HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILD SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 12.

Ms CHAPMAN: We were dealing with the reportable contact amendment of the new definition of how that is going to imply. As I understand it, we are cutting out the first and second rounds and we are tightening up the definition. I have had a look at that during the luncheon adjournment and I certainly agree that is a very significant improvement. Because this is all part of section 13, I was not sure whether the section 14 amendments affect that, so I would just like to clarify: what is the time frame for the party to give advice of their reportable contact incidents?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is in clause 19—new section 20A—and it is two days.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question then is: for this reportable contact, I take it that that is able to be done by electronic means?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The commissioner can allow that, but that is a matter for the commissioner, I am advised. I think it is more particularly that the method of reporting is a method satisfactory to the commissioner, which would be a method that they could prescribe or indicate.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the current position in what used to be unsupervised contact but which, under this amendment, is going to be reportable contact? What was the previous arrangement?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the standard presently is a personal report. This would maintain that, although I am advised that, should the commissioner say it would be satisfactory to do so by another means, he could.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The time frame? I am advised that it was 14 days, so we are shortening that time frame. The view was that, if you have had a reportable contact, the idea that you can wait 14 days before you tell anybody—if it is worth having it reportable, it is worth having it reportable in a timely fashion.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, this will be a matter that we will have a look at between houses. Obviously, there may well be some very good arguments for reducing the time to report it, but if it is going to be required to be personal unless other circumstances are agreed by the commissioner, then that can somewhat obviate the significance of being able to report early, if physical reporting cannot be achieved.

We will be looking for some predetermined provision for communication, so that that is automatically available, if we are going to have such a tightening of that time frame. In any event, we will have a look at that. It just seems that we are in a modern era. We are changing this legislation already and we are happy to accommodate some changes of place for reporting so that it is not so rigid and it is more convenient for the police (and, in fact, the offenders at times) to be able to have some flexibility about the nature of that reporting.

I think I am right in saying that the current act provides for a very extensive list of initial reporting matters and there is not going to be any relief from that. It still has to be name, former names, names of other parties residing with them, dates of birth, addresses, all the details of working (what you are doing, who you work for, address of work), members of organisations, motor vehicles you own or are driven by you, tattoos, permanent marks, guilty of anything from a foreign jurisdiction, whether you have been in gaol, whether you want to leave the state, membership you have in any telecommunications carriage, internet service, your passwords on every electronic device you can think of and probably your Twitter account too. I think we have 'chat room' in there but, in any event, if Twitter is not there, you can do it by regulation to ensure that it is there.

So, first up, it seems to be a pretty long meeting of disclosure and provision of all this information but the changes of all of these could be quite onerous and could require a lot of regular contact. We in the opposition will be looking to make that something that is not time-wasting for the police or indeed the party. We want to make it as easy as possible for them to report it and, if there can be a report and it is logged and recorded without being too onerous, that would be important.

It is one thing to make a party who is subject to this act have to go in and physically attend to something, but in terms of the time that is then taken with police personnel to actually receive that person, have them in the waiting room and deal with the recording, that personal contact is quite time-absorbing. We are keen to favourably consider abbreviations of time to do things, but we want some convenience included.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not necessarily disagree with anything the member for Bragg has said about this. The only point is, I think, rather than the member for Bragg or me being prescriptive in this legislation about what meets the convenience of the commissioner, it would be wise for us to allow the commissioner to determine what meets the convenience of the commissioner and, as I said, if the honourable member wants to, she can have a chat with appropriate police officers between the houses and ascertain their view about the matter, and understand their preferences for particular methods.

It could be as simple as this, if the individual bobs up in person, then clearly they are there. If the individual sends a text message, for all anyone knows they could be in Sydney or wherever. I do not know what the police view about that is, and my inclination would be to allow the choice of mode to be left to the commissioner, and if the commissioner was of the view that there was a disproportionate consumption of his staff's time being consumed in interviewing these people, weighed up against the merit of having the reporting done in person, as I understand it he has the capability of varying the reporting mechanism to suit himself, but I think that is something we will need to talk about between the houses.

