, was not released into the community. As a matter of fact, this government was trying to find him accommodation and keep it a secret. So if we want to talk about keeping children safe, by all means let's do it, but let's not go that little bit overboard.

I would assume that, by law, the sexual abuse of a child would be considered violent, that the sexual abuse of a child would be considered antisocial behaviour and that a persistent pattern of violent and antisocial behaviour that justifies making the order would take into account any act of child sexual abuse. I want it clarified that, unless it is persistent behaviour, we need to actually think quite long and hard on this before we go around potentially catching stupid, adolescent people in a net.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I appreciate that the Hon. Ms Bressington is extremely passionate about this issue, but I would appreciate her patience. Just to clarify, on the Hon. Ms Bressington's reading of this amendment, it would only apply to what we may consider a more minor offence, such as the 13 year old photographing his own genitals and cases like that. Is that where you believe there would be a need for extra criteria, not where someone actually physically molested a child, for instance?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Absolutely. That was the intention of this. As I said, I have absolutely no tolerance for anybody who is going after young children and causing them any kind of distress. As I said, this is for stupid, adolescent, careless, thoughtless behaviour that may offend some but is not actually a sexual offence.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: May I reassure all members of the chamber that the bill, as it stands, does not capture stupid and careless behaviour. Stupid and careless sexual misconduct is not captured by this. The only people who would be captured by this and end up on the register are those people who pose a risk to the sexual safety of children. Someone taking a photograph of their genitals of itself is not necessarily posing a risk to the sexual safety of children. It would have to be done in an additional context clearly demonstrating that it poses a risk to the sexual safety of children. So it is simply misleading to come into this place and suggest that that silly sort of nonsense, accidental stupid behaviour, is going to be captured by this.

The assessment is the posing of risk to the sexual safety of children. I would suggest that to be posing a risk to the sexual safety of children does not necessarily require acts that are violent or necessarily—

The Hon. A. Bressington: What?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is outrageous, that the Hon. Ann Bressington does not actually understand that a risk to the sexual safety of children does not necessarily involve an act of violence. That she does not understand that, as she has indicated to this chamber, shows that her amendment is ill informed and she does not actually understand this provision. This is posing a risk to the sexual safety of children. A violent act, in and of itself, does not necessarily pose a risk to the sexual safety of children.

As I said, the test is high enough. It does not require any further restrictions. Just to reassure members, currently there are no juveniles on the register. So, as I said, there is no evidence to suggest that somehow the current provisions are being overprescriptive and capturing a whole heap of poor innocent children. That is not the case. It has always been used responsibly and will continue to be used responsibly. I strongly urge members to oppose this amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would reiterate that the opposition has already indicated that they are not supporting this amendment. I welcome the minister's advice to the council that there are currently no juveniles on the register, and I accept her point that that is indicative of the court system's not overly using this order under section 9(3). I would also remind members that the order under section 9(3) is appealable under section 10, and I would also make the point that this is not a new provision that the government is proposing. This is a current provision in the act. The minister has assured us that she is advised that the register currently has no juveniles on it.

I certainly hold in very high regard the commitment of the honourable member to protecting children and would not want to question that in any way, and I certainly appreciate her desire that people not be placed on the register inappropriately. But, considering the fact that the order has to be subject to a current risk to the safety of children and that that order is appealable and the advice the minister has given us in relation to the current state of the register, the opposition will continue in its intention not to support this amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Having listened to the debate, I am not at this point inclined to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will not be moving my amendment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 10, lines 34 to 37 [clause 19, inserted section 20A and Note following it]—Leave out all words in these lines and substitute:

that contact to the Commissioner within 2 days of such contact occurring.

This amendment adds the words 'to the Commissioner' to proposed section 20A. This ensures that it is clear that reportable contact with a child must be reported to the Commissioner of Police. This is a drafting error that is being fixed for greater clarity.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I just want to clarify the reportable contact referred to there and the reporting obligation within two days: does that time frame also apply in relation to the proposed reporting obligations to parents and guardians under proposed section 66EA?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised no.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can I ask what reporting time frame would be required under section 66EA?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that no time frame has been set as yet and, in the absence of a time frame, it would default to 'as soon as practicably possible'.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for her answer and indicate that the opposition will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 20 to 35 passed.

Clause 36.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–1]—

Page 18, line 3 [clause 36, heading to inserted Part 5A]—Delete 'Modifications' and substitute:

Exemptions, modifications

This is, if you like, a test clause for this set of amendments, which all deal with the same issue. The purpose of the amendment is to enable a registrable offender to apply to the commissioner for a declaration modifying his or her reporting obligations or exempting him or her from the operation of part 5, or specified provisions of part 5, either generally or in respect of classes of child-related work. They are intended to cover what I loosely refer to 'young love cases' which have resulted in persons becoming listed as registrable offenders. The reason for the amendments is similar to earlier considerations in this place in relation to the Spent Convictions (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012.

It is quite timely that we should be debating this bill now, especially in light of a very recent criminal case which I believe highlights the need for these amendments. The case I am referring to involved a young man, aged 19, who pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17 years. The maximum penalty for that offence is 10 years' imprisonment. During sentencing, His Honour Judge Slattery made the following remarks:

I have taken into account the fact that the age difference between you and the victim was a mere four years and that the victim was cooperative in enabling the offending to take place. I make that finding based on the text messages attached to the police statements as well as the factual basis agreed by counsel.

His Honour then went on to say:

The legislation that you have been charged under exists to protect children like the victim from their own immature inclinations. Even at your young age, parliament has stated that you are old enough to know better than she did and has subjected you to the possibility of a lengthy period of imprisonment. Not only that, but whatever sentence I impose, you will be classified as a registrable offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006.

Upon my interpretation of that Act, because you had your 19^th birthday before rather than after the offending and because the unlawful sexual intercourse occurred over a period longer than 24 hours and on three separate occasions, you will be liable to report as a child sex offender for the rest of your life.

This will have a deep impact on your future employment opportunities and the way that you are able to function within the community. It is likely to have a negative impact on your rehabilitation.

I personally fail to see why such registration is necessary in the distinct circumstances of this case, but I have no discretion in the matter and unfortunately can do nothing about it and do not take it into account in formulating your sentence. You do not present a danger to society and I am satisfied that you will not offend in this manner again in the future. You are far from what the courts would usually describe as a sexual predator. Whether the current law is an appropriate fit for circumstances in matters like yours is a matter out of my hands. As I have said I have no discretion in this matter.

My reading of this case clearly demonstrates the need for some flexibility in cases involving young people who engage in sexual activity. There is no question that, without some degree of flexibility, these laws can have wide-ranging and continual ramifications on a young person's life.

Under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, child-related work is defined very broadly and covers work involving contact with a child in connection with any of the following: preschools or kindergartens; childcare centres; educational institutions for children; child protection services; refuges or other residential facilities used by children; foster care for children; hospital wards or out-patient services in which children are ordinarily patients; overnight camps, regardless of the type of accommodation or of how many children are involved; clubs, associations or movements, including of a cultural, recreational or sporting nature, with significant child membership or involvement; programs or events for children provided by any institution, agency or organisation; religious or spiritual organisations; counselling or other support services for children; commercial babysitting or childminding services; commercial tuition services for children; and services for the transport of children.

Without this amendment, a young person involved in a similar situation to the one just referred to would not be able to take part in any child-related work. It is not just employment opportunities that would become affected. If they themselves become parents, this would extend to things such as volunteering at school events; volunteering at the school canteen; reading to kids at day care; taking part in children's sporting events; coaching football, soccer or tennis; commuting children to and from sporting events; volunteering at church; teaching children to play musical instruments—the list is endless.

As alluded to by His Honour Judge Slattery, there is absolutely no question that, without some degree of flexibility, this legislation will continue to have a deep impact not only on a young person's employment opportunities but also on the way in which they are able to function within the community. I am by no means suggesting that sexual predators be granted any sort of exemption from the operation of the act. Clearly, we are not talking about sexual predators in this instance. What I am suggesting is that we show some compassion in cases involving young adults who are not a threat to children but who have, at one point in their life, made a bad decision. I urge honourable members to support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government sees this as a test clause to further amendments the Hon. John Darley intends to put forward, so I will talk to those matters now. The government supports this series of amendments. Under proposed new section 66A(1), a registrable offender may apply to the Commissioner of Police for a declaration that modifies his or her reporting obligations. Under this amendment, the registrable offender would also be able to apply to the commissioner for a declaration exempting him or her from the operation of part 5 with respect to working with children or specified provisions of part 5, either generally or in respect of specified classes of child-related work.

As with the current provision, the capacity of the commissioner to make this declaration applies only to a very limited class of offender, and very strict eligibility criteria apply. This amendment is not opposed because it is consistent with the purpose of this bill, namely, to provide the commissioner with the discretion and flexibility needed to efficiently and effectively apply this act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As the bill currently stands, where it says that obligations can be modified, couldn't the modifications be, basically, an effective exemption? I am just wondering what the government sees would be achieved by the amendment, considering that a modification could be an effective exemption?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that our bill only allows the commissioner to modify reporting obligations and this does not include part 5, which concerns people working with children, and the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment expands part 5.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This might be a matter for parliamentary counsel rather than for policy advice but I am interested to look at the implications of using the word 'exemption'. Exemption might suggest that the modification cannot be revoked. Is the government confident that the exemption could be revoked by future behaviour? Presumably they would still stay on the register, but can a modification which constitutes an exemption be varied in the future?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the bill as it currently stands enables the commissioner at any time to vary a declaration including a declaration under Mr Darley's amendments, and revoke.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister indicated at the end that that included revocation. The opposition has decided to support these amendments and I thank the minister for her answers. They are reassuring that these provisions should work as both the opposition and Mr Darley anticipate.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: For reasons already outlined, Dignity for Disability will support these amendments. We think they are very sensible and we will be supporting them wholeheartedly.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 18, after line 4 [clause 36, inserted Part 5A]—Before inserted section 66A insert:

66AA—Interpretation

In this Part—

reporting obligations includes the obligation to provide information to a parent or guardian under section 66EA.

This amendment relates to the creation of a new reporting obligation to be inserted by government amendment No. 3 for a registered offender to report certain information to a parent and/or guardian. This amendment clarifies that this new obligation is taken to be a reporting obligation for the purposes of section 66A, together with all other reporting obligations contained in part 3 of the act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the minister is referring to amendment No. 4, rather than to No. 3, but we will support that amendment and support this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Darley–1]—

Page 18, lines 7 and 8 [clause 36, inserted section 66A(1)]—Delete inserted subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) A registrable offender may apply to the Commissioner for a declaration—

(a) modifying his or her reporting obligations; or

(b) exempting him or her from the operation of Part 5 or specified provisions of Part 5 (either generally or in respect of specified classes of child-related work).

Amendment No 3 [Darley–1]—

Page 19, after line 39 [clause 36, inserted section 66C]—After subsection (4) insert:

(5) The Commissioner must give a registrable offender written notice as soon as practicable after a declaration exempting the offender from the operation of Part 5, or specified provisions of Part 5, is made, varied or revoked.

Note—

See also section 48(2)(g) in relation to the giving of notice in respect of declarations relating to reporting obligations

For the reasons already outlined, I urge honourable members to support these amendments. These amendments provide simply that the commissioner must give a registrable offender written notice after a declaration exempting the offender from the operation of part 5 or specified provisions of part 5 is made, varied or revoked. It is consistent with clause 30 of the new section 48(2)(g), which also provides that a notice is to be given to registrable offenders when a declaration relating to his or her reporting obligations is made, varied or revoke had under part 5A.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports both amendments.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 21, line 8 [clause 36, inserted section 66DA(4)]—Delete 'under this Part'

This amendment removes the words 'under this Part'. This is a typographical error that could have been fixed administratively, but we have chosen to correct it whilst making these amendments.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 37.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 24, after line 38—After inserted section 66E insert:

66EA—Information to be provided to parents and guardians

A registrable offender who—

(a) generally resides in the same household as that in which a child generally resides; or

(b) stays overnight in a household in which a child is also staying overnight,

must tell a parent or guardian of the child who generally resides in the same household as the child—

(c) that he or she is a registrable offender under this Act; and

(d) what the offence or offences were that resulted in him or her becoming a registrable offender.

Maximum penalty: $25,000 or imprisonment for 5 years.

This amendment creates a new reporting obligation for registered offenders. Any registered offender who generally resides in the same household as a child, or spends the night in the same household as a child, will now be obliged to tell any parent or guardian of that child, with whom the child resides, two things: first, they will be obliged to tell the parents and guardians that they are a registered offender; and, secondly, they will be obliged to tell the parents and guardians of the offences they were convicted of that led them to being registered.

