HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EVIDENCE (IDENTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 October 2012.)

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:28): I do not wish to occupy too much of the council's time, as usual, but I have a few remarks that I would like to add to the record on this important bill. This bill has been brought on quite suddenly due to the recent failure of a government bill of the same name to pass in the Legislative Council following the failure of another identical bill in 2011. As I understand it, it is hoped that the discussion of this bill, which addresses the same issue in a substantially different way, offers some prospect of a compromise. It is clear at least, from the contributions of members to the debate of the defeated bill, that there is a great deal of will to see the issue resolved, though we disagree to an extent on how to resolve it.

Members will already be aware of my feelings on this issue, which were outlined in my second reading speech on the government bill. I am highly supportive of the effort to see a greater diversity of identification evidence recognised by the state's justice system. However, I feel that an important part of this effort must ensure that the processes and procedures by which evidence is collected, presented and utilised is clear, precise and accessible to all. Given the failure of the justice system to make any measurable progress in this regard, I strongly believe that there is a need here for parliament to intervene.

This was a key consideration in my decision to reject the government bill and it is now one of the major considerations against which I seek to measure the bill before us now. While I have not had as long as I might like to consider this bill and the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendments thereto, I see a great deal of promise.

The amendments proposed to date—and I am sure there shall be others—gives scope for the parliament to be involved in setting important expectations about how evidence is collected through regulations. They also call the courts' attention to a witness's disability when considering whether or not to admit evidence collected by a noncomplying process.

I am yet to reach a final, conclusive decision regarding this bill but I, like other members, have a number of questions that I have referred to the Hon. Mr Wade. I understand that we will not be proceeding beyond the first clause today in order to allow some discussion on these matters, so I look forward to discussing this bill further and hopefully seeing some progress in addressing this broad issue.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:31): An indication having been given that no government members wish to speak on this matter, I will take the opportunity to sum up. The council is clearly united in its support to remove the traditional preference for line-up identification. The issue is what should be the starting point.

The government's evidence ID bill sought to remove the preference without changing the underlying framework. The opposition's response has been to support the removal of the preference on the condition that the opportunity was taken to enhance the quality of identification parades. Faced with that choice, the council yesterday declined to read the government's bill a second time. An identical bill was tabled in 2011 and rejected by this council by a vote of 12 to nine. Yesterday the 2013 bill was rejected again by a vote of 12 to nine.

Yesterday the Attorney-General was asked by radio FIVEaa's Leon Byner, 'What was their reasoning for knocking back this proposition in the first place?' The Attorney-General's answer was, 'I'm not sure they actually gave one other than they thought photos weren't very good.' Later on in the interview Mr Byner said, 'The photographs you can get now even if you're in an accident and you use the phone to take a picture, the digital clarity of these pictures now is very good.' The Attorney responded: 'Absolutely.'

In terms of the reasons the opposition has given, I refer members to my six-page contribution on the second reading of the 2011 bill and the two-page contribution on the 2012 bill. Amongst all the reasons given, I did not refer to pixilation once. The Attorney-General's misrepresentation of the facts is an insult to the South Australian listening community. It is also an insult to this place. It is absurd to think that this council, on a vote of 12 to nine on two occasions, would reject the bill on the basis of the pixilation quality of photographs.

This council has yet again indicated that it supports the removal of the judicial preference for line-up identification. Following the defeat of the 2011 bill, the government failed to act for 15 months. The opposition was left to act and, in 2012, the then leader, Isobel Redmond, released for consultation the bill which is before us today. In concluding the second reading on the government's bill yesterday, the government said:

...it will await the outcome of its bill before determining what approach it will take to the Hon. Mr Wade's bill and his amendments. Accordingly, the government may respectfully request that the honourable members here agree to an adjournment of the debate on Mr Wade's bill so that the government may consider the implications of the recently-filed amendments.

I share the disappointment of other honourable members that the government did not take the opportunity today to indicate its position on this bill. I certainly indicate that we look forward to that response in the not too distant future.

In the interest of giving South Australians the best law possible, I suggest that the council supports the approach proposed by the government; that is, I propose that we conclude the second reading on this bill today but that the committee stage of the bill be made an order of the day for the next Wednesday of sitting. I advise that I will be seeking to progress the bill on the next Wednesday of sitting, 20 March 2013.

I indicate to the government, to all stakeholders and to the community that I am open—as I always have been—to developing the amendments to make sure that South Australians have the best law possible. I thank all members for their comments on the bill thus far and commend the second reading of the bill to the house.

The PRESIDENT: Before putting that the bill be now read a second time, I acknowledge the presence of the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, a former minister and a former member of this place.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The PRESIDENT: I further advise that the Hon. Mrs Schaefer is ineligible to vote.

Bill read a second time.

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