Statutes Amendment (Sentencing) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 September 2020.)

Ms LUETHEN (King) (11:07): I rise wholeheartedly to support the Statutes Amendment (Sentencing) Bill 2020 on behalf of people living in the state electorate of King. The current sentencing reduction scheme was introduced by the former Labor government in 2013. It is important to note that every time the Labor Party go on the radio or, most commonly, on social media to raise their concerns about lenient sentencing outcomes they blatantly omit to mention that these discounted sentences are a result of legislation they introduced in 2013. On 22 July 2020—

Mr Brown: Shame on you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms LUETHEN: —the opposition hurriedly introduced a bill into parliament. In the past two years in this place, I have witnessed the Labor Party doing this time and time again—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for King, could you take a seat, please.

Ms LUETHEN: —to grab a headline. In contrast, we take the time needed—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for King!

Ms LUETHEN: —to fix Labor's past mistakes—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for King, could you take a seat, please. The member for King is making a contribution to the bill that is before the house and she is very much entitled to be heard in silence, as members of the opposition will be when they contribute, so there will be order in the house.

Ms LUETHEN: I will repeat some of what I was saying. On 22 July 2020, the opposition hurriedly introduced a bill into parliament. In the past two years in this place, I have witnessed the Labor Party do this time and—

Mr PICTON: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for King, there is a point of order. Could you take a seat, please. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: There are two points of order: one is referring to a bill that is still on the Notice Paper and the other is reflecting on a vote of the house that was taken on that day.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, could you clarify what vote you are referring to?

Mr PICTON: The member for King made reference to a bill that was introduced in July by the opposition. That is a bill which is still on the Notice Paper, as I understand it, and it is therefore not in keeping with the standing orders to debate another bill on the Notice Paper. Also, she made reference to how it was introduced and the debate that happened on that day in July. There was a vote that took place, and it is not parliamentary to refer to a vote of the house that took place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Kaurna. I uphold both points of order. You are quite correct. Member for King, keep that in mind—that you are not to reflect on a vote of the house or speak about a bill that is before the house. Just keep that in mind.

Ms LUETHEN: Okay. I find it incredibly interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in my electorate in people's letterboxes there is material reflecting on that vote, but I will move on.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but, member for King, they are—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please. They are not in the parliament: we are, today.

Ms LUETHEN: Thank you. I will move on. We, in contrast, have taken the time needed to fix Labor's past mistakes and improve this legislation. I urge the Labor Party to work with us to improve legislation for the benefit of our community. This is certainly what my community is asking for. It is positive that the opposition is now finally likewise seeking to reduce the discounts available that they previously introduced.

Ms Stinson: We had to drag you to it kicking and screaming. You should've voted for our bill ages ago.

Ms LUETHEN: In 2019, the Hon. Brian Martin AO, QC—

Ms Stinson: We'd have it in already.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Badcoe!

Ms LUETHEN: —conducted a review of this discounting scheme. Mr Martin received written submissions from numerous criminal justice sector stakeholders, members of the public, academics and victims. From the communications from victims, victims advocacy agencies and members of the public, he published a report which distilled a number of key themes. These included that victims feel devalued by the sentencing reduction scheme introduced by the Labor Party in 2013—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms LUETHEN: —and that this perception is exacerbated by the extent of the discount available, 40 per cent; that significant reductions are also out of touch with expectations held by the broader community; that this dissatisfaction is most keenly felt in relation to serious offences, especially when the prosecution case is strong; and that a significant reduction being applied to a sentence the court has determined to be appropriate suggests that the offender is not receiving the appropriate punishment.

The government's bill implements the majority of the recommendations made in the report and other issues raised to do the following:

for serious indictable offences, being serious sexual offences and serious offences of violence, the maximum reductions available for guilty pleas will be reduced from 40 per cent to 25 per cent for a plea entered within four weeks of the first court appearance, with each graduation thereafter also to be reduced;

provide that a sentencing court can apply a lesser reduction than the maximum in the following additional circumstances to what is currently allowed: when a disputed facts hearing is not determined in favour of the defendant, if the court is satisfied that the offender intentionally concealed the commission of the crime or if the prosecution case is so strong or the offender has shown so little remorse that such a reduction of the sentence by the percentage contemplated would be so inappropriate that it would or may affect public confidence in the administration of justice.

This has been a lengthy process given the complications sentencing laws present to lawmakers. The government has conducted a thorough examination of all of the issues canvassed in the Martin report and consulted with key criminal justice stakeholders. We always want to limit the possibility of legal challenge, which is why it is important to be thorough and get it right. Whilst the opposition's bill also seeks to reduce—

Mr BROWN: Point of order: the member is debating the opposition's bill again, in defiance of your ruling, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, look, I was busy with the Speaker at that point, but you have heard my ruling on this already, member for King. Please keep that in mind.

Ms LUETHEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Rather than cherrypicking an easy fix of recommendations—

Mr Brown interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for King, could you take your seat, please. I am going to call the member for Playford to order. Member for King.

Ms LUETHEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government's bill goes further and implements the following additional reforms. It abolishes the provision which allows a court to reduce a sentence by up to 10 per cent if a defendant has complied with procedural requirements, even though they did not plead guilty to the offence.

It allows the Magistrates Court to reduce sentence discounts if a disputed facts hearing is not determined in favour of the defendant, if the court is satisfied that the offender intentionally concealed the commission of the crime, or if the prosecution case is so strong or the offender has shown so little remorse that such a reduction of the sentence by the percentage contemplated would be so inappropriate that it would or may offend public confidence in the administration of justice. It empowers magistrates to accept pleas to a statutory alternative or an attempt to commit an offence. This will fix a practical issue of defendants receiving a higher reduction in sentence because fresh information needed to be filed.

It makes an amendment to improve court procedures so that once a guilty plea to a major indictable offence has been entered in the Magistrates Court, a magistrate may commit the offender for sentence regardless of the stage at which the plea has been entered. It also extends the period within which the maximum reduction can be applied by 14 days in very limited circumstances to overcome practical difficulties experienced, in particular by Indigenous defendants who reside remotely—for example, on the APY lands—and/or for whom English is not their first language.

It is abundantly clear to me that people in my electorate want us to get tough on serious offenders and that is why I am supporting this bill by the government which aims to better protect our community. We have been working hard to overhaul and fix the sentencing reduction scheme which Labor introduced. This bill will significantly cut discounts available to serious offenders for early guilty pleas. We are putting protection of the community back at the heart of our sentencing laws. I thank the Attorney-General for her hard work to reform this law so that we can better protect our community and I urge others across this house to put their politics aside and support this bill.

The SPEAKER: The leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (11:17): Thank you, Your Honour—sorry, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in regard to this piece of legislation, as the lead speaker for the opposition, which is a piece of legislation the opposition obviously has a keen interest in. I note the member for King's vitriolic contribution to the debate. The member for King has rather enthusiastically decided to take an interest in this subject matter, rather belatedly, because the record will show in due course just how late the member for King is to this—

Ms LUETHEN: A point of order, sir. I object to the personal reflections by the leader.

Members interjecting:

Ms LUETHEN: Yes, that I have no interest in this topic or delayed interest in this topic. It is a personal reflection on a member and I take offence.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! As I understand the point of order, the member for King has taken exception to a reflection on the extent and timing of her interest in the matter. I do not know that that is impugning any particular motive. The member having taken offence, I will ask the leader to withdraw the reference to the belated interest, as I heard it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Just as a point of clarification, the member has taken offence to the word 'belated'.

The SPEAKER: That is as I understand it, and I confess that I am relying on the member for King having identified that word.

Mr BROWN: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, may I ask a point of clarification?

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford on the point of order.

Mr BROWN: Are you now saying that the word 'belated' is unparliamentary?

The SPEAKER: That, in combination with having had no interest in the subject matter prior to that, is my understanding. That point of exception having been made, I invite the leader to withdraw any imputation as to a lack of interest that the member for King may have had in the subject matter.

Ms STINSON: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: On the point of order, or is it a new point of order?

Ms STINSON: On the point of order.

The SPEAKER: On the point of order, the member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: I would request that you reflect on the Hansard because I think the characterisation of what was said is actually inaccurate, on which you are basing your ruling, particularly that of 'no interest'.

The SPEAKER: I have invited the leader to withdraw the reflection on both the lack of interest and belated interest of the member for King in the subject matter. I note the invitation to reflect on the Hansard. I have invited the leader to withdraw. I do ask him to withdraw.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I withdraw my reference to the word 'belated'.

The SPEAKER: I am grateful to the leader. I will indicate to all members that I will review Hansard, as I am in the practice of doing. If there is anything to add or correct in that regard, then I will be sure to do so.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I go back to where I was in regard to the member for King's remarks because the member for King's remarks are rather ironic in the context of various votes that the member for King has taken, amongst other government members, in regard to this subject matter generally. I simply point the member for King to the undisputable fact, which is of course that the member for King actively supported a delay in a change to this legislation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The leader will take his seat. The Deputy Premier.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There has already been a ruling—and it is 'indisputable', not 'undisputable'—on the question of the reflection on the vote, on this particular vote: not acceptable. They have made that objection. It has been ruled on. I ask you, sir, to be consistent.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Speaker, only a few moments ago, has made a ruling, as I understand it. I was not in the seat at the time. That order having been made, it ought not be repeated. All members are on notice that there is not to be any further reflection in that regard.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I fully accept that the government would not want to have a historical reflection on such matters. What I would like to assure the member for King, though, is this: that members of the South Australian community know. They know who sought to move most quickly and responsibly in regard to this particular measure.

Again, the South Australian community knows all too well precisely who responded to Brian Martin QC's recommendations first, and I would like to assure the member for King that any degree of awareness or consciousness that her community has in regard to this issue exists. It will exist in perpetuity, and it will exist to be prosecuted in a way that best represents the facts that we know.

To go beyond the member for King's remarks, which as I said were partisan and vitriolic, I rise to speak on the bill and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. We are firmly of the view that this bill should be passed without delay. As a result, the opposition will have no further speakers so as to ensure the bill can pass through the house post haste.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Why didn't you do it two weeks ago?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Attorney interjects, as she frequently does, and suggests that somehow two weeks ago the opposition had the opportunity to pass the bill. I might remind the Attorney-General of some facts. She, of course, is a member of the government, which purports to have 24 votes on the floor of the house, which means the Attorney, more than anyone else in this chamber, has control of whether or not a piece of legislation is brought on. Not on one occasion has the opposition sought to delay this bill. We will not have the Deputy Premier's—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —verbal misrepresentations of the truth in regard to this matter. The Attorney is sensitive on this because, like so many other matters, when it comes to the criminal justice system she has been led to a position by the opposition. The track record is now rather substantial in this regard. I might remind the Attorney-General that she has been elected to lead, but if she wants to continue to follow the opposition's lead we nonetheless welcome it.

The bill is an absolute failure on the part of the Liberal government, the Premier and the Attorney-General. The government has failed the community. The government, including the member for King, has failed victims. The government has failed the most basic test of keeping people safe. The opposition has been ready to support the measures in the bill for months. We were not just ready to support these measures, of course, we moved our own bill two months ago.

What did the government do on that? We know what they did not do. Eight weeks ago, on 22 July, this government voted against progressing Labor's bill to slash sentencing discounts. But the issue actually goes back a lot further than eight weeks. It was two years ago—two years ago—when the Attorney-General put out a media release announcing that she had hired a retired Supreme Court justice to review sentencing discounts.

