-
A
-
Aami Stadium
-
2008-02-26
-
2008-06-03
-
2008-06-04
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
- Abilities For All Program
- Aboriginal Affairs
-
Aboriginal Education
- Aboriginal Interpreters
-
Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee
- Aboriginal Power Cup
- Active8 Premier's Youth Challenge
- Adelaide Botanic Garden
- Adelaide Business Rating
-
Adelaide Cabaret Festival
-
Adelaide City Council
-
Adelaide Festival Centre Trust (Financial Restructure) Amendment Bill
-
Adelaide Festival Of Arts
- Adelaide High School
- Adelaide International Guitar Festival
-
Adelaide Park Lands (Facilitation Of Development Of Victoria Park) Amendment Bill
- Adelaide Writers' Week
- Adelaide Zoo
- Adult Community Education
- Advertising, False Billing
- Afl Drugs Policy
- Age Accommodation
- Ageing Plan
- Air Warfare Destroyer
- Alcohol Consumption
- Aldinga Aero Club
- Aldinga Gp Plus Health Care Centre
- Alexander, Mr P.
- Alternative Learning Options Program
- Ambulance Fees
- Ambulance Services
- American Army Small Ships
- Andamooka Primary School
- Animal Welfare Regulations
- Antisocial Behaviour Orders
-
Anzac Day
-
2008-04-29
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
-
Appropriation Bill
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-17
-
2008-06-18
-
Bills (2)
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, Ms CHAPMAN
- Ms CHAPMAN, Mr HANNA, Dr McFETRIDGE, Mrs PENFOLD, Mr WILLIAMS, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr PISONI, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, Dr McFETRIDGE, The Hon. S.W. KEY, Mrs PENFOLD, Ms SIMMONS, Mr WILLIAMS, Mr BIGNELL, Ms CHAPMAN, Ms BEDFORD, Mr PEDERICK, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr VENNING, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
-
- 2008-06-19
-
2008-07-03
-
Apy Lands
-
2008-05-07
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
-
Apy Lands Inquiry
-
2008-05-06
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
- 2008-05-07
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-07-24
-
- APY Lands Inquiry
- Apy Lands, Airstrips
- Apy Lands, Housing
- Apy Lands, Sport And Recreation
- Apy Lands, State Government Transaction Services
- Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary
- Arts, Regional Centres
- Asperger's Syndrome
-
Assent
-
2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-26
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-17
-
2008-06-17
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-24
-
- Asset Disposal
- Asset Sales
- Assitej World Congress And Festival
- Attorney-General's Department
-
Attorney-General's Operating Account
- Attorney-General's Remarks
- Audit Plans
-
Auditor-General's Report
- 2007-10-16
-
2007-10-17
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (4)
-
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-20
-
2007-11-21
- 2007-11-22
- 2008-02-26
- 2008-02-27
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-07-03
- Australian Business Arts Foundation Awards
- Australian Centre For Plant Functional Genomics
- Australian Crime And Violence Prevention Awards
-
Australian Energy Market Commission Establishment (Consumer Advocacy Panel) Amendment Bill
- Australian Housing And Urban Research Institute
- Australian Of The Year Awards
- Australian Workplace Agreements
-
-
B
- Badcoe, Major Peter
- Barley Contracts
- Barossa Train Service
- Barrier Highway
- Beersheba Charge
- Beulah Park Fire Station
-
Bhp Billiton
-
2008-04-30
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-07-24
-
-
Bhp Desalination Plant
-
Births, Deaths And Marriages Registration (Registration Of Deaths) Amendment Bill
-
Black Spot Program
-
Blackwood Park Road Link Costs
-
Blanchetown To Morgan Road
- Blood Lead Levels
- Boats, Grey Water Treatment System
- Bogus, Unregistered And Deregistered Health Practitioners
- Bore Water
- Bradken Foundry
- Bragg, Member For
- Breastscreen Sa
- Bridge Structures
- Brighton Surf Lifesaving Club
- Broadband Rollout
-
Broadband Services
- Broadband Strategy
- Broomhill, Hon. G.r.
- Brown Hill Wind Farm
- Budget Expenditure
- Budget Overspending
- Budget Papers
- Bus Replacement
-
Bus Services
-
Bushfires
-
Business And Consumer Confidence
-
2008-02-26
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
-
Business And Parliament Trust
- Business Growth Program
- Business Investment
- Business Practices, Energy And Telecommunications Industries
- Butler, Sir Richard
-
C
- Cabinet Reshuffle
- Cakeage
- Calisthenics
- Cameron, Hon. C.r.
- Cancer Council Of South Australia
- Capital Projects
-
Carbon Emissions
-
2008-02-14
-
- Careerstart Sa
- Carnegie Mellon University
- Case Management Secretariat
- Chamber, Conversations
-
Chamber, Photography
- Child Adoption
-
Child Protection
-
Child Sex Offenders Registration (Registration Of Internet Activities) Amendment Bill
- Child Sexual Abuse
- Child Workers
-
Childhood Obesity
-
2008-04-01
- 2008-06-05
-
- Children In
- Children In Care
-
Children In State Care Apology
-
Children In State Care Inquiry
-
2008-04-01
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
- 2008-04-02
-
2008-04-08
- 2008-04-09
-
2008-04-10
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
2008-05-06
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
- 2008-05-07
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-17
-
- Children's Literature
- Cigarette Sales
-
Civil Liability (Food Donors And Distributors) Amendment Bill
- Civil Liability (Recreational Services) Amendment Bill
-
Classification (Publications, Films And Computer Games) (Classification Process) Amendment Bill
-
Clayton-Walsh Report
- Cleaning Industry
-
Climate Change
- Clipsal 500
- Clothing Outworkers
- Clovelly Park Railway Station
-
Collections For Charitable Purposes (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill
-
Commencement
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-20
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-22
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-26
- 2008-02-27
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-08
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-06
- 2008-05-07
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-04
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-23
- 2008-07-24
-
Committee Stage
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
-
2007-10-17
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
-
2007-10-24
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-14
-
2007-11-22
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2007-11-22
-
2008-02-12
-
2008-02-13
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
-
2008-02-26
-
Bills (2)
-
-
2008-02-27
- 2008-02-28
-
2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
-
2008-03-05
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-04-03
-
2008-04-08
-
2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-10
-
2008-04-29
- 2008-04-29
-
2008-05-06
-
2008-05-07
-
2008-05-08
-
Bills (2)
-
-
2008-06-03
- 2008-06-03
-
2008-06-04
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-06-18
-
2008-07-22
- 2008-07-23
-
2008-07-24
- Common Ground Franklin Street
- Community Builders Program
- Community Clubs
- Companion Card
- Competitiveness Council
- Computer Games Classification
-
Conference
-
2008-03-06
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-08
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-06
- 2008-05-07
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-04
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-19
-
2008-06-19
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-23
- 2008-07-24
-
- Consolidated Financial Report
- Constantinople
- Constitution (Electoral Redistribution) Amendment Bill
-
Constitution (Legislative Council Reform) Amendment Bill
- Constitution (Number Of Ministers) Amendment Bill
-
Consultants And Contractors
- Consumer Affairs Ministerial Council
- Consumer Goods, Green Marketing
- Container Deposit Increase
- Contract Positions
- Contractors
- Controlled Environmental Diseases
-
Controlled Substances (Cannabis Offences) Amendment Bill
-
Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors And Cannabis) Amendment Bill
- 2008-04-03
-
2008-05-06
- 2008-07-22
- Controlled Substances (Cultivation Of Controlled Plants) Amendment Bill
-
Controlled Substances (Drug Detection Powers) Amendment Bill
-
Controlled Substances (Possession Of Prescribed Equipment) Amendment Bill
-
Cooper Discoverer Cruises
- Cooper, Ms N.
- Coorong
-
Correctional Services (Application Of Truth In Sentencing) Amendment Bill
- Cost Benefit Analysis
- Council Of Australian Governments
- Country Ambulance Service Upgrade
-
Country Health Care Plan
-
2008-06-17
-
Grievance Debate (3)
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
2008-06-18
-
Grievance Debate (2)
-
Question Time (11)
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. M.D. RANN
- Ms CHAPMAN, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- Mr RAU, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- The Hon. R.G. KERIN, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- The Hon. R.G. KERIN, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- Mr VENNING, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- Mr PEDERICK, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- Mr GRIFFITHS, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- Mr GRIFFITHS, The Hon. J.D. HILL
- The Hon. G.M. GUNN, The Hon. J.D. HILL
-
- 2008-06-19
-
2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
-
2008-07-24
-
Grievance Debate (3)
-
Motions (1)
-
Petitions (2)
-
Question Time (3)
-
-
-
Country Health Sa
-
Country Health Services
-
Country Hospital Donations
-
2008-07-24
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
- Country Regions, Professionals
- Country Transport Services
- Courts Upgrade
- Crime Prevention Fund
- Crime Prevention Unit
- Crime Statistics
- Crimes, Mr E.h.
-
Criminal Assets Confiscation (Serious Offences) Amendment Bill
-
Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding And Forfeiture Of Vehicles) (Prescribed Offences) Amendment Bill
- Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Abolition Of Suspended Sentences) Amendment Bill
-
Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Victims Of Crime) Amendment Bill
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-11-22
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-18
-
2008-06-19
-
Bills (2)
-
-
Criminal Law Consolidation (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Bill
-
2008-02-13
-
Bills (2)
-
-
2008-03-04
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
-
-
Criminal Law Consolidation (Rape And Sexual Offences) Amendment Bill
-
Crown Land Management Bill
- Cruise Ship Industry
- Cultana Army Training Camp
-
Cummins Rural Care Facility
-
D
- Dairy Industry
- Dangerous Offenders
- Daylight Saving
- Deep Creek
- Defence And Advanced Manufacturing Industries
- Defence Industry
- Defence Sa
- Defence Sa Administrative Unit
-
Dental Health
- Department Amalgamations
- Deputy Clerk, Appointment
- Deputy Premier's Remarks
- Deputy Speaker's Ruling, Dissent
- Dernancourt Primary School
-
Desalination Plants
- Diesel Emissions Equipment
- Disability Employment Strategy
-
Disability Funding
- Disability, Recreational And Physical Activity
- Division Count
- Dna Technology
-
Doctors Dispute
- Dodd, Mr A.
