House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Andrews v Parole Board of South Australia ANDREWS v PAROLE BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Mr KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens ANDREWS v PAROLE BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (15:02): Will the Attorney-General advise the result of the matter of Andrews v Parole Board of South Australia? The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly Croydon Attorney-General Minister for Justice Minister for Multicultural Affairs Minister for Veterans' Affairs ANDREWS v PAROLE BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:02): On 28 July 2008 I introduced to the house the Correctional Services (Application of Truth in Sentencing) Amendment Bill. As members may recall, the bill addressed a most serious matter that had only a short time earlier come to the attention of the government. A convicted murderer, Shane Andrews, was suing the state of South Australia, arguing that section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915—that is, the presumption against retrospective operation—applied to the 1994 Truth in Sentencing Act, so that, in accordance with the law that stood when Andrews was sentenced, the Parole Board had no authority to refuse his release. The Crown Solicitor's Office advised me that Mr Andrews had a slight to moderate chance of success and that the consequences of a judgment against the government were dire for the public. First, Andrews would be released despite the Parole Board's repeatedly ruling against his parole and, secondly, about 20 other convicted criminals might quickly apply to the Supreme Court for release. As the judgment date was looming, the government knew it had to act swiftly to make absolutely sure that heinous, long-term prisoners were not released before their time. Officers of the Crown Solicitor's Office and parliamentary counsel drafted a bill to amend the Truth in Sentencing Act in order to make expressly clear the intention of parliament in passing the bill—and I happen to know that intention because I was in parliament at the time—that the right to automatic release on the expiry of a criminal's non-parole period was abolished. I thank those officers for their efforts. I also thank members of this house, especially the member for Heysen, who supported the bill and gave it parliamentary time without the usual notice period and did so immediately. I appreciate that members were given less than the usual length of time to consider the bill and that the bill required careful consideration as it had the potential to affect liberty. Unlike the Hons R.D. Lawson, S.G. Wade and R.I. Lucas, the member for Heysen did not try to sabotage the bill's progress through parliament. The Hons Sandra Kanck and Mark Parnell would cheerfully have let Shane Andrews onto the streets of Adelaide because they voted against dealing with the government's bill expeditiously by suspension of standing orders. If the Greens had their way, we would be dealing with the bill to close the possible loophole only this week. I am pleased to advise that my efforts and the efforts of the member for Heysen and all in our camp—the camp of virtue—were rewarded when— Mr Hanna House of Assembly Mr Hanna: That's a bit arrogant, Michael. The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It's a joke, member for Mitchell; it's a joke. On 29 August 2008 the Full Court of the Supreme Court unanimously found in favour of the Parole Board. After hearing submissions from the parties on the effect of the bill, the court ruled that the Truth in Sentencing Act applied to Mr Andrews and that the effect of the act was to alter the procedures and circumstances relevant to his parole as per parliament's intention; and, for the benefit of the member for Heysen, the court also ruled that even if there was a loophole it had been plugged by the amendments passed in the bill. This was an outcome in the public interest.