HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-08-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Statutes Amendment (Victim Impact Statements) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 April 2024.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:13): I rise to make some remarks in support of this legislation which makes some changes to the very important provisions that exist for victims of crime to be able to make statements in our justice system.

The victim impact statement is, as I said, a very important part of our judicial system and is provided to the court after someone has been convicted of a crime and prior to sentencing, which provides the victim with an opportunity to state how the crime has had an impact on them. That could be in a range of ways, whether it is particular trauma, financial or a range of ways in which I think we could all appreciate that victims would be impacted by particular crimes.

No doubt it also serves as a very important opportunity for the victim to state their side of what has taken place, and provides an important piece of closure (for want of a better word) for them to at least feel as if they have participated in the court process. It is something that is highly valued, and I note that this legislation is supported by the former Commissioner for Victims' Rights, Bronwyn Killmier, and the current commissioner, Sarah Quick.

Provisions within the Sentencing Act, particularly at section 14, talk about victim impact statements. The legislation before us will do two significant things, and one is to ensure that the courts provide victims with an appropriate amount of time to be able to make victim impact statements. One can only imagine how a victim would feel if they did not have an adequate period of time to prepare something that they felt really explained, in their words, how they had been impacted by a crime.

The other thing is in relation to the language. That is something that has caused difficulties, and it has therefore been recommended that it be altered. It is in relation to the court's current practice, which is to be able to refuse irrelevant and/or inflammatory material and what might be considered highly subjective factual assertions and the like.

It seems that the consistency of support is with this, and I note particularly the correspondence we have received from the Law Society. There are two pieces of correspondence, and I am referring to their second version, dated 1 November 2023, where their Criminal Law Committee and also the Women Lawyers Committee had considered this bill. They stated that some members of the society's Criminal Law Committee felt that these provisions 'appear to be well thought out and reasonable'. They said:

Of particular note were the amendments dealing with irrelevant and/or inflammatory material, whereby the court can on application specify the material in the VIS not be read aloud in the court and accordingly exclude public access to that material.

With those few words, I indicate we will be supporting the passage of the legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:17): I rise today to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Victim Impact Statements) Bill 2024. I was very pleased to see this bill introduced by the government back in April, and for one reason in particular.

Earlier this year, I became aware of a loophole in the Sentencing Act 2017, a loophole that I do not think should have existed. It came about because the mother of a victim of a fatal car collision was not afforded the opportunity for her victim impact statement to be submitted to the court, or indeed be read in court. Today, I am seeking to amend our laws to prevent this from occurring again, to ensure that the rights of other families like Jason's are better protected.

I am humbled today to be speaking on their behalf. Madam Acting President, with your indulgence I would like to acknowledge the presence here today of Jason's mum, Jan, Jason's dad, Simon, Jason's younger brother, Wesley, and his partner Dannii, Jason's older sister, Jodi, and his Aunt Jo, as well as his long-time friend—and, I am told, Jason's favourite guy—Bruce. It is an entire family who have made their way from the Riverland today to be here on the eve of Jason's birthday to see our laws changed and hopefully spare other families their same pain and anguish and it is my sincere hope to get some semblance of closure.

We all know that nothing will bring Jason back and none of us can ease their pain, but we can do our level best in this place to make sure our laws are better in memory of Jason and in the hope of preventing other families sharing their same fate. We offer Jan and Simon and their family the opportunity to share this moment and Jan, in particular, to share her victim impact statement, which we know is such an important part of healing for families.

On 19 February 2022 at 7.20pm in the evening, then 27-year-old Rebecca Fronsko's vehicle collided with Jason Edwards' wheelchair on Brighton Road and ran him over. Sadly, tragically, Jason died and for whatever reason—and I do not intend to flesh out the particular circumstances of what happened in any detail today—the defendant was found guilty of one count of driving without due care and ultimately a fine was imposed of $350 plus the victims of crime levy and prosecution costs, which meant that in the eyes of the law the defendant did not cause Jason's death.

At sentencing in the Magistrates Court at Christies Beach in February this year, Jason's mum, Jeanette (Jan), was present and prepared with her victim impact statement in hand. She was denied the opportunity to read out that victim impact statement or to have it read on her behalf. Magistrate Shulz's reasons were as follows:

This is a difficult and sensitive matter.

