HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Child Sex Offenders Registration (Child-Related Work) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 March 2024.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:28): I rise to indicate that the opposition supports the bill, and I will be the lead speaker for the opposition and make some observations about the nature of the bill and some of the feedback that has been received, and it might just be the subject of the committee process in due course.

The purpose of the bill is to extend the existing definition of 'child-related work', and really quite fundamentally from a definition that has been of some long standing in section 64 of the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 that has proscribed work that is recognisably child-centred. To work through that existing definition:

(a) pre-schools or kindergartens;

(b) child care centres;

(c) educational institutions for children;

(d) child protection services;

(e) juvenile detention centres;

(f) refuges or other residential facilities used by children;

(g) foster care for children;

(h) hospital wards or out-patient services (whether public or private) in which children are ordinarily patients;

(i) overnight camps regardless of the type of accommodation or of how many children are involved;

(j) clubs, associations or movements (including of a cultural, recreational or sporting nature) with significant child membership or involvement;

(k) programs or events for children provided by any institution, agency or organisation;

(l) religious or spiritual organisations;

(m) counselling or other support services for children;

(n) commercial baby sitting or child minding services;

(o) commercial tuition services for children;

(p) services for the transport of children;

and includes work in connection with taxi services and hire car services (whether or not the work involves contact with a child).

With the exception of that final inclusion, we see that the definition of 'child-related work', which in turn informs the prohibition, has been for a long period of time directed towards that very clearly child-focused work. The extension of the definition of 'child-related work' that is the subject of the bill will now insert as new paragraph (ka) to the definition of 'child-related work' in section 64(1) 'businesses or undertakings in which children are employed'. It is a really very significant change and extension of the definition, from areas of work that are child-directed, child-focused or child-oriented in terms of the nature of the work to now take in any workplace environment in which children are employed.

We might appreciate at the outset that the change, the extension of the definition in this way, will render the kind of operational aspect of how this works somewhat more dynamic and uncertain and prone to a need for assessment on a case-by-case basis in a way that previously could be determined from workplace to workplace, really, before extending to an inquiry as to whether or not children are employed.

We all understand the purpose of the extension. There have been contributions to the debate that have highlighted the importance that children are safe when they are in a workplace, just as children ought to be safe when they are in circumstances such as schools and childcare centres and other places of work for others in which those children are present.

It is an important extension of how this exclusion will work going forward. It affects what is the general prohibition that then applies, the subject of section 65 of the act, which prohibits a registrable offender from applying for or engaging in work that is child-related work. There is a substantial penalty that applies, should a registrable offender apply or engage in such work.

There is an existing defence that is unchanged that goes to proof of the offender not knowing that the work was child-related work. That defence will now have some more work to do, in that not only now will there be the possibility for bona fide lack of knowledge of the categorisation of the kind of work but, as one reads the operation of the section as amended, there will be a defence in terms of knowledge of whether or not, in fact, children are employed in the workplace. One can readily see that there will be circumstances in which that question may need to be determined from time to time, but it is not beyond possibilities for that to be determined readily, and once that is determined then it will be clearly determinable whether or not the relevant business or undertaking is, in fact, caught by the new paragraph (ka).

The other way in which the extension of the definition will do its work is that, by direct reference to the Bail Act, we know that section 11 of the Bail Act sets out those conditions of bail that apply with respect to bail agreements generally and in respect of certain bail agreements more specifically. Subsection (2ab) provides that if the applicant for bail is a class 1 or class 2 offence suspect, any grant of bail to the applicant must be made subject to the other provisions of the section, subject to 'a condition that the applicant agrees not to engage in child-related work'. So we see the definition applied there again in the context of bail. A class 1 or class 2 offence suspect is a person who has been charged with those categories of offence respectively, within the meaning of the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act.

It is, therefore, the uniform application of the new extended definition to both the prohibition in section 65 of the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act and also as it extends to apply in terms of those bail agreements that might be entered into by persons who are class 1 or class 2 offence suspects. The important point of principle, I suggest, is that we are then seeing the definition work in those two different ways: one by categorisation of the nature of the work and one by inquiry into the actual circumstances of the business or undertaking, that is, where it actually employs children.

There are then important and, I suggest to the house, necessary provisions for the navigation of particular circumstances that an individual might find themselves in, and the capacity for the commissioner to be satisfied of sufficient reasons to provide an exemption in certain circumstances, and we see that the subject of clause 4 of the bill. That is an exercisable discretion that has been welcomed by the Law Society, in particular. I might reflect on the Law Society's contribution to feedback on the bill momentarily.

