CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING) (SUPERGRASS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 July 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:43): I speak on the Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Supergrass) Amendment Bill 2012. The Liberal opposition has considered this bill which, as I previously indicated, is now split from the parent bill which was introduced in the parliament in 2011 and which was defeated in the Legislative Council in March this year. It now forms the basis of the preceding bill that we have just dealt with and, separately in this bill, special provision for those who would be eligible for significant statutory discount of their sentence in exchange for, basically, squealing on someone else.

It is legislation that, I think it is fair to say, is of concern to the opposition. I accept that the government will progress this bill and that, in all the negotiations, the government has not seen fit to set some limit on the percentage as it has in the previous bill. That is of concern to the opposition. In essence, back in March this year, when the parent bill (if I could so describe it) was defeated in the other place, we as an opposition had invited the government to deal with discounts for exceptional cooperation in the context of the serious and organised crime legislation.

That legislation had already provided for supergrass sentence remissions for prisoners and it was the opposition's view that that be passed without amendment, subject to the imposition of parliamentary committee oversight. That was the course that the opposition felt was the better way to go. Well, we have this supergrass bill. I just wish to outline what this currently stands for and the experience from our observations as to the effectiveness of this approach.

This bill will provide the courts with the power to reduce sentences for offenders involved in organised crime by up to 100 per cent if they cooperate with authorities in exceptional circumstances and that cooperation significantly contributes to the public interest. We are concerned about the effectiveness of a bill of this nature. Judges, as we know, already have the power to give up to 100 per cent discount and this is essentially a codification of the common law power again.

The supergrass bill differs in a number of respects from the original proposal. Firstly, the general 40 per cent discount potentially available for cooperation with a law enforcement agency following a guilty plea has been removed. Discounts are now only proposed for cooperation that relates to combating serious and organised criminal activity. However, the original bill required the person to plead guilty to receive a discount, which is not a requirement under the supergrass bill.

The original bill also capped discounts at 20 per cent for offenders who had not entered a guilty plea but cooperate with authorities after being convicted. In this bill, there is essentially no cap. From our assessment, the situation remains where the offender may find themselves immediately released from custody as a result of their cooperation. It almost seems like a situation where the baddies are told, 'Well, we're tough on law and order. We're going to have a cap, and if you're really, really, really bad but you squeal on someone else, you can get off scot-free.' That is the way we see it and there seems to be an enormous inconsistency.

The Attorney, I am sure, would say, 'Yes, but we're asking these really bad guys to tell us about their colleagues in crime and squeal on them (or further up the ladder if it is in serious and organised crime) and this is so important to us to be able to deal with serious and organised crime that we have to give them an even bigger reward to get them to squeal.' To me, there is some efficacy about that. Nevertheless, both the opposition and I accept that there are circumstances where it would assist in the successful prosecution of serious and organised crime offenders for this instrument to be available. In fact, we have it in the common law at present and we accept that.

I think it is difficult for the police in the first instance and other specialised criminal detectives—and it will be complemented in due course with an ICAC—because a number of these enforcement agencies have personnel who are at risk when they go in to try to expose this type of criminal activity. Most members of this house would have probably at some stage had concerns raised with them about the fear of proceeding with something, either for their own wellbeing (sometimes life and limb) or for the wellbeing of members of their family, and police officers are no exception to being exposed to that risk when they are dealing with really ugly people. I mean 'ugly' in the sense of people's behaviour.

If we can help in the detection and the process for the investigation of these cases and, subsequently, the successful prosecution with the information or testimony from colleagues in the game, then in a way that can provide some safety for other personnel who are involved in the investigation, and that cannot be underestimated. However, we are concerned that what can also happen in these cases is that people lie. There is a considerable amount of academic papers and examples on record where this type of approach is initiated, where it does attract totally unreliable and sometimes completely untruthful statements, a reward is granted in the sense of the discount, and subsequently we find that prosecutions are overturned. There is always a fine balance with these things, and the opposition's concern is that in this bill it probably goes too far.

