Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Bail Authorities) Bill Statutes Amendment (Bail Authorities) Bill Statutes Amendment (Bail Authorities) Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 12 May 2020.) The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:59): I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. This is a relatively short and technical bill and includes two key measures. From our briefing with the government, we understand that these measures were requested by the Chief Justice. The first measure is to fix inefficiencies by allowing all courts to act as bail authorities, with the only restriction being the rules of the specific court. My understanding is that this will mostly affect cases in which certain matters move between the Magistrates Court and District Court. Under the current system, there are limitations arising from the District Court not being a bail authority under the Bail Act. This bill will allow the District Court to hear bail applications in situations where they previously could not. The second measure this bill addresses is that it changes the point at which bail is revoked once a court has made the decision to revoke bail. As it stands, when a court decides to revoke bail it is effective immediately in practice. This can result in no bail being in place until that person is taken into custody. This may lead to circumstances whereby a person can breach the conditions of their previous bail agreement before they are taken into custody. This leads to the prospect of no adverse consequences for actions such as contacting a victim of an alleged crime, for example, which may have been prohibited under the previous bail conditions. The opposition raised a number of queries with the Attorney-General in the other place and on this rare occasion they were satisfactorily answered to allow the progression of this bill. This is something that, as we have just found out from the previous debate, is unusual for the Attorney-General to do. Noting the valuable time of this chamber and its members, and the brevity of this bill, the opposition will not be moving amendments and has no additional questions at the committee stage. The Hon. C. BONAROS Legislative Council The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:01): I rise briefly to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Bail Authorities) Bill 2020. We understand that this is a simple bill that has come about, as the government and Leader of the Opposition have mentioned, from a request by the Chief Justice to ensure that bail applications can be heard in the court in which the bail applicant's matter will be heard; that is, the Magistrates Court, the District Court and Supreme Court. This sensible administrative change means bail applications made between committal and arraignment do not have to be referred back to the Magistrates Court as they do now. The Chief Justice has requested that this bill also changes the point at which bail ceases after a breach of that bail. At present, bail continues until a warrant for arrest has been issued by a court, at which point the bail is revoked and the conditions therein cease. There could be a time gap between a breach of bail and the subsequent issuing of a warrant and eventual arrest, during which no bail conditions are applicable. Effectively, this means that a person on bail who is now at large, having breached the agreement, is not subject to the conditions of their previous bail agreement—including not contacting witnesses or victims, not attending specific locations, not having a firearm, or not using drugs during this period—because it has been revoked by the issue of a warrant for arrest by the court. Thus, any further breaches would not constitute an offence under the Bail Act. Again, this is a sensible amendment and of great relevance and importance to the wider community because it provides additional protections for witnesses and, of course, for victims of crime. We recently passed legislation reversing the presumption in favour with respect to some offences particularly prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was to further protect essential workers as well as victims of domestic violence. For me, the most compelling element of this bill is its application to victims of domestic and family violence, sexual abuse and serious assaults. These people often live with great fear and in a perpetual state of anxiety after an alleged perpetrator breaches bail and is freely roaming at large. Thankfully, SAPOL has a very good record of quickly apprehending offenders who breach bail so that this period is often very limited. This bill provides welcome additional security to victims, as the alleged perpetrator will still be subject to those conditions while unapprehended. As we all know, bail is a highly controversial and emotive area of law for almost the entire community, as we are all potentially impacted by it. It is a calculated risk to our safety, decided upon by courts. Further offences committed by people on bail are particularly abhorrent to the community. We often see bail, much like parole, as being granted far too often and too easily, especially to serious repeat offenders. 'Lock them up and throw away the key' is a commonly expressed attitude towards offenders. However, depriving citizens of their freedoms and liberty, as limited as this might be under some bail agreements, is a significant and hence very carefully considered power vested in the police and the courts. We need to ensure that alleged offenders are afforded the presumption of innocence and can apply for bail until and if proven guilty in a court of law, while managing appropriately any possible risk they may pose to the community in the interim. In closing, my preference in regard to bail would be to undertake a comprehensive review of bail in this jurisdiction. Perhaps our learned friends at the South Australian Law Reform Institute could be requested by the Attorney-General to develop some recommendations in regard to bail rather than continue with what I think has been a very piecemeal approach to this issue to date. Having flagged that concern and perhaps making that suggestion, I indicate that we will be supporting this bill. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:06): I thank honourable members for their indications of support for the second reading. Bill read a second time. Committee Stage Committee Stage Bill taken through committee without amendment. Third Reading Third Reading The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:08): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and passed.