STATUTES AMENDMENT (VICTIMS OF CRIME) BILL

Conference

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (12:59): I have to report that the managers for the two houses conferred together and it was agreed that we should recommend to our respective houses:

As to Amendment No. 1:

That the Legislative Council no longer insist on its amendment but makes the following amendment in lieu thereof:

Clause 6, page 4, lines 19 and 20 [clause 6 (6), inserted subsection (5), definition of prescribed summary offence]—Delete the definition of prescribed summary offence and substitute:

prescribed summary offence means—

(a) a summary offence that results in the death of a victim or a victim suffering total incapacity; or

(b) a summary offence (other than the summary offence of assault) that results in a victim suffering serious harm;

serious harm means—

(a) harm that endangers a person's life; or

(b) harm that consists of loss of, or serious and protracted impairment of, a part of the body or a physical or mental function; or

(c) harm that consists of serious disfigurement;

And that the House of Assembly agrees thereto.

As to Amendment No. 3:

That the Legislative Council no longer insist on its amendment.

As to Amendment No. 6:

That the Legislative Council no longer insist on its amendment.

Consideration in Committee of the recommendations of the conference.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

That the recommendations of the conference be agreed to.

In relation to amendment No. 1, an alternative amendment has been suggested by the conference. In relation to amendment No. 3, I inform the committee that the Attorney-General pledges that he will refer this proposal to the Victims Ministerial Advisory Committee to investigate and report. We are referring there to where a court imposes a sentence of community service and the role, if any, the victim should have in relation to that matter.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I am pleased that we have been able to reach some middle ground in relation to these amendments; in particular, the first amendment, which is aimed at providing victims with the right to furnish the court with a victim impact statement in a much broader range of cases involving prescribed summary offences.

We have been able to overcome the concerns expressed by the government, especially in relation to overburdening the court system, yet at the same time ensuring that the definition of 'prescribed summary offences' is wide enough to capture cases involving driving and industrial offences, among others.

I am grateful to the opposition and other cross-bench members, and Andrea Madeley and Julie McIntyre for their continued support in relation to this very important issue. I am also grateful to the Attorney-General for his cooperation, particularly over the past few days.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I indicate that the opposition, like the Hon. Mr Darley, will be supporting this motion, and I thank the minister for his assurances in relation to consultation with the advisory committee.

I also concur with the comments of the Hon. Mr Darley in terms of the significant progress made by this committee. I commend the manager from our chamber, the Attorney-General and other participants on the progress that was made. I think it is perhaps a lesson to members of the government that the deadlock conference procedure, despite the fact that the government tried to abolish it earlier this year, is a valuable tool, and it should be used more often. As I said, I think it is a valuable tool, which I think is under-utilised by this government. I can certainly think of another bill before this chamber that would benefit from consideration in a conference. I urge the government, in the next parliament, to be more open to the opportunity.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I support the resolution proposed, but remind the council that this amendment was first proposed by the Hon. Mr Darley, or perhaps his predecessor, the Hon. Nick Xenophon, in May 2006. It was supported by the opposition and other crossbenchers. It lapsed because of the prorogation of parliament. The bill was reintroduced by the honourable member in 2008 and, finally, in the last week of this session of parliament before the election, the Attorney-General called a deadlocked conference and within 24 hours the matter was able to be resolved.

This matter could and should have been resolved many months ago if the Attorney-General had adopted an appropriate approach and, as my colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade mentioned, had used the procedures of the parliament to resolve the deadlock rather than allowing it to fester for so long. As a result, many victims of crime in South Australia have not had an opportunity to make a victim impact statement, as they might well have done had the government been prepared to adopt a more flexible attitude. I commend the minister for the undertaking he has given and hope that those who succeed me in this place will ensure that that undertaking is met in due course.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I, too, support the compromise position reached, but rise specifically because the motion is that, with regard to amendment No. 6, the Legislative Council no longer insist on its amendment, which was my amendment. I maintain that it was a sensible compromise to make sure that the Office of the Commissioner for Victims' Rights is subject to the Freedom of Information Act whilst protecting personal and confidential information. Having said that, I do not want our insistence on that amendment to stand in the way of the overall package of reforms, which I believe are good. Hence, as the mover of that amendment, I am happy that in a spirit of compromise we no longer insist on it.

Motion carried.

[Sitting suspended from 13:08 to 14:15]