The Law Society has had a say on this, as the Attorney-General has pointed out. It has provided advice recommending a number of changes. I will identify their position in summary for the record. I hope I reflect it accurately. First, that a discount should be available for all cooperation with authorities, not just that which is provided in exceptional circumstances. The government's original bill provided for this, but it was not included in the current bill. The second recommendation of the Law Society is that consideration of the potential retribution suffered by a person cooperating with authorities include non-violent retribution. Third, if a person is compelled to serve the remainder of their sentence in special conditions rather than particularly severe conditions, that this be taken into account when a sentence discount is awarded. Finally, that there be a time limit in which the DPP should appeal to have a person re-sentenced if the person has failed to comply with the agreed cooperation and had received a discount in anticipation of that cooperation.

The international and interstate experience of supergrass sentence discounts shows a pattern of these discounts bringing forth the false and unreliable information that I have referred to, contributing to wrongful convictions and violent retribution. I will mention only a few. For members who are not familiar with what we are talking about I think it is important that I at least place on the record that the opposition shadow attorney has diligently researched this.

It appears the term 'supergrass' originates from the 1981 arrest of an Irish Republican Army terrorist, Christopher Black. Black provided information that led to the arrest of 38 Provisional IRA members, 22 of whom were subsequently convicted in 1983. On 17 July 1986, 18 of those 22 convictions were overturned on appeal. As recently as 2009 a number of convicted terrorists in the UK have been released as a result of similar laws to those proposed by the bill. I am told by someone who has some residency in the United Kingdom that to be described as a supergrass has some rather unsavoury connotations. It is not viewed in any great regard in the United Kingdom.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I don't think it would be here either.

Ms CHAPMAN: Probably not, but it is one of those words that has attracted—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It's a pejorative.

Ms CHAPMAN: —yes—a reputation all of its own. Nevertheless, here in its origin, when it is used quite usefully on the face of it, we find that a lot of court time has been wasted and we have the dangerous situation of having gone through all that process and apparently innocent people have been convicted when this information has been relied upon.

The UK's Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 is similar to our supergrass bill in that it provides for a range of options for people who turn evidence, including full immunity from prosecution to a reduction in their sentence. Since the act came into force—and I think the Attorney would be interested in this if he has not had this information provided to him—some 158 criminals or terrorists have been granted such deals. Of these seven received full immunity, 11 partial immunity, and 140 had their sentences reduced. Following controversy, though, in April this year about a two-year discount to a terrorist, the UK Crown Prosecution Service has committed 'to provide updated figures each year on the agreements, in a way that we are satisfied does not put any individual at risk of harm'.

I think it is significant to appreciate that, in a jurisdiction which is not only well versed and well experienced in legislation surrounding the usefulness of this type of legislation and its reliability, we have some considerable concerns, so much so that we now have the provision of this information. To some degree it is a little bit like coronial inquiries. We now require governments to account to the parliament and give us a list of all the things that they have done to either accept, reject or implement recommendations. There is such a cloud, it seems to me, over the reliability of this, and obviously there is public outcry on the face of it, that people have been convicted on unreliable evidence, that they would now require these to be done.

In the Attorney's own contribution in this debate, he has quoted justices Deane and McHugh in the 1985 R v Malvaso case (168 CLR 227, 239) in the High Court case conceding that those who provide information to authorities face 'danger of retributive violence' which can 'be aggravated within the prison environment'. The Attorney has also quoted the President of the Queen's Bench Division in England from R v P, the 2007 case, which notes that 'the stark reality is that [those] who betray major criminals face torture and execution'. The 2010 murder of convicted murderer and drug trafficker Carl Williams while he was in custody is a brutal example of this.

The rationale sitting behind this legislation is that for prospective sentence discounts to have an impact on criminal behaviour they need to be quantified and reliable. Yet here we have a situation where it is quite open-ended up to the 100 per cent. I think there is an extraordinary inconsistency there, even though I foreshadow what the Attorney will say in relation to having successful prosecutions.