It was 15 months ago when an expert report was completed and made public. It recommended slashing sentencing discounts for the most serious offences. The release of the report was yet another opportunity for a government media release, and they took it, which flies in the face of so much rhetoric that we have seen from this government since they have been elected. They are not interested in media releases; they are interested in substance.

Tragically, the government did not take the opportunity to act on their own media release. Almost two years after the whole process began and with an expert report in hand, all the government had done was issue two media releases. All the while, serious offenders who entered guilty pleas continue to be eligible for the maximum sentencing discount of 40 per cent.

In July this year, the horrific case of the Bahrami matter meant that we could not wait any longer. Labor decided to lead. We moved a bill to fix the issue and the government voted against progressing it. In the Bahrami case, he sexually abused a young girl in a public toilet while his daughter and niece waited outside. The judge said he could not explain his offending. That was a deplorable example where the maximum sentence discount of 40 per cent did not fit the horrendous crime of the offender.

The judge's sentencing remarks stated, and I quote, 'The offending represented one of the most serious examples of its kind.' His actions were described by the judge as despicable and of a heinous nature, yet the judge still did not exercise his discretion to reduce the sentence by less than the maximum discount. Under Labor's bill, or if the government had acted earlier, Bahrami would have only been entitled to a maximum reduction of 25 per cent. Instead, he got the maximum 40 per cent discount.

Since that time, a conga line of serious criminals has taken advantage of the Attorney-General's casual approach to this issue, ably supported, nonetheless, by the member for King. A drug kingpin was busted with a $6 million operation and his lawyer is seeking to speed up the court process so that he can get the highest discount possible.

Mr Geoffrey Adams pleaded guilty to manslaughter for killing his wife over 45 years ago. He buried her body under a concrete slab and then concealed his crime. He claimed that she abandoned her family. He could be eligible for a discount of up to 40 per cent of his sentence. Mr Klosowski has been charged with killing his son and his son's girlfriend in the South-East just weeks ago. He has hurriedly entered a guilty plea to their murder. He could be eligible for a discount of up to 40 per cent on his sentence. Mr Matthew McIntyre sexually abused a 13-year-old girl—while in state care, mind you—and she became pregnant, before having a termination.

Ms Stinson: Where was the minister? What's she doing? Nothing.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Badcoe is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: He received a 25 per cent discount, but the judge had to start with the maximum 40 per cent discount and work backwards. This could have been less under Labor's bill, delayed by the member for King and her colleagues. The two sexual offenders, Bahrami and McIntyre, could both be back on the streets in less than two years, an outcome that is only the responsibility of government members and those on the backbench who acquiesce to such a position. As a father, I am horrified. As a politician, I am ashamed for the government and all its members. The bill that I introduced in July would have slashed the maximum discount from 40 per cent to 25 per cent. Despite the government—

Ms Luethen: That's original.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is original. The member for King interjects—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —and says it is original, and she is right—it is because it's our idea and now the government has been caught napping.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for King! I remind the leader not to respond to interjections, and there will be order on my right.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But when they are right, Mr Speaker, it is hard to resist. Despite the government voting against Labor's bill, they are effectively proposing the same thing. Disturbingly, the Attorney-General's office has confirmed in writing that it does not even know how many people got sentence discounts in the last 15 months since it was handed the expert report.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Attorney!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Attorney-General interjects that we should take it up with the Supreme Court justice, as though the Attorney-General is utterly disinterested in decisions that are taken by the court. She is the person who should be paying the most attention but, clearly, is disinterested in the outcomes that impinge upon victims.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: I totally reject that and I am offended by such a statement. I ask that it be withdrawn.

The SPEAKER: The Attorney has risen on a point of order and has indicated that she is offended by the remark of the leader and the reference to the Attorney being disinterested, as I understand it. It is the same point that I made earlier. The Attorney having indicated her offence at that remark, I invite the leader to withdraw.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am happy to withdraw, Mr Speaker. I withdraw the word 'disinterested'. Just as a point of clarification for my benefit, if a member in this place takes offence to any word said and makes that known to the house, are they under an obligation to withdraw it regardless of how trivial or, indeed, inoffensive on one interpretation that word may be, such as 'disinterested'?

The SPEAKER: The point of order will be considered on its merits. The short point is that if a member—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right! The short point is that if a member takes offence at any reflection that is made on them in the course of debate, then that is a matter that the Chair will give serious consideration to. If it is determined that that is a bona fide matter in the view of the member who has taken offence, then the member having made that observation may be invited to withdraw. I have made a ruling in respect of two occasions in the course of this debate. Any point of order will be determined according to its merits. The leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do withdraw the reference to the word 'disinterested' that the Attorney has taken offence to. It is worth noting, of course, in this place that I can only imagine what offence is taken by victims of the crimes, where they are now witnessing serious offenders potentially getting maximum sentencing discounts. If the Attorney is offended by the word 'disinterested', one can only imagine what offence is taken by those victims by the lack of action on behalf of this government.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader has the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: As I was saying, the Attorney-General's office has confirmed in writing that it does not even know how many people have got sentencing discounts in the 15 months since the expert report was handed down. We do not know exactly how many discounts have been given and for what offences. I do not know whether the government does not care or does not want the public to find out.

If the Attorney-General had any sense of decency, she would stand in this place and read the sentencing remarks for each of the cases that have happened since she received the expert report in June last year. The Premier and the Attorney-General, amongst other senior members of the government like the Minister for Child Protection and other government MPs, have some explaining to do. They need to explain to their communities why they have voted to give serious sexual violent offenders an easier ride.

