STATUTES AMENDMENT (RECIDIVIST YOUNG OFFENDERS AND YOUTH PAROLE BOARD) BILL

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendment indicated by the following schedule, to which amendment the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

Clause 24, page 18, lines 16 to 23—Delete the clause and substitute:

24—Social Development Committee to inquire into and report on operation of act

The Social Development Committee of the parliament must, within three years after the commencement of parts 3 and 4 of the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders and Youth Parole Board) Act 2009, in consultation with the Attorney-General, inquire into, consider and report on the operation of the act (including any effect the operation of the act has had on the criminal justice system in South Australia).

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment be agreed to.

It requires the review of the controversial part of the government's bill on young offenders by the Social Development Committee after it has been in operation for a period. I am happy to subject our proposal to the review of the Social Development Committee.

It is significant that the other place considered the amendment made famous by the Labor Party leaflet, with a reply paid facility, and the Family First Party, the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Ann Bressington all voted with the government to vote down the Redmond let-off clause for the Gang of 49. I am quite happy for that provision to be reviewed by the Social Development Committee after it has been in operation for a period.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Social Development Committee, under this amendment, will conduct the review. Members might recall that the government's proposal under this bill was that it be reviewed by the Social Inclusion Unit. It was suggested that it was necessary for us to have a review, and we agreed with that. It was suggested that it be done by the Social Inclusion Unit, and that was supported by Monsignor Cappo, who had been consulted on this bill generally in correspondence with the Attorney-General.

It was disclosed ultimately, when we received a copy of the correspondence between the Attorney-General and Monsignor Cappo under freedom of information, that Monsignor Cappo had agreed that there should be a review and that he sought for the Social Inclusion Unit to be involved—not that it do the review but that it be involved in it. On this side of the house, we do not disagree with that. We think that the Social Inclusion Unit, like a number of other bodies, ought to have the opportunity to come forward to any review authority—in this case, the Social Development Committee (a committee of this parliament)—to review the legislation of this parliament. They would give evidence along with everybody else as to the successful operation or otherwise of the bill.

We welcome this amendment from another place. It is in line not only with what the opposition had expressed but also with the principle that we, as a parliament, should review our legislation or give it to a dedicated body for that purpose. The Attorney-General must start to learn to tell the full situation to this house when he masquerades support for various aspects of bills. This is just one example.

The second issue was a matter to which the Attorney just referred, that is, a second amendment that was presented by opposition in respect of this legislation: that the opposition did not agree that 'recidivist young offenders' should apply to juveniles. We made that very clear in the debate for the reasons I will not repeat again tonight.

Again, the Attorney-General, after repeated failed attempts to deal with juvenile crime—announcement after media statement after panels, reviews, you name it—it failed, over and again. He said that, in respect of this legislation, this was necessary to clear up this problem of the repeat offenders as had applied to adults.

We know from that correspondence between the Attorney-General and Commissioner Cappo that, since the implementation of that legislation to bring about a new regime for adult repeat offenders in 2003, not one single determination has been made in respect of adult repeat offenders. So, how can we possibly have any confidence that it would make a scrap of difference, as claimed by the Attorney-General, to the precedent upon which he would bring this about?

So, again, I advise members in this chamber that, when the Attorney-General comes in and masquerades his support and sets up the pretext of the precedent as the basis upon which he is moving legislation, they should look behind the documents. That will soon tell them, in relation to the two things that were relevant to the amendments debated in the other place, how shallow and insincere the Attorney-General was in that debate.

Nevertheless, the amendment from the other place is here, and it quite properly requires the Social Development Committee to review this legislation and report on whatever is to happen to it. I thank its members for their consideration and for proceeding with this. I welcome it, and the opposition supports it.

Motion carried.

At 22:22 the house adjourned until Wednesday 28 October 2009 at 11:00.