I also note that the New South Wales Judicial Commission has suggested sentencing guidelines for cooperation with authorities. It suggested that a combined discount, all things considered, should not exceed 50 per cent, except for exceptional circumstances. The commission says that it would be rare for a sentence of more than 60 per cent to not be considered to be manifestly inadequate.

On the face of it, I cannot imagine in what circumstance it would be appropriate to give one of these people a discount above 50 or 60 per cent, but perhaps the Attorney could illustrate when he thinks that would be acceptable. Even Steve Pallaras, the former DPP, suggested publicly that the prospect of someone convicted of a serious offence being given a 100 per cent discount is just nonsense.

I suppose that, of all of those in the prosecution business, Stephen Pallaras would have been in a position to advise the government, or the parliament generally, or to make public statements, if he felt that there would be circumstances that would justify giving somebody a 100 per cent discount.

So, the inconsistency is stark, and it is concerning to the opposition, given the history in England and the position under review by the New South Wales Judicial Commission. I am sure there are other jurisdictions out there that need to be looked at. Possibly the Attorney-General has considered those and dismissed them and thought that there still should be this open-end up to 100 per cent. Doubtless, he can give us some example of that when he thinks that should apply.

One example I can think of is quite common in Australia at the moment, and the Attorney may or may not be familiar with this. There was one case in the Adelaide Hills, where someone who was living at the Woodside camp was prosecuted recently—and I think successfully prosecuted in the end—for human trafficking. I think the other party charged was not convicted.

Let us consider for a moment where someone is in the business of human trafficking, which is obviously not just an Australian problem, it is an international problem. People involved in human trafficking put at risk people's lives. Most common in Australia at the moment, of course, are those who bring people into Australia via a boat, usually in appalling circumstances, where the life and limb of people, including women and children, are put at serious risk. You have only to watch television to see the very tragic circumstances in which people have died.

Recently, during the parliamentary break, I went to Darwin at the invitation of the Defence Reserve. In another life, along with members of the opposition, I sit on the Defence Reserve Board in South Australia, and I am proud to do so. In the course of attending to promote the opportunities for Defence Reserves by employers and public departments, of which the police department and a number of others are very supportive in South Australia, I was provided with a number of briefings.

In the course of my trip, I came across information about those who were bringing these people into Australia. It seems that what is occurring these days is that, shortly after leaving mainland Indonesia, a signal goes out—sometimes there is a mobile telephone call to the authorities in Darwin—to come and pick them up. On the face of it, I suppose, at the very least on the basis that Darwin's services respond, the people who are involved in human trafficking are actually providing a safer, quicker response for the people they are carrying. The reason I mention this—gentlemen—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I understand the members talking in the background are disturbing the speaker; could you either refrain or leave the chamber.

Ms CHAPMAN: Some would say, in that human trafficking situation, that the people involved in this activity are actually providing a service to their customers by getting them picked up early. I am told—and I think this is on the public record—that there is no need for guns to take these people in. The authorities collect the passengers, or arrange for them to be collected, then the people who have carried out the trafficking are taken aboard. They plead guilty and go to gaol (usually for about three months), then they are let out and go back to Indonesia, or wherever they are operating from, and come out on the next ship.

When we talk about serious and organised crime, these are people who would presumably be offered some leniency or some discounting—up to 100 per cent, to get off—if they provided the name and address of the person up the food chain. I find that a bit unconscionable, but nevertheless this is the sort of person we are talking about.

We do not have this direct problem in South Australia at the moment, except that we do have some people who are coming to our country and whom we are welcoming after processing, in this instance, by granting refugee status. I wish there were more people from Inverbrackie who would stay in South Australia after they have been processed, but they are nicking off to Sydney, which is a bit unfortunate. For those who are qualified, I think the government should be making a better effort to keep them here. I spoke to the Premier, who was then the minister for education, about how we might support these families to do that, but that is another matter.