Ms CHAPMAN: To complete that issue, we are not as keen, having been prescriptive in what the obligations are, and massively increasing the penalties in relation to this process, which is a monitoring process we go back to, rather than a primary offence-based offence and, so, we are keen to not make it inflexible and we have had advice to date including a number of things, and one is that there have been very few prosecutions since the introduction of this legislation. There are some 1,400 people on the register and we understand that. So, I suppose on the face of it, we who are sitting here in the parliament could reasonably assume that there has not been either a flagrant disregard for the obligations under this or, alternatively, someone out there is being lax in its enforcement, or perhaps a bit of both.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Or they are not being detected.

Ms CHAPMAN: Or they are not being detected. But the processes here are not necessarily going to mean that there is going to be any advance on the detection and prosecution if there is a level of breach out there that we do not know about, and we have not had any evidence presented to us at the briefings or in the second reading from the government that there has been some wild level of flagrant disregard for this obligation. As I say, the penalties being imposed are very steep, and we are going to be giving a number of personnel that responsibility and, from the briefings we have received, we are advised there is going to be an increased number of personnel allocated and some budget allocation apparently for this.

So, the police know they are going to be given an extra job to do, and they have obviously successfully secured some extra resources to do it. In addition to the two items Mr Debelle has sought, of which the government has accommodated in this bill, and in addition to the attempts to provide some uniformity nationally in relation to this which are covered, there is a whole string of other things in this legislation, and we are about to have added to it another one from requests by the police to add in, which are not consistent with uniformity around Australia, they are additional things. We are keen to make sure that, when they come in, there will be some scrutiny on it. But, in any event, I thank the government for at least making a considered effort to find this question of reportable contact. It is certainly a significant improvement.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have listened to what the honourable member has said. We can speculate about why it is that there have not been a lot of prosecutions. I think it is one of those Donald Rumsfeld moments—we have got the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns. I do not know what the answer is to that particular question but I do know that if you tighten up the reporting regime you are more likely to ascertain when people have been in default than if you do not. That is something we can continue to talk about.

As to the other point that the honourable member makes about uniformity, as the honourable member would know, I have at least—I hope she will accept—been consistent about my lack of slavish adherence to national uniformity principles for their own sake. If we wind up having a better model than other states, well, that is good for us. The mere fact that somebody else does not have it, or whatever, does not mean that it is necessarily bad that we do. It might be that, as South Australia has done for many years, we are setting the national tone and making progress here that others are yet to catch up with. That is not uncommon, particularly in the term of this government.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 13.

Ms CHAPMAN: While we are on this clause, I will raise the question of reporting times, which also relate to the amendments to clause 16, amending section 16, so we come back to another reporting time. I make the same comments as before, that we will look at that reduction from 14 to seven days and the format by which that reporting can be made.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Where is this?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am finding it. Rather than going to all of them, on time, I am just trying to abbreviate that, so bear with me a moment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take on notice every issue about time. We can take that as read, and we will have further conversations about that, but the comment will be the same for all of them, though.

Ms CHAPMAN: That's right. The opposition will indicate whether we will ultimately move amendments on any of those. I am trying to whizz through those because 18 and 19 also have abbreviated time frames in relation to leaving the state, overseas travel, etc.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

Ms CHAPMAN: Here is the question about where they report to. My understanding from the briefing, minister, is that we are trying to make this more flexible. For example, if there is a number of people in a district or a region in South Australia, the police can make a determination to say, 'Look, the reporting place for all of the people in this region is going to be the Coober Pedy Police Station', or something of that nature rather than necessarily the one that is closest to a particular party. Is that my understanding of how that is going to work?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes; I understand that the question is actually about clause 20 and, yes, the answer is that it does give the commissioner the power to direct a person to go to a particular place to report.

Ms CHAPMAN: Again in relation to clause 21, seeing we have already passed clause 20, this relates to how it can be made. I think I have made sufficient comment in relation to that, and we will look for some electronic registering of that in certain circumstances, so we will deal with that later.

Clause passed.

Clause 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Ms CHAPMAN: The question really on 'additional matters' is the clause we are on. If I can just clarify again this attendance at the police station which relates to the attendance at a nominated police station as approved by the commissioner, of course, plus the accompanying of another support person. Is there any amendment in this legislation to delete the support person in any way and/or I am assuming here that they will have an obligation to attend at the police station if they are going to be there as a support person to the relevant party?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised it is unchanged. They both attend together.

Clause passed.

Clause 24.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question in relation to clause 23, which is an amendment to 25, is this provision for the passport. What is the basis for the amendment here? How is this tightened up and what is the purpose of it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that currently there is no requirement to present a passport if they have got it, and this makes it that they must.