- Dog And Cat Management (Cats) Amendment Bill
- Dog And Cat Management (Council Plans Of Management) Amendment Bill
- Domiciliary Care Sa
-
Dowie, Mr J.
-
2008-04-02
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
-
- Driver And Vehicle Licensing
- Driver's Licence Curfews
-
Drought
-
2007-10-16
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Matter of Urgency (1)
-
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-25
- 2008-04-01
-
- Drug Driving
- Drugs, Penalties
- Dundovic, Mr D.v.
-
E
- E-Learning Program
- Early Childhood Development Services
-
Easling, Mr T.
- East Turkistan
-
Economic And Finance Committee
- Economic And Finance Committee: Consumer Credit And Investment Schemes
- Economic And Finance Committee: Emergency Services Levy
- Economic And Finance Committee: Franchises
- Economic Development Board
- Economic Strategy And Policy Development Program
- Ecotourism
- Eden Hills Railway Station
-
Education (Compulsory Education Age) Amendment Bill
-
Education And Children's Services Department
-
2008-02-13
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
-
- Education Budget
- Education, National Curriculum
- Education, Socioeconomic Status Funding Model
- Education, Special Needs
-
Election Advertising
-
2007-10-18
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
-
Election Of Senators (Close Of Rolls) Amendment Bill
-
Elective Surgery
- Electoral (Voting Age) Amendment Bill
-
Electricity (Feed-In Scheme—Residential Solar Systems) Amendment Bill
- Elizabeth Grove Community Campus
- Elizabeth Vale Primary School
-
Emergency Services Funding (Protection Of Funds) Amendment Bill
- Emergency Services Workers
- Emissions Trading Scheme
-
Employee Benefits
- Employees, Full Time
- Employers Mutual Case Managers
- Employment
- Entertainment Facility
-
Environment Protection (Board Of Authority) Amendment Bill
-
Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill
-
Environment Protection (Site Contamination) Amendment Bill
-
Environment Protection Authority
- Environment, Resources And Development Committee
- Environment, Resources And Development Committee: Coastal Development
- Environmental Education Centre
- Epode Program
- Equine Influenza
- Ernabella Community
-
Estimates Committees
-
2008-06-18
-
Bills (2)
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, Ms CHAPMAN
- Ms CHAPMAN, Mr HANNA, Dr McFETRIDGE, Mrs PENFOLD, Mr WILLIAMS, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr PISONI, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, Dr McFETRIDGE, The Hon. S.W. KEY, Mrs PENFOLD, Ms SIMMONS, Mr WILLIAMS, Mr BIGNELL, Ms CHAPMAN, Ms BEDFORD, Mr PEDERICK, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr VENNING, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
-
- 2008-06-19
-
2008-07-03
-
- Euthanasia
- Evanston Gardens Primary School
- Excess Funds Account
- Exhaust Systems
-
Expiation Notices
-
Eyre Peninsula Water Supply
-
F
- Fair Trading (Telemarketing) Amendment Bill
-
Fair Work (Prohibition Against Bargaining Services Fee) Amendment Bill
- Fairness Test
- Families And Communities Department
- Families Sa, Care Placement
- Fashoda Street Property
-
Federal Election
- Federal Funding
- Female Foeticide
-
Final Stages
-
2007-10-16
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-20
- 2007-11-20
- 2007-11-20
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-21
-
2007-11-22
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-27
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-08
- 2008-04-08
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-06-03
-
2008-06-17
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-03
-
2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
-
2008-07-24
-
- Financial Data Collection
- Financial Market Investments
- Financial Reconciliation
- Fines Revenue
- Fire And Emergency Services Act Review
- Fire Hydrants
-
Firearms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill
- Firearms Act
- First Home Buyers
- Fisheries Management Regulations
- Five Star Print
- Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps
- Fleurieu Peninsula Water Supply
- Flinders Medical Centre Casual Nurse Shifts
- Flinders Medical Centre Redevelopment
-
Flood Damaged Roads
- Flooding
- Florey Adelaide Male Ageing Study
- Food Additives
- Food Hygiene
- Food Labelling Laws
- Food Plan
- Footpaths
- Foreign Aid Policy
-
Forensic Pathologists
-
2008-04-08
-
- Forensic Science Program
- Formula One Exhibition Race
- Franchises
- Fraud Fortnight
- Fuelwatch
- Further Education
- Further Education, Employment, Science And Technology Department, Employee Benefits
- Further Education, Employment, Science And Technology Department, Expenditure
- Further Education, Employment, Science And Technology Department, It Upgrade
-
G
- Gambling, Problem
-
Gaming Machines (Hours Of Operation) Amendment Bill
- Gawler Railway Station Restoration
- Gender Workplace Report
- General Ledger Expenditure
- General Motors Holden
- Gepps Cross Intersection
- Giles Electorate
- Gladstone Explosion
-
Glenside Hospital Redevelopment
-
2007-10-17
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
2007-10-23
-
Petitions (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
2007-10-24
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
- 2007-10-25
-
2007-11-13
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Petitions (1)
-
- 2007-11-20
-
2008-02-12
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-26
- 2008-02-27
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-04-02
-
2008-04-09
-
Parliamentary Procedure (1)
-
Petitions (1)
-
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-06
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-07-23
-
- Gomez, Mr R.
-
Goods And Services Figures
- Goods And Services Tax
-
Goulburn-Murray Water Recovery Project
-
2007-11-15
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
- Gould Group
- Government Advertising (Objectivity, Fairness and Accountability) Bill
- Government Advertising (Objectivity, Fairness And Accountability) Bill
- Government Boards And Committees Remuneration
-
Government Car Park Land, Walkerville
-
2008-05-08
-
-
Government Employee Housing
-
2008-02-26
-
- Government Finance Monitoring
-
Government Ict
-
2007-10-18
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2007-11-22
-
- Government Legislative Program
- Government Review
- Government Services
- Gp Plus Emergency Hospital Task Force
- Graffiti Control (Carrying Graffiti Implements) Amendment Bill
- Graffiti Control (Orders on Conviction) Amendment Bill
- Graffiti Control (Sale of Graffiti Implements) Amendment Bill
- Graffiti Control (Sale Of Graffiti Implements) Amendment Bill
- Graffiti Vandalism
- Grain Marketing
- Grants, Non-Government Entities
- Greek Orthodox Church
- Green Cycle Paths Program
- Green Manufacturing
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Group Training Organisations
- Growing Prosperity Program
- Guardianship Board
-
H
-
Hammill House
- Hampstead Preschool
- Hands On Sa
- Harmony Day
- Hartley Electorate
- Hay And Straw Carriers
- Hazard Default Notice
- Health
- Health And Medical Research Review
-
Health Care Bill
-
2007-10-23
-
2007-10-24
- 2007-10-25
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-04-01
-
-
Health Funding
- 2008-02-28
-
2008-04-02
-
Question Time (2)
-
- Health Ministers' Conference
- Health Reform Program
- Health Reforms
-
Health System
-
2008-04-02
-
- Healthdirect
-
Healthy Eating Program
- High Court Vacancies
- Higher Education Scholarships
- History Trust And Sa Museum Revenue
- Holdfast Shores
-
Home Support Services
- Homestart
- Hoon Driving Laws
- Hospital Boards
-
Hospital Chief Executives
- Hospital Statistics
-
Hospital Waiting Lists
-
Housing Affordability
-
2008-03-04
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-07
-
-
Housing Sa
- Housing Sa Tenancy Agreements
-
Housing Trust
- Housing Trust Survey Lines
-
Housing Trust Waiting List
-
Housing Trust Water Meters
-
2008-02-26
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Petitions (1)
-
- 2008-04-08
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-07-23
-
- Human Remains
- Hyde Park Development Proposal
-
-
I
-
Ict Contracts
-
2008-05-01
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
- Ict Services
- Ikaria, Anniversary Of Liberation
- Immunisation Clinic General Practice
- Imvs Report
-
Independent Commission Against Corruption
-
Independent Commission Against Crime and Corruption Bill
-
2008-02-28
-
Bills (1)
- Parliament House Matters
-
-
-
Independent Commission Against Crime And Corruption Bill
- Indigenous Education
-
Indigenous Medical Scholarships Project
-
Industrial Action
- Industrial Relations
-
Industrial Relations Commission
- Industrial Relations Laws
- Infant Mortality
- Infrastructure Projects
- Infrastructure Spending
- Initiative Spending
- Innovation Commercialisation And Development Grants
- Institute Of Physical Activity
- Interest Payments
-
Interest Rates
- 2007-11-20
-
2008-04-29
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
- International Association Of Labour Inspection
- International Men's Health Week
- International Solar Cities Congress
- International Women's Day
-
International Year Of Languages
-
Introduction and First Reading
-
Introduction And First Reading
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-20
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2008-02-12
-
2008-02-13
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-07
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-06-04
- 2008-06-05
-
2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
-
2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
-
2008-07-24
- Italo-Australian Mp Forum
-
-
J
-
K
-
Kangaroo Island Fires
- Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board
- Kangaroo Island Transport
- Kanpi Community
- Kapunda Hospital
- Kesab
- King Street Bridge
- Kingston Electorate
- Kingston, Charles Cameron, Exhumation
- Kirton Point Emergency Services Centre
- Klemzig Primary School
-
Koonibba Community
-
2008-07-22
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
-
-
-
L
- Labor Government
-
Labor Party Fundraising
- 2008-04-08
-
2008-04-09
-
Question Time (3)
-
-
Lake Eyre Basin (Intergovernmental Agreement) (Ratification Of Amendments) Amendment Bill
-
Lake Victoria
-
2007-10-23
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
-
Land Management Corporation
- Land Prices
- Land Tax
-
Landlord And Tenant (Distress For Rent—Health Records Exemption) Amendment Bill
- Languages Education
- Le Cornu
- Leadership Development Program
- Lean Education And Application Network Programs
- Legacy Club of Adelaide
-
Legal Aid Funding
- Legal Aid, Homeless People
- Legal Fees
-
Legal Profession Bill
- 2007-10-16
-
2007-10-17
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-02-27
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
-
2008-03-06
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-08
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-06
- 2008-05-07
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-04
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-23
- 2008-07-24
-
Legislative Council Vacancy
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-10-24
-
2007-10-25
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-21
- 2008-07-24
-
Legislative Review Committee
- Lehman, Ms M.
- Leigh Creek Hospital
-
Level Crossings
- Liberal Party Of Australia
-
Liquor Licensing (Certificates Of Approval) Amendment Bill
- Liquor Licensing (Power To Bar) Amendment Bill
-
Liquor Licensing Hours
- Literacy And Numeracy
-
Living Books
- Loan Write-Off
- Lobbying And Ministerial Accountability Bill
-
Local Government
-
Local Government (Advertising Material) Amendment Bill
- Local Government (Auditor-General) Amendment Bill
- Local Government (Litter) Amendment Bill
-
Local Government (Superannuation Scheme) Amendment Bill
- Local Government Disaster Fund
- Local Government Education Program
- Local Government Relations
- Long Flat Irrigation Trust
- Long Term Borrowings
- Lowly Peninsula
-
Lyell Mcewin Hospital
-
M
- Magarey Farlam
-
Makk And Mcleay Nursing Home
- Mannum
-
Mannum Ferry
- Manufacturing Sector
-
Marathon Resources
- Marble Hill
- Marble Hill (Protection) Bill
- Marcos Engineering Limited
- Marden Senior College
- Marine Infrastructure
- Marine Maintenance
-
Marine Parks Bill
-
Marine Protected Areas
- Marine Scalefish Fishery
- Marine Science Infrastructure
- Maritime Skills Centre
-
Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital
- 2007-10-17
-
2008-02-28
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-04-02
-
2008-04-09
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
2008-04-10
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-07-22
- Mass Action Program
- Maternity Hospitals
-
Matter Of Privilege
-
2008-03-04
-
Matter of Privilege (2)
-
-
- Mclaren Vale Wine Region
- Mcleod's Daughters
- Mcseveney, Elaine
- Medical Records
- Medical Recruitment
- Medical Research
- Medical Staff, Overseas Travel
- Medicare Levy
-
Member's Remarks
- Members' Interests Register
- Men's Health
- Mental Health Training
-
Message From Governor
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-06-03
-
2008-06-05
- Metropolitan Adelaide Industrial Land Strategy
- Metropolitan Fire Service Land Purchase
- Metropolitan Hospital Efficiency And Performance Review
- Middle River Dam
- Migration, Baltic States
- Mineral Exploration
- Mining And Energy Sectors
-
Mining Sector Employment
- Minister's Remarks
- Mitsubishi Employees, Lending Institutions
-
Mitsubishi Motors
-
2008-02-12
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-14
-
-
Mobile Phones
- Mobilong Prison
-
Modbury Hospital
- Montacute Country Fire Service Brigade
- Morgan-Whyalla Pipeline
- Motel Accommodation
- Mother's Day
- Motor Accident Commission
- Motor Vehicle Accidents
- Motor Vehicle Industry Funding
- Motor Vehicle Registration Database
-
Motor Vehicles (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-21
-
2007-11-22
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-02-12
-
Motorcycle Gangs
- 2007-11-20
- 2008-02-12
-
2008-05-06
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
Mount Barker Hospital
-
Mount Bold Reservoir
-
2008-02-13
-
2008-02-14
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-02-27
-
- Mount Lofty Ranges Water Catchment
- Mountford, Rev. J.
- Murray
- Murray Bridge Council Award
- Murray Lakes Clean-Up
-
Murray River
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-11-15
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-05-06
-
2008-07-03
-
Grievance Debate (3)
-
-
Murray River Drought Management
-
2007-11-15
-
Adjournment Debate (1)
-
Motions (1)
-
-
2008-07-03
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
-
Murray River Irrigators
-
2007-11-14
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
-
2007-11-15
- 2008-02-13
-
2008-06-04
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
- Murray River Water Allocations
-
Murray River, Lower Lakes
-
Murray-Darling Basin
- 2007-11-15
-
2008-04-01
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-03
-
2008-04-10
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-05-08
-
2008-07-23
-
Grievance Debate (3)
-
Motions (1)
-
- 2008-07-24
-
Murray-Darling Basin Agreement
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-30
-
2008-07-03
-
N
- National 2020 Summit
-
National Electricity (South Australia) (National Electricity Law—Miscellaneous Amendments) Amendment Bill
-
National Gas (South Australia) Bill
- National Heart Week
- National Men's Health Forum
- National Ride To Work Day
- National Youth Week
- Native Vegetation
-
Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill
-
Natural Resources Committee
- Natural Resources Committee: Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board
- Natural Resources Committee: Northern And Yorke Natural Resources Management Board
- Natural Resources Committee: South-East Natural Resources Management Board
-
Natural Resources Management
- Neighbourhood Dispute Resolution Bill
- Neilson, Mr T.
- Netball Stadium
- Netball World Championships
-
Newport Quays
- Ngarrindjeri Regional Partnership Agreement
- No Confidence Motion: Minister For Health
- No Confidence Motion: Minister For Transport
- Noarlunga Hospital
-
Noarlunga Rail Line
-
Northern Expressway
-
Northern Suburbs
- 2008-04-30
-
2008-05-01
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
- Norwood Swimming Club
- Notices And Orders Of The Day, Private Members' Business
- Notices Of Motion
- Nuclear Power Stations
- Nuclear Waste
- Nurses' Duties
-
O
- O-Bahn Corridor
- Oaklands Park Railway Station
-
Occupational Health, Safety And Welfare (Penalties) Amendment Bill
- Odeon Theatre
-
Office For Women
-
2008-02-12
-
- Office Of The Director Of Public Prosecutions
- Office Of The North
- Oliphant Centre
- Olympic Games
- Ombudsman's Report
-
On-The-Spot Fines
- Onkaparinga City Council
- Organ Donation
-
Organised Crime
- Outback Tourism
- Ovarian Cancer
-
Overtaking Lanes
-
2007-10-16
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-06-05
-
-
P
- P-Plate Drivers
- Paedophile Register
- Palestine
-
Papers
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-20
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-22
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-26
- 2008-02-27
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-08
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-06
- 2008-05-07
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-23
- 2008-07-24
- Para West Early Learning Centre Preschool
-
Parliamentary Committee On Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation And Compensation
- Parliamentary Committee On Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation And Compensation: Workplace Injuries And Deaths
- Passenger Transport (Disciplinary Powers) Amendment Bill
- Passenger Transport (Safety Of Passengers) Amendment Bill
- Patawalonga Barrage Upgrade
- Patient Assisted Transport Scheme
- Patient Medical Costs
-
Paxton Report
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-04-29
-
2008-05-01
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
Pay-Roll Tax (Harmonisation Project) Amendment Bill
- Payroll Procedures
- Peak Oil Theory
-
Penalty Management Services
-
2008-02-28
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
-
- Penguin Club Of Australia
-
Penola Pulp Mill Authorisation Bill
- Pensions
- Pierson, Margaret
- Pink Ribbon Day
- Pinnaroo
- Pipalyatjara Community
- Planning
- Planning Reform
- Plant And Equipment Disposal
- Plastic Bags
- Playford City Council District
- Police Complaints Authority
- Police Handguns
- Police Plane
-
Police Resources
- Police, Highway Patrol
- Police, Unley
-
Policy And Planning Program
-
2007-10-16
-
Answers to Questions (3)
-
-
- Polish Hill River Church Museum Gift
- Political Donations
- Pollution Complaints
- Polomka, Mr G.
- Population Growth
-
Port Augusta Gangs
- Port River Bridges
- Port River Expressway
- Port Stanvac Refinery
- Poverty
- Prawns
- Pregnancy Sa Telephone Service
- Premier's Anzac School Prize
- Premier's Be Active Challenge
- Premier's Comments
-
Premier's Council For Women
-
2008-02-12
-
Answers to Questions (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
-
Premier's Reading Challenge
- Prescribed Medications
-
Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals (Animal Welfare) Amendment Bill
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-06-03
-
2008-06-04
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-07-22
- Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act
-
Price And Safety Compliance
-
2008-02-12
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
-
- Prime Ministerial Visit
-
Prince Alfred College Incorporation (Constitution Of Council) Amendment Bill
-
Prisons
-
2008-05-08
-
-
Private Members' Business
-
Private Parking Areas (Penalties) Amendment Bill
- Procurement Reform Program
- Property, Plant And Equipment Purchase
- Prostate Cancer
- Protocol Unit Procurement Transactions
- Public Accounts Committee
- Public Hospitals, Adverse Events
-
Public Hospitals, Food Services
-
2008-06-17
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
-
Public Housing
- Public Land
- Public Liability And Professional Indemnity Insurance
- Public Non-Financial Corporations
- Public Sector Comparison
- Public Sector Employment
- Public Sector Separation Packages
- Public Sector Wages
- Public Sector Week
- Public Service Employee Benefits
-
Public Service Employee Numbers
-
2008-02-13
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
-
2008-04-02
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
- 2008-06-05
-
-
Public Service Employees
-
Public Transport
-
Public Transport Patronage
- Public Trustee Office
-
Public Works Committee
- Public Works Committee: Cast Metals Precinct
- Public Works Committee: Clayton Water Supply
- Public Works Committee: Craigmore High School
- Public Works Committee: Dunstan Playhouse
- Public Works Committee: Elizabeth Park Neighbourhood Renewal Project
- Public Works Committee: Flinders Medical Centre Redevelopment
- Public Works Committee: Flood Damage Rectification In Various National Parks
- Public Works Committee: Ifould Apartments
- Public Works Committee: Little Para Dam Safety Upgrade
- Public Works Committee: Northern Expressway
- Public Works Committee: Old Stock Exchange Building
- Public Works Committee: Playford North Regeneration Project—Andrews Farm
- Public Works Committee: Playford North Urban Renewal Project
- Public Works Committee: Rail Revitalisation Project
- Public Works Committee: Virginia Reclaimed Water Pipeline
- Public Works Committee: Whyalla Pipeline Pumping Stations
-
Public-Private Partnerships
- Publishing Committee
-
Q
-
Queen Elizabeth Hospital
- Queen's Counsel
-
-
R
- Racing Industry
- Radioactive Waste
- Rail Contract Management
- Rail Network, Seaford Rise
-
Rail Safety Bill
-
Rail Track Replacement
- Rail, Standard Gauge
-
Rail, Train And Bus Union
- Railway Re-Sleepering
- Ramos-Horta, Dr J.
-
Rape And Sexual Offences
- Raukkan Community
- Reconciliation, Youth
-
Recreation And Sport Funding
- Recreational Boating Facilities
- Recreational Trails
- Referendum (Electoral Redistribution) Bill
- Referendum (Legislative Council Reform) Bill
- Refugees, Sporting Activities
-
Regional Development Boards
- Regional Employment
- Registration And Licensing Transactions
- Remembrance Day
-
Renal Service
- Renewable Energy
- Renmark Hospital
- Rental Accommodation, Regional South Australia
- Repatriation General Hospital
- Research And Development Expenditure
- Retail Service
- Revenuesa
- Review Of Priorities
- Ring Cycle
-
Road Maintenance
- Road Maintenance, Davenport Electorate
-
Road Safety
- Road Safety Cameras
-
Road Sealing
-
Road Traffic (Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatigue) Amendment Bill
- Road Transport Requirements
- Roads, Rural Sealed Network
- Roadside Rest Areas
-
Rodeos
- Rodeos, Fees
-
Rodeos, Regulations
- Roma Mitchell Community Legal Centre
- Rotary Club Of St Peters
- Roxby Downs
-
Royal Adelaide Hospital
-
Royal Adelaide Hospital, Mentally Ill Patients
-
2008-04-09
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
-
S
- Sa Ambulance Call Direct Service
-
Sa Ambulance Service
-
Sa Water
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-21
-
2008-02-13
- 2008-05-01
- Sa Water Capital Works
- Sa Water Charter
- Saicorp
- Salvation Army Alcohol Stabilisation Program
-
Santos
-
Santos Limited (Deed Of Undertaking) Bill
- Save The River Murray Fund Annual Report
- School Closures
-
School Computers
- School Facilities
-
School Funding
-
School Maintenance
-
2007-11-21
-
- School Uniforms
- School-To-Work Program
- Schoolies Week
- Schools, Environmental Sustainability
- Schools, Physical Fitness
- Schools, Water And Energy Consumption
-
Science And Research Development
- Scotdesco Community
- Scouts Youth Team Challenge
-
Second Reading
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-17
-
2007-10-17
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
-
2007-10-23
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-24
-
2007-10-24
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-15
-
2007-11-20
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
- 2007-11-22
-
2008-02-12
-
2008-02-13
-
Bills (2)
-
-
2008-02-13
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-26
-
2008-02-27
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-02-28
-
2008-02-28
-
Bills (1)
- Parliament House Matters
-
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-03-04
-
2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-05
-
2008-03-05
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-04-01
-
2008-04-01
- 2008-04-01
-
2008-04-02
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-29
-
2008-04-29
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-30
-
2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-06
- 2008-05-06
-
2008-05-06
- 2008-05-06
-
2008-05-07
- 2008-05-07
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-05-08
-
2008-06-03
- 2008-06-03
- 2008-06-04
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
-
2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-05
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-06-17
-
2008-06-18
-
Bills (2)
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, Ms CHAPMAN
- Ms CHAPMAN, Mr HANNA, Dr McFETRIDGE, Mrs PENFOLD, Mr WILLIAMS, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr PISONI, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, Dr McFETRIDGE, The Hon. S.W. KEY, Mrs PENFOLD, Ms SIMMONS, Mr WILLIAMS, Mr BIGNELL, Ms CHAPMAN, Ms BEDFORD, Mr PEDERICK, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr VENNING, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
-
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-06-19
-
2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
-
2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-23
- 2008-07-23
-
2008-07-24
-
Bills (10)
- The Hon. I.F. EVANS, The Hon. I.F. EVANS
- Mr KOUTSANTONIS, The Hon. I.F. EVANS
- Mr HANNA, Mr KOUTSANTONIS, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr HANNA
- The Hon. G.M. GUNN
- Ms SIMMONS
- Mr PEDERICK
- Mr HANNA
- Mr KOUTSANTONIS
- Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr GOLDSWORTHY, Dr MCFETRIDGE, The Hon. I.F. EVANS, Mr BIGNELL, Mr PEDERICK, The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL
- Bills
-
- Security Exercise
- Security Intelligence Section
-
Select Committee On Balancing Work And Life Responsibilities
-
Senior Secondary Assessment Board Of South Australia (Review) Amendment Bill
- Seniors, Community Involvement
- Sentencing, Armed Robbery
- Sentinel Events
-
Serious And Organised Crime (Control) Bill
- Service Sa
- Sewage Overflows
- Sewerage (Water Management Measures—Use Of Waste Material) Amendment Bill
- Sexual Discrimination
-
Shared Services
- 2007-10-18
-
2007-10-24
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-22
-
2008-02-12
-
Answers to Questions (1)
-
Petitions (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
- 2008-02-26
- 2008-02-27
- 2008-02-28
- 2008-03-06
-
Shared Services Sa
- Shark Patrols
-
Sittings And Business
- Skills Strategy
-
Social Development Committee
- Social Development Committee: Gestational Surrogacy
- Social Development Committee: South Australian Certificate Of Education
-
Solar Cities Congress
-
2008-03-06
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
-
Solar Energy
-
2008-06-03
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
- Solar Feed-In Laws
- Solar Panel Connectivity
-
Solid Waste Levy
-
2007-10-16
-
Petitions (3)
-
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-13
-
2007-11-14
-
Petitions (2)
-
-
2008-02-12
-
Petitions (2)
-
- 2008-02-14
-
- South Adelaide Football Club
-
South Australia Works
- South Australia Works In The Regions
- South Australian Certificate Of Education
- South Australian Economy
- South Australian Ports (Disposal Of Maritime Assets) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill
- South Australian Private Equity Program
- South Australian Salaried Medical Officers Association
- South Coast Public Transport
-
South Road Upgrade
- Southern Expressway
- Southern Ocean Lodge
- Southern Suburbs
- Speaker, Absence
- Speaker's Ruling
- Specific Purpose Grants
- Speed Cameras
-
Speeding Fines
- Spent Convictions Bill
-
Sporting Events
- Spragg Bag Waterbag
-
Stamp Duties (Trusts) Amendment Bill
- Standing Committee Of Attorneys-General
-
Standing Orders Suspension
- Starfish Hill Wind Farm
-
State Budget
- 2007-11-20
-
2007-11-21
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-03-04
- 2008-04-01
- State Debt
-
State Economy
- State Finances
- State Government Investments
- State Heritage List
-
State Strategic Plan
-
Statute Law Revision Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Advisory Panels Repeal) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Budget 2008) Bill
-
2008-06-05
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-07-24
-
- Statutes Amendment (Delegate Ministers) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Ethical Investment—State Superannuation) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Evidence And Procedure) Bill
- 2007-10-25
-
2008-02-27
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-29
- Statutes Amendment (Gaming Machine Limitations) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Investigation And Regulation Of Gambling Licensees) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Members Allowances—Metropolitan Councils) Amendment Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Police Superannuation) Bill
- Statutes Amendment (Proceeds Of Terrorism) Bill
- Statutes Amendment (Prohibition Of Human Cloning For Reproduction And Regulation Of Research Involving Human Embryos) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Public Order Offences) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Real Property) Bill
- Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Transition To Retirement—State Superannuation) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Victims Of Crime) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Water Conservation Target And Sustainable Water Resources) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment (Young Offenders) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment And Repeal (Institute Of Medical And Veterinary Science) Bill