The reason I raise this is that you can say, 'These are the people who are at the lower end of the chain, these are the people who are coming out in these stinking boats, these are the people whose boats are ultimately dynamited and sunk, and they go back and they get another vessel and they come out to Australia, but if they are prepared to name the ringleaders, then we should let them off scot-free.' The enormity of what people are doing, even at the lower level of serious and organised crime, can be illustrated by this example.

One of the things that concerned me greatly when I was in Darwin was that the people smugglers—the human traffickers—apparently now understand the value of pregnant passengers. Under our laws—and this is a matter I have sent off to the federal people to look at—if you are pregnant, you are deemed a vulnerable person and you get direct access to mainland Australia.

This is the level to which these people smugglers will go and which these people on the boats are party to. These are the people who are potentially going to be given discounts of up to 100 per cent and get off scot-free, when they are involved in the most disgusting and despicable trade that could occur. In South Australia, the types of things we are talking about here largely relate to drugs; so, not human trafficking, but drug trafficking, and drug trafficking, of course, has a human toll.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand. I am using this as an example, because this legislation is the type of thing that is going around the country, and we have to be very careful about what we do when we look at serious and organised crime and the scurrilous people who are involved in this activity if we have a law which could give, even at the lowest level, 100 per cent discount. But worse, in my view, is if someone who was known to be a ring leader in one activity, or one group, or one gang, or one operation, squealed on another (and I think the Carl Williams' situation in Victoria ought to tell us a lot about what happens here), whilst they might be brave enough to do it in a circumstance where they can clearly be vulnerable to very serious retribution, we have got pretty bad people in this category who could get away scot-free, and the opposition has a problem with that.

By all means, have an effective tool to provide some discount, as we have agreed to in the other bill because of the merits in that instance of shortening court time that is wasted, or minimising it, but let us have some limits on this. It just is quite offensive to me and I feel very concerned that when we are dealing with the worst people in the world—the ugliest, the nastiest and the most devious—we would be passing legislation that asks us to acquiesce to something that would give these people a reward. I feel sickened by it.

With those words, I indicate that the opposition does not support a 100 per cent get-out-of-gaol-free piece of legislation, but we are happy to look at something that is more measured and appropriate and that can work as has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:12): I would like to congratulate the South Australian police on another sort of supergrass. They arrested a guy down at Meadows with 55 kilos of vacuum-packed, high grade marijuana, believed to be equivalent to 28,000 street deals. He was from Queensland. Also, they arrested a man from Meadows with $340,000 in cash. That was last Friday, and that gives a whole new meaning to 'supergrass'.

This piece of legislation is an important piece of legislation to come before this place (as is all legislation that comes before this place) but I want to make sure that, as the shadow minister for police, South Australian police are given every opportunity to do their job, get the evidence and solve the crimes, particularly when it involves serious and organised crime, which this piece of legislation is mainly dealing with.

We know the codes of silence out there, the intimidation and the threats are the biggest issue we have and, if South Australian police officers are putting their life on the line and these absolute low-lifes that are involved in serious and organised crime are in any way intimidating our South Australian police or there are threats of retribution to their family or associates, that is absolutely a disgrace and cannot be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

If we can get those involved at the coal face, so to speak, of serious and organised crime to spill the beans and tell the truth about what is going on, even if it is at the cost of giving them a discount on their sentence—or, in this particular case, up to 100 per cent discount on their sentence, which I think would have to be a very particular case that should be considered not only by the courts but also by the government, particularly the Attorney-General—I think that is something we should be doing.

The most important thing that we should be doing, though, is making sure that South Australia is a safer place and allowing our police to do the job that they want to do. Although, once again, there are some areas that I think the shadow attorney-general may want to improve upon, it is well intended. I look forward to seeing our police officers and the legal system getting these people to talk, giving the information that is required, breaking that code of silence, cracking that concrete barrier that appears to be there between serious organised crime and the good life that South Australians should be able to lead each and every day.

