Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration (Change of Name) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2015.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:11): I rise to speak in support of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration (Change of Name) Amendment Bill. This bill presents a straightforward and logical approach to the current issue surrounding the ability of certain offenders to change their name all too easily and potentially without appropriate oversight. Currently, an adult who is domiciled in South Australia or whose birth was registered in South Australia can apply to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to change their name. The person needs to provide evidence of their identity and the registrar has the discretion to refuse the application if the name change would be for a fraudulent or improper purpose or would otherwise be a prohibited name. As has been noted, the registrar is making these determinations without knowledge of a person's criminal history, which arguably limits the ability of the registrar to ascertain whether the name change is sought for an improper or fraudulent purpose.

Turning to the specific bill itself, we strongly support the requirement that certain categories of offenders (namely, prisoners, parolees, those released on licence or under an extended supervision order or person declared by regulation) need to obtain the permission of their supervising authority (in most cases the CE of the Department for Correctional Services) prior to applying for a change of name. Currently, the only category of offender that requires permission to change their name are those listed on the child sex register. Under these circumstances, Family First considers the proposed changes in this bill to be appropriate; indeed, most appropriate.

The bill provides that the supervising authority cannot approve the request unless they are satisfied that the change of name is necessary or reasonable, whether that be for safety, religious or other reasons that satisfy the chief executive. Similarly, the bill provides factors for which the supervising authority must consider, such as the safety of the offender and other people, the care and treatment of the offender or whether the name change is being sought for an unlawful purpose.

Requiring the supervising authority to approve this change of name provides an element of certainty which currently does not exist, in that the supervising authority is the most likely to be able to accurately determine the suitability of the name change, given the offender's history and behaviour. The bill creates penalty provisions, with a maximum penalty of $10,000 or two years imprisonment, should an application be made to change a name without approval from the supervising authority.

A new provision is also created that allows the exchange of information between the registrar and the supervising authority. Whilst not all information sharing presented to the parliament is necessary or even desirable, the ability for information sharing in this instance would be highly beneficial in providing an added layer of protection for the community and hopefully preventing serious offenders from being able to change their name without good reason to do so.

For similar reasons, providing an alert list of serious offenders to Births, Deaths and Marriages is something that Family First supports. Where the registrar receives an application from someone on this alert list, they will place the application on hold until receipt of confirmation that the applicant has the requisite approval to change their name. Having this mechanism would certainly enable easier identification of offenders who have applied for a change of name and who have not notified the supervising authority.

This bill requires someone to have a connection to the jurisdiction in terms of either being born in South Australia or having been born overseas and residing in South Australia for the past 12 months, prior to changing their name. We believe that the rationale will go some way to ensuring that the appropriate checks and balances are in place and to provide important community protection. That being said, Family First is supportive of the intention of this bill and we look forward to further debate. We support the second reading.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:15): I thank honourable members for their contribution. This is an important bill. There is generally support for this without any amendment, and I look forward to it being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I understand that the registrar can refuse offensive or obscene names that are contrary to the public interest. Is that possible on a non-adult application?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We just cannot find the section.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Considering that it is not directly relevant to this bill, I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We just cannot get our hand on the appropriate section. We think that that can occur, but hopefully we will find the right section before too much longer.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think that would be of interest. It is an interesting precedent. Would you like me to go on to a question more directly relevant?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I think the Hon. Mr Wade indicated that he is happy to have that provided.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes. I am just wondering whether we have a precedent. Even if we do not have a precedent, we will support it. The second reading explanation notes that it is already an offence to knowingly make a false or misleading representation in an application, with a maximum penalty of $1,250. The second reading explanation states:

To assist the Registrar to identify a restricted person, the Bill amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to require an applicant for a change of name to declare on his or her application form whether he or she is a restricted person or a registrable offender within the meaning of the Child Sex Offender Registration Act.

I presume that a registrable offender under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act would already have been duly notified, but I am just wondering how confident we are that a restricted person would know that they are a restricted person under the act and, in that context, I would like to confirm that they would actually need to know that they are one of those two.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, obviously, they would need to know that they are a restricted person.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: And a restricted person, is that subject to a notification requirement?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that they are not necessarily notified, as a restricted person means that they are a prisoner or a parolee or a person subject to an extended supervision order under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act or a person released on licence under section 24 of the criminal law. These people are easily identified.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, I thank the minister, and the minister's second reading made it clear that that aspect was to assist the registrar, it was not the only means. There was a comment later in the speech about administrative arrangements that would also help alert the registrar to serious offenders through mechanisms such as the Department for Correctional Services. I appreciate the clarification that the knowing would still apply and that the registrable offenders would be notified.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 7), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.