I acknowledge that the family of Mr Jason Edwards has suffered an immeasurable loss and that it would assist them to read statements in court.

However, the Sentencing Act prescribes the circumstances in which the court has a discretion to allow Victim Impact Statements to either be submitted to the court or read in court by the victim or another person.

I find that the discretion to allow that to occur does not arise because, as submitted by defence counsel, there is no causative link between the injury and loss suffered by the victims and the offending that is before the court for determination.

So, while I appreciate it may be difficult for the family of Mr Edwards to hear, it is my understanding, as I have said, that the discretion to allow the Victim Impact Statements to be read does not arise and, therefore, the request by prosecution is declined.

The amendments that will be moved today will ensure that when a person has died—they have lost their lives—or suffered an injury resulting in total incapacity as a result of any conduct occurring in connection with the commission of an offence, the court may allow a victim impact statement to be provided. Today, I am humbled to read out that statement on Jan's behalf, and I quote:

I Jeanette Edwards request that the prosecutor present this Victim Impact Statement to the court on my behalf.

I am aware that the defendant may be given a copy of this statement to read.

I am making this statement to inform the court about how this crime has affected me.

Oh how I wish I wasn't here today but here I am.

Saturday 19th February 2022 at 10pm with the doorbell ringing, the world stopped.

A parent's nightmare began.

All you hear is white noise, you've just been told your son was killed at 7.20 earlier that night.

You drop to your knees and you hear your husband wailing, NO NO NO. It's all so surreal.

Jason Charles Edwards was the 7th person to lose his life on SA roads in 2022.

He was born fighting for his life on 28th August 1974 and we were unceremoniously informed that he may not live 3 days, as his spina bifida lesion was very large and very high on his spine.

If he lives, he will never walk, live in a wheelchair, have many challenges to overcome and be a burden to the family, that it would be better not to see him and bond with him.

What terrible news to be told after just giving birth to your first son.

None of that was on my agenda.

He spent the next 3 and a half months in the Children's hospital, North Adelaide undergoing treatment and 3 huge life-threatening operations, which he came through with flying colours, surprising everyone.

He came home two weeks before Christmas, and never looked back.

He thrived with the love and care of his family, and our wonderful friends.

He grew up as normally as an able-bodied child.

There were no CAN'T DO'S in this family. Positive and upwards and onwards.

It certainly was a huge challenge, many many operations, life-threatening medical problems, but everyone was overcome with honesty, positiveness, courage, toughness and trust.

He excelled at wheelchair sports in Track and Field, Basketball, and Rugby until he was 19.

He used to wheel 40 Kms from a friend's house in the Northern Suburbs to home in Brighton after staying overnight on a few occasions in his 20s and 30s.

His road awareness was second to none.

He had a mantra…'stupid car drivers are a danger to everyone'.

Now I cannot believe one killed him.

Two nights before his death, he and a mate had wheeled to the service station the exact same way, as he did hundreds of times.

To buy milk, coke and cigarettes.

His mate mentioned he always gave way to cars, with a wave and would say 'you're bigger than me, so you go'.

So what I say to you Rebecca Fronsko, is that your careless inattention and awareness of our surroundings was very poor, and you needlessly ran over my precious son, crushing the life from him and I relive these sickening last moments of pure hell of his screaming pain, in waves of anger and despair that explode, followed by helpless emptiness with tears running down my face that drop off my chin, many times a week.

He's gone, then reality appears, again.

Knowing you had no alcohol or drugs, weren't speeding or breaking laws, makes his death more senseless and cruel.

Jason was tough, strong, positive, tenacious, stubborn, kind, thoughtful, caring, super friendly and oh so loving.

He loved everybody and they him.

Loved going to the Blackwood Football Club, where his Dad was a life member.

We lived on the Murray at Blanchetown for 18 years and were the publicans of the Blanchetown Hotel, which his brother now is the Publican and some of his ashes are scattered in the front of the Hotel, where he loved visiting family and friends.

His nieces and nephews all went to Waikerie High School and played footy for Waikerie.