Ms Chapman: For what?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, obviously, have passport; can travel. If you do not have a passport, you are not going to leave the country, so it is just an additional means of keeping a handle on them.

Ms Chapman: Making sure they can come back?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are making sure they do not go, perhaps; that is more to the point.

Ms CHAPMAN: The next question I have is on conditions of bail and relates to the amendments to the Bail Act, and I think the minister has something at clause 36.

Clause passed.

Clauses 25 to 35 passed.

Clause 36.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 20, after line 15—After inserted section 66D insert:

Part 5B—Publication of information about registrable offenders

66DA—Commissioner may publish personal details of certain registrable offenders

(1) The Commissioner may publish, on a website maintained by the Commissioner, any or all of the personal details of a registrable offender (other than a registrable offender who is a child) if—

(a) the Commissioner is satisfied that the registrable offender—

(i) has failed to comply with any of his or her reporting obligations; or

(ii) in purported compliance with Part 3, has provided information that is false or misleading in a material particular; and

(b) the registrable offender's whereabouts are not known to the Commissioner.

(2) The Commissioner may at any time—

(a) remove any or all of the personal details of a registrable offender from the website on which they are published under subsection (1); or

(b) again publish under subsection (1) any or all of the personal details of the registrable offender after their removal under paragraph (a).

(3) If—

(a) the Commissioner has published any personal details of a registrable offender under subsection (1); and

(b) the registrable offender subsequently reports his or her whereabouts to the Commissioner under Part 3,

the Commissioner must, as soon as is practicable after receiving the report, remove those personal details from the website on which they are published.

(4) The Commissioner may not publish any personal details of the offender under this Part that are provided under section 13(1)(f) or (g) under this Part before notifying any party to whom the personal details relate (or a representative of the party) unless such disclosure would compromise a police investigation.

(5) In this section—

personal details, in relation to a registrable offender—

(a) includes a photograph of the offender; but

(b) does not include any details that the offender reports under section 13(1)(e) or (ea) or any other details that would identify a child.

66DB—Commissioner may take into account certain matters

(1) In determining whether or not—

(a) to publish any personal details of a registrable offender under section 66DA(1) (identifying information); or

(b) to remove identifying information from a website under section 66DA(2),

the Commissioner may take into account the matters listed in subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the following matters are relevant:

(a) whether the publication of the identifying information about the person would interfere with—

(i) an investigation by police officers in relation to the person; or

(ii) the person's compliance with the reporting obligations of this Act; or

(iii) the operation of any order or requirement under a written law to which the person is subject;

(b) whether the publication of the identifying information about the person might identify a victim of an offence, or the school attended by a victim of an offence, committed by the person;

(c) the effect that the publication of the identifying information about the person might have on a victim of an offence committed by the person;

(d) whether, in statements made by the victim to the Commissioner, the publication of the identifying information about the person has been supported or opposed by a victim of an offence committed by the person;

(e) whether the publication of the identifying information about the person would increase the risk of the person committing offences;

(f) the Commissioner's assessment of the benefit to the community of the publication of the identifying information about the person;

(g) if the identifying information is about a person who is awaiting trial on a charge of an offence— whether the publication of the identifying information might prejudice the fair trial of the person;

(h) any other matter the Commissioner considers relevant.

(3) Before publishing identifying information, the Commissioner must take reasonable steps to consult with any persons that the Commissioner believes may be adversely affected by publication of the information.

66DC—Protection as to publication and other provision of information

(1) If the Commissioner determines in good faith—

(a) to publish or provide any information under this Part; or

(b) not to publish or provide any information under this Part,

no civil or criminal liability attaches to the Commissioner or the Crown by reason of publishing or providing that information or omitting to publish or provide that information.

(2) If information is published or provided by the Commissioner under this Part, that publication or provision of information is not to be regarded—

(a) as a breach of any duty of confidentiality or secrecy imposed by law; or

(b) as a breach of professional ethics or standards or as unprofessional conduct.

(3) In this section—

information includes identifying information referred to in section 66DB.

