CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING) (GUILTY PLEAS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 September 2012.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:56): I rise to speak today on the Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Guilty Pleas) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Liberal opposition. This bill is based on the Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Sentencing Considerations) Amendment Bill 2012, which this council rejected on 29 March this year. The judgement of this council has been vindicated, in that the government bill which has now been introduced addresses a number of the flaws in the government's original bill.

Significant changes to the bill include a series of discounts to allow for mitigating factors such as court related delays, good reason and legal argument, and provision for review after two years, and in particular the abandonment of the no discount period. I would suggest to the council that this is another example of the government being extremely intolerant of the fact that we live in a bicameral parliament. Members will remember that, I think it was immediately before the 2006 election, former premier Rann foreshadowed a move to reform this place. It was opposed by the Legislative Council and it did not proceed.

That pathological distaste from the Labor Party towards this council is evident again in the passage of this bill. The Attorney-General persists in characterising the Legislative Council as unhelpful and obstructive, but in the context of this bill in particular the Attorney-General's comments lack credibility. As it has with so many other pieces of legislation, the government has shown that it would rather have a bill passed unamended and unworkable than change a bill to make it something that actually makes a difference.

In spite of the rants of the Attorney-General, the previous bill has been significantly modified and yet the government continues to characterise the Legislative Council as unhelpful and obstructive. It would actually save us all time and do better service to the people of South Australia if the government came to understand that parliaments provide a broader mandate than governments. Parliaments are here to promulgate the laws, and to hold the government accountable they need to respect their role.

The Attorney-General's second reading comments suggest that, if members of this place oppose anything that the government does, that means they are against the interests of victims, prosecutorial effectiveness and the efficiency of the courts. The people of South Australia hardly need to be reminded that these problems have become noticeably worse in the past 10 years on Labor's watch. Prison overcrowding is an inevitable consequence of the rack, pack and stack mentality of this government. Court delays are the inevitable consequence of 10 years of neglect. It is Labor's mess that we are trying to clean up, and it is Labor's legislation that proves time and time again to be so flawed that this council needs to do significant work to amend the legislation to ensure that it addresses the problems. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.