Page 841 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (12.19), in reply: It is gratifying that there is widespread support for this motion. I think it is unfortunate that the Government sees the necessity to add on an addendum that pats themselves on the head for a recent action in referring a matter to a law reform committee for further study and debate. That is a very short-term thing. The unanimous endorsement of this motion on its own would stand on the record of this Assembly for many, many years as the basis for action. In years to come this little addendum will clearly look inappropriate tacked on the end. If this area progresses with bipartisan support, we will have reports from this committee and legislation passed as a result of it, and it will look incongruous that the Government saw the need to tack this amendment on.
The Opposition is certainly not going to oppose the amendment. It would be churlish to do that. Indeed, we are pleased that this has gone to the Community Law Reform Committee. As I say, we will not be opposing the amendment, because that would be churlish; but I think the need to reassure themselves by tacking it on is itself rather churlish, and I am disappointed that that was necessary. It remains the case that this motion, which I hope will be unanimously passed, would not have seen the light of day but for this Labor Opposition putting it on the notice paper. Mr Stefaniak was berating Labor about being slow to join him on this issue, but I think the facts dictate otherwise. We have been looking at this sensitive issue for some time. We have been publicly in support of this since the middle of last year and, as a result of a lack of action from the government benches, we thought it was appropriate to put it on the notice paper.
I am pleased that Mr Stefaniak and the Attorney congratulate us for moving in that direction, but this should not be taken to mean that we are going to move in the general law and order direction that Mr Stefaniak might favour. Indeed, this approach - this recognition of victims' rights and a move towards a crime prevention strategy as has been endorsed by the South Australian Government and which works hand in glove with an acknowledgment of victims' rights - is often quite directly opposed to the sort of tougher sentences, more police power, "lock 'em up" approach of the knee-jerk so-called law and order lobby.
We certainly have no truck with those simplistic solutions; nor, I think, does VOCAL as a community group. I think they are well aware of the difficulties in this area. They will welcome this initiative, and we on this side of the house hope that the Government will act. It can certainly be assured of Labor's support if it brings in legislation which moves along in this direction of sensitive recognition of victims' rights. It can also be assured of piercing Labor scrutiny if it seeks to introduce any knee-jerk unnecessary law and order Bills for cheap
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .