Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 5 May 2022.) The Hon. C. BONAROS Legislative Council The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:34): I rise to speak on behalf of SA-Best on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill 2022. The bill, as we know, seeks to rectify minor legislative errors under the Attorney-General's portfolio, as occurs from time to time, and you will be pleased to hear, Mr President, I do not intend to speak on this extensively today in terms of all those errors. The government has chosen to fast-track straightforward amendments to three acts contained in the previous government's reform bill, which did not pass before parliament was prorogued. I understand consideration will be given to the other justice-related measures at a later date. The bill seeks to amend the Bail Act 1985 to provide flexibility to the court in determining the wording and form of certain bail documents, and I understand these amendments coincide with the commencement of the new electronic courts management system in July. I note that the opposition has filed an amendment seeking to incorporate another measure contained in the previous bill but not picked up in this one. It seeks to clarify the identity of the relevant bail authority where a person on bail was seeking permission to travel interstate. I understand it is already current practice that, where the bail authority is the court, a magistrate or judge will approve interstate travel, and where the authority is a police officer, a police officer over a certain rank may provide that approval. It also seeks to clarify the requirement of two death certificates for the issuing of a cremation permit under the Burial and Cremation Act 2013. Understandably, certification is held to a higher standard when a body is cremated with no future recourse if it became apparent that something was amiss. At present, a permit must not be issued unless two death certificates have been issued, one signed by the medical practitioner responsible for the medical care of the deceased immediately prior to the death or who examined the body, and one by another medical practitioner. It specifically relates to death certificates issued under section 36 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. Section 36, however, requires only the first certificate by the responsible medical practitioner, thus exposing the legislative inconsistency that we are trying to fix, so the bill will make it crystal clear. The final amendment is to section 66 of the Correctional Services Act to repeal an obsolete definition of 'serious drug offence' following changes made by parliament last year. Again, this is intended to provide clarity and ensure that persons sentenced to less than five years' imprisonment for a serious drug offence are not automatically entitled to parole. These offenders must now apply to the Parole Board for consideration of their release. When asked to comment on this aspect of the previous government's bill, the Criminal Law Committee noted the significant delays in parole hearings and decisions. My office has been contacted by a person in this category—we were contacted earlier this year—who was frustrated by such a delay. His parole period had ended in July 2021 and, six months later, he was still waiting for his hearing. I will ask some questions about this during the committee stage but my understanding is that there are no time frames for consideration, so even if it is one of those automatic parole situations there is actually no time frame for that individual in terms of having their hearing and consideration of parole applications provided for in the Correctional Services Act. To me that seems like something that we should consider further because rightly or wrongly, however you want to consider it, if someone is eligible for parole, they are eligible for parole. Six months may be appropriate in some circumstances, perhaps like those we have had around COVID. I do not know what the average time is, but certainly if there is no time frame whatsoever there is an indication that that time frame someone could be waiting is perfectly unreasonable in the scheme of things. To that extent, I think the Attorney will have to provide some explanation (a) as to how long it is on average that people wait to have their parole application considered and (b) whether there are factors which have contributed perhaps to delays in those applications being considered, where we normally sit in terms of consideration of such applications and whether this is something that ought to be looked at legislatively in terms of ensuring that people have reasonable access to having their applications heard in a reasonable time frame. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L.A. Curran.