Page 809 - Week 03 - Thursday, 2 April 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
with the opposition? If it is cabinet-in-confidence, why are you telling the MBA about it? We just want some common sense here. We do not think it is too much to ask for ministers to pick up the phone and chat about some things. That is all we are asking for, and I thank the ministers that are doing that.
Mr Barr’s amendment to Mr Coe’s proposed amendment agreed to.
Mr Coe’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.47): I seek leave to move an amendment to this bill that has not been considered by the scrutiny committee and was not circulated pursuant to standing order 178A.
Leave granted.
MR HANSON: I move amendment No 1 that has been circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 821]. This is an important amendment, and in my previous speech I foreshadowed many of the aspects as to why that is the case. It goes to a fundamental right; that is, a trial by jury. The change that has been proposed by the government to the Supreme Court Act removes the right for a trial by jury regardless of the wishes of the accused, and that is a very significant step to take.
I accept that there are valid arguments on all sides of this, particularly to do with timeliness. The Attorney-General made that case both here in the chamber and in the discussions that we have had and that I have had with his staff. We have sought input from a wide range of stakeholders, and the views that we have received have been consistent and clear. While we all accept that there is a need for change, and that these are extraordinary times, the change that is proposed in this bill is a step too far.
Our amendment is intended to allow judge-only trials when appropriate, to retain the right of an accused, where necessary, and this remains consistent with New South Wales. There is also a provision which holds that, if a prosecutor does not agree to a judge-alone trial, the court must consider it to be in the interests of justice for a case to be tried by a judge alone. In all cases the court must be satisfied that the accused person has sought and received proper legal advice. This is an important distinction, in that a judge-alone trial may only proceed with the accused’s consent. It is a distinction that recognises that, even in extraordinary times, some rights should be protected.
I will outline the reasons why we have moved this amendment and the reasons that it should be supported. In the letter that I tabled earlier, and that has been received by the Attorney-General and Mr Rattenbury, the Law Society talked at length about the importance of this right. They state:
It must be understood that what is protected by the existence of jury trials is both actual justice for an accused and the perception of justice being administered. That both must be achieved is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video