It is an important issue and it is one that I will be watching very carefully to see how it progresses. I will also be watching to see the support that is given to the South Australian police force by this government. We know the budget is under stress. We know there is about $116 million in budget cuts that the police have to find. They should not be put under that sort of stress. They are doing a terrific job under trying circumstances. Let us hope that the legislation that comes in here helps them to do that job and makes sure that they do it safely.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:15): Can I say what a privilege and delight it is to follow the member for Morphett: concise, to the point, relevant, and spot on. Member for Morphett, there is only one way you can improve and that is to walk over here. Get with the strength. You are on the money and I encourage your colleagues to listen to you.

You mentioned that we might be subject to some improvements in the other place. The other night, I was sitting at home watching the news and an ad came on. There were a bunch of people marching along saying, 'SA quality home improvements', and I thought of the honourable shadow attorney because he provides what he would call home improvements to everything we put up here. Unfortunately, they are not really improvements.

The member for Morphett has hit the nail right on the head. SAPOL is out there, day in, day out, chasing the biggest ratbags this state has to offer, and a whole bunch more who migrate here over the border from time to time. It needs every bit of support it can get. The biggest enemy—and again, the member for Morphett hit it right on the head—is the cone of silence, or the code of silence—I am not sure if it is the cone or the code, it depends on if you are into Maxwell Smart.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Probably both. The point is the silence, the fact that these people do not spill the beans, the fact that we have had people who have been charged with murder and in the end they have had to be let go because nobody is prepared to testify, there is no evidence. This is shameful. What greater disrespect can we show to our police officers who go to the trouble of catching these characters and then everyone shuts up and these people, who we all know have done terrible things, get to walk because there is no evidence?

Do I think that this legislation of itself is going to solve the problem? No, it is not, but it might help. That is the first thing. The second thing is: yes, it theoretically goes to 100 per cent, but that is at the discretion of the court. The court would say, 'How bad is the person in front of me? What are they charged with? Is the person in front of me charged with driving a car from A to B with a bag of dope in the back, or are they charged with cultivating 50 hectares of dope, or are they charged with selling it around the place? What are they charged with?' That is question 1: 'How bad is the person I have in front of me? What are they charged with?'

The second question is: 'How bad is the person we are getting information about?' If you are getting two people at the same level, I do not think this is going to have much work to do, really, because why would you trade off a discount for one bloke if he is only going to give up somebody at the same level as him? This thing is obviously a matrix where the court would say: 'How bad is the individual in front of me? To what extent am I prepared to give this person anything?' It is not a mandatory 100 per cent. To what extent do they get anything for what they are prepared to offer to prosecute another person?

Clearly, what we have in mind is the farmers, to use the language they use about cultivation of marijuana: these people are here, there and everywhere, two or three plants here, two or three plants there. They might be connected to the bloke who is running 20 farmers. You go in and you pinch one of these farmers because they have a few plants in their hydroponic outfit—and you can pinch them, sure, growing five plants or whatever it is—and they get whatever they get for that, but what if they say 'Well, look, we can actually tell you the bloke who is running 20 people like us.' Is that not a fair trade?

It is not me making the trade. They have to persuade the court that the information that they have is of so much importance to the public that it is worth discounting their penalty for cooperation with the police, and they have to cooperate. They cannot just say they will do it and not do it. So, they have to promise to do it, they have to do it, it has to deliver a benefit, and the court in the end works out how much the benefit is worth. I am struggling to see what the problem with that is, quite frankly. It is all in the hands of the court.

The member for Bragg spent some time setting up a straw man. The straw man had two particular characteristics: one was that the straw man was a commonwealth offence which, of course, we cannot do anything about anyway even if we wanted to, including working out a regime for discounts; and the second thing was that the whole argument proceeded on the basis that terrible people are going to get 100 per cent off.

Well, wrong. That is not what this says. It says we are going to give courts a discretion to consider what sort of value traded material will be to the prosecuting authorities and, based on that value, and having regard to what the offence the person themselves is charged with, what discount we give them. That is it. The reason that this does not contain all these complex things is that I am satisfied that judges are perfectly capable of working that out. They do it all the time. I am quite happy to leave that to judges to work out and that is what we do here.

The other interesting point is that on 10 May this year, certain legislation came into effect—it was passed by this parliament in the context of the serious and organised crime package. It is in the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act. This is relevant, and I think the member for Morphett in particular would be interested in this. We now have as law in this state section 29E of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act—L.A.W. Somebody else said that once, and I have always wanted to be able to say that! So, that is law right now. What that says is, member for Morphett, somebody who is already in gaol and already convicted, who decides that they have had enough of eating gruel or whatever you eat in gaol, and they want to get out and have a hamburger or whatever the thing is—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, but for somebody who has had enough of being in gaol and decides, 'Look, on reflection, I would rather spill the beans on a few of these characters to get out,' we now have provision where they can approach the authorities, agree to provide the information and they can be re-sentenced. Guess what? The re-sentence is at large, so they could be re-sentenced back to no more time at all, and that is already law right now and we passed that only a few months ago.

It is possible now for a bloke who is already in gaol, who decides he wants to cooperate and he speaks to the authorities and he follows through and he gets re-sentenced—and I emphasise the word 'possible' because you would have to consider how bad was the crime that he was in for and how much benefit did we get from the information that he gave us—to be sentenced back to nothing. All we are saying here is, the obvious corollary of that is, before they have even been convicted and put in gaol, if they are prepared to talk turkey earlier, why should you not take them on earlier? So we have the bizarre situation now where, if this is not passed, it is better off for a person to get convicted and go to gaol and then try and talk to people than it is for us to deal with them first. How weird is that? That is another program Weird or What? and it has William Shatner in it, and you ought to see that, it is on SBS I think.

Mr Griffiths: Otherwise known as Captain James T. Kirk.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: James T. Kirk. See, here is a bloke who knows his Star Trek.

Mr Griffiths: James Tiberius Kirk.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Tiberius Kirk, he must have seen all the shows. This is great. The skills that come out in this place, it is just fantastic. Here's the thing: we now have an anomaly. We have people in gaol who are serving terms of imprisonment who can theoretically have their sentences reduced back to zip through cooperation. All we are saying is, if they want to offer that cooperation earlier, they should be allowed to do that too—that is all. It is in the hands of the courts. The courts are the ones who make the call, not me, not the member for Morphett, not the member for Bragg, not even Mr Improvements up there—nobody. It is done by the court.

I think a lot of the issues that have been raised by the member for Bragg are, with great respect, furphies because the court is going to be looking at what the individual was charged with and how bad that behaviour was because the court will say, 'Look, some behaviour is so bad we're just not going to let you out full stop.'

On the other hand, they need to have enough flexibility, so if all they have is a minor little functionary in a drug exercise and they've managed to snaffle this little person who has done the wrong thing—they might have driven a bag of dope from A to B and got caught, but if that is all they have done and they know who the person is who is running the whole show and you can bring the whole show down by getting their evidence, maybe a court would say, 'You know what? The value of this person's testimony to getting this big fish means a huge discount.' That is a matter for the court, not for me, but it has never been contemplated here that you are going to have people like Tony Montana—I'm waiting for the reference, anyone got it? No?

Mrs Vlahos: Is that Sopranos?

The Hon. J.R. RAU:Scarface—you are not going to get people like that turning up to the court and saying, 'Look I know another bloke who's done terrible things too. Let me off.' No judge is that stupid. You would have to think they were morons and I do not. No judge would be that stupid. They are going to look at the offender, they are going to look at the charge against the offender, they are going to look at the public expectation in respect of that offender and their conduct, and then they are going to look at the value of the information the offender provides and what impact that is going to have on somebody much bigger in the scheme of things than that offender.

That is the equation and the court works it out. Let the court work it out. For God's sake, let them work it out because they are already working it out, courtesy of section 29E of the Criminal Law Sentencing Act in respect of people who are already in gaol. That is all we are saying: just even it up. I thank the member for Morphett for his very positive contribution.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clause 4 sets out the proposed matters to be taken into account for the purposes of reducing a sentence. My question to the Attorney is: can you give us an example of any serious or organised crime activity where you think a discount above 60 per cent would be justified?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am prepared to speculate on how that might go, but bear in mind that I am not a judge, so it is not my job. However, let me give you an example. A person who is a courier of a trafficable quantity of cannabis may find themselves within the category of a serious and organised crime offence. It might be that their role is simply to pick up a parcel and drive it from A to B. Do I think it is a good idea that people offer themselves to do that work? No, I do not. Do I think that person should in the ordinary course of events receive whatever the appropriate punishment is? Yes, I do.

However, if that individual happened to be in a position to be able to identify the financiers, the distributors or the mastermind (if there is such a thing) behind the whole exercise then I would hope that the court would seriously consider the balance of the damage the community would experience from fully throwing the book at this courier on the one hand and, on the other hand, lightening up on the courier so that they can get the people who are really running the whole show. That is what it is about.

Ms CHAPMAN: Under the current common law, of course, there are circumstances where assistance can be given to informants; now we call them supergrass informants. I am not asking for any names or current investigations, but I would like to know from the Attorney what types of assistance are currently made available to these people. Carl Williams in Victoria had the school fees of his children paid for, and I am sure there are other types of examples. So, at present what is available to them and what are they currently enjoying?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would prefer to say nothing on the record about that. I think there has been a briefing that the opposition went to some time ago about that and I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to answer that question on the record.

Ms CHAPMAN: If there is some sensitivity to it I am happy to respect that. I was not privy to the briefing where that detail was provided, but perhaps that could be provided in a confidential way I am happy for that to occur. It seems to me that it is reasonable that we have an understanding of what is currently available. Again, I am not asking for numbers of people who currently have had the benefit of some discounting or even not being prosecuted; however, in relation to the provision of the services, financial support, accommodation, or whatever was given to them, have there been any aspects of this service that have been found to be unsuccessful and have been discontinued? Can I ask that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I think the honourable member is moving into things like witness protection schemes and various other things, which is not really my portfolio area but also, I suspect, which are operational police issues and I would be very surprised if they wanted to canvass details of those matters, for very obvious reasons. The honourable member mentioned Mr Williams. I suspect that he is a very good case in point as to why you would want to be pretty careful about that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Without going into the detail of it, can the Attorney advise as to how many in the last 12 months have been the beneficiary of discounting under this type of supergrass squealing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I cannot.

Ms CHAPMAN: And is any record kept of that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is not.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is the resentencing for failure to cooperate provision. Have there been any instances which the Attorney is aware of where a person has received the discount but obviously has not held up their end of the bargain with provisional information, or the like, or turned up to court to give the evidence, or whatever? If so, what is happening in those circumstances as to whether they have been placed back in custody or the like?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it has happened interstate and overseas, and when it has, in the absence of a provision such as the one we are looking at, it causes problems because the matter has been finalised and there is no opportunity to go back. So this is sort of like the insurance policy for the public, that is, if this sort of indulgence is offered to an individual they better pay up on their side of the bargain, because if they do not whatever benefit they expect to get out of the bargain is taken off them.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of course that assumes they can be found, resentenced, and all those sorts of things, but I think I understand the merits of the reason for having this. Is there any other jurisdiction that has this type of insurance policy now, that is, for resentencing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that in the UK there is an analogous sort of arrangement whereby the individual has to sign some contract or other with the prosecuting authorities, and in the event of them not complying with the letter of the contract they can be taken back to the court and dealt with for failure to comply.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 17:39 the house adjourned until Wednesday 5 September 2012 at 11:00.