A breach of this section attracts a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a $25,000 fine. The aim of this amendment is to address community concern that registered offenders have no obligation to inform anyone of their status as a registered offender, not even parents of children who they might spend the night with.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I indicate that the opposition supports this additional reporting requirement, 66EA. Perhaps in exploring whether this is the best form of the clause, I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wade–2]—

Amendment to Amendment No 4 [AgriFoodFish-1]—Clause 37, page 24, after line 38—

In inserted section 66EA delete 'must tell a parent or guardian of the child who generally resides in the same household as the child' and substitute:

must, as soon as reasonably practicable, tell a parent or guardian of the child and any adult (other than the registrable offender) who the registrable offender believes has primary responsibility for supervision and care of the child at that time

I may seek leave to withdraw it once we have explored it, but I think it is a good opportunity for the committee to see if this is the best it can be. The amendment seeks to address two issues: firstly, timeliness and, secondly, scope. In terms of timeliness, I note the minister's earlier advice in relation to government amendment [1] 1, that reporting obligations under 66EA would be as soon as reasonably practicable. My amendment has that element in it, and so in that sense that element might be superfluous. It might already be implicit in the act.

The other element which the opposition would ask the government and the committee to consider is thinking through the implications of 66EA(b). It talks about a registrable offender who stays overnight in a household in which a child is also staying overnight. It turned the opposition's mind to the fact that the reporting obligation is to the parent or guardian, but the parent or guardian may not be present in the house overnight, and in fact that possibility was canvassed in government comments beyond this council.

We are posing the question whether it be useful to extend the obligation to notify not only the parent but also the responsible adult—the responsible adult on that night. There could be a range of circumstances in which a child is in another household; sleepovers are one. They could be also visiting the house of a registrable offender where the other people in the house do not know, and also both the child and the registrable offender could be visiting a third household. Without wanting to overly complicate the clause, the opposition suggests the amendment to the committee as a possible enhancement.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the honourable member for this amendment. The government certainly has a degree of sympathy because relationships can be quite complex, and the sleepover arrangements of children can be quite complex as well. The government is very concerned to make sure that we capture that the intent of this particular provision applies to a wide range of circumstances so that the scope is broad. We are not convinced at this point in time that this amendment does that.

We are concerned that it may have the potential to water down the safety provisions for children, but we just have not had enough time to think through those issues in detail. For the time being, as a precautionary principle the government is going to oppose this amendment, but we will indicate formally that we are happy to continue discussions between the houses with the Hon. Stephen Wade to try to reach an agreement on the issues of concern he has.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for her answer. I appreciate that this has been a project over some years. We were advised that both police and A-Gs have been working on this for at least two years, linking in with national best practice.

We fully appreciate this is an evolving regime. In that regard, my reading of the government's amendment was that it might, if you like, be the seed of expanded provisions in the future because there are a lot of situations where a child is put at risk that do not involve the parent or guardian, and I think the minister acknowledged that.

In that context, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and let it be a flag, if you like, for possible reform in the future, just as this legislation is an evolution of the original bill. I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment and that it might be a watching brief to see how we can enhance the bill in the future. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate for the record that I do not often speak when both government and opposition agree as our vote is sidelined in that circumstance, but I indicate that we are likely to support such an amendment. I commend the government for being prepared to take on the idea and I think it is worthy of further investigation.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate that I will not be moving my six amendments. They are all essentially around the same issue, that is the mandatory adoption of electronic monitoring. I am informed that we do not currently have the ability to do that in South Australia as my amendments suggest, and furthermore there has been some communication with SAPOL who have raised some legitimate issues around some of these amendments and, for that reason, I will not be proceeding with them.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I respect the decision of the honourable member not to move the amendments but I note that the government with some fanfare earlier this year proposed an amendment to facilitate GPS tracking.

The Hon. A. Bressington: On my bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: And as the Hon. Ann Bressington indicates, it was first flagged in the government contribution by the Hon. Kyam Maher in relation to her bill. I think the South Australian community would feel somewhat misled that the government had such fanfare about a GPS tracking facility which they were not ready, willing and able to implement.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Although there is not an amendment before us, I will take this moment for the government to put on record its concern about the Hon. Dennis Hood's amendments and the mandatory tracking requirements. It is not just about resources. The principle that we had concern about was that it removed discretion from the commissioner to determine who should be tracked and who should not. We believe that that discretion should and must rest with the commissioner, so that is the main issue of concern that we have.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As we continue our disorderly state discussing amendments that have not been moved, I would just mention that the opposition's understanding of the Hon. Dennis Hood's amendments is that the commissioner would retain discretion. The commissioner would have the discretion not to have the tracking imposed but in relation to serious offenders that would be the presumption. I understand that we are only talking about a dozen or so offenders and considering we have 1,500 offenders, I did not think it was a huge resource ask.

Clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (38 to 40), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.