STATUTES AMENDMENT (VICTIMS OF CRIME) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2007. Page 739.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:39): This is a companion bill to the Victims of Crime (Commissioner for Victims' Rights) Amendment Bill and is in furtherance of the government's 2006 election commitment to strengthen the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. It builds on the landmark Liberal legislation, the Victims of Crime Act 2001, and on the benefit of six years of practical application. Rather than going through the bill clause by clause, I take the opportunity to identify what I see as the streams of victims' rights recognised in the bill, the higher level rights—higher than those codified in the Victims of Crime Act 2001. First, the bill recognises that the victims have a right to respect.

The act requires officials who deal with victims to treat them with courtesy, respect and sympathy, whether those officers are within the criminal justice system or in the wider Public Service. Secondly, the bill recognises that victims have a right to consultation. For example, victims of some serious crimes will have the right to be consulted before the DPP enters into a charge bargain with the accused or decides to modify and not proceed with prosecutions. Thirdly, the bill recognises that victims have a right to information and, in this respect, the bill, for example, recognises the right of victims to receive information about mentally incompetent offenders, and in relation to the details of any supervision order imposed on the offender and the outcome of any proceedings to vary, revoke or review that order.

Fourthly, the bill recognises that victims have the right to be notified. The bill provides that reasonable efforts must be made to notify victims who express safety concerns to police about any bail conditions imposed to protect them. Fifthly, the bill recognises that victims have the right to be compensated. A number of changes are made to the bill in relation to compensatory payments, such as payments for grief and funeral expenses. Sixthly, the bill recognises the rights of victims to participate in the judicial proceedings. Amendments to the Youth Court Act 1993, for example, will make it clear that victims can attend court proceedings, even when the proceedings deal with offences against more than one victim.

Seventhly, the bill recognises the right of a victim to have an optional factor considered in the decision-making of a public official. Victims of crime will have the right to ask the prosecuting authority to consider an appeal; the final decision, of course, about whether or not to institute an appeal will continue to rest with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that this clause reflects the DPP's policy and practice with respect to consulting victims. Eighthly, the bill recognises the right of victims to security. Section 7 of the Victims of Crime Act recognises the specific right of victims to have their perceived need for protection taken into account in bail proceedings.

The perceived need for physical protection of the victim is a primary consideration under section 10(4) of the Bail Act 1984. This bill extends the presumption against bail created by section 10A of the Bail Act 1984 to apply to people who are charged with breaching bail conditions imposed for the principal protection of victims. This concern of victims is personal and must be respected. I think we should also give respect to a more generalised concern amongst victims for security for their community. Victims want to know that the offender's criminal behaviour has been dealt with so that others will not need to go through the trauma they themselves have gone through. I think the bill reflects that concern when it provides victims of crime with the right of information about an offender's compliance with a community service order or a good behaviour bond.

In this context I am reminded of the judicial officers briefing that was provided to members of parliament last month, which the Hon. Robert Lawson referred to earlier this afternoon. At that briefing, Justice McEwan of the Youth Court mentioned that some of the victims involved in family conferencing are concerned to know that the offender engages in a relevant treatment program. Depending on the nature of the crime and their relationship to the offender, the victim may well not have a concern that they will again be a direct victim of the offender, but they often remain concerned that others do not become victims, or generally for their community to have a higher level of security.

As shadow minister for correctional services I am aware that this is an area where the government is letting victims down. Under the Rann Labor government prisoners are more likely to be released from prison and go out and commit more crime. Since the Rann government came to power in 2002, re-imprisonment rates after two years have increased from 36.4 per cent to 41.4 per cent. Prisoners are being released from our gaols with an increased likelihood of reoffending. Of course, therefore, our community is not as safe. During the same period re-imprisonment rates nationally have decreased from 40.1 per cent to 38.3 per cent. South Australia has gone from having the second-lowest rate of any state to the second-highest rate of any state in Australia. South Australia is going against the trend. Rehabilitation is not something that will be solved by simply building a new prison. It needs a serious commitment to correctional services, good prison management and effective community corrections. In conclusion, I reaffirm that the opposition supports this bill but insists the government lifts its performance across the justice system, from policing right through to corrections.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. R.P. Wortley.