Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Child Sex Offenders Registration (Control Orders and Other Measures) Amendment Bill Child Sex Offenders Registration (Control Orders and Other Measures) Amendment Bill Child Sex Offenders Registration (Control Orders and Other Measures) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 17 June 2014.) The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:16): I rise briefly to indicate Family First support for the proposed changes to the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act. It has been noted many times in this chamber that child sex offenders are the most notoriously difficult offenders to rehabilitate, which is clearly shown by the extraordinarily high rate of recidivism. Accordingly, Family First believes that placing restrictions on the conduct of registerable offenders is both a sensible and logical approach to providing further protection for our children. The new control orders create what has been described as a more flexible approach to tailoring restrictions to be placed on individual reportable offenders. I was particularly pleased to learn that offenders who currently do not have reporting requirements can still be subject to control orders should a magistrate have sufficient reason to be concerned about their conduct. That is where the use of judicial discretion is appropriate and useful. As it has been explained to me, where an offender has a history of grooming children over the internet, for example, the control order could be made to prevent the offender from having access to particular social media sites, Snapchat, for example, or more broadly not being able to access the internet. Members will probably recall that I introduced a bill years ago which served a similar purpose: it passed this place and is now on the statute book. Similarly, where offenders meet their victims at community events, at schools or public places, an order can be made to limit or prevent the offender from frequenting these places—common sense and entirely appropriate. We certainly hope that in limiting the contact registerable offenders have with children through the tailoring of each order to the specific offending behaviour of the individual, these measures will prevent further harm to children. This seems like a common-sense approach, which Family First strongly supports. I was disappointed to learn, however, that whilst there are provisions that currently allow orders to be made to prevent child sex offenders from accessing the internet—indeed, one was a bill that I introduced to this place and was passed by the parliament—they appear to be applied infrequently. The laws are there in some cases, but do not appear to be being used. Family First certainly hopes that these proposed changes go some way to remedying this situation and providing a safer online experience for minors in particular. Obviously, with any measure such as this there is a requirement to reach a balance that supports victims and protects children but does not place cumbersome requirements on the legal system and those who access it. It has been put to me—and I accept it—that, whilst a magistrate decides these orders on the balance of probabilities, the conditions by which a magistrate determines the appropriateness of control orders are significant enough that this power will not be taken lightly, and that is appropriate. Currently, the act requires a registrable offender who stays overnight, or who resides in a house with a child, to inform a parent or guardian of this fact and the reasons that they are now currently regarded as a registrable offender. The bill tweaks this provision to require an offender to speak with both parents or guardians—and that is a really important difference–about the matter prior to staying in the house with a child. One might think that that is common sense, but the law does not currently require that. The offender is also required to report this contact with police, who also follow up with the parents, which seems to be the most appropriate response in this matter. I think this is a very important step, and one that again just really does seem to be common sense. I think it was surprising to members of the public that that was not what the law has been until this point, but it will be rectified and I believe substantially improved. A further improvement is requiring a serious offender (that is, a person who has been judicially proclaimed as a serious registrable offender or a registrable repeat offender) to inform any available responsible adult that they are a serious registerable offender and the circumstances causing them to be classified as a serious registrable offender. Just simply disclosing the reasons for them to be in that category is, again, common sense, and really should have been done years ago, but we are pleased to see it is happening. This bill continues to clarify points, such as that a registrable offender cannot work as a taxi or hire car driver and publication issues surrounding missing registrable offenders which balance the public interest with victims' rights—again, another common-sense step in the right direction. Family First supports any efforts that are made to advance child protection, and accordingly welcomes these most sensible changes to our current legislation. I look forward to them passing and, most importantly, look forward to them being enforced by our courts. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.