STATUTES AMENDMENT (VICTIMS OF CRIME) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 February 2009. Page 1225.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:48): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition and indicate our support for this bill. We do have concerns with the bill, which is the reincarnation of the government's previous victims of crime bill from 2007. Members may recall the previous bill, which was laid aside due to the government's refusal to accept the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Darley and supported by the opposition and some crossbench MPs. Some of those amendments have now been included in the government's bill but it is unfortunate the government has denied and delayed these reforms for victims because of its belligerence and refusal to accept that an idea can be a good idea, even if it is not their own. The opposition is pleased to see these reforms finally return to the parliament in this bill. We also welcome some new additions to this most recent bill.

As I said in my contribution to the previous measure, these bills continue South Australia's journey to positively engage victims in the criminal law and its processes. Victims are likely to experience the most direct and enduring impact of crime. They are particularly entitled to have the effect of crime on them recognised, and they are particularly likely to benefit from positive engagement in the process.

This bill largely contains the provisions proposed in its precursor bill. The key provision of this bill is the introduction of victim impact statements for indictable offences or summary offences which result in the death of a victim or a victim suffering total incapacity. The Liberal Party supports this measure but thinks that it could be extended further to include all offences or, at the very least, all summary offences in which a victim suffers serious injury.

Secondly, as with the previous bill, the current bill provides that the victim can have an appropriate representative read their victim impact statement to the court. I mentioned previously the benefits these provisions offer to South Australians with a disability, and I fully support this intention. This new bill before us slightly expands the category of people compared with the previous bill in terms of who is entitled to present the victim impact statement on behalf of the victim.

Thirdly, the bill provides for community impact statements. These community impact statements are intended to inform the sentencing court about the effects on the community of the crimes being considered by the court. The bill proposes to create two types of community impact statements: neighbourhood impact statements and social impact statements.

The government has suggested that such statements will be compiled by the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. While we support these provisions, we are keen to monitor their implementation and practice, because we would be concerned if they were to become purely pro formas.

Another provision from the previous bill is the proposal to allow indirect delivery of victim impact statements through such technology as closed-circuit television, audio or audiovisual recording. We were informed in the context of the previous bill that this amendment was suggested by the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. We support this provision to assist victims in making their impact statements, but again we are concerned about the potential for this provision to be used to discourage the personal attendance of the victims because, for many victims, that would serve to dilute the impact of a victim impact statement.

The final element carried over from the previous bill is the provision for restitution orders to compel an offender to return misappropriated property to the victim or owner. Again, this innovation was reportedly suggested by the Commissioner for Victims' Rights.

The new bill also incorporates an amendment previously proposed by the Hon. Mr Darley which proposes to allow victims to make a submission in their victim impact statement regarding the penalty given to the offender. The opposition is pleased to see this provision in the government's bill, and we will continue to support it.

A new addition to the bill is the requirement in the case of sexual offences for a court to impose a restraining order on the convicted offender and, where a court declines to do so, it must give an explanation for its reasons. We support this amendment, although we query why it is restricted to sexual offences only. It would seem equally sensible to extend this provision to other offences such as violent offences.

I understand, from comments made by the Attorney-General in another place, that he justified this restriction on the grounds that the Commissioner for Victims' Rights expressed concern that the problem being addressed lay with sexual offences and that other offences are adequately covered by other provisions. The Attorney-General indicated that the government may well expand these provisions if they prove successful in relation to sexual offences.

The final amendment I wish to address is one with which the opposition takes issue. This is the amendment giving the Commissioner for Victims' Rights a blanket exemption from the freedom of information laws. Whilst we certainly understand that there will be many documents which should be exempt from release under freedom of information, particularly to protect the privacy of victims, we are very hesitant to provide a blanket exemption.

The very purpose of freedom of information legislation is to ensure that operations of the government and statutory authorities are transparent to the parliament and the community, and providing an authority with a blanket exemption is not something which the parliament should do lightly. Any statutory authority will be naturally cautious and, therefore, unlikely to release any document to the public if given a blanket exemption. This is not a reflection on the current commissioner or future commissioners or an expression of distrust but rather a concern that we need to maintain the integrity of our freedom of information laws. The opposition does not consider this amendment appropriate and we will not be supporting this section.

In closing, I highlight again our disappointment in the delay caused by the government's stubborn refusal to accept the amendments to the previous bill, which refusal has denied and delayed these rights to victims for some time now. We support this bill and look forward to its passage and to the provision of these rights to victims and the community.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:55): The Greens will be supporting this bill as we have supported previous victims of crime bills. It is a disturbing habit of the Attorney-General to go on talkback radio and say that the Greens do not support victims of crime, yet the voting record of this place clearly shows that we do. Victims have an important role to play in the sentencing process to make sure that our judges are aware of all the circumstances of crime and its effects on victims of crime.

I have one concern with this bill. As it happens, it is the same concern the Hon. Stephen Wade has just referred to, that is, clause 13 of the bill, which provides a blanket exemption from freedom of information laws for the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. I will take some responsibility for this clause being in the bill, because I think I am possibly the only person who has lodged a recent freedom of information application with the Commissioner for Victims' Rights.

That freedom of information request resulted in a number of documents, which in turn resulted in an Advertiser newspaper article, which pointed out that, according to our Commissioner for Victims' Rights, there needs to be a better complaints procedure for people engaged in the justice system, including a method of dealing with judges who fall asleep. The commissioner was referring to the fact that, under our present regime, judges tend to sit in judgment on other judges. He was making a submission to a federal government law reform inquiry.

That type of document held by the commissioner—a submission made to a law reform inquiry—is absolutely the sort of document we should be entitled to access under freedom of information laws. My original thought was that we would simply object to clause 13, and that is the clause which basically provides a blanket exemption for all documents held by the commissioner.

Having given the matter some more consideration, however, I can see that there are some documents that are held by the commissioner that would be inappropriate to release. The question for us, then, is: do we rely on other provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that deal with the sensitivity of particular documents, or do we try to amend clause 13 to provide for only a limited exemption for the agency?

That is a matter on which I will now seek to have further discussions with Liberal members of this place, because it seems we are of a single mind as to the inappropriateness of a blanket prohibition. However, that is the only clause in the bill that causes me any concern. I support the second reading, and I look forward to supporting an amended bill when it comes back to us later.

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