The provision will extend the existing discretion and make it extend now to the new extended definition specifically, the circumstances at (ka), where the business or undertaking is one in which children are employed and where that is the only reason why the definition is brought into play. The new subsection (5a) will provide:

If a registrable offender applies for a declaration exempting them from the operation of Part 5—

and that is with reference to the primary act—

or specified provisions of Part 5 in respect of work that is only child-related work by virtue of paragraph (ka)—

that is the new one that extends and changes the scope, as I have described—

of the definition of that term in section 64, subsections (4) and (5) of this section do not apply and the Commissioner may only make the declaration if—

and here are the provisos. First:

(a) the relevant offences were not committed in connection with any child-related work; and

(b) the Commissioner is satisfied that the offender does not pose a risk to the safety and well-being of children employed in the business or undertaking that constitutes the child-related work.

There is that capacity for the commissioner to assess those particular circumstances and to make a declaration that limits the application of it in those circumstances.

The bill then further provides for the transitional provisions for circumstances in which a registrable offender is already employed in circumstances that will now be caught by the new definition. If a person is becoming a person engaged in child-related work only by virtue of the new subsection (ka), then that person will be able to give a written notice about their intent to apply for the relevant declaration from the commissioner and they will be given an opportunity to make that application.

Sensibly, in my view, the person who finds themselves newly caught by the definition will need to indicate that to their employer, and also to the commissioner, and then to go ahead and make that application. In those circumstances, that person will be exempt from the operation of the prohibition, but only in respect of that particular child-related work and until the prescribed time for making that application. So there is that transitional arrangement for those who might be caught by the extended definition.

There is a further transitional provision in terms of those persons who are arrested or reported before commencement, and the provisions of the principal act will apply to the person as if disclosure required under that subsection was required to be made within seven days after the commencement of this act. So there is provision for the regularisation of circumstances for those who are arrested or reported prior to the commencement of the act.

I have addressed the flow-on effect for section 11 of the Bail Act for bail agreements. The final part of the schedule, therefore, dealing with transitional provisions, makes provision for the effect of the amendment on bail applications so as to make it clear that the amended definition, the extended definition, will apply only in relation to a person who applies for bail on or after the commencement of section 3 of the act, regardless of when any offence was committed.

There is machinery here that recognises that there will be individuals who are already in work that is now caught by the extended definition of what child-related work means, and therefore the operation of the principal act. There will be those who are already the subject of a bail agreement and there is capacity for those who either are already in work, or prospectively the subject of the prohibition, who may elect to make an application to the commissioner for exemption in those particular circumstances.

This is a bill that at its heart contains what is a principal shift in terms of what we will henceforth regard as child-related work. Apart from that principal shift, which I think we all ought to appreciate is something that will really change the nature of what we have previously defined to be child-related work, the balance of the bill provides for the machinery through which this will begin to be implemented and otherwise substantively provides the possibility for the commissioner to play an ameliorating role where those preconditions are met.

In following the debate so far, we have heard a number of contributions that have highlighted what ought to be an obvious expectation: in every way we can, beyond the legislative task in the day-to-day world, whether as parents or carers of children all the way through to co-workers and employers of children, we all ought to expect and, as far as we can, guarantee that children are safe. We would like to extend that to be a general proposition.

We have a government department whose sole purpose is the protection of children. So just as we expect that children should be safe in all things that they do, the extension of this definition is really focusing the attention on the child in the workplace and, where a child is in a workplace, ensuring that child is not confronted by a registrable offender or offence suspect, as the case may be; to put it simply, that a child who is at work is at no greater risk than a child who is otherwise engaged in the range of different workplace environments that were previously set out and remain as part of that definition.

The bill in that way does important work. I am glad that it has made its way here. I know that, like so many pieces of legislation that have come through the parliament in this particular term, it has already been the subject of debate in another place. Indeed, it has come about through the active initiative and involvement across parties, as has been highlighted in the course of the debate in the other place and might have already had some reference here. As has been noted in the other place, I would also recognise in particular the Hon. Connie Bonaros's contribution to this debate and we are here debating legislation that has ultimately had the support of the government but it is certainly something that has been thought through by members across parties in both this place and the other place.

I mentioned earlier in my contribution that the stakeholder feedback had included thoughtful contributions, including from the Law Society, and I had mentioned that the Law Society had made particular mention of the welcome provision for the commissioner to assess circumstances and make a direction. I indicate that the Law Society's letter to the Attorney back in August of last year made reference to that aspect in the following terms:

The Society highlights and strongly supports the important objective the Bill seeks to achieve, being to ensure children are not exposed to dangerous sexual predators in a work environment.'

As one might expect, the Law Society encourages the thoroughgoing scrutiny of the drafting of the legislation to ensure that there are not either unanticipated consequences or, as the Law Society highlights, arbitrary outcomes. To that end, that is the risk that there is an arbitrary outcome, the Law Society in that context welcomes the application of the commissioner's power. So, further on in its submission, the President's letter to the Attorney indicates that:

…[the] Criminal Law Committee highlighted (and supported) the ability for the arbitrary operation of these provisions to be ameliorated by a person being able to apply to the Commissioner for an exemption. This is appropriate and should remain. The Bill contemplates further amendments to the Commissioner's discretionary power set out in existing section 66B of the Act in the context of a person seeking exemption when wishing to work in the circumstances contemplated by proposed section 64(1)(ka) implemented by this Bill, which appears to be at the lower threshold than in the cases of other offending.

The letter goes on to say that the Criminal Law Committee also indicated support for the existing capacity to appeal against the commissioner's decision to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court of South Australia. I just highlight those particular passages of the Law Society's feedback by its letter to the Attorney in August last year.

The other particular feedback and engagement that I would highlight and would foreshadow addressing in the course of the committee is feedback from Business SA, and that is also by a letter dated 18 August of last year to the Attorney around the same time. The Chief Executive Officer of Business SA, Andrew Kay, addressed concerns that were really going to ensuring awareness, Business SA joining with others and, indeed, the view of the government and the opposition in this house that the bill is welcomed and important. So I do highlight that Business SA has set out that it agrees with the principle that safety of children in the workplace is paramount and supports the amendments that are the subject of the bill.

It highlights as well what Business SA regards as significant industrial implications that will flow from the change and a concern that the various different categories of individual who might now be the subject of the bill will be aware of the new laws and their commencement and time frames for compliance and so on. I just highlight that because I think there will be an opportunity for the minister to address those matters in committee. Business SA goes on to observe, and I quote:

Presumably with the child-related work specifically meaning 'working involving contact with a child', there may be instances where child sex offenders can continue to work with an employer or children so long as they have no contact with any child in the course of their work. In these circumstances, how should an employer approach the situation if a child sex offender requests a change to their work arrangements? Presumably the child sex offender will need to advise their employer of the circumstances so that appropriate decisions can be made.

Business SA, as has been the case in a whole range of different areas that have an impact on the industrial side, is indicating its willingness to continue to work to assist in terms of the provision of information to employers so that that process of advising of these changes can be made so that what are serious enough circumstances are not unnecessarily compounded by any lack of awareness and therefore lack of necessary action. I think that is valuable and practical feedback from Business SA in terms of the application of these changes.

Having highlighted those two particular matters, I hope that might provide some indication of the nature of inquiry that I expect to undertake in the course of the committee. I otherwise commend the bill to the house.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (17:04): I also rise in support of the Child Sex Offenders Registration (Child-Related Work) Amendment Bill 2023. In some respects, in fact in many respects, this bill is a reflection on what good stuff happens when there is an overall commitment—across parties and across crossbenchers, both in the lower house and in the upper house—to try to do the right thing by enhancing protection for children who can be, and often are, very vulnerable when it comes to those people who choose to offend in a way that can cause enormous damage, damage that can live with the victim for the rest of their life. We have heard, time and time again, the heart-rending stories about what young people who were not believed had to put up with, often in earlier circumstances.

The member for Heysen and others have given a very comprehensive run-down of the bill. Indeed, the member for Heysen gave the definition that exists in the original bill on child-related work. I think it is worthwhile to go through the whole list of those areas in which the bill, as it now stands, protects children. But there has been a loophole, and it is good to see, at last, that this loophole is now going to be addressed, and I think effectively addressed.

Once again, it is the work of people in both houses that has brought this to the fore, but I would also like to acknowledge people in the broader community—especially the shoppies union, for its advocacy and its lobbying on this matter. Of course, they have coverage of a lot of young people in a number of industries, especially the fast-food industry, where a lot of our underage children are employed and come into contact with adults in one way or another. In fact, this occurs in the retail sector as a whole, but it might especially be the case when it comes to the fast-food industry. Indeed, in their lobbying effort, they pointed to an example at a McDonald's store that triggered serious concern. Of course, there was also an incident at a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet as well, which I believe did lead to a conviction.

This amendment bill, by its very nature, creates what is referred to as a 'default rule' that registered child sex offenders and those accused of registerable child sex offences may not work in businesses that employ children if their employment would involve contact with child employees. That is essentially the core of the bill: extending the definition when it comes to offenders and alleged offenders with regard to where they can work.

As has been outlined, there are provisions in the bill where, depending on the individual circumstances, either the bail authority or the police commissioner can vary or revoke, if you like, the default approach that is contained within the bill. But they will only do so on the basis that they are fully convinced, if you like, that there is no risk posed to the children that might come across the particular adult.

The bill is a real step forward. You do not have to be a parent; any reasonable person would say this is a good move. It does cause me to reflect as a parent because two of my kids did, while at school, work in a takeaway place, and it never occurred to me. I guess it does not until something is brought to the fore by other people saying, 'This is an area of vulnerability that needs to be addressed,' and this is what this bill does. It addresses that area of vulnerability.

There are some transitional arrangements contained within the amendment bill. I do not intend to go through that. We have already had a lawyer going through the transitional arrangements, and there is no way I can compete with that. There are a number of aspects that are picked up in the bill to ensure the smooth implementation of the bill. There might well be some stuff that has been highlighted that will come up in committee stage. At the end of the day, there is a strong commitment across the party to see this bill go through and do the right thing by children that might be exposed, or potentially exposed, to child sex offenders. This is a positive step forward, and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (17:11): I, too, rise to speak on the Child Sex Offenders Registration (Child-Related Work) Amendment Bill 2023. It is a bill that seeks to enact one simple but important change: where a registered child sex offender or a person accused of registrable child sex crimes is currently prohibited from participating in child-related work, like schools and sporting clubs, we want to broaden the existing legislation's scope.

High-risk individuals should not be working around our children, which is why we are moving to implement a blanket ban. We are saying no to known and accused child sex offenders working in direct contact with South Australian minors, whether that work is child-related or not. It means a child sex offender cannot stand beside our kids at the front counter of the local bakery. It means a child sex offender cannot stack shelves next to a person under the age of 18 at the local Foodland or alongside young people at the local McDonald's or any other retail or hospitality establishment. It means parents and caregivers have one less thing to worry about when they drop their kids off at work on the weekend or after school.

My own daughter is 12 years old, and she has just started high school. While she is too young at the moment, she is looking forward to entering the workforce herself and has already inquired at some local businesses. I live in a tight-knit community, and so many of our small and local businesses have helped children and young adults in securing their first jobs. None of these businesses—and, it is fair to say, no business across the state—would knowingly place a child in harm's way, but the passage of this legislation puts the matter beyond doubt. It simply will not be allowed to happen. As a mum of an ambitious soon-to-be teenager, this gives me immense relief.

It is a change that I know my electorate will welcome with open arms, but it is also a change the SDA and its members have called for, and I would like to take the opportunity now to thank them for their advocacy. The Malinauskas Labor government is cracking down on crime to ensure our communities and our children are kept safe. Already, we have strengthened laws that are relevant to child exploitation materials and the possession of childlike sex dolls. We have amended legislation to ensure language better reflects the serious nature of child-related sex crimes. We are moving to see that serious repeat child sex offenders are subject to penalties, including indefinite imprisonment and lifetime electronic monitoring.

Child sex offenders can expect to be met with the full force of the law, and the actions of this government make that abundantly clear. I have mentioned the SDA and its members, but another person worthy of recognition for their tireless campaigning is former Australian of the Year and abuse survivor Grace Tame. Last year, we had the privilege of Ms Tame's presence in the house, as we removed the term 'unlawful relationship' from the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and replaced it with 'sexual abuse of a child'.

There is no room for ambiguity when we are dealing with offences of such gravity. To paraphrase Ms Tame, 'words hold immense weight'. Words certainly do hold immense weight, but it is the way we use them in our laws that counts the most when we are looking to remove predators from our streets and place them behind bars. The rule book needs to reflect the expectations of our community, and we are drawing a clear line in the sand.

