HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO) (NO. 3) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:31): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio)(No.3) Bill 2013. I expect to be the lead and only speaker on behalf of the opposition and indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill. I propose to make a brief contribution. This is a bill which was introduced by the Attorney-General on 5 June. It is purported to seek to address a number of technical issues in relation to the following acts: Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935; Criminal Law Sentencing Act 1988; District Court Act 1991; the Evidence Act 1929; Legal Services Commission Act 1977; the Supreme Court Act 1935; and the Trustee Act 1936.

The three areas of reform, as such, are in the following categories: firstly, to amend the legislation to change the terminology used in the District Court and Supreme Court Rules by reference to discovery and taxation to become 'disclosure' and 'adjudication', respectively which is clearly consistent with modern use of the words. The process of discovery would be familiar to a few of us here in the parliament, but for most they would see it as being their reward of some adventure rather than actually a process of production of documents and records and the rather tedious task that then follows which is certainly not an adventure, but sometimes it has some surprise results.

Of course, the Attorney and I and a few of us might be familiar with the taxation process, but for most people it is not a process of determining whether there is a reasonable cost that is being claimed in litigation. For most people it relates to some devious expectation from the Australian Taxation Office or the State Taxation Office which is to deprive them of some funds. So again, this is the supplanting of contemporary words to cover those practices. There is a proposed amendment to the Criminal Law Sentencing Act to require the Minister for Correctional Services to take into account the likely impact a decision to vary or discharge a bond will have on a registered victim where an impact statement was furnished to the court at the time of sentencing. The third area is in relation to automatic suppression orders.

There are proposed amendments to the Evidence Act to rectify unintended consequences arising as a result of the passage of the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency) Reform Act 2012. I do not think it is necessary to identify that detail; that has been canvassed, on this occasion, in sufficient detail in the second reading.

The bill does specifically, though, propose under section 71A(5) of the Evidence Act that the relevant date is the date on which, 'the Magistrates Court is to determine and impose sentence—the date on which a plea of guilty is entered by the accused' thereby preventing an automatic suppression order remaining in place indefinitely. The amendment highlights the policy contrast between the government and the opposition. We oppose sexual offences being treated differently from other offences in terms of being accorded an automatic suppression order, and that provides some consistency with this reform. The opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:37): Can I say quite sincerely to the member for Bragg I appreciate very much her succinct contribution and the support of the opposition for this bill. I know that there are differences that have been well and truly canvassed in the past about the section 71A issue, but I am pleased that we just accept that we have agreed to disagree, more or less, about that. I am very appreciative of the fact that the honourable member and the opposition are being very helpful in allowing these matters, which are essentially of a minor nature, to go through and be dealt with swiftly. Again, I sincerely thank the honourable member and the opposition for their assistance.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT