HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING) (VICTIMS OF CRIME) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (16:40): I have to report that the managers for the two houses conferred together but that no agreement was reached.

The PRESIDENT: As no recommendation from the conference has been made, the council, pursuant to standing order 338, must either resolve not to further insist on its amendments or lay the bill aside.

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

That the council do not further insist on its amendments.

At the conference the government believed that the amendments of the Legislative Council were unacceptable because they possibly could contribute to a significant logjam through the Magistrates Court. The government did propose an alternative, which was not acceptable to the mover of the amendments (Hon. Mr Darley). The government has taken the decision that it cannot proceed with the bill in its current form because of the potential that the amendments could logjam the Magistrates Court.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I think this is a deplorable situation which illustrates the arrogance of the government. On this occasion the Hon. Mr Darley introduced amendments which were carried in this place. The government proposed amendments which were not acceptable (for very good reasons) to the Hon Mr Darley. The claim being made by the government was that to extend to all victims of crime the right to make a victim impact statement—and to give that right to all rather than only to a selected few—would clog the Magistrates Court, a court so easily denigrated by the Attorney-General as daft and delusional.

The Attorney-General simply says, 'Well, the bill can lapse'. Any benefits that were proposed by the government to victims will be lost entirely. The political purpose of this is transparent. The Attorney-General wants to see this council as having led to the collapse of his proposal, but he has insufficient enthusiasm for the rights of victims in that an amendment of the kind proposed by the Hon. Mr Darley is simply unacceptable and non-negotiable on the part of the government. It is absolutely deplorable.

I must say that the Hon. Mr Darley was quite prepared to suggest that a sunset clause be put on the bill. Indeed, if it had the effect of clogging the Magistrates Court—the claim being made by the government—then the legislation simply would not continue beyond the period of two years, but the Attorney-General was not prepared to consider any proposal at all, other than his own compromise and he flounced out. It is deplorable.

Without divulging the nature of the discussion, it is deplorable that the government would let flow down the drain some useful amendments proposed by the government and agreed to by members in this place. Because the Hon. Mr Darley proposed yet another amendment (which I think was derived from a suggestion made by the Hon. Nick Xenophon in a previous bill), the government simply takes its bat and ball and goes home when it does not get its own way. The parliament of South Australia comprises two houses of equal power. The attitude of the government to this is deplorable.

The CHAIRMAN: I just remind members that it is a government bill. Standing order 338 allows the government to make the choice whether it pursues a bill that has been amended; it is part of the democratic process.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: These amendments are about improving legislation for victims of crime, and the government's unwillingness to accept the amendments seems to be based on sheer stubbornness rather than any merit. I find it extraordinary that the government is not willing to negotiate any further, and I am extremely disappointed with its pettiness. It seems to me that the government is more interested in playing politics than helping victims of crime.

The committee divided on the motion:

AYES (6)

Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller)
Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

NOES (13)

Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. (teller) Dawkins, J.S.L.
Evans, A.L. Hood, D.G.E. Kanck, S.M.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Parnell, M. Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G.

PAIRS (2)

Finnigan, B.V. Ridgway, D.W.


Majority of 7 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

Bill laid aside.

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