Criminal Law Consolidation (Mental Impairment) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's message No. 177:

The Legislative Council insisted on its amendments Nos 1 and 2 to which the House of Assembly had disagreed.

(Continued from 18 May 2017.)

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the disagreement to the amendments of the Legislative Council be no longer insisted upon.

I rise to indicate that the government will be accepting the amendments made by the Legislative Council, rather than sending the bill into deadlock and further delaying important reforms that are contained elsewhere in the bill. These reforms largely include legislative changes that were recommended by the Sentencing Council in their investigation of part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. These reforms include provision for the continued detention of a defendant on licence, the streaming of court processes for people seeking to be dealt with under part 8A and changes to the way in which the current administrative detention scheme works.

This will provide for a fairer, more dynamic and more efficient scheme under part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The part of this bill that is being deleted by the Legislative Council is centred around the government's election promise that persons who are suffering from self-induced intoxication cannot access part 8A. This election promise was made by the government at the last election. We have sought to progress it as part of this bill. It has been defeated by the opposition and crossbenchers in the other place. This is an extremely disappointing outcome.

I hope that our friends in the media pay attention to this. Next time an outrage is perpetrated upon innocents by a drug-addled felon and he does not face the consequences of his crimes, I trust that the fourth estate will not trouble me with responding to the inevitable and justifiable public outrage. The opposition has had its way and now let the cards fall where they will.

Ms CHAPMAN: I welcome the government's ungracious acceptance of the amendments from the Legislative Council. The Attorney-General's rather reckless suggestion that these amendments are going to give some solace to some drug-addled offender is both inaccurate and completely inconsistent with what is being considered here. Nevertheless, given his inexperience in this area of law, it is not surprising that I hear such a statement.

The Legislative Council has obviously worked very hard to try to protect the innocent and ensure that we do not inadvertently catch, for example, someone with a disability. They have worked very hard in this area, and I think it is most ungracious of the Attorney, in his juvenile and immature way, to make such a comment. Nevertheless, I welcome the indication of support.

Motion carried.