It is important to get the history on this issue on the record. The Attorney-General commissioned the Hon. Brian Martin QC in September 2018 to conduct a review to examine the early guilty plea legislation. That report was handed down in June 2019. The report made 12 recommendations, which included amending the Sentencing Act and reducing the maximum percentage reductions available to offenders who plead guilty in matters heard in the District and Supreme courts. The report is a blueprint to improve the sentence reduction scheme. Its objective is simple: just like Labor's bill in July, it seeks to improve community safety and confidence in our justice system. The government sat on the report for 15 months.

The Attorney-General's responses to the delay have been varied and sound like a child claiming that her dog ate her homework. She said it was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite getting the report nine months before that emergency. The Attorney-General said, and I quote:

Regrettably, COVID-19 and other such activities have taken up Parliamentary time and has made some of our legislation a little delayed.

She said they had to consult with stakeholders, despite Brian Martin doing this for his report and having nine months before COVID-19. The consultation documents are public.

She said they needed to get the legislation right, and I quote—this is a good one: 'It's a complex body of work that needs to be 100 per cent right…poorly drafted legislation and amendments can cause chaos, so we're being thorough—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —'to ensure we get it right'. She goes on, 'We need to do it properly and that’s precisely what we’re doing.'

The Attorney-General’s problem is that she took 15 months and then got it wrong, after telling everyone how she wanted to get it right. After all the delays, the government is now amending its own bill because they left out a range of violent and sexual offences.

Having told the parliament, having told the public that of course amendments can cause chaos, that they are being thorough, that they are getting it right, that it needs to be 100 per cent right, that they are doing it properly, they then are introducing their own amendments because the Attorney-General got it wrong. The Attorney-General's credibility was already in tatters when she came up with a new excuse this week. On radio—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: On radio, she has now claimed that judges were not happy with the proposal. Well, the Attorney-General is not here to keep judges happy; she is supposed to be here to keep the community safe.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Premier!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: None of these excuses from the Marshall Liberal government hold water, let alone pass any basic pub test. More importantly, none of these excuses can make up for the trauma that victims felt as serious offenders got shorter sentences.

Instead of voting for Labor's bill in July, the Attorney-General announced that the government would bring in its own legislation. Even then, the Attorney-General did not act with urgency or haste. Finally, in early September, she announced that she would introduce legislation to amend the Sentencing Act and cut sentencing discounts for serious offenders in parliament in that week.

Here we are again. This is the Attorney-General's groundhog day. Child sex offenders, wife killers, drug kingpins and double murderers all potentially benefit from the Attorney-General and the government's delay. These cases and more are on the government's head for any shortened prison terms that are handed out. We cannot afford for this to be repeated. It should never have happened in the first place.

The Attorney-General's recent legislative agenda shows that her priority has not been on sentencing reform, until it was all too late. She has been focused on what she herself has recently described in this place as 'rats and mice legislation'. She has been focused on titles for senior lawyers, more concerned about what letters exist after silks' names than about the sentences that are applied to double murderers. She has been focused on repealing inactive pieces of legislation around gift cards.

In a panic, the Attorney-General has now introduced two bills in two weeks: the Sentencing (Serious Repeat Offenders) Amendment Bill 2020 and now the Statutes Amendment (Sentencing) Bill 2020. It is critical that we keep the community safe and maintain confidence in our justice system, but this should have been dealt with months or weeks ago. The government has the numbers in this place. They could have used them, with the opposition's support, to deal with this before the horrific and disturbing cases that we have seen recently.

Instead, they used their numbers to delay the process so they could put out another media release to say that they had fixed the problem. But at what price? Any victory the government claims on this issue is clearly a hollow one. It will come at the expense of victims and their trauma. We know that the government does not have high regard for victims, after slashing millions of dollars from the Victim Support Service earlier this year. In simple terms, the bill amends the Sentencing Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. It adopts most—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Premier!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It adopts most, but not all, of the Martin report recommendations. The bill reduces the maximum discount available for guilty pleas for all major indictable offences by an overall 5 per cent. The maximum is now up to 35 per cent, instead of up to 40 per cent. For more serious offences, the maximum is cut from 40 per cent to 25 per cent.

The bill ensures that the courts can apply a lesser discount if a guilty plea is entered in the face of an overwhelming prosecution case. It also requires courts to have regard to a number of additional factors when determining the sentencing discount. These factors include that the defendant has shown no genuine remorse, whether they intentionally concealed the crime, and whether they disputed the factual basis of a plea and lost.

The bill also seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1921. These amendments are considered more procedural in nature and relate to the Magistrates Court. The amendment adopts recommendations 10 and 12 of the Martin report. There is also a transitional provision that makes the sentencing amendments apply to all persons who have pleaded guilty on or after the commencement date of the act. This is regardless of whether the offence was committed before or after the commencement.

This means we have to pass this bill before another serious offender is sentenced. For that reason, no other member of the opposition will be speaking on this bill. We will not even ask questions in the committee stage. We will support the government's amendment to its own bill, but the amendment does warrant a brief comment. The Attorney-General preached to the opposition about the need to get it right, and then she got it wrong.

The government's bill was 15 months late and stuffed up the definition of the most serious offences that see the biggest cuts to discounts. They left out a range of violent and sexual offences. They could have just copied and pasted from the Labor bill, but they had to be different. The government put pride before community safety. In her second reading speech, the Attorney-General was clear what a serious indictable offence meant, saying:

The bill provides that a 'serious indictable offence' is defined to mean a serious offence of violence, within the meaning of section 83D of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act…and a serious sexual offence within the meaning of section 52(1) of the Sentencing Act for which the maximum penalty is or includes at least five years' imprisonment. Defined in this way, 'serious indictable offence' will include, for example, offences of murder, manslaughter, causing death or serious harm by dangerous driving, rape, maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, unlawful sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault and offences relating to the production and dissemination of child exploitation material.

I am not sure what bill the Attorney-General was referring to, but it was not hers. The whole debacle is an awful legacy for the Liberal government. If one more serious offender gets the benefit of a 40 per cent discount on his or her sentence, then the government and the Attorney-General will need to answer to the victims and their families.

