HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 July 2013.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:29): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate our support for the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No. 3) Bill 2013. In that context, a bit like the last bill I understand that this is not all the bill we are yet to see. I am advised that the government is preparing further amendments, and I have also noted the amendments filed by the Hon. Dennis Hood. In any event, on 5 June 2012 the Hon. Michael O'Brien introduced the bill into the House of Assembly. The bill is an omnibus bill to address a range of technical issues in a range of bills. I particularly wanted to highlight three categories. Firstly, I want to highlight changes to the District and Supreme Court rules.

The bill proposes to amend a number of pieces of legislation to reflect changes in terminology used in the District and Supreme courts, in particular changes to references to discovery, disclosure and taxation to adjudication. In the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act, the bill proposes to require the Minister for Correctional Services to take into account the likely impact a decision to vary or discharge a bond might have on a registered victim and where a victim impact statement is furnished to the court at sentencing.

The third element is in relation to automatic suppression orders. Amendments to the Evidence Act are proposed to rectify unforeseen consequences arising from the passage of the courts efficiency reform bill, which enables the Magistrates Court to sentence a person for major indictable offences when they plead guilty to those offences in the Magistrates Court. Section 71A of the Evidence Act provides that the name of a person charged with a major indictable sexual offence is automatically suppressed until the relevant date.

Currently, the relevant date is the date on which the defendant is committed for trial or sentence. As a result of the courts efficiency reforms legislation, the relevant date will never occur, as a defendant sentenced by the Magistrates Court will never be committed for trial and, as a result, their name would be suppressed indefinitely. The bill proposes to amend subsection 71A(5) of the Evidence Act so that the relevant date will become 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; that thereby prevents the automatic suppression order remaining in place indefinitely.

I note that, even after this amendment, the section continues the presumption on secrecy, rather than transparency. The amended section will continue to treat offences of a sexual nature differently from all other offences in South Australia by imposing an automatic suppression order. That further reinforces South Australia's reputation as the 'suppression city'. As this house well knows, the Liberal opposition opposes sexual offences being treated differently from other offences with respect to automatic suppression; nonetheless, the opposition will support the bill in this place.

As I said, I understand that both the government and the Hon. Dennis Hood have amendments to this bill, and we look forward to considering those amendments in the committee stage.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:33): The Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No. 3) Bill amends various statutes relating to law enforcement and the court system, being statutes committed to the Attorney-General and overseen by the Attorney-General. I will give only a brief overview of the changes encompassed in this bill, along with my comments on them.

Possibly the most significant change under this bill applies to the situation when the Minister for Correctional Services is considering varying or revoking a condition of a bond of a probationer or waiving the obligation of a probationer to comply any further with a condition requiring supervision. The amendment requires the minister to take into account the likely impact to the victim of the offence. It is important that such decisions do take into account the interest of victims, and Family First therefore supports this amendment.

The next issue concerns suppression orders under the Evidence Act. An anomaly has come to light under which the name of a person charged with a sexual offence will, in certain circumstances, remain suppressed even after a plea of guilty has been entered. Clearly this was never intended and will be corrected by this bill. Other amendments result from a change in terminology adopted by our courts.

The somewhat archaic term 'taxation of costs' has been replaced by the term 'adjudication of costs', in reference to the process of quantifying the amount of costs to which a party is entitled. It is appropriate that the more modern terminology now used by the courts should be reflected in the legislation. The same considerations apply to the term 'discovery of documents' which is now referred to in court rules as 'disclosure of documents'. The new terminology is more easily understood and it is appropriate that legislation is also brought up to date to reflect this.

There is one further matter that is not dealt with by this bill but which I wish to raise by way of amendment to the bill and, indeed, I have filed such amendments. Whilst I could defer my explanation of this until the committee stage, my comments below will be relatively brief and I believe it will assist everyone in understanding the amendments that I have filed.

In the past, it has been government policy that statistics are published as to the outcomes of criminal cases for various offences. This has been done by the Attorney-General's Department through the Office of Crime Statistics and Research. Until 2007, this office used to publish very useful statistics indicating the outcomes of criminal cases. I will give one example.

For offenders convicted in the Supreme or District courts in the 2007 calendar year of selling cannabis, for example, or possessing cannabis for sale, the statistics published indicate that, of 36 persons convicted in that year, four were fined, three were placed on a bond, 21 were given suspended sentences, and eight were given prison sentences that were not suspended. The average term of suspended sentences was 15.6 months and the average term of actual imprisonment was 22.3 months.

Corresponding statistics were published for a large range of offences including robbery with firearms, rape, attempted murder and assaulting police, to name just a few. These statistics give the public a good overview of the penalties that the courts are imposing on those convicted of various types of offences. The statistics covered the Supreme and District courts in one set and the Magistrates Court in another set. They covered rates of acquittal as well as sentencing outcomes. These statistics, for some unknown reason, have not been published at all since 2007. I am not aware of the reason for this at all. It is a great pity that they are no longer published. Whatever views might be held by members about law and order issues, I would hope that we could all agree that the best decisions are made where relevant information is in fact available.

When bills are introduced to parliament seeking to change the way the courts determine penalties, surely it is beneficial for members of parliament to have statistics available. The Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Suspended Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013, presently before this chamber, is one example of such a bill. My amendments to this bill would require the State Courts Administration Council to include in its annual reports statistics as required by regulation. Of course that would be determined by the government of the day. My intention is that the statistics should correspond with those that used to be published up to 2007, as I have just outlined. Some additional specific requirements are also listed in the amendment for members to see.

I will defer any further explanation until the committee stage of the debate but, regardless of the outcome of the amendment, Family First supports this bill. It corrects various anomalies and updates language to match current terminology used in the courts. However, I would say that I think this amendment is a very important amendment and we are very keen to see it succeed.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:38): I understand that there are no further second reading contributions to this bill. I would like to thank those honourable members who have made second reading contributions, particularly those who have indicated their support for this bill.

In providing a second reading summary, the Hon. Mr Hood has filed an amendment to this bill regarding the reporting of sentencing statistics in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report. The government has written to the Chief Justice to seek his view on the amendment and we hope to have a response to this issue shortly. We look forward to speaking with the Hon. Mr Hood on receipt of that response.

Members will also be aware that the government filed amendments to this bill, I think, yesterday. The amendments will require the consent of members to suspend standing orders so that they may be included in the bill. The government has made this unusual request in the interests of expediency. Should members be opposed to this approach, the government will look to introduce a bill with the same amendments.

Members will have received a letter from the Attorney-General setting out the purpose of the amendments and seeking comment. Similar letters were also sent to the Chief Justice, the Law Society, the Bar Association, the Australian Lawyers Alliance and the Legal Services Commission. The government looks forward to engaging with members and the profession should there be any queries about the amendments. It is for this reason that the committee stage will not be pursued until the next sitting week. I again thank members for their contribution and commend the bill to members.

Bill read a second time.

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