Loved to chat over a cigarette and a beer on the deck, loved hearing everyone's stories.

Ending a phone call was extremely hard, he would just think of something more to talk about.

He just simply loved life. He was on his way to have tea with mates at the Espy on that fateful night.

But most of all he loved and adored his family, His sister Jodi, brother Wes, Dad, nephews and nieces and extended family.

His bond and never-ending love and warmth for me I miss the most.

The pangs of separation, not seeing him, hearing him, wondering what he's up to, organising our next outing, planning his appointments, hearing what he is planning is enormous.

It's a huge empty hole in my life right now.

We spoke nearly every day, I visited him every time I was in Adelaide, I had joy in my heart every time I drove up from our home on Hindmarsh Island.

Now there is nothing.

The pain of his beloved V8 Supercars back in Adelaide, Collingwood winning the GF, Pink, FooFighters, Guns n Roses concerts, we went to everything together, the whole family.

I know you never meant to kill him Rebecca but you did and I can never forgive you for your inexcusable inattention and negligent capacity as a driver.

I do feel compassion that you and your family have to live with this tragedy for the rest of your lives too, but you still have a life to live and enjoy with loving family and friends, my son doesn't and nor do we.

All I have are his last words on the phone call to me an hour before he decided to go out.

He was just checking on me as we had been to the funeral of his Godmother, my long-time best friend from childhood the day before.

He hadn't made his mind up whether to stay home and watch the cricket or see mates at the Espy…'I love you Mum', I replied with a laugh, 'I know you do' he then said, 'and I love everything you do for me'.

I treasure those words so much.

Oh, how I wish he had stayed home and watched the cricket.

Our bond is now broken…

And in the blink of an eye, he was gone.

The sweet lady in the street around the corner from Brighton Road he chatted to on his journey, blames herself…if she had kept him talking a minute longer or let him go a minute sooner…

Signed, Jeanette Edwards. Tomorrow would have been Jason's 50th birthday, the big one, and we are, as I said, joined by his mum and dad and family today. I just hope that today does something to ease their pain, if only for a brief moment. Our laws cannot prevent every tragedy. They can, however, offer some justice to victims and their loved ones, and victim impact statements are part of the process for that very reason. These amendments will ensure the processes are available to parents like Jan and Simon.

I thank the Attorney for supporting these amendments to ensure the voices of families and loved ones are heard. Jason's case highlighted an inconsistency in how the existing provisions have been applied and interpreted since their inception. Many of you would recall Julie McIntyre and the death of her son, Lee. That is a matter I worked on, and it is for that reason that this case piqued my interest and attention.

At the time that case was progressing through the Magistrates Court, the death of another young man, who was also the subject of District Court proceedings, was taking place. Julie and Evie supported each other through their hearings. I attended those hearings with both families, and what became abundantly clear to all of us who were involved in those matters was the glaring difference between how victim impact statements and victims' families more generally are treated, depending on the jurisdiction and idiosyncrasies of the law.

We led a very public campaign. Julie did what no mother should have to do, highlighting the disparities, and we all thought that we had fixed that issue then through legislative reforms. So the first thing that struck me about Jason's case was that this should never have happened after those changes were made. I know that is of little comfort to Jason's family but, following today's amendments, further education of the judiciary would go a long way to ensuring correct interpretation going forward.

With those words, I wholeheartedly support this bill and thank Jason's family for their advocacy in Jason's honour. It never ceases to amaze me where loved ones find the strength to do what mums and dads, like Jan and Simon, and their families can do in the face of such unspeakable loss. I hope members do not mind me saying this, but I think I speak for all of us when I extend my sincere condolences to all of you and thank you for righting a wrong in our laws today and sparing any other family the same injustice that you have endured. Doing so on the eve of Jason's birthday and in memory of his life is a special moment that I hope will ease, as far as we can ease, such unspeakable loss for a family.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:33): I had not intended to rise to speak to this bill, but as a fellow Riverlander I feel compelled to rise briefly to echo the words of many of the members in this chamber in regard to the amendments in relation to the victim impact statements and to signal my support for this piece of legislation. I acknowledge in particular Jason's family for their bravery today: Jan, Simon and their wider family. Today's amendments will not bring Jason back, but I hope there is some small comfort for Jason's family, knowing that their strength, their courage and their advocacy will assist other families into the future to have a voice during that court process. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:34): I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. Before commenting on some of the elements of the bill, I also want to extend my condolences to the family of Jason Edwards, in particular his parents, Jan and Simon. The loss of a child is a truly horrendous thing. In fact, it is an inexplicable thing. I do not think there are any words, really, that that can be used to describe the pain that a family goes through in that circumstance, but I do extend our condolences to them for their horrendous loss.