The opposition supports this bill, but the incompetent and reckless government that brought it here enjoys less support. The argy-bargy in the public realm about whose idea it was and the implications that has in terms of timing is material. We should not—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: When are you going to apologise for introducing it in the first place?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Innovation and Skills is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right and on my left. The leader is on his feet; he is entitled to be heard. The leader has the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are material consequences to this. What we have seen here is crass, overt politicking on behalf of the government, which drives the community crazy. There are quite literally cases and victims who are feeling more pain than would otherwise need be the case because the government did not have the courage to be able to be pragmatic and support a reasonable, thoughtful proposition in the first instance. They had to put their pride before the outcome, which is unfortunate because, had the government just supported Labor's bill, the public would have just focused on the outcome.

So let's make sure for the rest of the passage of this legislation that the government again tries to acknowledge that Labor is doing the right thing here. We are supporting the legislation, we are going to get it through asap, we are not going to ask questions, we are not going to have more speakers, we just want to get the outcome here of this legislation passed. The historical context matters because hopefully the government learns, the next time the opposition brings in a thoughtful bill trying to address an issue that the community cares about, that it is not unreasonable for the government and the Attorney-General to say, 'You know what? That's a good idea; let's just do it,' rather than playing crass, base politics.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (11:47): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Sentencing) Bill 2020 introduced by the member for Bragg and Attorney-General. As the Attorney-General stated in the house, the bill amends both the Sentencing Act 2017 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 and resolves problems with the sentencing reduction scheme that currently operates in our state, which was developed, introduced and passed through the parliament by the former Labor government.

It was a former Labor government that introduced this scheme through the Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Guilty Pleas) Amendment Act 2012, which came into operation on 11 March 2013. It allowed an offender's sentence to be reduced if they entered a guilty plea before trial. The earlier the plea was entered, the greater the discount that could be applied to the sentencing.

The bill before us, the Statutes Amendment (Sentencing) Bill 2020, also incorporates recommendations made in the 2018-19 report by the Hon. Brian Martin AO, QC and seeks to remedy the current sentencing reduction scheme, as well as a number of other technical changes. I would like to put on the record today my community's concern with the arrangements that exist and that were implemented by the former Labor government.

Victims can feel devalued by the generous discount provisions attached to the current sentencing process. The significant reductions received by offenders, who have all too often committed heinous and serious crimes, are out of touch with community expectations. It is an expectation of the broader community, and those within my own electorate of Adelaide, that offenders should receive a punishment that is commensurate with their crime.

I see all too often, in my portfolio of child protection, young victims who have been traumatised and have had to spend the rest of their lives dealing with the trauma caused by those unconscionable offenders who have committed serious offences against them. The bill proposes amendments to section 40 of the Sentencing Act, which deals with major indictable offences and other offences finalised in the District Court and Supreme Court. Further, it introduces a two-tiered scheme, one for serious indictable offences and one for all other offences.

The bill proposes a serious indictable offence to include a serious offence of violence or a serious sexual offence. Serious indictable offences will include the offences of murder, manslaughter, causing death or serious harm by dangerous driving, rape, maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, unlawful sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault and offences relating to the production and dissemination of child exploitation material.

I am pleased that the maximum reduction that a court may apply for a guilty plea for serious indictable offences, serious sexual offences and serious offences of violence will now be reduced from the current maximum of up to 40 per cent to, now, 25 per cent maximum for a guilty plea entered within four weeks of the first court appearance. These reductions will similarly be reduced at each stage of the prosecution process. In effect, the longer the accused takes to enter a guilty plea, the less discount available to them.

For other major indictable offences, the maximum reductions available for guilty pleas are reduced to up to 35 per cent for a plea entered within four weeks of the first court appearance, again on a reducing scale the longer the accused takes to enter the guilty plea. Under the new arrangements, all sentencing courts must also have regard to additional factors when determining the appropriate reduction when a disputed facts hearing is not determined in favour of the defendant and if the court is satisfied that the offender intentionally concealed the commission of the crime or if the prosecution case is so strong or the offender has shown little remorse that a reduction of sentence would be inappropriate and may affect public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Marshall Liberal government is committed to sentencing reform that protects the community. The government has been working hard to overhaul the sentencing reduction scheme left by the former Labor government and has been consulting with the relevant stakeholders in the criminal justice system to get it right.

The Liberal government has not responded in a knee-jerk manner, like those opposite. It has consulted with the experts, with victims and the wider community to fix a problem that the Labor government introduced. The Liberal government's bill is superior and goes much further. The opposition's bill is silent on a number of additional recommendations made by Brian Martin AO, QC.

Mr BROWN: Point of order: the minister is debating another piece of legislation that is currently before the house rather than this bill.

The SPEAKER: I have been listening carefully to the contribution of the Minister for Child Protection. For the time being, the minister is addressing remarks to the subject matter of the bill and is providing some context. I will take that point of order on board. I will listen evermore carefully. For the time being, the minister is sufficiently addressing the subject matter of debate, and the minister has the call. Minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Labor has lowered the public debate to grubby attacks in my electorate of Adelaide and other Liberal-held electorates in an attempt to convince the general public of their inferior and limited argument. The Liberal government, on the other hand, has undertaken a full review and accounted for multiple recommendations. Our legislation will achieve better outcomes, not just political headlines. To maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system, it is important that the seriousness of a crime is reflected in the penalty, and that is what the Marshall Liberal government is doing.

I congratulate the Attorney-General on restoring public confidence by striking an appropriate balance between the efficient functioning of the criminal justice system and public confidence. The implementation of the recommendations outlined by the Attorney-General will ensure that sentencing reduction is now more closely aligned with community expectations. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (11:54): I think that I have a duty to expose the Leader of the Opposition as the phoney that he is.

