Protecting kids: the joyless, bleeding obvious
TOM RICHARDSON: There seems little to be flippant about this week.
Yesterday a teenage boy, who admits killing a 63-year-old retiree, seemingly for little more than recreation, gave evidence against his former mate over his alleged role in the murder.
Meanwhile, the State Government was again under fire over its handling of child protection matters, when a frustrated father felt compelled to play amateur sleuth in order to catch out an accused pedophile of breaching the terms of his parole, because his complaints to authorities had, he felt, fallen on deaf ears.
So a week, then, of children murdering the elderly and men molesting the young. Allegedly. What a joyless affair.
The Debelle report, one hopes, might provide the political impetus for some positive change, but there is little gusto in the Government’s tough talk. Where child protection is concerned, tough on crime rhetoric rings a little hollow and anti-civil libertarian chest-thumping more than a little contrived.
The champions of freedom and privacy did their best, of course, to plead their case, but in the current fraught climate arguments for the civil rights of accused and convicted child molestors tend to get somewhat trampled underfoot.
“We’re on the side of the kids,” John Rau helpfully explained about where the Government stood on the predators/kids nexus.
It was a brave, if fumbling, attempt by the staunchly unpopulist Attorney-General to reconnect with Rann-era “tough on crime” rhetoric. He would not go so far as to concede the law reform he was presenting to parliament effectively robbed those charged with child sex offences of the right to remain silent.
You might like
That, he mused, was a long bow.
But not according to Bruce Debelle, whose recommendations formed the rationale, if not the inspiration, for the changes.
His report makes it clear (on page 230) that the right to remain silent when charged potentially hinders police from discovering where their suspect is employed. As such, they cannot ascertain that the charged person has fulfilled their obligation under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act to notify their employer.
In Debelle’s view, “this is an instance where the public interest in the protection of children … should override the right to silence.”
The Government’s changes go further. They also override, to a degree, the presumption of innocence in the name of child protection.
Law changes will impose stricter bail conditions on those charged with child sex offences, preventing them from working with children.
This reform was put into starker focus within 24 hours, when a parent emerged who had raised just such a grievance with the minister’s office only weeks earlier. A desperate parent who, on hearing the man who ran his daughters’ gymnastics program at the local recreation centre was facing charges of sexual assault of two girls, dating back as far as 1997, pleaded with authorities to do something about it.
"So, while it may have sounded trite for the Attorney-General to make the point that the Government was “on the side of the kids”, it might be a blessed relief, since so few other institutions appear to be."
Finally he snuck into the centre with his smartphone, snapped the man breaching his bail conditions by making physical contact with a child in his care (as, one supposes, he must if he is running a gymnastics program) and delivered the pictures to the Opposition, who took them to police.
The man was re-arrested and his bail conditions amended to prevent him working with children.
Stay informed, daily
Which, although he has pleaded not guilty and has not yet faced trial, seems a reasonable course of action. Since we’re on the side of the kids, and all.
The sort of action, one might even expect, that would appear a no-brainer, rather than requiring legislative change to enforce.
But, no. For as it turns out, the man had already informed Gymnastics SA that he was facing charges relating to child sexual abuse, and the organisation had continued to let him operate, in accordance with his bail conditions. So had the managers of the recreation centre, whose argument appeared to be that the man had done nothing at odds with their terms and, after all, their duty of care only extended to leasing out the space.
They had, however, informed the local council, who also claimed the matter was no concern of theirs.
So, while it may have sounded trite for the Attorney-General to make the point that the Government was “on the side of the kids”, it might be a blessed relief, since so few other institutions appear to be.
None of this is to imply, of course, that the defendant is guilty, merely that the possibility he might be must demand a higher level of stringency, given the nature of his alleged crimes. In this case, it may mean an innocent man loses his livelihood, at least for a time. Surely, though, that is better than to risk losing a child’s innocence?
But apparently we need laws to tell us this, rather than merely exercising judgement.
So too, apparently, we need a Royal Commission report to tell us that Government bureaucracies should deal sensitively and transparently with school communities that have been victimised by a child molester.
And a series of official recommendations to tell us that the Education Minister should be informed of the rape of a child in the public school system.
That broken department, it seems, still believes it is an island, entire of itself; but it need not send to know for whom Debelle tolls; it tolls for the Department of Education.
And, one hopes, it will mark a pivotal moment in the arcane life of that Government bureaucracy.
The moment when the bleeding obvious became illuminated in those dark recesses. And the moment where commonsense became law.
That doesn’t make it easy, or clean, or perfect.
Child protection is an imperfect, ugly, difficult balancing act.
What the Government has clarified this week, under some duress, is that if it must sacrifice the rights of someone in the process, it would rather that someone be the party presumed innocent than the one whose innocence is beyond question.