66DD—Conduct intended to incite animosity towards or harassment of identified offenders and other people

(1) A person must not engage in any conduct, otherwise than in private, by which the person intends to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a person as an identified offender or as a person associated with an identified offender.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

(2) A person must not engage in any conduct, otherwise than in private, that is likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a person as an identified offender or as a person associated with an identified offender.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(3) A reference in subsection (1) or (2) to conduct includes a reference to conduct occurring on a number of occasions over a period of time.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2), conduct is taken not to occur in private if it—

(a) consists of any form of communication with the public or a section of the public; or

(b) occurs in a public place or in sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(5) In this section—

animosity towards a person means hatred of, or serious contempt for, the person;

harassment includes threat, serious and substantial abuse and severe ridicule;

identified offender means a registrable offender whose personal details are published by the Commissioner under this Part;

public place includes—

(a) a place to which the public, or any section of the public, has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise; and

(b) a privately owned place to which the public has access with the express or implied approval of, or without interference from, the owner, occupier or person who has the control or management of the place; and

(c) a school, university or other place of education, other than a part of it to which neither students nor the public usually have access.

66DE—Publication, display and distribution of identifying information

(1) A person must not, without having first obtained the written approval of the Minister, publish, distribute or display any identifying information.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) In this section—

display means display in or within view of a public place, as defined in section 66DD(5);

distribute means distribute to the public or a section of the public;

identifying information means information that is identifiable as the personal details of a person published by the Commissioner under section 66DA;

publish means publish to the public or a section of the public.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have already spoken briefly about why we are doing this, and I will not repeat it. I move my amendment in the form foreshadowed in my amendment No. 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is the amendment foreshadowed by the Attorney yesterday during his rebuttal in which he indicated that he had had a request, late as it may have been, from the police to say, 'Look, while this bill is under consideration we want to be able to deal with people who go AWOL and we want to be able to publish their photograph in the daily newspaper or some other media to utilise this for the benefit of determining the whereabouts and apprehension of people we suspect who have not reported or, if they have, they have not reported fully enough.'

I would have to say that at first blush the determination by the commissioner to publish a photograph is concerning, given that this is not a publication of a photograph of someone who might have been identified as a possible party who has flown from an accident or scene of a crime or who, from time to time, the commissioner or other law enforcement body, have tried to seek the support of the community in identifying and reporting it so that they might be apprehended. That has its place and sometimes that is of assistance—especially if someone might have committed an offence in which they have used a firearm where it would cause some distress to the community.

Overriding that is the importance of the safety to the community where we publish a photograph and say, 'Look, please help. Anyone having information, please come forward.' From time to time, persons such as the Attorney announce financial rewards as some inducement to help.

However, this is someone who has failed to register. There is no threshold here for the commissioner in determining whether they publish the photograph based on whether there is some reasonable suspicion that the person is engaging in some other illegal activity. We have been through some discussion about whether or not that is an appropriate situation to have as a threshold.

The flipside of this, which you commented on yesterday, is that there may still be a reasonable heightening of risk that automatically flows from someone not registering their updated information. The risk to the public, however, is that a photograph is published which is sufficient to disclose the need to apprehend (or at least report this person) and the fear that that might induce in those viewing the photograph.

I am not necessarily putting this as a presentation for the privacy of the person concerned; I think that is an aspect to be considered. But just consider this: an advertisement goes in the paper, there is publication of the photograph, 'If you have seen this person, please report them to the police station' with or without disclosure of the fact that they have failed to comply under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act which, of course, would be very alarming to people. That then produces, I think, an unfair fear level in the general community. The alternate is that the photograph is published and there is no information provided as to why this person needs to be brought in. That is all kept secret to minimise the concerns of the community.

Either way, we end up with a situation—and let us assume this is the bald photograph: 'This person is wanted to be ascertained by police. If you have seen this person, these are his names or aliases that he has been provided to date and if you have seen him, please assist us.' That in itself will still raise some concern from the public, especially if the media identify this person as someone of interest to them. I would just like to know where this process applies anywhere in Australia and what are the same rules that apply to this that are different in that jurisdiction, if it applies at all?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This particular element is derived from an equivalent provision in Western Australia but this proposal does not include other elements that Western Australia has, which is basically a public phone-in line where you can ask for information. There is no correct answer to this. It is a matter of balancing policy considerations. Remember that before this is triggered the individual must, first, be on the register, which means they are a convicted offender. Secondly, they must have failed to comply with reporting obligations or provided false or misleading information and their whereabouts have become unknown to the commissioner.

I guess I pose the question to the honourable member: you have Mr O'Shea who has failed to comply with his reporting requirements or you discover that what he has told you is wrong and he has disappeared. Given who that individual is, and given that he has become noncompliant on all those things, would that not be sufficiently alarming for the police to say, 'We think there is not an inconsiderable risk that some child somewhere might be at risk if we do not find out what this bloke is doing and where he is, so we want to find out where he is'?

It is not dissimilar, I suppose, to Crime Stoppers. They have a photograph on the news of an evening and they say, 'There has been a robbery. If anyone can help us identify this gentleman, he may or may not be the villain.' The point is that these people are being kept under surveillance for a very good reason and somebody who falls within this part has decided to become noncompliant to the point where the police do not even know where they are.

All I am saying is I accept that this is fairly strong medicine—I accept that—but the balance we are trying to strike here is between these individuals' rights to privacy (which is still a legitimate matter for concern) and the public interest in making sure that children are protected from predators. There is no objectively perfect place to strike that balance. All I am saying is that, as far as I am concerned, we have to err, where it is a matter of doubt such as this, on the side of protecting children from predators. I accept that is a fairly tough line, but this does exist in Western Australia and, in my opinion, the way that this will work, ideally, is this.

People on the register becoming aware of this will become particularly vigilant about being compliant because they will not want their photograph being sprayed around the place. If, in spite of all that, they still go out and misbehave and become noncompliant, frankly, I think it is not unreasonable for the police to say to the public, 'Can you help us find this character because we don't know where they are and they are noncompliant with reporting requirements?' or 'They have given us false information.' People of goodwill may differ about whether this is the appropriate place to strike the balance but I am just trying to explain that is why—and it does occur in Western Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: So what is the difference between the format that applies in Western Australia and what is in here?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Western Australia has an additional arrangement whereby the public can apply for information about who is their local paedophile, or whatever. We have not gone down that path because members might recall in Western Australia a few years ago there were some pretty Wild West type scenes when vigilante type groups got together and ran people out of town. That is not desirable. It is clearly not in the public interest to have that sort of public disorder going on. So, we have not gone with that bit, but we have gone with this bit.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that the Attorney is, I think, focusing on the inconvenience or embarrassment, etc., to the subject party, and the opposition is concerned about that, but that is not the most important issue. The most important issue is the fact that Mr O'Shea's photograph, if you use that as the example, is put in the paper. Those who may have been victims, or those who know the case, may be alerted and alarmed by that publication and that is a factor which also has to be taken into account. I notice that under the government's proposed amendment, under 66DB, factors to be taken into account, it says:

Before publishing identifying information, the Commissioner must take reasonable steps to consult with any persons that the Commissioner believes may be adversely affected by publication of information.

I am not sure who that is to apply to, so I ask that question. Also, is there any obligation, there or anywhere else, that the commissioner advises the victims, or families, who have been the subject of any primary offence of the party in question, because obviously they will be particularly concerned? If they see this person's photograph in the paper, or on a website, it is reasonable to assume that there is a problem and that could be very concerning to them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, I understand the point. The second point is that the legislative scheme contemplates the website being the primary means, not TV. The third point, and I do understand the point the honourable member is making, but if you were a victim of one of these individuals, and fortunately for me I have not been, but if a person had been, it is a moot point as to what would be more concerning: that you became aware that the individual was noncompliant with the reporting requirements and their whereabouts were unknown to the police or that they had become noncompliant with the reporting requirements, their whereabouts were unknown to the police and you had absolutely no idea and you are likely to bump into them at a shop. Either way, it is potentially concerning for a victim, and I acknowledge the point.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who will be advised, under—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a matter for the commissioner. Clearly, if there were obvious victims I would expect the commissioner would say something about that, but I am wary of being too prescriptive about some of these things. Take the example we put in here: all victims of the alleged person must be notified before you can do X, Y and Z. Let us assume the commissioner identifies two or three former victims but does not identify the next one, for whatever administrative reason, and then there is a publication and the person says, 'Hang on, you shouldn't have published that because you missed Joe Bloggs, who was another one of my victims. You now do not have the statutory protection to be able to do this. You are now in breach of the secrecy provisions attaching to this register and you are in all sorts of trouble.' I am not encouraging sloppy behaviour but let us not set up all these crazy trip-wires for people. Let us trust in the commissioner to have some reasonable common sense about how the commissioner does what they do.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just in relation to what is operating in Western Australia, and because this is something new we have not had a chance to have any briefing on it. How long has it been operating there? How often, so far, has the Western Australian commissioner determined to publish on their website cases such as this, and have there been any problems with that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, aside from what I told the honourable member previously about vigilantism, I don't have any other information to hand, but during the interval between here and the other place, I will ask those that advise me to have regard to your questions in Hansard and obtain answers for you.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (37 to 40) passed.