Mr PICTON: Point of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The facts are that—

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The facts are—

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Kaurna, point of order.

Mr PICTON: Yes, using very unparliamentary language, and I ask the member to withdraw.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member who is the subject of the reflection is required to raise the point. I remind all members of standing orders 125, 126 and 127 in that regard. The remark, as I heard it, reflected on the leader. I remind all members to avoid any reflections on members. But very specifically to the point of order, the member who might have taken offence, and might reasonably have done so pursuant to the relevant standing order, needs to rise and raise that immediately. I take the opportunity to remind all members not to reflect on members and not to indulge in language that might be deemed to cause offence to any member. The minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, sir, and of course—

Mr BROWN: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sit down.

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Playford on a point of order.

Mr BROWN: A point of clarification, Mr Speaker, on unparliamentary language. Are you now saying that the word 'phoney' is parliamentary?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The point of order that was raised by the member for Playford was put in terms of it being a reflection on a member.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: It is for the member to whom the reflection is made to raise that, so there's no point of order, member for Playford.

Mr BROWN: May I raise another point of order, Mr Speaker?

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford on a separate point of order.

Mr BROWN: May I ask that you pull the minister into line for unparliamentary language. The word 'phoney' is clearly unparliamentary.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The point of order having been raised in relation to the use of the word 'phoney' and whether or not it is unparliamentary, I do invite the minister to withdraw the word 'phoney'.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, sir. I withdraw the word 'phoney', but you cannot miss the faux rage that has come from the Leader of the Opposition. This was a man who, as the number one union powerbroker in South Australia had the power to sack a premier, but he did not have the power to stop paedophiles and murderers getting out of gaol early.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: How can he stand there now, the Leader of the Opposition, and blame everybody else but the power that he refused to use, a power so powerful that he could tap on the shoulder of Mike Rann and say, 'It's time for you to go'? Do you know why he did that, Mr Speaker? Do you know why he stayed out of this debate and was not in parliament—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —when Labor brought this in.

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is called to order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Labor brought this in as a government. He did not do that because he was much more interested in—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —his parliamentary career, getting into parliament, ticking the right boxes, making sure his union mates backed him to be preselected into this chamber. That was the motivation of the Leader of the Opposition.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That is why we have faux outrage from the Leader of the Opposition today, using a very difficult issue for political purposes, attacking women members of parliament for their political benefit.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: One really has to ask about the character of the Leader of the Opposition and what his motivations are for being in this place. We know it is all about the Leader of the Opposition. That is what it is all about. It is not about the people of South Australia from the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party: it is about getting back onto the treasury bench. That is their only motivation for being in this place, as opposed to the Liberal Party who are here to serve the people—

Mr BROWN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat.

Mr BROWN: I am offended by the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BROWN: I am offended by the minister's remark that I and other members of the opposition are only interested in power and not in helping the people of South Australia. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: On the point of order, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I do believe the member for Unley referred to an individual member: I think he referred to the collective, not to an individual member.

The SPEAKER: A collective reference is, according to practice, not generally the subject of a point of order pursuant to standing order 125 for practical reasons. The member will resume his seat. It is appropriate that no member in this place contravenes standing order 124 by the use of unparliamentary language. I remind all members that, where offensive words are used against a member, it is for the member to raise the point of order, but where an observation may be made in the more general sense it is a matter that is otherwise to be brought into line as a matter of general order. I remind the minister to contribute to the debate to the extent that he will continue to do so. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, sir. It is ironic, is it not, that the most offended member on the other side is the member who was the designer of the 'Put your family first campaign'. Remember that in the 2010 election—deliberately misleading voters.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Playford—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: And what did Labor do? Labor had to put a law in the parliament to stop him doing it again!

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Kaurna, a point of order.

Mr PICTON: The member for Unley is not being relevant at all to the subject, the matter of the bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! I draw the minister's attention to the subject matter of the bill. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is all about character, and today we have just seen—

Mr Brown: You wouldn't even know what character was!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —the character of those opposite and their motivations for sitting in this place: it is all about them.

Mr BROWN: Point of order. Again, I would ask the minister to withdraw that comment about what each individual member of the opposition's motivations are in this place. He was not referring to the opposition in general: he was referring to each one of us individually.

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford rises on a point of order. I have ruled on the matter. I understand the minister has finished.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:02): In the absence of anyone else wishing to speak on this matter, I thank all members for their contribution. I start with the member for King. The member for King has been very passionate in her coming into the parliament, and also in the many speeches she has given in this parliament, to really ask the parliament at all material times to protect the vulnerable.

Whether they are a victim of child exploitation, a victim of sexual assault or victims of sexual harassment in the workplace, she has been a champion in this house. Repeatedly I have heard her give impassioned speeches for those who need our protection most. I welcome her contribution today on this bill to again reflect her dedication to being forever vigilant to protect those most vulnerable in our community, and I thank her for her continued passion and interest.

I also acknowledge the more fiery contribution of the minister who most recently contributed, because he says it all about what the real motivation is in trying to exploit a delay in the implementation of a law which has been extant for seven years and which had been authored by those opposite. I thank him for that contribution.

I also acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition's indication that they will now support this legislation. It followed a disclosure on the radio this morning by the shadow attorney-general that he agreed that this legislation, as an enactment following the initiatives of the former Labor government back in 2013, was wrong and that it did need to be changed. That acknowledgement, whilst late in coming, has been appreciated.

But, yes, the government accept and appreciate the opposition's indication that it will be supported. They see the significance of ensuring that it be dealt with as rapidly as possible in the parliament. I do note, however, that it was their initiative, when we were here two weeks ago and when I introduced this bill in the parliament, to seek an adjournment on the matter. You would wonder: if it was so pressing for them, they would have actually just jumped up and said, 'We consent to this straightaway.' Nevertheless, that is what has occurred. So we are here today—

Mr PICTON: Point of order, sir: there was a reflection upon the opposition that we sought an adjournment. There is an automatic adjournment in the standing orders, which is what took place last sitting week.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Deputy Premier has the call.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are a couple of matters that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, however, that do require some response. Firstly, can I indicate that, whilst this legislation had been extant for many years before the change of government, within months—that is, in September 2018—as Attorney-General I requested Brian Martin AO, QC to undertake this review. He had had some history in providing reports to the government on this subject matter—indeed, to the previous government. I felt that therefore he was at least able to understand the complexity of the legislation that had been introduced by the previous government and would be able to give a very comprehensive assessment.

Although he provided an interim report by June 2019, his final report was provided on 13 September 2019. For someone as clever as Mr Martin, with experience in this matter, to take a year to provide his final report is no reflection on him at all, but it confirms and corroborates the government's position; that is, this is a complex area and it does require considerable work to be done, and there are very strong voices of disparate views in relation to this type of legislation.

I do not think there is any doubt that, at the time, the government of the day—that is, the Labor government—who introduced this legislation were looking for financial relief. They were approaching a situation where the prisons were full and they needed to save money. They had a choice: they could either build another prison or they could look at providing some relief. I have no doubt in my mind that this is motivated by money.

No other jurisdiction in Australia had gone to a statutory discounting procedure to such an extent of up to 40 per cent for an early guilty plea on serious offences. I do not think that the concept of the new-found interest in the safety of South Australians as being the priority is lost on the community at large. They know what the motivations of the Labor government have been. Whilst we appreciate this late coming to a support of this reform, clearly it was not something that pressed on the Leader of the Opposition at any time in the five years after this legislation—or perhaps it had, and he simply had no influence on the cabinet; I do not know.

He came into the house and said, 'As a father, I am horrified. As a politician, this is shameful.' Suddenly, he finds these attributes very distressing and concerning, when for five years, as a father and a politician, he seemed to have had no imperative on him to say, 'No, this law cannot be passed. No, this law cannot be sustained. The Liberals were right in saying that this was far too comprehensive in its application.'

The second matter the Leader of the Opposition raised was the refusal to undertake a provision of data in relation to the discounting review since the Martin report. It was expanded today in the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition to a new level where he thought that it was appropriate that I as Attorney-General should have read out the sentencing remarks of all the cases that might have occurred, presumably since we have been in government, to make provision for the cases to which this may have applied.

The opposition's question on this data was in relation to 'updated information on prevalence/type of guilty pleas and sentence discounts since the review'. That, in fact, was the question that was sought via I think the shadow attorney-general or at least a representative of his office. Quite simply, the Leader of the Opposition has either not understood actually what his shadow attorney-general had asked for, or just misses the point completely.

The discount scheme—this is the discount scheme introduced under his Labor government—in fact was a discount scheme that only applies when any or all of the offenders plead guilty. That is in accordance with their legislation, so he either does not understand his own legislation or he does not have any clue about what his shadow attorney-general has asked for in relation to that data.

But can I just say this: we advised the representative to the shadow minister's office that that information, in particular what had been sought for the purposes of the Martin review:

…involved manually reading and analysing each sentencing remark, which was sourced from the CAA [Courts Administration Authority]. The Department has not undertaken further analysis of all sentencing remarks since that time.

I read that into the Hansard because I think the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat irresponsible coming in and suggesting that he has asked for one thing when, in fact, he has asked for something entirely different.

Secondly, the Courts Administration Authority, which is headed by the Chief Justice, collates some of this data and it had manually gone through that to assist Mr Martin in his review. We thank the Courts Administration Authority for doing that, but if the Leader of the Opposition was so incensed about either this data not being provided by the Chief Justice's division or he wanted to read in the sentencing remarks of all cases that he thought were important to this point, then he could have done that himself. The sentencing remarks are there, they are online and they are available for him to do that if he wishes, or have someone in his office do it. That is a matter entirely for him.

When it came to the examples granted—in relation to which he took some offence at the legislation that currently exists and would have been remedied if, in fact, this parliament had accepted earlier bills prepared by the Leader of the Opposition in June-July—I think he quoted three examples, and I need to place on the record that two of them do not apply at all.

The first was the Leader of the Opposition's reference to a drug dealer and his eligibility for the benefit of sentence discounting, which would have been capped at 25 per cent if there had been passage of his bill. I just need to remind the Leader of the Opposition that this legislation does not deal with drug offenders; it actually deals with violent offences and/or sexual offences, so if he is going to use an example, perhaps get one that works.

Secondly, he referred to the Geoffrey Adams case, which, as members are aware because of the publicity around it, relates to the death of his wife some 40-odd years ago and of which he refers as being buried under a slab of concrete, etc. on Yorke Peninsula. Notwithstanding all of that emotive language, Mr Adams has not yet been sentenced, but he was actually arrested in September 2018. To be eligible for a 40 per cent discount he had to enter or at least intimate his plea within four weeks of that date.

Of course, his arrest is nine months before Mr Martin had even released his report, so again this is not an example which advances their cause of suggesting there have been multiple aggrieved victims out there and/or, presumably, relatives of victims as a result of this legislation not passing earlier. I do ask the Leader of the Opposition that in future, if he is going to quote examples, he perhaps quote ones that are relevant to the actual legislation that is before us.

I could deal with a litany of the cases of legislation pushed through this parliament under the Labor government which had clearly not been adequate. I start under the Atkinson administration of the Attorney-General's Department when we went all the way to the High Court in relation to the invalidity of legislation designed to crack down on bikie gangs and serious and organised crime. The Totani case cost the taxpayers of South Australia an enormous amount of money and delayed for years the implementation of a subsequently valid umbrella of legislative protection to deal with serious and organised crime in this state.