Child sex offenders do not belong next to our kids in the workplace, whatever that workplace may be. Everyone has a right to feel safe on the job, and parents and caregivers have a right to know their children are contributing to our community without having to worry about their wellbeing. Let this bill come as a fair and direct warning. Again, let me express my sincere thanks to all who have advocated for such important change. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services) (17:15): I rise to speak in support of this bill that seeks to add further measures to our systems for protecting children and young people. The safety of children and young people is a responsibility for the whole community, from government and schools through to employers, community groups, sporting clubs and families. Government responses alone cover many agencies and programs, including statutory child protection work, early intervention services, worker and volunteer screenings, the Child Safe Environments program, SafeWork SA, our police and, of course, our courts.

Our screening system, run by the Department of Human Services, provides a critical service, with around 700,000 screenings in place at any time. The vast majority of these, around 550,000, are actually the working with children checks that cover staff and volunteers in education and children's services, health, transport, sport and recreation along with other areas where people or organisations deliver a range of services and supports to young people.

Working with children checks involve a detailed assessment every five years of a person's suitability that includes checks against information sources from around Australia. In the intervening period, a continuous monitoring system provides updates when certain things occur that could affect a person's suitability. While working with children checks are legally required in a range of prescribed circumstances, many employers outside of these areas also contribute to the safety of their young or more vulnerable workers by requiring a national police check for new staff and then making their own decision about whether someone is the right fit for their workplace.

The new legislation before us today adds another layer of safety by creating a default rule that registered child sex offenders and those accused of registrable child sex offences may not work in businesses that employ children. This requirement will be triggered if their employment would involve contact with child employees. Accused and registered child sex offenders are already generally prohibited from engaging in child-related work. However, the current definition of this does not extend to working with child employees. The bill broadens the definition.

The ban on child-related work can be varied or revoked in individual cases if the person would not pose a risk to child employees. This is at the discretion of the bail authority for accused offenders or the Commissioner of Police for convicted and registered offenders. The issue of exemptions is both important and difficult. Bail authorities and the Commissioner of Police will need to exercise careful judgement, with the safety of young people as the primary focus. Where they determine there is no risk to the safety of young co-workers, it means a person can continue to work and support themselves without placing additional demands on other support services.

I note there are a number of views in the community about the best way to support young workers, and I welcome suggestions from unions, advocates and various commissioners. Our working with children checks are a critical part of our system. They use historical data to assess whether a person is suitable to work in prescribed areas. A system like this cannot perfectly predict future behaviour and relies on both good information from multiple sources along with sound judgement by people with special skill sets. It is also a system that is targeted at people providing services and supports to children and young people, as distinct from working alongside teenage employees, who are the focus of this bill. For this reason, the bill adds a new and very important protection and has my full support.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (17:19): I, too, rise today to speak on this incredibly important bill for South Australian workplaces and the broader community. The Malinauskas Labor government has always been committed to protecting the most vulnerable members of our community. Since coming to government in 2022, we have already introduced and delivered a strong suite of justice reforms to reflect our community's expectations. This includes increasing penalties for a range of child sex offences, boosting funding for victim support services and closing loopholes so offenders who possess child porn or childlike sex dolls find it harder to receive a sentence discount or bail.

Many South Australians might not be aware that there was a clear flaw in our current child protection laws, and it is one the Malinauskas government is 100 per cent determined to fix. At present, people accused or convicted of child sex offences are only prevented from working in settings that provide services directly relating to children, such as child care, education, foster care, health or coaching work. This means offenders are still able to work in businesses that hire underage employees, such as hospitality and retail, leaving those children and young people at risk.

Many people in my community—including parents of working teenagers who have jobs in cafes, supermarkets and fast food restaurants—would be horrified to learn that this loophole even exists, and that is why we are determined to close this loophole for good, because in every other setting there are protections in our law. Protections exist for children and young people in kindergartens and schools, in volunteer settings, in sporting clubs and in juvenile justice settings, as our community rightly expects. Children and young people are safeguarded in every setting except for when they put on a work uniform at a local McDonald's, Woolies or cafe.

These proposed laws will ensure that registered child sex offenders and persons accused of registrable offences will be prevented from working in a business that hires underage workers, where the offender would be in contact with those young workers. Importantly, where someone working in such a position is accused of child sex offences, they would need to notify their employer. Under this bill, convicted or accused child sex offenders will have no place working in positions where they could exploit or abuse more children. The bill will achieve this by broadening the definition of child-related work, as it does not currently encompass child employees. The current legislation outlines that accused or registered sex offenders are generally prohibited from engaging in child-related work: for instance, being a childcare worker or a schoolteacher.

