Page 1251 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Detail stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Capital Metro) (4.36): Pursuant to standing order 182A(b), I seek leave to move an amendment to this bill that is minor and technical in nature.
Leave granted.
MR CORBELL: I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the government’s amendment [see schedule 1 at page 1263].
This amendment proposes to insert new section 79F, “Miscellaneous”. The section provides that a statement about any matter that is made by or on behalf of the accused for the purposes of complying with the requirements of division 8.3 does not constitute an admission of that matter by the accused.
This amendment responds to comments that have been raised in stakeholder discussions about the rights of an accused in relation to evidence that may contain admissions by the accused. It is broadly in line with the comments made in scrutiny committee report No 29. The amendment is in exactly the same form as the equivalent provision in the New South Wales pre-trial disclosure provisions, section 149F(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 of New South Wales. Protection afforded the accused person by section 79F relates to a statement about a matter made by or on behalf of the person for the purposes of complying with division 8.3, pre-trial disclosure requirements, and to this provision alone.
The new provision does not prevent a statement recorded, and expert evidence, such as in a psychological report, from constituting an admission where the report is disclosed by the accused person, for the purposes of division 8.3, as expert evidence the accused person proposes to adduce. In this situation, the statement in the report has not been made for the purposes of complying with pre-trial disclosure requirements.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.38): As I indicated in the in-principle stage, the opposition will be supporting this amendment. It reflects concerns raised by the Bar Association. My understanding is that this clause was in the original draft but then at some stage was removed. It has been reinserted, and that gives some comfort, as I understand it, to the Bar Association and perhaps others. I do not think it would necessarily mean that they would then support the intent of this legislation, but it is an important addition, and I welcome the fact that the government has put this amendment before us. We will support it.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.39): On this amendment put forward by Mr Corbell, I would like to reflect on the impact that it has on the clause overall and state my views on the clause generally.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video