This whole idea of saying, 'We are going to be bigger, better, stronger, tougher' in that era was a very expensive one for the people of South Australia, who were left unprotected and left with legislation which we all knew was going to be smashed when it got to the High Court. That is precisely what happens and is the sign of an irresponsible government that just will not listen and is more interested in the headlines rather than the actual application.

There was the Chiro case, rushing in with legislation, and the Hamra case since, which we have had to tidy up. These are all examples of knee-jerk responses to legislation which has been introduced, claiming to be protecting the people of South Australia and which has failed. This example here of dealing with statutory discounting in relation to sentences for sexual and violence offences is a very telling piece of law and is a signature of the failed prior administration.

I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have come into the chamber and acknowledged, as the shadow minister had, that they had got it wrong and that we actually need to get it right. He also reflected an advance on an amendment to this legislation: 'The Attorney-General’s wanting to get this 100 per cent right, yet there's foreshadowed amendments.'

I indicate to the house that I will be introducing an amendment which is to ensure, as a matter of absolute clarity, in relation to violent offences we make it clear. I might point out that in fact, if he looks at his own bill, the same clause, which is repeated in the current bill, was in his. It does need to be clarified, on the advice we have received, to make it absolutely clear and to make sure that there is not one model of detailing of the application of the act in relation to sexual offences as distinct from violent offences. We are simply going to repeat that same model in the description so that both a serious offence of violence and the serious sexual offence are descriptive in the new bill.

We do want to get this absolutely right. Mr Martin—we thank him for his work—took nine months to actually deal with this issue but also nearly 12 months to finalise his report in relation to discounting, even though he had a history of providing reports on this matter. That ought to indicate to the parliament that we cannot, firstly, do something in a hurry and get it wrong and cause enormous distress to the people of South Australia and that, secondly, when we do do it, obviously it has to be effective, otherwise we fail for a second time the victims and/or witnesses in cases we are dealing with.

I applaud the contributions that have been made by members of this house. I am disappointed the Leader of the Opposition has come in here with examples that do not even apply to his own previous government's laws. If he is going to come in here with examples, please get it right. I seek that the bill now be read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 7, after line 6 [clause 9(4), before the definition of serious indictable offence]—Insert:

serious harm has the same meaning as in section 21 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935;

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 7, lines 8 and 9 [clause 9(4), definition of serious indictable offence, (a)]—Delete 'within the meaning of section 83D(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935' and substitute:

for which the maximum penalty prescribed is, or includes, imprisonment for at least 5 years

Amendment No 3 [AG–1]—

Page 7, lines 10 and 11 [clause 9(4), definition of serious indictable offence, (b)]—Delete 'within the meaning of section 52(1) of this Act'

Amendment No 4 [AG–1]—

Page 7, after line 14 [clause 9(4), after the definition of serious indictable offence]—Insert:

serious offence of violence means—

(a) an offence under section 11, 13, 13A, 19A(1), 19AB(1), 23, 29(1), 29(2), 29A(1) or 31(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935; or

(b) an offence under section 14 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 where the victim died or suffered serious harm; or

(c) an offence under section 19A(3) or 19AB(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 where serious harm was caused to a person;

(d) an offence under a corresponding previous enactment substantially similar to an offence referred to in any of the preceding paragraphs; or

(e) an attempt to commit or an assault with intent to commit any of the offences referred to in any of the preceding paragraphs;

serious sexual offence means—

(a) an offence under section 48, 48A, 49, 50, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63, 63B, 66, 67, 68 or 72 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935; or

(b) an offence under a corresponding previous enactment substantially similar to an offence referred to in the preceding paragraph; or

(c) an attempt to commit or an assault with intent to commit any of the offences referred to in either of the preceding paragraphs.

I have moved amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, and 4 together, amending the definition of 'serious indictable offence' for the purposes of section 40 of the Sentencing Act 2017. 'Serious indictable offence' is amended to mean a 'serious offence of violence' for which the maximum penalty is or includes at least five years' imprisonment, a 'serious sexual offence' for which the maximum penalty is or includes at least five years' imprisonment and any other offence prescribed by regulation for this purpose.

The amendments insert new definitions for the terms 'serious offence of violence' and 'serious sexual offence' for the purpose of what is a 'serious indictable offence' in section 40 of the Sentencing Act 2017. In relation to serious offences of violence, the primary reason for this amendment is to ensure greater clarity for courts, defendants, victims and legal practitioners in terms of what offences are and what offences are not serious offences of violence.

The bill, as introduced, provides that a serious offence of violence is as defined in section 83D of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. However, this definition is such that whether a particular offence is a serious offence of violence will depend on the facts of a particular case. In many cases, the court will be required to hear argument and possibly evidence to make findings about facts that do not compromise the elements of the offence the offender is to be sentenced for.

By defining serious offences of violence by reference to specific offences, there is no scope for argument regarding what offences do or do not fall within that category. There will be no need for factual arguments at the point of sentencing in order to determine the reduction to be applied in relation to a particular offence.

In relation to a serious sexual offence, the amended definition ensures consistency of drafting, that is defining both 'serious offence of violence' and 'serious sexual offence' for the purposes of section 40 and further because section 52 of the Sentencing Act is soon to be amended by the Sentencing (Serious Repeat Offenders) Amendment Bill 2020—of course, assuming that bill is passed. This highlights the need for a standalone definition for the purposes of the sentence reduction scheme.

As amended, 'serious sexual offence' is defined to mean any of the offences specified replicating the offences listed in section 52 of the Sentencing Act but also including the offence against section 51 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Amendment No. 1, in particular, provides for a definition of 'serious harm'. The term 'serious harm' as used in the definition of 'serious offence of violence' is amended. 'Serious harm' is to have the same meaning as it does in section 21 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (10) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.