-
Statutes Amendment And Repeal (Taxation Administration) Bill
-
Statutory Officers Committee
-
Stolen Generations
-
2008-02-13
-
Grievance Debate (3)
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
- 2008-02-14
-
-
Stormwater Initiatives
-
2008-06-03
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
- Streaky Bay District Council
- Subprime Mortgage Market
- Suicide Postvention
-
Summary Offences (Drug Paraphernalia) Amendment Bill
- 2008-02-13
- 2008-02-14
-
2008-03-05
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-06-03
-
Summary Offences (Indecent Filming) Amendment Bill
- Summary Procedure (Paedophile Restraining Orders) Amendment Bill
- Suncube
- Super Schools
- Superannuation Data
- Superannuation Schemes
-
Supply And Appropriation, Note Grievances
-
2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
-
2008-06-18
-
Bills (2)
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, Ms CHAPMAN
- Ms CHAPMAN, Mr HANNA, Dr McFETRIDGE, Mrs PENFOLD, Mr WILLIAMS, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr PISONI, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, Dr McFETRIDGE, The Hon. S.W. KEY, Mrs PENFOLD, Ms SIMMONS, Mr WILLIAMS, Mr BIGNELL, Ms CHAPMAN, Ms BEDFORD, Mr PEDERICK, Mr GRIFFITHS, Mr VENNING, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
-
-
-
Supply Bill 2008
- Supported Accommodation Strategy
- Surf Lifesaving South Australia
- Sustainability And Climate Change Program
-
T
-
Tafe Campuses
-
2008-02-13
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
-
- Tafe Closures
- Tafe Graduates
- Tasers
-
Taxation
-
Taxis, Country
- Teachers
- Teachers, Industrial Action
- Technical Aid For The Disabled
- Techport
- The Other Side
- Thinker In Residence
-
Third Reading
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-16
-
2007-10-17
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-18
-
2007-10-24
- 2007-11-14
-
2007-11-22
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2007-11-22
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-14
-
2008-02-26
-
Bills (2)
-
-
2008-02-27
- 2008-02-28
-
2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
- 2008-03-06
-
2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-29
-
2008-04-29
- 2008-04-29
-
2008-05-06
- 2008-05-06
-
2008-05-08
-
Bills (2)
-
-
2008-06-03
-
2008-06-04
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-06-04
- 2008-06-18
-
2008-07-03
-
2008-07-22
-
2008-07-22
- 2008-07-23
- 2008-07-23
-
2008-07-24
-
Tiger Airways
-
2007-11-14
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
- Time For Kids
-
Tobacco Products Regulation (Indirect Orders) Amendment Bill
-
Tobacco Products Regulation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill
- Torrens Parade Ground
- Torrens Title
-
Total Employment Cost
-
Tour Down Under
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-18
- 2008-02-12
-
2008-02-28
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
- 2008-04-30
-
2008-07-23
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
Tourism
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-11-20
-
2008-05-06
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
Tourism Events
- Tourism Eyre Peninsula
- Tourism, Wine And Food
-
Trade And Economic Development Department
- Trade Mission, India
- Trade Promotions
- Trade Schools
- Trade Union Grants
-
Trade Union Movement
-
Train Derailment
-
2007-11-14
-
- Traineeship And Apprenticeship Services
-
Training And Skills Development Bill
- 2008-03-06
-
2008-05-07
-
2008-05-08
-
Bills (2)
-
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
- Tram Airconditioning
-
Tram And Train Derailments
-
Tram Derailment
-
2007-11-14
-
2008-02-28
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
2008-03-05
-
- Tram Passengers
-
Tramline
-
2008-03-06
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
-
Tramline Extension
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-25
-
2008-05-01
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-06-05
-
2008-06-17
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
- Transadelaide Assets
-
Transadelaide Computer System
-
2007-11-14
-
- Transadelaide Dividend Rate
- Transadelaide Governance
- Transadelaide Payroll Services
- Transport Depreciation
-
Transport Infrastructure
-
2007-10-16
-
Answers to Questions (2)
-
- 2007-11-14
-
-
Transport Infrastructure Services Program
- Transport Initiatives
- Transport Ministerial Council Meeting
- Transport Safety And Regulation Services Program
- Transport Security
-
Transport, Energy And Infrastructure Department
- Travel Scam
-
Treasury And Finance Department
- Trumps
- Trustpower
- Two Wells Golf Club
-
-
U
-
V
- Vaccination Program
-
Valedictories
-
Vet Program
-
2008-02-13
-
Answers to Questions (3)
-
-
- Veterans Affairs Minister
- Vibe Alive
-
Victims Of Crime (Commissioner For Victims' Rights) Amendment Bill
- Victims Of Crime Fund
-
Victoria Park Redevelopment
-
2007-10-23
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2007-11-14
-
2007-11-20
- 2007-11-21
- 2008-03-06
- 2008-04-29
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-07
-
- Vietnamese Veterans Association Of South Australia
- Vining, Dr R.
- Virginia Floods
- Virginia Pipeline
-
Visitors
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-17
- 2007-10-18
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-10-24
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-13
- 2007-11-14
- 2007-11-15
- 2007-11-20
-
2007-11-22
- 2008-02-12
- 2008-02-27
- 2008-02-28
-
2008-03-06
- 2008-04-01
- 2008-04-02
- 2008-04-03
- 2008-04-08
- 2008-04-09
- 2008-04-10
- 2008-04-30
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-05-07
-
2008-06-03
- 2008-06-04
- 2008-06-17
-
2008-06-17
-
2008-06-17
- 2008-06-18
- 2008-06-19
- 2008-07-03
- 2008-07-22
- 2008-07-23
- 2008-07-24
-
Voluntary Euthanasia
-
Voluntary Euthanasia Bill
-
Volunteers
- Volunteers, Service Clubs
-
W
- Wakefield Electorate
-
Wangary Coronial Inquest Working Party
- Waste Water
- Water Allocation
-
Water Billing
-
2008-07-22
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (12)
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. M.D. RANN
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. M.D. RANN
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
-
-
2008-07-23
-
Question Time (11)
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
- Mr HAMILTON-SMITH, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
- Mr WILLIAMS, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
- Mr PEDERICK, The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD
- Mr PEDERICK, The Hon. K.O. FOLEY
-
-
2008-07-24
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
- Water Briefings
- Water Carting, Lower Lakes
- Water Incentives Package
-
Water Infrastructure
-
2008-02-13
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-04-01
-
- Water Licences
-
Water Policy
- Water Pricing
- Water Purchase Fund
- Water Research
-
Water Resources
- 2007-10-23
- 2007-11-13
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-02-26
-
2008-04-02
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-04-30
- Water Savings
-
Water Security
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-10-18
-
2007-10-23
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
2007-11-15
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
2007-11-22
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
2008-02-12
-
Ministerial Statement (2)
-
-
2008-02-13
- 2008-02-14
- 2008-04-01
-
2008-07-03
- 2008-07-23
- Water Security Office
- Water Security, Australia
- Water Technology
-
Water Trading
-
2008-06-04
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
- Water Transfers
-
Waterfall Gully Road
- Waterfront Dispute
- Watering Times
-
Waterworks (Water Management Measures—Use Of Rainwater) Amendment Bill
- Watkins, Mr J.
-
Wellington Weir
-
West Beach Recreation Reserve (Boating Facilities) Amendment Bill
- Western Australian Parliamentarians
- Western Mount Lofty Ranges Water Resources
- Wheat Crops
- Wheat Marketing
- Whyalla Area
- Whyalla Steelworks
- Willunga Bushfire
- Willunga Primary School
-
Wine Industry
- With One Voice
- Womadelaide
- Women In Government
- Women In Local Government
- Women, Appointments
-
Women's And Children's Hospital
-
Women's And Children's Hospital, Breast Cancer
-
2007-11-20
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2008-06-03
-
-
Women's Information Service
-
Workchoices
- 2007-10-25
- 2007-11-14
-
2007-11-20
-
Question Time (2)
-
- 2007-11-21
- 2007-11-22
-
Workcover Corporation
-
2007-10-24
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
2008-02-12
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
2008-02-26
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (3)
-
-
2008-02-27
-
Grievance Debate (2)
-
Ministerial Statement (1)
-
Question Time (8)
-
-
2008-03-04
- 2008-03-05
-
2008-03-06
- 2008-05-01
- 2008-06-19
-
-
WorkCover Corporation
-
2008-02-28
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (1)
-
-
-
Workcover Corporation (Governance Review) Amendment Bill
- WorkCover Corporation (Governance Review) Amendment Bill
- Workcover Corporation: Member For Bright
- Workcover Corporation: Member For Hartley
- Workcover Corporation: Member For Light
- Workcover Corporation: Member For Mawson
- Workcover Corporation: Member For Morialta
- Workcover Corporation: Member For Newland
- Workcover Corporation: Member For Norwood
- Workcover Corporation: Member For Reynell
- Workcover Unfunded Liability, Public Sector
- Workers Compensation
- Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Scheme Review) Amendment Bill
-
Workers Rehabilitation And Compensation (Scheme Review) Amendment Bill
-
2008-04-01
-
2008-04-02
- 2008-04-03
-
2008-04-08
-
2008-04-09
- 2008-05-08
- 2008-06-17
- 2008-07-22
-
-
Working Women's Centre
- Workplace Health
- Workplace Health And Safety
-
World Food Exchange
- 2008-06-03
-
2008-06-04
-
Grievance Debate (1)
-
Question Time (2)
-
-
Y
CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (DOUBLE JEOPARDY) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).
(Continued from page 2360.)
Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (15:43): Prior to the lunch break I was in fact looking at the main area where this rule against double jeopardy is to be reduced, not completely obliterated but reduced, and noting that in fact it is fairly similar to what we had provided in our original proposal, which was that we thought it could be abolished with respect to serious offences such as rape, murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and serious drug crimes. The government's bill actually deals with murder, manslaughter, trafficking in or manufacture of large commercial quantities of drugs, armed robbery and most aggravated forms of rape.
Various jurisdictions, of course, are taking different approaches to it. In the case of Queensland, for instance, which has only just introduced its change to the double jeopardy provisions (I think in October last year), it has restricted it to the offence of murder only at this stage. I think, however, it is sensible to extend it to these other areas. One can imagine the outrage, for instance, if we extended it only to murder and we had a situation of an aggravated rape where DNA evidence became available subsequently which was compelling but we were not able to proceed because the rule still stood in the case of that offence.