I also want to acknowledge the Hon. Connie Bonaros for amplifying the family's voice in this place. I think that is really important. Through that example, I think the honourable member has actually demonstrated the power of victim impact statements, so I thank her for doing that.

This is an important reform because what it does is give victim survivors further rights in our legal system. It provides victim impact statements, and it ensures that these are provided in most circumstances. The Greens welcome this move. The Greens believe that the criminal justice system needs to be based on the principles of restorative justice and the rights of the victims and the accused.

Many victim survivors of crime see victim impact statements as part of the serving of justice. Indeed, victim impact statements are a crucial way to ensure victims have a voice and that their suffering is given appropriate weight in our judicial process. They put a human face onto legal proceedings that are by nature objective and often procedural.

Firsthand accounts that relate to the fear, suffering and disruption to life caused by crime can help deepen empathy and understanding of the ripple effects that cannot always easily be quantified. They remind us that criminal acts do not occur in a vacuum. They leave lasting impacts on individuals, families and communities.

South Australia has been a leader in including victims in our criminal justice system. In 1985, the United Nations made a declaration about integrating victims into the process. Following that, South Australia formulated and endorsed 17 principles of victims' rights. Principle No. 14 stated that the victim shall—and I quote from that document—'be entitled to have the full effects of the crime on him or her made known to the sentencing court'. In 1989, South Australian legislation came into effect, allowing statements that concerned the impact of the crime on the victim, making it the first jurisdiction in our country to do so. The other states implemented victim impact statements over the next 10 years.

This bill includes reforms that create further rights for victims. Currently, as the Hon. Connie Bonaros has outlined, victims are too often denied the right to a victim impact statement if there is an unexpected guilty plea or if expediency is prioritised by the courts. This bill corrects that to ensure the victim has a right to provide their impact statement.

The bill also ensures that there is sufficient time to provide a statement and that it can be presented in an unedited and unaltered form. It requires that victims are fully informed about their rights to make a statement. We in the Greens consider this to be a critical step, ensuring that victims are empowered in a system that can all too often feel overwhelming and alienating.

I note that there have been amendments filed to this bill by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Frank Pangallo. The Greens have considered these amendments carefully and sought feedback from stakeholders. I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Frank Pangallo, but we will be supporting the amendment being advanced by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and she has spoken a little bit about that in her remarks today.

Victim impact statements are a powerful reminder that behind every crime there are real people whose lives are thrown into turmoil through no fault of their own, and so the Greens support this bill and see it as an important part of supporting the rights of victims. It is certainly our hope that no other families will be denied the opportunity to have their statement read in court. I do hope that the fact that the law is changing will help families who confront the terrible circumstances that the Edwards family faced.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:39): I rise today to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Victim Impact Statements) Bill, a piece of legislation designed to enhance the rights of victims in our justice system. This bill recognises the profound right for victims to articulate in their own words the impact that crime has had on their lives physically, emotionally, financially and socially. The bill, based on the recommendations of key stakeholders, including the former Commissioner for Victims' Rights, is a step forward in reducing the procedural burden on victims, and ensuring their voices are heard without undue editing or censorship.

Today, I propose an amendment that I believe will refine this bill to better balance the rights of victims with the administration of justice. The amendment aims to support victims while ensuring the judiciary retains the necessary flexibility to manage court proceedings effectively. The core of the proposed amendment focuses on new section 16(1a) of the bill which mandates that courts must adjourn proceedings to allow victims a reasonable opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement or whenever a victim requests more time.

