CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING) (VICTIMS OF CRIME) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:05): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The provisions in this bill have a very long history in this place. The Victims of Crime (Victim Participation) Amendment Bill was first introduced in June 2006 by the Hon. Nick Xenophon, who had worked closely with victims of crime for a number of years, and who had consulted widely to come up with a range of measures to ensure that victims had more of a say in the justice system. The government opposed this bill, choosing to introduce its own bill rather than support more immediate changes in what it called a 'piecemeal approach'.

Victims of crime had to wait over 18 months before the government introduced its own raft of legislation to address concerns regarding victims' rights. Earlier this year the bill failed to pass due to the government's refusal to accept my amendments. The first amendment extended the category of victims who are entitled to read a victim impact statement to include where a victim suffered death or serious harm, as opposed to the government's proposal to limit this to cases of death or total incapacity.

The government's proposal to limit the definition to victims who have been rendered permanently physically or mentally incapable of independent function potentially left out many victims, as this definition was very narrow in scope. My alternative definition aims to give a wider range of victims (namely, anyone who has suffered serious harm) the chance to provide a victim impact statement to the court, should they so choose.

The government's reason for not supporting this in the past has been that it will open the floodgates and clog up the court system with too many victims presenting statements. I question whether this would be the case, especially given that other jurisdictions, such as Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, do not limit a victim's ability to present a victim impact statement based on the type of offence committed or the harm suffered by the victim. Should members require further information on the legislation governing victim impact statements in other jurisdictions, I would be happy to provide this.

The second amendment related to community service orders. It allowed victims to have a say in what type of community service an offender would perform when a court imposed a sentence of this type. The ultimate decision regarding whether such an order would be made would still rest with the court. The provision in my bill at least allows the request of the victim to be considered by the court.

I pay tribute to all those victims of crime and their families, who have waited years for legislation with real teeth to be implemented, especially those who worked together with my office to bring about this much needed reform, particularly the families of Andrew Watkins, Ian Humphrey, Daniel Madeley and Lee Charles McIntyre. I acknowledge their courage in speaking out for changes that will not necessarily help them but will help future victims. I also acknowledge the support of the opposition and my crossbench colleagues who have supported these proposals in the past. I hope I can rely on their continued support.

I note that yesterday and today Adelaide has been hosting the 2008 National Victim of Crime Conference with the theme New Ways Forward: Pathways to Change. I hope that this bill will forge a pathway for change, and I urge the government to reconsider its position and pass this legislation for the good of all victims.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.