As I said, the bill reflects what we had proposed in relation to that fresh and compelling evidence, but as I said before the break, the government has gone a little further and in the second reading the Attorney-General referred to two exceptions beyond the fresh and compelling evidence exception. The Attorney-General proposes two further exceptions but, in my view, they are so closely linked that they really should be classified as one further exception. I will talk about them in the reverse order to that which the Attorney dealt with them in his second reading explanation.
The first one is the administration of justice offences, which are bribery, interference with witnesses, interference with a judicial officer, perjury, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or attempted conspiracy to pervert the course of justice—those sorts of things. Generally, an acquitted person can already be charged with and prosecuted for those types of offences, but putting them into the bill in the way they have been in this case, apart from anything else, I think will overcome quite definitely the problem created by Carroll and Carroll's case about which I spoke at some length prior to the lunch break. There are some requirements for an administration of justice offence.
Firstly, it has to be connected to the original trial for which the person has been acquitted, and it must be fresh evidence. You cannot simply bring the person on an administration of justice offence, unless there is fresh evidence of the commission of such an offence by an acquitted person. The administration of justice offence—that is, the bribery, the perjury, or the attempt to pervert the course of justice (some attempt to stop the trial of the substantive offence from proceeding and coming to a just conclusion)—is necessary as a precursor to the other exception (which I say is really part of the same exception), and that is the issue of tainted acquittals. A tainted acquittal occurs if a person has been acquitted and, but for the fact that one of these offences—bribery of a witness, coercion, or whatever—has interfered with the judicial process and, but for that occurring, it is considered likely that there would not have been an acquittal of the substantive offence.
A tainted acquittal requires a connection of the accused person (or someone else) to an administration of justice offence. It is not necessary for the accused to have been guilty of the administration of justice offence because, otherwise, obviously someone who stood accused of murder, for instance, might arrange for a friend to be the person who attempts to bribe a witness, pervert the course of justice, or, in some way, to interfere with a witness and so on. But if you have a conviction of an accused person, or another person, on one of these administration of justice offences and the court considers that it is more likely than not that, but for that offence, the accused would have been convicted of the original substantive offence, then that establishes a tainted acquittal; and therefore the precursor to being able to bring an application to have another trial which previously would have been a breach of the rule against double jeopardy.
The condition precedent, being that it is more likely than not that but for the commission of the administration of justice offence there would have been a conviction on the substantive offence, therefore seems to be based on the balance of probabilities. It is not to be established on a criminal onus, but the court has to be reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, except for the interference with the witness or the judicial officer or whatever happened that tainted the proceedings, the person would in fact have been convicted.
The list of offences to which this particular provision applies is broader than the list for the fresh and compelling evidence. In this case, basically, major indictable offences which are punishable by 15 years or more are covered by this provision. It is possible, of course, that a particular set of circumstances could lead to a situation where an acquittal is tainted and there is the possibility of an application under that particular provision following an administration of justice offence conviction and at the same time where there is fresh and compelling evidence. The bill provides that the prosecutors have to actually choose which of those they are going to take on, which one they are going to opt for; they cannot actually do both in the alternative—and I will explore that a little further during the committee stage.
There is only one other aspect that I want to cover in my comments on the bill which as I have already indicated the opposition will be supporting, and that is the issue of the amendment to the Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act which becomes new section 340. It is spelled out in some detail in the second reading explanation, but I am still coming to grips with how it is interpreted and how it works.
As I understand the situation, if a prosecution authority (the DPP or the police) decides to appeal against a conviction on the basis that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, the Court of Criminal Appeal (in hearing that matter) may, at the moment, decide that the sentence was manifestly inadequate but, because it perceives the imposing of the appropriate sentence as being itself a type of breach of the rule against double jeopardy, it does not impose the sentence that it thinks would be appropriate but rather discounts it. The second reading explanation states:
In considering whether to allow the appeal and to exercise its re-sentencing discretion, the court is required to take account of the respondent's exposure to a form of double jeopardy. As Kirby, P explained in R v Hayes...the principle which applies in the context of Crown appeals against sentence is not a true example of double jeopardy, but is equivalent to it because 'the prisoner's liberty, pocket and reputation are put in jeopardy both before the sentencing judge and before the appellate court.'
So it does indicate that it is not a true form of double jeopardy, and that to me makes sense, because it would seem to me that if resentencing by an appellate court is a form of double jeopardy then the same reasoning should apply just as equally to an accused person who has been convicted and appeals against their sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive, and a court in reducing that sentence, if they agreed, would be imposing a double jeopardy type situation. So I am not sure that I absolutely accept the reasoning that has been put forward in that particular case, and I will explore that further in the committee stage.
There is only one other thing that I want to mention in closing and that is that this legislation is quite clearly, of its nature, retrospective in its operation, in as much as the people who are likely to be affected by fresh and compelling evidence may well already have been acquitted. Indeed, I did look up a little bit over the lunch break the case that I was referring to earlier in the UK, and that was the case of William Dunlop. What had happened was that William Dunlop had been tried for the murder of a lady by the name of Julie Hogg in Billingham in 1989. He faced two trials and on each occasion the jury failed to reach a verdict, and because of the way the system worked there he was then able to be formally acquitted in 1991, after two trials and two juries had failed to convict him. So he had a formal acquittal.
Some years later he actually confessed to the crime and at that time the only action that could be taken against him was, as with Carroll, an action for perjury. But they then reinvestigated the case early in 2001. They introduced this change to the law, and I think it was in 2003 that they passed their Criminal Justice Act, and at that point he was able to be re-tried for the offence, and he was the first person in the UK to be convicted of murder after having previously been acquitted for that murder.
So, clearly the thrust of the bill is that this will apply to everyone, and I suggest that it would be a nonsense if we said that it is only going to apply after the date of the commencement of the bill, because that would just leave a whole lot of people potentially still able to confess to a murder and not be tried for it, even under these new provisions, if they have already been acquitted of such a crime.
Interestingly, I think that Queensland suggested that theirs was not to be retrospective, and I will be interested to find out at some stage on what basis they introduced that provision. I am not expecting that the Attorney will necessarily know the answer to that, but I did read somewhere that the Queensland changes were not to be retrospective, and that simply does not seem to make sense to me.
I indicate that although I have not filed any amendments there are a number of things I will be wanting to explore in committee; so the Attorney need not concern himself too much with being able to answer any questions that I might raise during the second reading in his response. Although I do not want to hold up the house unnecessarily, there are a couple of points of clarification I will seek on the bill in due course. But I do thank the government for getting around to introducing legislation—that was mostly our policy anyway, and I indicate that the opposition will be supporting it and helping it through the house with reasonable speed.
Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:59): I wish to make a contribution to the house in relation to what we regard as quite important legislation that has come before the house, being the Criminal Law Consolidation (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Bill 2008. As the member for Heysen, the shadow attorney-general, has quite rightly pointed out, although in general the government has been supportive of introducing this legislation and the principle of double jeopardy, this is really the adoption of the state Liberal policy, in terms of introducing this bill. The member for Heysen has quite outstandingly, I would say, given a precis of the legislation and some background information, as is her norm while debating legislation that is brought before the parliament.
Obviously, the term 'double jeopardy' has several meanings, which stem from the long-held legal principle that a person cannot be tried a second time for a crime for which he or she has already been convicted or acquitted. At common law, the pleas used were 'autrefois acquit' (meaning the defendant has already been acquitted) and 'autrefois convict' (meaning the defendant has already been convicted). However, there is also a third sense in which the term is used, that being protection from being punished multiple times for the same offence.
I could go on and give some examples of the different aspects of defendants being acquitted and also defendants being convicted but tried again. However, the member for Heysen has spoken to the house about the case of R v Carroll. Carroll was charged with and found guilty of the murder of baby Deidre Kennedy, whose body was found in Ipswich in 1973. Carroll was convicted on 14 March 1985, but on 27 November 1985 the Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that the conviction be quashed on the basis that 'a properly instructed jury, properly considering the matter, could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution evidence that the accused was guilty'.
Many years later (almost 14 years), Carroll was charged with perjury, on the basis of his sworn evidence at the murder trial that he did not kill Deidre Kennedy. The prosecution considered that it had new evidence that was not available at the time of the murder trial and that Carroll had, in fact, killed baby Deidre. Subsequently, Carroll was convicted. That conviction was then appealed to the Court of Appeal in Queensland, which concluded that the trial should have been stayed as an abuse of process and that the verdict returned by the jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court ordered that Carroll's conviction be quashed and a verdict of acquittal entered.
The prosecution sought special leave to appeal that result to the High Court. As the case proceeded, the High Court judges considered the notion of double jeopardy in considerable detail and concluded unanimously (although three separate judgments were delivered) that, whilst leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal should be dismissed. The Chief Justice said:
Proceedings on the indictment for perjury should have been stayed, as the Court of Appeal concluded. The prosecution inevitably sought to controvert the earlier acquittal on the charge of murder.
So, as members can understand, for people who do not have an intricate knowledge of the judicial process, it was relatively complex.
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I understand that, in recent years a number of jurisdictions have begun to re-examine the notion of double jeopardy, particularly as increasingly technical developments can provide fresh evidence that simply was not available at trial. I would imagine that one of the most outstanding developments in fighting crime over the last decade or so would be the use of DNA. We were pleased in the parliament to support that legislation when the government finally brought it to the house.
In all Australian state jurisdictions, prosecutors can appeal against a sentence handed down by the trial judge. In South Australia and Tasmania, the prosecution can appeal against an error of law made by the trial judge in certain circumstances. However, the acquittal will remain valid, and the purpose of the appeal is simply to clarify the legal position for future cases. Since the overturning of the Carroll conviction for perjury, in particular, there has been considerable debate about the rule with respect to double jeopardy and some calls for reform of the law.