The bill also includes a carve-out provision in new section 16(1b) that allows courts to refuse such adjournments only for special reasons. While I wholeheartedly support the intent behind this provision to grant victims ample time to communicate their experiences, it is crucial that we do not undermine the judiciary's ability to manage its own proceedings effectively. It is the judiciary with its intimate knowledge of each case that is best positioned to determine when an adjournment is necessary and the length that is appropriate.

Our proposed amendment to new section 16(1a) seeks to introduce a more defined framework for adjournments by specifying 'a period of not more than 14 days or for a reasonable period determined by the court'. This change provides clarity and ensures that the adjournment period is balanced, giving victims time to prepare while preventing unnecessary delays.

Preventing extended delays is particularly important in the Magistrates Court, a court of summary jurisdiction, which is continually dealing with a high case load. I am informed that there are over 6,500 matters waiting to be determined by police as to whether they will charge the accused, and we do not need more delays. Furthermore, we propose changing the standard for refusing adjournments from 'special reasons' to 'sufficient reasons'. This adjustment strikes a more appropriate balance, allowing the court to retain its discretion and ensure that adjournments are granted in a fair and context-sensitive manner.

Victim impact statements often contain emotive and intense language as victims convey the depth of their suffering, which is understandable. While the DPP's guidelines advise victims that certain content may be rejected by the court, our amendment provides further clarity by making one key change. It inserts section 16(1d), which allows a court to refuse to receive a victim impact statement if the statement contains material that is threatening or otherwise unlawful. This ensures that statements remain within the bounds of legality while still reflecting the victim's experiences.

Resulting from this change is an amendment to 9C(b) of the Victims of Crime Act, updating the wording from 'will' to 'may' when informing the victim of the discretion the court has in receiving their victim impact statement. The amendments I propose are designed to achieve a delicate balance, empowering victims to have their voices heard without compromising the court's ability to fulfil its role in the administration of justice. By allowing the judiciary to retain control over adjournments and ensuring victim impact statements are both genuine and lawful we can support victims more effectively while maintaining the efficiency and fairness of our legal system.

I urge all members in this chamber and parliament across government, opposition and the crossbench to support this amendment. It as a practical, necessary adjustment to the bill that respects both the rights of victims and the foundational principles of our justice system. We cannot let people put threats and unlawful things on the public record, and police and the DPP can offer advice to victims in relation to the way these statements are made.

With those closing remarks, I commend my amendments to the Legislative Council. I am supportive of the bill and hope other members see the merit in supporting them.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:45): I would also like to share with other members my condolences for Jason and his family. As the Hon. Rob Simms has stated today, it is a big thing to share a story in this chamber, particularly because we know that those words will now be captured forever in Hansard, and nothing can take that away.

The experience of being a victim of crime can create lasting impacts upon an individual but also their family and their community. The impact can be wideranging. People who are affected by crime may experience trauma; feelings of anger or sadness; feelings of grief and loss, fear and anxiety, shock and disbelief, shame and guilt; and the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. Victims may also experience psychological responses to the experience. All of these can be experienced at once or at different times of the journey that follows the experience of becoming a victim of crime.

We know that the journey of healing for many can be a long one. These impacts can last for months or for years, and, indeed, for some people it may affect them for the remainder of their life. It is no small thing to have one's life impacted in such a way. For many it is permanent and life altering.

This bill proposes amendments to the Sentencing Act 2017 and the Victims of Crime Act 2001. The aim is to address concerns that have been put forward particularly by the former Commissioner for Victims' Rights in relation to the experience of victims during the sentencing process.

Victim impact statements offer an opportunity for a person who has become a victim of crime to provide the sentencing court with a personal statement about the impact on their lives of the injury, loss or damage they have suffered as a result of certain offences. Victim impact statements give people a chance to talk about their individual experience and the impact upon their lives that are associated with their experience as a victim of crime. They can explain how the crime has affected them physically, emotionally, socially and financially.

The victim impact statements are a significant part of having the opportunity to be heard, of having one's experience acknowledged and recognised. The opportunity to provide a victim impact statement can offer an important therapeutic value for victims as part of their journey of healing and recovery.

