HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 March 2012.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:39): I rise briefly to indicate my support for the second reading of the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill 2012. The bill seeks to make minor miscellaneous amendments to various acts committed to the Attorney-General. Many of these enjoy widespread support, including by the Law Society, whose submission I have had the benefit of reading and, as such, I will concentrate my remarks today on those provisions I know to be contentious.

The first is the amendment to section 258BA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to serve on the defendant a notice to admit certain facts without leave of the court as is currently required. Whilst I note this idea has been previously raised and rejected by the Criminal Justice Ministerial Task Force and it also does not enjoy the support of the Law Society, having considered this, I am confident that little harm can result to the defendant other than in circumstances where a guilty defendant unreasonably lies in responding to the notice. Whilst I am not convinced that this will do much to expedite criminal trials overall, it will remove the requirement for what is, I am led to believe, an unnecessary directions hearing and, as such, it has my support.

The next contentious clause is the amendment to section 48 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 which seeks to make it a mandatory requirement for people under supervision to seek permission from the chief executive before leaving the state. Currently, this condition can be imposed but it is not required by the act. Whilst not opposed by the Law Society, the society does raise what I believe to be an interesting point: that, unlike people on bail or parolees, people on good behaviour bonds do not have an appeal mechanism if their application for permission to leave the state is denied.

The society recommends allowing the person under supervision to appeal to the court that issued the bond. Given that we have given an appeal mechanism to those who have served gaol time, prior to or during the committee stage I would like the minister to provide a response to the Law Society's point and answer why people on bonds are not afforded the same right.

I also understand that the Hon. Stephen Wade has an amendment to this clause which would have people on bonds apply to their community corrections officer instead of the chief executive for permission to leave the state. As I am yet to determine my position on this amendment, I ask the minister to clarify prior to the committee stage whether it is intended that, similar to the power centralised in the chief executive in the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, this power will be delegated back to the community corrections officer, or will it be delegated to another office holder or be retained by the chief executive? In the case of the latter, what extra knowledge or insight does the government believe the chief executive offers over a community corrections officer?

The final contentious clause is the proposed power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to delegate powers entrusted to him not only in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act but in any other act in which he is called upon. Further, the director will be able to delegate his statutory roles to anyone, not just a member of his office. An example would be under the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 (as was mentioned by the minister when introducing), where the Director of Public Prosecutions is entrusted with ensuring that an application for a warrant for listening devices is 'reasonably required'.

My reading of this is that the parliament clearly intended the Director of Public Prosecutions to play a supervisory role as a check and balance to police power. However, the bill would allow the director to delegate this power to anyone, including a police officer, or most likely the Police Commissioner, and in doing so undermine this parliament's intention.

I am aware that an amendment has been tabled by the Hon. Stephen Wade that would delete this proposed clause and, to aid in my consideration, I ask the minister to make clear to the council what other existing powers have been invested in the Director of Public Prosecutions, and to whom is it envisaged they will be delegated? With that, I am supportive of the majority of the bill and I look forward to the minister's responses to the questions I have asked

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

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