There is some reasonable history to this matter, particularly as it relates to the parliament of the United Kingdom. The Criminal Justice Act was passed, which allowed retrials if there was new and compelling evidence in the case of serious crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery and serious drug crimes, to give some examples.
All cases must be approved by the DPP and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal. These provisions came into force in April 2005. On 11 September the following year (2006) William Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of a murder after previously being acquitted. He had been tried twice for the murder of Julie Hogg in Billingham in 1989, but two juries each failed to reach a verdict and he was formally acquitted in 1991. However, several years later he confessed to the crime and was convicted of perjury.
Early in 2001, the case was reinvestigated and, when the new law came into effect, the case was referred to the Court of Appeal (the change to the UK law followed a 2001 recommendation of the Law Commission). Members can see from that one example that the proposed legislation does have real benefit in bringing alleged criminals to trial and being convicted for their crimes. As I said, there have been advancements in technology in investigating criminal activity.
DNA has been one of the major breakthroughs. Using DNA, I understand, has been one of the major breakthroughs in recent times in investigating criminal activity and bringing people to justice. My neighbour happens to be a police officer. When the debate occurred in the community three or four years ago, from memory, my neighbour spoke to me in a reasonably serious manner, encouraging me and the state Liberal Party to support the legislation, and we were pleased to do that. This is an important piece of legislation, as it does bring to justice those people in the community who have committed crime.
Mr RAU (Enfield) (16:10): I just want to say a few words about this legislation and, in doing so, I would like to say that, were it not for the persuasive powers of the Attorney, I might be having other things to say.
Members interjecting:
Mr RAU: I say that in all seriousness. The Attorney has spoken to me about this matter, and I appreciate that. I would like to say that there is an old saying in the law. It is probably one that most people have heard, and it goes something like this: hard cases make bad law. There is always a case of the anomaly. There is always the case of something completely unexpected. There is always the Carroll case. In every field of law you care to look at (if you let the courts process litigation, whether it be civil or criminal), for centuries in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and wherever else they might be doing it in the common law system, something really weird will get thrown up, and that is just life. Life is like that. It throws up weird things, and sometimes the application of what appears to be a really sensible piece of common law or statute law produces a result, about which people, looking at that result, inevitably say, 'But this isn't right; it shouldn't happen.' I think that the Carroll case, which has been referred to, is one of those cases, and I understand why people are affronted by that.
The Attorney has persuaded me that things have changed to the extent that when many of these cases were first investigated some years ago DNA testing, for example, was not available. Even though the material may have been recovered by the police and still held somewhere in relation to that case and it is simply a matter of matching the material that is already held by the investigating authorities with DNA material from a suspect, many cases which have hitherto not been solved or solvable will be able to be solved or will be solvable, and I think that everyone who thinks about that would have to say, 'Well, that is a good thing.'
I would just like to spend a moment considering what the common law system—the British system of justice that we have here—has done to deal with the implications of the double jeopardy rule over many years. What the prosecuting authorities have done in all the common law jurisdictions is that when the prosecutors have a case which is strong enough in the prosecutors' professional opinion to warrant the matter being brought to trial, and when they think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction, then and only then do they proceed to trial on that particular complaint.
If, in the process of proceeding with that matter through the courts, they determine that, in spite of what they might have thought when they first charged this individual, it looks like in the course of the hearing itself that that individual's case is not as strong as they thought it was and for some reason they do not think they can secure a conviction, they have the option of pulling the charge—or a nolle prosequi, I think it is appropriately called.
Members may recall that a gentleman was charged with having blown up the National Crime Authority offices in Adelaide some years ago. That matter proceeded to a certain degree and then stopped. It stopped because the prosecuting authorities formed the opinion (and I am not here to say that that was an incorrect opinion, I might add) that, given the evidence they currently had against that individual, it was unlikely they would secure a conviction. The consequence of that would be that that individual would then benefit from the double jeopardy rule and never be able to be charged if indeed later on they did find further evidence that might lead to a stronger case against that individual.
I guess the point I am trying to make is this: the system that has been operating for hundreds of years has developed mechanisms to deal with the consequences of double jeopardy, and the simplest of those mechanisms relies on the professionalism and judgment of the prosecuting authorities. I think members of parliament need to be a little concerned, as do I from my point of view as an individual member of this parliament, that that level of security, professionalism and properly exercised judgment by the prosecutorial authorities does not start to deteriorate because they form the opinion that they now have this 'slips' rule, if you like, sitting there in case something does not go the way they wanted it to go.
I suggest to the parliament that it is bad public policy as a general rule to have the prospect of multiple charges and trials for the same offence generally being possible. The Attorney has assured me—and he has shown me the provisions of this legislation which lead me to have some confidence—that this legislation will not open up a sort of revolving door of litigation where you keep litigating against an individual until you finally grind them down and crack them, because that is not good public policy.
I am reminded of a story that came to me a few years ago from a butcher. I was in this fellow's butcher shop and I noticed that he was cutting up meat while one of his co-workers, also cutting up meat, had a chain mail glove on his hand. I said to my friend, 'Why don't you wear one of those?' He said, 'Because one day I might forget to put it on.' The point is that we can become too comfortable with some of these devices which are designed to make things easier and, if we become too comfortable with those devices, that would not be good for the administration of justice because, as a general rule, I do not agree that it should be possible (or indeed desirable) for any citizen to be subjected to the ordeal of a criminal prosecution repeatedly for the same thing.
As I said when I started, having spoken to the Attorney I am satisfied that—and he is a very persuasive person, the Attorney, and I do not know whether you people—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr RAU: I think some of you do not appreciate the Attorney properly because he is not just an interjector. In his better moods he is capable of great persuasive argument and he has convinced me that safeguards contained within this provision mean that it is not something where prosecutors can just wander up and say, 'I couldn't be bothered doing it properly the first time because I am a lazy prosecutor but it doesn't matter because I can have another crack at it in a few weeks because I have this provision here.' The prosecutor cannot do that because the test which is contained in the legislation requires that they could not have possibly done it at the time.
Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:
Mr RAU: So, if the member for Kavel is listening, he would see that there is a very important point there: that this is not an open door to lazy prosecutors nor is it an open door for repetitive persecution of individuals by criminal statute because there are safeguards and filters built into this provision. At the end of the day, I suppose one has to consider whether you would think it was fair that a person who had committed some dreadful crime should get away with it, by reason of the lack of evidence at the time, or indeed the incompetence of our prosecuting authority, when evidence subsequently turns up which is able to establish clearly that that person was guilty of that offence. That is the balancing act that we are going through here. Not without some considerable thought, and not without some concerns that it be properly understood by the prosecuting authorities that this is not an opportunity for them to go about their business in any less of a thorough way than they have been accustomed to in the past, I support the proposal.
Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (16:20): I am speaking in relation to the government's proposal to create exemptions to the common law rule against double jeopardy. The rule against double jeopardy has been in place for centuries and it is to protect citizens against being prosecuted more than once for the same offence. The two main concerns that arise are the power of the state to cripple a person financially by repeatedly prosecuting them; secondly, there is very powerful motivation for police and prosecution authorities to get it right first time if they know that there is but one trial they can impose upon an accused person.
I acknowledge that the Attorney-General in his second reading explanation was quite even-handed and he set out the reasons why the double jeopardy rule has been in place for so long. I have also considered the views of the Law Society which has expressed some reservations about the bill. They are in keeping with the concerns I have already expressed. The government, I am glad to say, does not proceed to throw out the rule against double jeopardy completely but creates, essentially, three exceptions. In my mind, two of them go together when one is dealing with some sort of administration of justice offence, such as bribery or interfering with a witness which leads to an acquittal. In those cases, it may be that either the original charge could be the subject of a further trial or the administration of justice offence itself could be the subject of a trial, notwithstanding that, in a sense, it goes over the same ground as the substantive trial in which the accused was acquitted.
The other aspect of the bill is the exception created for acquittals where fresh and compelling evidence comes to light. I am glad to see that the Attorney-General has introduced some safeguards into the bill: the requirement of the DPP to make application for a retrial and for there to be restraints on re-investigating crimes. I think that these are sensible restraints to avoid a person being investigated again and again and, indeed, prosecuted again and again.
There is still the concern that, despite these safeguards, an innocent person could be the subject of more than one major criminal trial. Just to bring home what we are talking about in terms of the imposition on the citizen, we might be talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal costs to afford a proper defence in a trial that might run for weeks or months, or even more than a year in exceptional cases. They are experiences that you would not want to go through more than once, if at all.
Like a number of other members, I express my reservations about chipping away at the rule against double jeopardy. All I can do is express that concern and at least be grateful that the government has fairly tightly confined the circumstances in which a person can be tried again for a serious offence.
Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:25): I think the case has been put very eloquently this afternoon by the member for Heysen, and supplemented by the member for Kavel. I suppose the interesting thing for me was the comments on this bill made by the member for Enfield, who was clearly rolled by his own outfit. Indeed, I listened with interest to what the member for Enfield had to say.
From my lay view I am really most keen to make sure that people get a fair go; that is the core of my contribution. I am not sure that people always do get a fair go. I might know a bit about growing crops and a few other things but I do not make any claim whatsoever to being an expert on the law, quite frankly. However, it seems that from time to time things go to the keeper in the legal system and people get unfairly treated and that there are disastrous outcomes in legal cases. That is where I am coming from. I just do not want to see in this state—or, more to the point, in Australia either, but given this legislation is for South Australia—something come out of it whereby some poor soul in the future is unfairly treated and rolled out the door by a court.
I totally understand where technology is going. Who knows whether in 10 or 20 years, even 25 years, those sitting in this place at that time will have to come back and revisit all these sorts of things to try to deal with the technology of the day? We might think that DNA is terrific today, but in another 15 years it might be something entirely different. Without prolonging the agony for members in this chamber, I hope that the Attorney-General and the government take on board my 'fair go' provisions, that people do not get unfairly treated and that, given that this side of the house is supporting the bill, when it comes into force everything works properly.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:28): I thank all members who have participated in the debate. I thank the member for Enfield for coming around to my point of view. Part of the member for Heysen's speech was an example of the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means: since that event (namely the government bill) followed this one (the opposition policy), that event must have been caused by this one. In fact, the government—
Mrs Redmond: It sounds reasonable to me.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, the member for Heysen says, 'It sounds reasonable to me.' In fact, the bill is here because it was agreed at the Council of Australian Governments.
Bill read a second time.
Committee Stage
In committee.
Clauses 1 to 4 passed.
Clause 5.
Mrs REDMOND: I have a couple of questions on clause 5, because I note that this clause is effectively the rest of the bill. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 are new but clause 5, in fact, is the substance of the bill and contains a number of things. I hope you will allow me a little bit of discretion, sir, but I promise not to hold the committee long.
My first question is pretty straightforward, more about the drafting of the bill. At the end of the interpretation section in subsection (1) there is a definition of 'relevant offence'. I am curious as to why paragraph (b) is worded:
Any other offence for which the offender is liable to be imprisoned for life or for at least 15 years.
Why have you used the term 'be imprisoned for life', because surely life is going to encompass 'for at least 15 years'?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The wording was decided out of an abundance of caution, in that life is an indeterminate sentence and, therefore, might not have been embraced by the expression 'at least 15 years'. Of course, sometimes a life sentence does not run as long as 15 years.
Mrs REDMOND: I move on to new section 332. I want to explore what is intended by subsection (2), which provides:
Evidence that would be admissible on a retrial under this part is not precluded from being fresh or compelling just because it would not have been admissible in the earlier trial...
I take it that there could be evidence which the prosecutor had available at the time and was aware of, but at the time the rules of evidence decreed that it was not admissible, and then subsequently there may be some sort of change to the rules of evidence, as I read this, that would enable an application to be made to allow a retrial on what we are calling fresh and compelling evidence when in fact it is neither. It may be compelling but it may have always been compelling, and it may not be fresh in any usual sense. I wonder whether the minister could explain a little further what is intended in that particular clause.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The answer is yes. I think the member for Heysen would like more. That was the argument in the second Carroll trial, that the first appeal by the accused succeeded because certain propensity evidence was not admissible, and then they had another crack at him on the grounds that such evidence was probably, at that time, admissible, by a decision of the High Court. So, that is an illustration of subsection (2).
Mrs REDMOND: On that point again: I see that in subsection (2) there is therefore more risk of the situation arising where someone simply has not done their homework well enough and prosecuted the case well enough, rather than it being fresh and compelling evidence. I am curious about whether you perceive any possibility that, because there is a provision that someone can bring in what is classified as new and compelling evidence, even though it is not new but because the rules have been changed, is there a risk to the accused which is wider because of that particular subsection?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The distinction is between evidence that was admissible and evidence that was or was not admitted. So, if you are a prosecutor who makes a blue and you have evidence that could have been admitted but, in fact, was not because it was not put up, then you are not going to be able to bring the charges again.
The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Rau): Since everyone is in this very calm, cooperative mood, which I think is very good, I am supposed to cut you off now at 3, but of course I am not going to do that because it is such a long provision and obviously both you and the Attorney want to talk about these things a little more, but could you try and focus on the main points first so that we ensure we have covered your main issues?
Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. I will move on to new section 335, which I want to talk about generally, because this is the clause that sets out the circumstances in which the police may investigate conduct relating to an offence, and it provides that the DPP has to authorise it, but it seemed to me that there must be a preliminary level of investigation before they can apply to the DPP, for the DPP to be able to satisfy himself in accordance with the rest of the provisions and issue the written authority.
I want a fuller explanation as to how it is intended that that will work in the sense that, for instance, they may have to perform a DNA test on some material in order to reach first base to be ready to make the application to the DPP. I am curious about where it says 'a police officer may not carry out an investigation', where that line is drawn that allows them to do the preliminary work prior to getting permission from the DPP.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: In the Dunlop case, Dunlop confessed and that is what triggered the investigation leading to his being tried and found guilty after having been technically acquitted by two hung juries. That is one example. The second example would be a cold hit, that is to say, it becomes obvious when checking DNA about an unrelated matter that this DNA was at the crime scene when it was the contention of the accused which enabled him to be acquitted that he was not at the crime scene. Those things do not require an investigation; they happen. If the police want to DNA test a suspect who has been acquitted, the police would have to apply to the DPP to get permission to DNA test. That would be an investigation.
Mrs REDMOND: From my recollection of the way we structure things at the moment, if someone has been accused of rape and there has been a DNA test done at that time and they have been subsequently acquitted, that DNA sample is not kept, so we do not have the record.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is kept under the DNA legislation that was passed last year.
Mrs REDMOND: I thank the Attorney for that information. The police are then holding, or some appropriate authority is then holding that DNA from the person who has been acquitted of a rape. There is then another rape; DNA is again taken and the person is charged with that rape and someone thinks, 'We reckon that this is the same guy.' Do they actually have to go to the DPP and get permission before they can even access the earlier DNA to compare the DNA taken where they have currently got someone and may even get them convicted? Do they have to go to the DPP to get permission before they can check that DNA against the DNA they are already holding if they still believe that that person is likely to be the offender?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, that would not be deemed by our proposal to intrude on the accused. In essence, the police can fiddle with the database.
Mr HANNA: My question is about the assessment of evidence under new section 332 as to whether it is fresh and compelling. It seems to me that the important thing is that any new evidence that comes up should have at least a fair chance of making a difference at the subsequent trial. I am not sure that the definition of 'compelling' really captures that significant aspect. Do you agree?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, I do not agree. I refer the member for Mitchell to proposed section 332 subsection (1) paragraph (b) 'compelling if,' subparagraph (iii), 'it is highly probative in the context of the issues in dispute at the trial of the offence.'
Mr HANNA: I note that the provisions are not retrospective and I consider, in this context, the effect of abolishing the rule that prevented old charges of sexual assault being raised. When that was removed by the Labor government there was a small flood of late complaints about childhood sexual assault and that sort of thing. How is the Attorney-General going to monitor fresh complaints coming out of the woodwork in cases where people have been acquitted in the past, perhaps 10 or 20 years ago?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I do not think it is my job to monitor it. The DPP will monitor it because that is his job. The United Kingdom has had this exemption from the rule against double jeopardy since 2003 and there have only been a couple of cases. New South Wales has had it, I think, for two years and there have been no cases. I do not think it is a change that is going to lead to much change in effect.
Mr HANNA: In that case, why make it retrospective? If it is anticipated that there will be hardly any cases that will arise from crimes allegedly committed some time in the past, then why not adhere to the principle that there should not be retrospective legislation which can seriously impinge on people's rights and make this applicable for crimes committed from this time on?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The fallacy in the member for Mitchell's argument is that we are not making criminal that which was not criminal before.
Mrs REDMOND: I would like to move to new section 336, and I think it might be connected a bit to the answer the Attorney just gave to the penultimate question asked by the member for Mitchell. Section 336 deals with the retrial in the case of an acquittal which is tainted and the reason I think it might be relevant to the previous answer is that, of course, it provides amongst other things that the Full Court has to be satisfied of the things set out in that section before they will order the retrial. Connected to the member for Mitchell's question therefore, subsection (1) refers to the court needing to be satisfied, first, that the acquittal was tainted and then paragraph (b) states:
In the circumstances, it is likely that the new trial would be fair having regard to—
(i) the length of time since the relevant offence is alleged to have occurred.
Given the provisions in other bits of legislation and other discussions that we have had over legislation concerning if an accused is put at a forensic disadvantage by reason of delay, is it the case that that provision is likely to preclude proceedings for cases which would otherwise fall within the ambit of this provision simply because of the length of time which has now elapsed since the accused was acquitted originally?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It might, but I do not think that what we are saying in the bill is different from the established common law position.
Mrs REDMOND: I have one more question relating to new section 340, which, although it is inserted in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, appears to have been substituted for sections that have been deleted, so it is a new clause. It is to overcome the problem that I spoke about which, according to the Attorney's adviser, comes about because of a perception that resentencing by the Court of Criminal Appeal can amount to a breach of the rule against double jeopardy.
Whilst I accept, pending any information to the contrary, what has been said, I am curious about the manner in which the provision has been worded, in particular, where it refers to if the court decides that the original sentence 'should be quashed and a more severe sentence substituted, the court may substitute a more severe sentence even if, in so doing, the court may be exposing the convicted person to a form of double jeopardy.' It seemed to me that, as legislators, it would have been better for us to say that that does not constitute a form of double jeopardy and (by statute) make it fact rather than give tacit approval to the concept that it is some form of double jeopardy.
I have not had time to speak to parliamentary counsel about it or to have an amendment drawn up, but it seemed to me that it might be worth considering putting it more in the positive rather than expressing a negative but tacit approval of the concept that in some way substituting the appropriate sentence could be a breach of double jeopardy. I wonder whether the Attorney has any comment on that.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Whether or not we like it—and I do not like it—the courts have decided that it is a form of double jeopardy, and therefore we drafted the provision that way.
Mrs REDMOND: I am curious as to why it would not be more sensible to say what we declare through the legislation. I mean, we change lots of things that overcome interpretations that the courts have placed on things. Why would it not be appropriate to simply insert it into the legislation and say, 'We in this legislation specifically say that this is not a breach of the rule against double jeopardy'?
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If the member for Heysen and the opposition would like to do that, then I am sure there will be an opportunity between the houses for such an amendment to be moved in another place.
Clause passed.
Remaining clauses (6 to 8) and title passed.
Bill reported without amendment.
Third Reading
Bill read a third time and passed.