This bill aims to strengthen and expand the rights of victims to have their personal statements heard and considered. First, the bill provides that where a victim has not had a reasonable opportunity to provide a victim impact statement, or has requested more time to prepare it, sentencing proceedings can now be adjourned to give the victim a reasonable opportunity to prepare and provide their statement.

We have heard from the former Commissioner for Victims' Rights that victims can miss out on the opportunity to prepare and present victim impact statements in the circumstances where matters proceed to sentencing earlier than expected. Under current provisions the decision as to when to adjourn sentencing proceedings is at the discretion of the court. There are no specific factors that must be taken into consideration. The proposed changes are modelled after the provisions that are in place in the ACT.

The bill provides that the court may not refuse to receive victim impact statements on the basis of concerns around the inclusion of material that is irrelevant or inflammatory. Irrelevant or inflammatory materials can be taken into consideration for sentencing purposes. That is the case under the current provision, and it will remain unchanged after these amendments are made. Victims deserve the opportunity to have their complete say, and that is what this bill seeks to ensure can happen consistently.

Finally, the bill amends the Victims of Crime Act 2001 to ensure the right of victims to be informed, in relation to their entitlements to provide a victim impact statement, about the ways in which the court can have their statement heard. Importantly, these reforms are subject to two stages of consultation: firstly, with the discussion paper and, secondly, with the draft bill. The version of the bill we are now considering has been shaped by feedback that has come from those processes. I congratulate everyone involved in this process, and thank everyone who shared their stories in the development of this bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:50): I rise to speak in support of this bill. Before I start, I also acknowledge Jason Edwards and his family through the words of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, who spoke earlier about the tragic death of Jason. The Statutes Amendment (Victims Impact Statements) Bill 2024 makes amendments to the Sentencing Act 2017 and the Victims of Crime Act 2001. It is a bill that has been influenced and developed by feedback during two stages of consultation. It was especially shaped by concerns raised by the Commissioner for Victims' Rights (CVR) about the experience of victims.

The former Commissioner for Victims' Rights, Bronwyn Killmier, described how a victim can miss out on preparing a statement when matters in court proceed to sentencing earlier than expected, particularly in the Magistrates Court. At the moment, the decision to adjourn the court is a discretionary matter without any specific facts to consider when making such a decision.

The first part of the amendment addresses the need to provide the victim with enough time to provide a statement, and in incidents where a victim requests more time the court must, on application of the prosecutor, adjourn sentencing proceedings in order to give the victim time to prepare their statement. This is a significant improvement because it is well-known that victim impact statements can offer many benefits for victims and the criminal justice process as a whole.

These statements allow victims to share their experiences and describe how the crime impacted on them personally. The act of thinking through, writing down and delivering a victim impact statement can help victims process their trauma. It also acknowledges and validates a victim's suffering, and gives a formal recognition of their pain.

The second factor this bill clarifies is that the courts must not refuse a victim impact statement on the grounds that it contains irrelevant or inflammatory material. It is important to note that any type of material, whether it be inflammatory or irrelevant, cannot be taken into consideration for sentencing purposes.

Currently, courts have a discretion whether to accept a victim statement, so there is a risk that courts could refuse to accept a statement. The updated guidelines make it clear to prosecutors that they cannot edit or censor a victim impact statement in a way that goes against the victim's wishes, even if it contains information that is irrelevant to sentencing or contains insults or abusive language.

Finally, the bill amends the Victims of Crime Act to give victims clear information about their right to provide a victim impact statement as well as details about how the court may use their statement, including the circumstances in which the specific sections of their statement may be disregarded or not read aloud to the court.

In summary, this final part of the bill empowers the victim through a chance to focus on the expectation of managing their statement as well as any potential editing. A victim's impact statement can help to facilitate a restorative justice approach to criminal justice by giving the offender an opportunity to understand the full impact of their actions on another person's life. The inclusion of a victim impact statement in court proceedings can also contribute to a broader community healing by emphasising the consequences of criminal behaviour.

Consequently, this bill highlights two very important facts: the first is that a crime is not just a violation of the law but something that had a real and profound effect on another human being's life; and the second is a formal acknowledgement of the impact the crime had on the victim within a legal context, which can be important for a victim's sense of justice. I therefore commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:56): I rise briefly to support the Statutes Amendment (Victim Impact Statements) Bill and also the amendments from the Hon. Connie Bonaros. Victim impact statements are an important feature of the criminal justice system in South Australia. This bill intends to provide more acknowledgement, autonomy and privacy to victims who want to make a statement to the court.

The bill inserts new subsections 16(1a) and (1b) to ensure that victims who are entitled to provide a victim impact statement are given adequate opportunity to exercise that right. In subsection 16(1a), where the victim has not had a reasonable opportunity to provide a statement, the court must, by an application by the prosecutor, adjourn sentencing proceedings and provide the victim with the opportunity to prepare a statement. In 16(1b) the court can refuse adjournment only if special reasons exist to justify a refusal.

Insertion also of new section 9C to the Victims of Crime Act provides entitlement to victims to be informed about provision of victim impact statements and how the court will use the statement. Proposals that uphold the rights of the victims of crime should be supported.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:57): I thank all contributors to this bill. They have been incisive and heartfelt contributions about what is a really important aspect of our criminal justice system. There are many purposes of a criminal justice system, holding those who do wrong to account and looking at the rehabilitation of those who have done wrong back into society, but at the forefront of what we do in the criminal justice system is to take into account the victims of often very tragic crimes.

It has been one of my great privileges as Attorney-General to meet with families of victims who have struggled but have put forward ideas into the criminal justice system—the family of Sophia Naismith, who was killed so tragically by that Lamborghini, which resulted in very significant law reform; the family of Daniel Hind, Mindy and Phillip, who campaigned for and saw laws passed about the hiding of remains after a murder has been committed; people like Lynette Nitschke, who for 33 years next month has helped other victims of homicide navigate a very difficult system; and today, Jan and Simon and other friends of Jason Edwards.

It always amazes me and fills me with great hope when you see people who have turned what has been the single most tragic event in their lives into something that they give selflessly to help others who might go through the same thing. All of the people I have mentioned today have got nothing out in terms of their experience of the criminal justice system from their advocacy, but have done it in the hope that other people will find it a little bit easier than they found it. It is a remarkably selfless thing that so many families of victims go through in their advocacy.

I indicate, with the amendments that have been put forward, that we will be supporting the primary amendment of the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the two consequential amendments. When we get to those amendments I will be happy to explain a little more about why we will be doing that.

I think the Hon. Frank Pangallo has five amendments that have been put forward. We will not be supporting the first four: it is the government's view that in many ways they go against what we are trying to do in making sure that the victims are at the centre of the criminal justice system. I understand the motivation of the Hon. Frank Pangallo in terms of, as he said, balancing an efficient and effective criminal justice system, but we think we have the balance right in what we have put forward. There is a fifth amendment that changes the word 'may' to 'will' that is, in our view, a reasonable and sensible amendment, and we will be supporting that amendment.

With that, I thank all honourable members for their contributions, and look forward to the passage of this bill through the committee stage, surely.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

New clause 2A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, after line 8—Before clause 3 insert:

2A—Insertion of section 15A

After section 15 insert:

15A—Other impact statements

(1) If a person has died or suffered an injury resulting in total incapacity as a result of any conduct occurring in connection with the commission of an offence, the sentencing court may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, allow a person who has suffered injury, loss or damage from that death or injury to provide a written personal statement.

(2) Subsections (2) to (5) (inclusive) of section 14 apply to a statement provided under this section as if it were provided under that section.

(3) Nothing in this section requires the court to have regard to a statement provided under this section in determining sentence.

(4) For the purposes of this section, conduct will be taken to occur in connection with an offence if it occurs in circumstances arising out of the offence or as a result of any physical element of the offence or otherwise arises from any act or omission by the offender that is proximate to the offence.

I note that my further amendments, numbers 2 and 3, are consequential, so I will speak to them all together.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to incorporate other impact statements, and that is spelt out in terms of if a person has died or suffered an injury resulting in total incapacity as a result of any conduct occurring in connection with the commission of an offence, the sentencing court may, if it considers it appropriate, allow a person who has suffered injury, loss or damage from that death to provide their statement.

It goes on to provide that subsections (2) and (5) of section 14 apply to a statement provided under this section as if it were provided under that section, and that nothing in that section actually requires the court to have regard to a statement provided in determining sentencing. That is a critical element of that amendment.

Then we go on to actually define what the conduct is more broadly, to ensure that it is conduct that has occurred in connection with an offence if it occurs in circumstances arising out of the offence or as a result of any physical element of the offence, or otherwise arises from any act or omission by the offender that is proximate to the offence. It is broad, but there is still a discretion, and that is hugely important in terms of the way we draft this.

As I said during my second reading contribution, it seeks to address and provide further clarity around that discretion for judicial officers and ensure where statements can be read and, in effect, closes that loophole I referred to during my second reading contribution.

The interpretation applied in the case I have outlined today is not consistent with the interpretation that I think this parliament intended when these laws were last reformed. However, even in the absence of that, it provides further clarity and, importantly, a critical educational role.

The reality is that in lower jurisdictions—and we have heard from the former commissioner—it is chalk and cheese for victims and their families compared to higher jurisdictions. Most of these matters happen rather expeditiously through the Magistrates Court. It is a different jurisdiction. It is still important—hugely critical—that we do not treat victims as part of the run-of-the-mill cases, which typically happens in the Magistrates Court. You are there with every other person who is before the Magistrates Court that day and we need to do our best to make it easier, for instance, for magistrates to exercise their discretion, particularly without any unintended legal consequences.

I think we have captured that in this amendment well, especially in terms of determining sentencing, but, importantly, at the same time fostering the principles that underpin victim impact statements in the first place, something the remainder of the bill also seeks to address. With those words, I commend the amendments to the chamber.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that I will be supporting the amendment, but I just would like to say that it is disappointing that my office did not receive notice from Ms Bonaros or her office about this amendment. The first I have seen it is today, even though it was filed a month ago and my staff have been in attendance throughout the winter break, but I will just put it down to forgetfulness and we will support it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just by way of clarity, amendments are circulated to all members not by me but through the process that exists in this place. I did not personally hand-deliver one to the Greens or to the opposition or to the Labor Party or any other member because I do not need to; that is part of the process. Parliamentary counsel drafts, they are finalised and then, via the Clerk's office and the protocols that exist, they are circulated to honourable members and their staff respectively.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate, as I did in my second reading summing-up, that we will be supporting these amendments. It is likely that the effect of these amendments would only be used in limited circumstances where the court is not satisfied that the harm suffered by a person resulted from the offending but nonetheless it occurred in connection with the offence. This is a gap that we see in the law today and we thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing these amendments to the chamber. It is our view that the purpose of victim impact statements is not merely as a mechanism to inform the court's decision-making but is also an exceptionally important means by which victims are given a voice in the criminal justice system. The restorative and therapeutic value of victim impact statements should not be overlooked.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Just to ease the passage of the bill and to advise what the Liberal Party's position is on all the amendments, we will be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Ms Bonaros and we will have the same position as the government in that we will not be supporting the first four amendments of the Hon. Mr Pangallo, but we will support the fifth and commend the Hon. Ms Bonaros for discovering a gap in the law.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To assist you in gauging the position of the chamber, I will also indicate, as I did in my second reading, that we will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendments. We will not be supporting the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendments; however, I have heard the feedback of the government and the opposition in relation to amendment No. 5, so we will support that recognising that our position is immaterial in any case.

I do again want to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Connie Bonaros in amplifying the voice of the family in this. I do think it is really important when we are discussing the criminal law that we remember the human stories and it has been a very powerful example of the gap that exists within our law.

New clause inserted.

Clause 3.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, after line 15—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) Section 16(1)—delete 'or 15' and substitute:

, 15 or 15A

Both of these subsequent amendments are consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In light of the fact that members have indicated they will not be supporting my first four amendments, I will not be moving any of those four amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 3, after line 6—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Section 16(3)—delete 'or 15' and substitute:

, 15 or 15A

Again, this is a consequential amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, line 16 [clause 4, inserted section 9C(b)]—Delete 'will' and substitute 'may'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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