By broadening the definition of child-related work, teens, for example, who start their first job at a local cafe or Coles or Hungry Jack's will no longer be in the vulnerable position of being managed by an alleged or convicted child sex offender. I know this will be incredibly welcome news for families in my community. I want to congratulate the SDA union for fiercely advocating for this change and for bringing its concerns to the Attorney-General in the other place, who listened, acted and ensured this legislation came to parliament. It is hard to believe that the SDA first raised this issue with the Marshall Liberal government in 2021 and nothing was done. That is why elections matter. I am proud to be part of the Malinauskas Labor government, protecting families and young workers. With those comments, I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (17:23): I am pleased to now lead debate in this house on the Child Sex Offenders Registration (Child-Related Work) Amendment Bill 2023. Although in terms of the number of pages this seems a short and relatively straightforward bill, it is a bill that will be profoundly significant in its effect.

As other speakers have articulated, this bill creates a default rule that registered child sex offenders and those accused of registrable child sex offences may not work in businesses that employ children, if their employment would involve contact with child employees. Accused and registered child sex offenders are already, as they absolutely should be, prohibited from engaging in child-related work: for instance, in education, in care settings, in social work and in sporting settings.

However, the current legislative definition of child-related work does not extend to working with or alongside child employees. The bill rightly broadens the definition so that it will now contemplate the many circumstances in which young people work alongside adults and so that it will help safeguard those young people. This bill continues our government's really important and extensive work to help to protect and to help to improve the lives of South Australia's children and young people and particularly those in contact with the child protection and family support system and to give them the best opportunity to thrive.

This is another really important measure in our comprehensive suite of reforms that we have begun to progress since forming government. It sits alongside our work to transform the child protection and family support system for the future and it sits amongst our stringent focus on dealing with vile child sex offenders.

For so many young people and so many of us in this place and beyond, our first few jobs are or were such an important foray into the workforce, into our first taste of independence and our first ever chance of having a little bit of money to spend. My very first three jobs at a very young age were helping at the bingo at Morphettville Racecourse, cleaning our local butcher shop, a job which I detested, and working—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Yes, and babysitting a fellow minister, and working the deli counter at Coles, Plympton. There were a few difficult things I experienced in those roles, particularly from one manager, but my experiences were all so wonderful. For the very first time ever, I had that little bit of money to spend. I learned a lot about smallgoods and how to slice them. I learned more about work itself, the responsibilities you had to fulfil, that sometimes it was really hard and you had to show up anyway, and I made some really lovely friends.

My kids went on to engage in their first jobs, with Macca's and EB Games being the pathway for one, and basketball refereeing and Boost Juice the pathway for the other. They both have a really good work ethic and learned a lot from those experiences. The younger one seems to have met the love of his life whilst blending smoothies in the thoroughfare of Marion shopping centre.

All of us in this place, and every single parent and caregiver, want our children and also every single young person, every person's child, to be safe at work and to have those good experiences that can set them up for a lifetime of success in employment. We know that so many businesses here in our state give amazing opportunities to young South Australians through employment. To ensure those good experiences and opportunities are afforded to all young people, young people need to be safe at work.

It is utterly abhorrent to think of a child sex offender working alongside any young people. This bill helps to make sure that those who are convicted of these heinous crimes cannot do so. Children and young people in our state absolutely deserve to work in a safe and supportive working environment, whilst they are learning those new skills, forming new friendships and learning about the world of work.

At this moment in time, there is nothing preventing a registered child sex offender from taking a job working with those under 18 years of age. They are rightly not allowed to apply for or engage in child-related work, for example, in an education setting, in sport and in a range of other environments. However, working in a business that employs children and young people is not considered child-related work. Again, this bill changes that.

This bill amends the definition of child-related work in the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 to include work in a business or undertaking that employs children and where the work will involve contact with a child or young person. The bill defines contact with a child as physical contact, as well as written or oral communications. This bill will stop child sex offenders, or help to stop child sex offenders, from working with or alongside underage employees unless it could be shown that the work involved no contact with someone underage: a child or a young person.

Additional power given to the police commissioner through this bill will allow the ban on child-related work to be varied or to be revoked in individual cases if the commissioner deems that the person would not pose a risk to child employees. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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