House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Criminal Appeals CRIMINAL APPEALS Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly MacKillop Deputy Leader of the Opposition Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:17): Madam Deputy Speaker, during the course of this week I have asked three questions to the Attorney-General which go to the heart— The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, just hang on. I'm not cross with you but if you are going to talk about what I think you are going to talk about then I think it is inappropriate that I be here. Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly Mr WILLIAMS: Fine. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop. Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, during the course of this week I have asked three questions of the Attorney-General about a case which has been before the courts in recent times. Let me say from the outset that this has nothing to do with the member for Bright and she has my greatest sympathy for being caught up in this matter. This is about something much, much more fundamental. This is about equality before the law. This is about South Australians expecting to be treated the same irrespective of who they are, who they are friendly with or whether the government of the day can see a political opportunity in making something more out of a case than is really there. In 2004 the Nemer case, which is now a celebrated case in the state's history, was used, in my opinion, by this government to make a political point. It makes me ask the question: did Paul Nemer go to gaol because of his offence or did he go to gaol because the government of the day, the premier of the day, decided that it would win votes? It is a very serious question because at the subsequent election seats changed hands. The government was playing a very strong law and order campaign. The Premier said at the time that he would do it again. He said his government would have no hesitation about intervening in future criminal cases if it were in the interests of justice and the public interest. Was it in the interests of justice and the public interest for Paul Nemer to go to gaol but for somebody convicted of a child sex offence to receive a suspended sentence when the government at the last election said that they were going to clamp down on suspended sentences in serious criminal cases? I take no pleasure in having asked these questions. I also take no pleasure in living in a state where people are put in gaol as a political whim. I think everyone of us in this case abhors the idea that people are gaoled for political reasons. We know in many countries in the world people are gaoled for their political beliefs because they believe in something different than the ruling junta of the time. The question arises in South Australia: do we have political prisoners because it suits the political agenda of the government of the day? The answer to that question in a South Australia that I want to live in should be no. The answer to that question in the South Australia that I find myself living in has a big question mark over it. There is no consistency between what this government did in the case of Paul Nemer and what it has done in the case of Malcolm Fox. I ask every member of this government to take a long, hard look at themselves because they have all supported this nonsense. They have all supported this nonsense, and I did not see or hear the current Attorney-General raise one word of protest over the Nemer affair. It was a very sad and sorry day for the state. We still have prisoners in gaol who, but for decisions that are taken in secret—and there is no accountability for them—would have been released under our parole system. It is a very dangerous time when a government plays with the judicial outcomes of our courts.