HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-11-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults Causing Death) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 September 2014.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (20:18): I will be reasonably brief. I am advised that the consistent advice received indicates no change to the criminal law is needed in relation to this matter. Currently, the maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. This is harsher than the Hon.  Mr  Brokenshire's proposed legislative amendments that provide for maximum penalties of 25 and 20 years respectively.

Informal advice received from the DPP indicates that manslaughter cases for one-punch deaths are quite straightforward and have not created problems for them. The government has already undertaken significant work to reduce alcohol-related violence and deter potential violent offenders. This includes the passage of suspended sentence legislation, setting out the persons convicted of manslaughter and who cause serious harm.

Offences that capture one-punch attacks can no longer receive a fully suspended sentence. Instead, these offenders must serve at least 20 per cent of their non-parole period in custody. The government has implemented controls on liquor sales, opening hours and tighter practices in the liquor industry. In addition, we have supported public education efforts in this space. For these reasons the government opposes the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (20:20): The Greens, too, will be opposing this bill, although in doing so we note what appears to be (although I have not seen the statistics to back this up) a disturbing increase in many of these violent crimes. The main reason for the Greens to oppose this particular bill is that it includes something that, on the conservative side of politics, has been very popular—and I refer to both the major parties in that description—of mandatory minimum sentencing.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Name it—where's your evidence?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Don't sidetrack the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No, I won't be distracted. I could talk about the Northern Territory, I could talk about Western Australia, I could talk about New South Wales, but I will not and I apologise to the house for being distracted by the 'ruly interjections'. This particular bill has a mandatory minimum sentence of not less than eight years for these fines. That infringes the principle that the judiciary should primarily be responsible for the determination of sentences. The role of parliament in setting maximum sentences is supported, but not mandatory minimum sentences.

So, the Greens in this instance, whilst we understand the seriousness of these crimes, I agree with the government that we have existing laws and penalties that can cope with it and really the challenge for society is not to pretend we are doing something by tinkering with the penalties but to attack these crimes at their source, and largely that will be behavioural change, which starts from the very youngest of ages, and works its way right through society. But, we will not be supporting this bill today.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (20:22): I rise to speak to the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults Causing Death) Amendment Bill 2014. I indicate at the outset that the opposition will not be supporting the bill. The bill amends the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and the Criminal Law Sentencing Act 1988, colloquially known as the 'one punch bill'. The bill provides for a mandatory sentence of eight years imprisonment for any offender who kills someone with a single punch, and prevents them from using drunkenness or being under the influence of drugs to obtain a reduced sentence. Effectively the bill provides that a sentence of eight years cannot be reduced or mitigated in any way whatsoever.

I note that the current legislation provides a penalty for up to 25 years imprisonment for these offences. However, presently there is no minimum mandatory sentence that must be imposed. The Hon. Rob Brokenshire in his second reading speech highlighted some high profile cases from around the country that involved one punch assaults that caused either death or serious injury. I understand that it is largely due to cases such as these that he has decided to introduce the bill currently before the chamber.

He said that he has based the bill on the broader legislation that has been passed in New South Wales, which requires mandatory imprisonment of eight years for the so-called coward punches, a 20-year maximum for anyone who unlawfully assaults another who dies as a result of the assault, and a minimum of eight years if the person was intoxicated by alcohol or drugs. I note that the bill before the chamber includes a provision that permits a defendant to be protected from the proposed mandatory sentence if they can prove that their intoxication was not self-induced.

However, the opposition is concerned with mandatory sentencing as a policy and that there has not been wide enough consultation with interested stakeholders on the bill. Further, we should take the time to see the impact of the government's recent changes to suspended sentences and the operation of the New South Wales laws before considering such a law in this state.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:24): I thank honourable members for their contributions. I will not have a go at individual parties. The consistency with the Greens I appreciate and respect, because they have a consistent pattern on this. It is the government in particular that I just find amazing, because—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well may they laugh. Well may the government laugh, but we actually have—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —a rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em approach to imprisonment, often for minor sentences, and often for things that could be addressed through an increase to James Nash House, or by a government that had a proactive intervention program or rehabilitation programs, etc. We do not have any of that, and that is now on the public record. In fact, I would say that the correctional services department in this state is in dismay. Its budget is a major problem, there is no capital works building program, and it is on the public record that there is no rehabilitation.

At least we knew where we were when the Hon. Mike Rann was premier and the Hon. Kevin Foley was treasurer: they were racking, packing and stacking, and they were actually focused on law and order. The reason why the former premier of New South Wales (who, in my opinion, did not deserve to have to resign) brought in a comprehensive package is because of left social ideology within the parliamentary and political systems in Australia. We are now way into the left in this state; in fact, the Premier is the leader of the left.

The reason the Hon. Barry O'Farrell actually brought in a comprehensive package is because the community of New South Wales demanded action on coward punches. What I find really interesting is that, because of tragic circumstances, we have a government that is actually putting money into education programs, but they do not have a holistic approach to the way they go about managing and combating what is now an increasing situation in this state, that is, coward punches and serious assaults.

I will just say a couple of things on this, because I think it is really the government that needs to understand more than anyone else, because they say, 'Trust us, we're the government, we know best' and that the rest of us do not know, but when you actually give them the opportunity to look at something that is reasonable—one tool to help police, to help the justice system, and to help send a message that we will not accept assaults and coward punches—what do we get from the government? 'Oh no, we can't do it.' Well, I do not believe the community are buying it.

A few weeks ago I met with the mother of a lovely young man from down in my own region, and she strongly supports this. I am not going to push the issue right now, because the parliament is about to be prorogued and I accept the fact that we are not going to get anywhere with the bill. Suffice to say that when Mr Weatherill and his party stop playing political games and we come back for 47 days next year, and we get over the fanfare and glorification with the horses and the police band, the army, navy and air force, the judges and all the other nonsense that goes with the opening ceremony, and actually get back into the business of trying to make this state a better place, an economically stronger place and a safer place, I will be bringing this bill back.

I will be bringing it back because if you talk to the police and those people on the front line they will tell you that they want every tool possible. We do not get it from this government. It is a lefty government, and why don't people wake up to that in this state? I do not know, sir, but I will tell you one thing: while I am in this house—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, I do not want to go home early on this, because I actually believe in a state that is safe and economically strong, and at the moment we have neither. Therefore, what I want to say to this government is: show some pattern and some consistency, or go to the people and say, 'No, it's all about lifestyle choices.' If your son or daughter happens to be involved in an incident where some drunk or some drug addict actually coward punches them and they die, then the government have to answer as to why they would not support this. No-one else has to, because no-one else is in government.

I accept the fact that at the moment I do not have the numbers, but I do say to the government that I will be bringing this back because the government does not have the answers, and the government is not serious about addressing this issues. Ask the parents and the young people in this state how safe they still feel out here. Sure, the 3 o'clock lockout actually did do some good and we supported that because the government wanted another tool and we gave them that tool, but when it comes to a serious tool, 'Oh, no, we are all scared of the criminal lawyers' and those who say 'No, no, no, you are the parliament, you legislate, but do not give us a minimum mandatory.'

I suggest to you that when people come over here from another state and get off sentences on the basis of technicalities because they were actually over here to get blind drunk, to actually go out and cause trouble and an individual loses their life in an incident at Glenelg—just as one example where I have met with the mother—I say to you, give the police the tools, give the courts the tools and send the message. Come over here to a so-called vibrant city. Come over here and have some fun. Let us enjoy Adelaide. It is a great city and a great state, but let us actually make the place safe because it is not at the moment. I say to the left of the Labor Party, you cannot have it both ways.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You use parliamentary privilege to defame those who are doing something about it. You come in here and use parliamentary privilege to defame those who are doing something about it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Who have I defamed?

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Who? The Premier? No, I have not defamed the Premier.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Point of order: interjections happen in this place, but the Hon. Mr Maher actually had his back turned to you and I think that is very disorderly.

The PRESIDENT: Try and remember to interject when you are facing me. I am sure the Hon. Mr Brokenshire does not get offended by a little bit of bantering.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: you cannot assume to know what any member in this place does or does not want in terms of banter and interjection. Perhaps you should have one rule for all.

The PRESIDENT: There should be, but the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is not frightened as he has bantered continually when other people have talked, so I think he can take a little bit himself.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: that was more than banter that he was being subjected to and if you paid more attention to the goings on in this council you would have a more orderly council.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: First of all, I did not defame anybody in the house today. I simply put the facts forward for the public record. I am not going to let the government off the hook. I have plenty of energy. I believe we need multifaceted tools to give to those in authority. We have a situation that you cannot sweep under the carpet and that is that we need to protect all the good people who want to go out there and have a bit of fun so they can get home safely. We will adjourn the debate on this. I thank all colleagues for their contributions and I look forward to taking it right up to this government because they deserve it.

Second reading negatived.

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