Schedule 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is the provision for the amendment to the Bail Act to—I'm looking for your second reading—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can indicate: provisions to the provisions that apply relating to people who are charged with firearms offences. They are presently given what you would call default bail conditions which include non-association with firearms. It is a default position, which you then have to discharge rather than a position that the prosecution has to persuade the court to impose.

Ms CHAPMAN: The provision in the second reading which suggests this amendment can only be imposed or relief be given from the imposition of no-bail as such if there is a threshold test of the accused poses no risk to the safety or well-being of children. It is a very exceptional circumstance, I suppose, where they can have relief from this reversal of onus. Is that the position, as I understand it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, but it might have been just the way the honourable member expressed that question. This does not prevent bail. It just imposes default conditions of bail which then, in (2ac), can be discharged if, in effect, the person convinces them there is no risk.

Ms CHAPMAN: I was looking back at this question of child-related work, because that has the same reference under section 4 of the current act.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We've added taxis and so on.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just coming to that. That is what I was just trying to find. So, the provision of transport for working in a hospital or foster care children, etc., is not covered under section 64, and you have chosen to cover people in taxis, and I think hire car services, as being added into that category. Is there some reason why we do not have bus travel or other forms of transport in which they are likely to be in contact with children?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you are a school bus driver, you are covered, yes. But, if you are just in an ordinary bus, I am advised the police view was that since there would be lots of adults around the place observing what you were doing as the driver, they did not consider that was a high-risk situation, because it was not the same as but similar to being in a public place with an incidentally passing child.

In a hire car or a taxi, there is the opportunity of that lengthy period where there is just the driver and the child, whereas if you are talking about a person who is driving the 264 bus, or whatever it is, there are people on and off the bus all the time, and they are, after all, driving the bus—and, as you know, keeping good time—so they do not have time to be stopping and doing the wrong thing.

Ms CHAPMAN: For the moment, I am not worried about the bus services or public services; I am more worried about those children who might be driven on a private bus for an activity. We have had in the parliament just today an example of a shocking case, of course, where there has been the allegation made that a person who is currently charged with offences has driven children across the border in a private bus for a club activity (gymnastics).

It seems to me that this is exactly the situation where if somebody were to be—not an alleged offender in that case, but someone who was participating in the transport—you already have, under subparagraph (p) of section 64, services for the transport of children. Now we seem to be singling out taxis and hire cars, who actually provide special services to a lot of our disabled children, for example.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Exactly.

Ms CHAPMAN: We know that that can be a problem, but we also know that they are in high demand, obviously, for the provision of that service, because a lot of these children do not have suitably fitted access to be able to be mobilised in any other public form of transport because of their disability, or they do not have parents who are able to have vehicles and so on to drive them around. There is a heavy reliance for a number of those children on taxi and hire car services. I think there are some very good people in the taxi industry, of course, who provide that service, but it just seems to me that—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is only registered offenders who would be captured by this, so the ordinary taxi driver has nothing to worry about.

Ms CHAPMAN: 'Ordinary taxi driver'. Is there such a thing?

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Who isn't an offender.

Ms CHAPMAN: That's right. In any event, you say it is necessary to exclude those who might otherwise be very capable of driving adults around to be identified here for special exclusion?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that this just formalises a practice that currently exists whereby things are run through Police, DPTI and the taxi board. I am told that this is what they do as a matter of course now, and that this is just formalising what they do.

Ms CHAPMAN: I can understand that for the purposes of the obligations for registration as a taxi person—and the Motor Vehicles Act or some other legislation would monitor that—but 'taxi service' has been put in here. It is unique in Australia, as I understand it. Rather than under the registration obligations or prohibitions that relate to any particular professional group (or, in this case, taxi drivers), which is where it would be in its normal list of exclusionary behaviour that would knock them out for consideration to be a licensed operator or driver in some way, for some reason this is specifically in here. All I understand from the briefing is that the police have asked for this. It is unique and we do not have any explanation as to why they are singled out.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have to confess that, in thinking about this, I have been acutely aware of the fact that there are some people to whom this legislation applies who are not only children but they are also people who operate under a disability. We have had some absolutely disgusting episodes in the not too distant past here in South Australia which have involved people providing transport services for disabled children.

Ms CHAPMAN: Mostly buses.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mostly buses, indeed, but there is no reason to assume that we could not have a similar situation—perhaps even more frightening for the victim because they would be by themselves—where the person is driving a taxi or a hire car. I am not aware of any person who is currently a taxi driver who is also a person on this list, but whilst we were going through these provisions and considering how we could provide greater safety for children—and, in particular, children with disabilities—it appeared to me that it was sensible to consider whether or not there are other circumstances in which children are potentially left in an environment where there are no witnesses and they are in a private place at the mercy, so to speak, of an adult person who is a stranger. Where else would those things occur?

One example that came up—and it was to some extent informed by those horrible events with the bus drivers that you have mentioned—is the potential for somebody who is driving a taxi or a hire car to be in that situation. It will have no impact on the industry unless there are people in the industry who are on the register, in which case, quite frankly, I would not be happy with my child being driven to school or anywhere else with that person driving them.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:28): I just wish to place a couple of things on the record. Firstly, I thank those who provided briefings in this matter to date, particularly given the announcement of late additions in the amendments that we have dealt with and the Attorney's offer to have further briefings.

I just place on the record our request that somebody from the unit that currently manages this be available for such a briefing and that particulars as to enforcement and/or prosecution under the current act be available at the briefing, including detail of further resources that are proposed for the purposes of dealing with the enhanced version of this obligation under the monitoring role.

Finally, just to confirm and place on the record our concern about one other matter which is, I think, unique to this type of legislation, that is, the capacity to be able to stop a party from changing their name. I think that there is clearly some provision and some good reason at times for people to change their name. For the purpose of tracing a party, that could inconvenience the enforcement agencies and, so, quite obviously, the current obligation in having to report any change of name is important.

I think it should also be acknowledged here that, once a word or name has become tarnished, there can be a repeated penalty with publication, and sometimes an accused's name is flashed across the media during the course of a trial. With the association of that with a particular school or family or victim (even though child victims are not named), all of these things come back, and there can be very legitimate reasons why people change their name and want to be able to start afresh.

This is a matter which the opposition feels should probably be with a magistrate to make an assessment about whether a change of name is appropriate or not. The government has chosen that the commissioner attend to this provision of entertaining applications to grant consent to change of name under these amendments. I suppose it is indicative of the whole flavour of this legislation that, to have passed a law, we then come back and say, 'We're going to change a whole lot of it and really just let the enforcers make decisions at their discretion about what is appropriate and what is effective.'

We do not want decisions to be made in respect of this type of legislation for monitoring and the enforcement of the monitoring to be based on resources or lack of resources of those who are having to do the enforcement, as distinct from risk to the community. That is inevitably a consequence if the person who is having to apply the resources is left with the discretion about whether they impose an extra or over-burdensome obligation on those who are bound by it.

That is the reason we have separate organisations to attend to the determination of these things. I note the government is going down this track. There is probably some room for some improvement to protect against some of this, but we do thank the government for at least having identified the reportable contact issue as a worthy attempt to remedy that problem.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:32): I thank the honourable member for her remarks. I would like to give her some very heartening news; I hope it is heartening news. Apparently, I am advised, next week arrangements have been made for the honourable member to be briefed by members of my department and also by SAPOL, South Australia's finest.

Unlike the honourable member, I am so not worried about the Commissioner of Police and other senior officers in SAPOL who are doing such a fine job for us every day out there in the streets defending us against these terrible miscreants, keeping an eye on these horrible fellows who are out there preying on children.

They are what stand between us being the civilised country that we are and having a chaotic and unsafe community. I pay tribute to them for the great work that they do, and I have perfect confidence that the men and women of SAPOL and their commissioner and all of those who work in that fine organisation will bring their very best intentions to bear, because they do not want recidivist sex offenders out there preying on children. I know they do not want them out there preying on children, and I know they will do their best to make sure that these provisions are exercised with discretion and to make sure that the safety of our young people is absolutely paramount.

I will arrange all of those briefings for the honourable member. I am confident that SAPOL will be delighted to be there and provide her with whatever answers she requires to her questions.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT