HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

POLICING STRATEGIES

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (14:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question about policing strategies.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Encouraging respect for law and order, especially amongst young people, is one of the stated cornerstones of South Australia Police's support for blue light discos and other youth community policing initiatives. Inculcating that principle of encouraging respect has had bipartisan—and I might say multipartisan—support in the South Australian community. My questions are:

1. How is that principle advanced by a minister of the crown calling the Deputy Chief Magistrate of this state 'daft and delusional'?

2. Does the Minister for Police consider that the Deputy Chief Magistrate of this state is daft and delusional, and deserves to be rubbished as such? If he does not agree with that, will the minister communicate his views to the Attorney-General?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:31): As I understand it, the Deputy Chief Magistrate released a publication to his colleagues entitled Generic Principles when Considering Sentences of Imprisonment. In that paper, I believe, the Deputy Chief Magistrate said:

When we imprison, we should fix a non-parole period that is as low as possible, consistent with the other matters of sentencing principle, in recognition that the present condition of the prisons in this state is not satisfactory.

As I understand the Westminster principles, the judiciary has a responsibility separate from the Executive Government. It is its job to apply the law as set down by this parliament. This parliament makes the laws. The judiciary has the obligation to sentence prisoners according to the laws set down by this government, and that is what I believe it should do. Really, it is as simple as that.

The Attorney-General would be failing in his duty if he said nothing or did nothing if a member of the judiciary made comments that essentially contradicted the division of responsibilities between the executive and the judiciary. So, of course, the Attorney-General not only has the right but, I would suggest, the obligation to clarify matters of public principle. If any member of the judiciary, in sentencing, intrudes into matters of public policy, the Attorney-General has the right and the obligation, I would suggest, to clarify the record.

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