DOCSLIB.ORG

Legislative Assembly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

13971 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 30 May 2001 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXISTING LIFE SENTENCES) BILL Bill introduced and read a first time. Second Reading Mr CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [10.00 a.m.]: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Last Friday I announced that the Government would introduce legislation to protect the community forever from Baker, Crump and other never-to-be-released prisoners. That includes the killers of Anita Cobby and Janine Balding. The bill was approved by Cabinet in October last year—which should be borne in mind—though I was not able to announce it because of Supreme Court proceedings concerning Baker. On Friday Justice Greg James refused to redetermine Baker's sentence, which means I can at last introduce this bill and refer to it. In doing so, I keep the commitment I gave to Brian Morse in 1997 that I would do all in my legal power to protect the community and keep Baker and Crump in gaol. This bill is needed because of deficiencies in the "truth in sentencing" legislation introduced by the former Coalition Government. That legislation permits those offenders sentenced to life imprisonment before its introduction to apply to the Supreme Court for a redetermination of their sentences. The Supreme Court can replace a life sentence with a sentence for a fixed term. It can also set a non- parole period after the expiry of which the Parole Board could grant parole. In 1997 this Government introduced the toughest sentencing laws in the history of the New South Wales Parliament. I refer to the Sentencing Legislation Further Amendment Act 1997, which requires the Supreme Court, in hearing an application for a redetermination, to have regard to, and give substantial weight to, the recommendations, observations and comments made by the original sentencing judge. This bill will tighten the law even further. This bill will remove the ability of the Supreme Court to set a fixed period of sentence for a non-release offender. The Supreme Court will continue to be able to set a non-parole period or minimum sentence. It will no longer be able to set a fixed period or maximum sentence. This means that a non-release offender will never be released from custody unless a parole order is granted. Currently a non-release offender may apply for a redetermination of sentence after serving 20 years of his or her sentence. This bill will require a non-release offender to serve at least 30 years before applying for a redetermination. Currently the legislation defines a non-release recommendation to mean a recommendation or observation, or an expression of opinion by the sentencing court that, or to the effect that, the offender should never be released from imprisonment. This bill expands the definition of "sentencing court". This will make it clear that the non-release recommendation provisions apply, whether or not the non-release recommendation was made by the original sentencing court or by another court on appeal or on a retrial. This bill provides that the Parole Board may release a non-release offender on parole if, and only if, three conditions are met. First, the Parole Board must be satisfied, on the basis of a report prepared by the chief executive officer of the Corrections Health Service, that the non-release offender is in imminent danger of dying or is incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person. Second, the Parole Board must be satisfied, on the basis of a report prepared by the chief executive officer of the Corrections Health Service, that the non-release offender has demonstrated that he or she does not pose a risk to the community. That is in addition to the first provision. The prisoner has got to be in imminent danger of dying and the Parole Board must be satisfied that the prisoner does not pose a risk. Third, the Parole Board must be further satisfied that, because the first two conditions are met, the making of a parole order is justified. 13972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 30 May 2001 These changes mean Baker, Crump and the other never-to-be-released prisoners can only ever be released on their death beds or be so incapacitated that they would pose a threat to nobody. It means that the community is protected from these killers forever. The bill also removes the right of non-release offenders to be automatically considered for parole. Currently the Parole Board is required to consider whether or not a serious offender should be released on parole on an annual basis, once the offender becomes eligible for parole. This bill will ensure that non-release offenders who have had their sentences redetermined are not entitled to any automatic consideration for parole. On a number of occasions the Government has refused to debate the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. In August last year Government members combined with members of the cross bench to defeat this legislation introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council. The Government refused to debate the Opposition's bill in this Chamber because of legal advice from the Attorney General's Department to the effect that any debate might have on Mr Baker's application for redetermination of his sentence. On 27 June last year the Attorney General's Department advised: A real danger exists that any debate or statements made about the hearing could and would be regarded as an attempt to influence Justice James in his decision … If he did not adjourn— I interpose that it was a possibility that he would adjourn— then there is a danger that Baker, if the court were to hold against him, would be handed grounds of appeal on a plate. We did not want that to happen, not the least because of what it would have put Mr Morse through. My staff showed that advice to members of the Opposition before they introduced their bill. They chose to ignore that advice for short-term political gain. The Government and I were not prepared to take that risk. The Supreme Court hearing had to be allowed to take its course. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to participate in the debate at the appropriate time. Mr CARR: This is a very technical and difficult area of the law. The High Court has struck down legislation in this area in the past. We have an obligation to make sure that we get it right. I do not want the families of these victims to suffer. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. Mr CARR: They will suffer further if they are given false hope by legislation that is struck down by the High Court. By changing the criteria for parole— Mrs Chikarovski: Point of order— Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Leader of the Opposition continues to interrupt I will not give her the call when she seeks to take a point of order. Mrs Chikarovski: Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask the Premier to refer to his own press release in which he talks about his own legislation being referred to the High Court. Why is it good enough for his legislation and not for ours? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. Mr CARR: Oppositions can say anything. Governments are always speaking officially, and they have to take legal advice because the comments of the Premier or an Attorney General can end up being the grounds for an appeal to the High Court in a matter like this. I say it again: Families would be forced to suffer further if they are given false hope by legislation that is ultimately struck down by the High Court. Changes to the criteria for parole are very deliberate. By changing the criteria for parole the legislation catches Crump, whose sentence has already been redetermined and who is eligible for parole in 2003. By focusing on parole we avoid constitutional problems. The Parole Board is not a court. Parole is an Executive function. Changes to the parole rules do not affect judicial functions or judicial independence. This approach has been confirmed and endorsed by the Solicitor General. In October last year the Solicitor General provided the following advice: 30 May 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13973 In my view, there is no reason to doubt the capacity of the New South Wales Parliament to prescribe the matters on which the Parole Board must be satisfied before it directs the release of an offender on parole. In other words, Parliament can direct the Parole Board. The advice continued: It has done so, of course, since the Parole Board was established by the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1950. Accordingly, there is no legal basis, in my opinion, on which the validity of the proposed S154A might be challenged. That is our advice in October from the Solicitor General on this question of the validity of our approach, that is, determining what the Parole Board can consider and what the Parole Board can do. The Solicitor General's advice, therefore, makes it clear that the bill is within the Parliament's power. I seek leave to table this advice. Leave granted.
Recommended publications
  • Thesis August

    Thesis August

    Chapter 1 Introduction Section 1.1: ‘A fit place for women’? Section 1.2: Problems of sex, gender and parliament Section 1.3: Gender and the Parliament, 1995-1999 Section 1.4: Expectations on female MPs Section 1.5: Outline of the thesis Section 1.1: ‘A fit place for women’? The Sydney Morning Herald of 27 August 1925 reported the first speech given by a female Member of Parliament (hereafter MP) in New South Wales. In the Legislative Assembly on the previous day, Millicent Preston-Stanley, Nationalist Party Member for the Eastern Suburbs, created history. According to the Herald: ‘Miss Stanley proceeded to illumine the House with a few little shafts of humour. “For many years”, she said, “I have in this House looked down upon honourable members from above. And I have wondered how so many old women have managed to get here - not only to get here, but to stay here”. The Herald continued: ‘The House figuratively rocked with laughter. Miss Stanley hastened to explain herself. “I am referring”, she said amidst further laughter, “not to the physical age of the old gentlemen in question, but to their mental age, and to that obvious vacuity of mind which characterises the old gentlemen to whom I have referred”. Members obviously could not afford to manifest any deep sense of injury because of a woman’s banter. They laughed instead’. Preston-Stanley’s speech marks an important point in gender politics. It introduced female participation in the Twenty-seventh Parliament. It stands chronologically midway between the introduction of responsible government in the 1850s and the Fifty-first Parliament elected in March 1995.
  • Legislative Assembly

    Legislative Assembly

    4794 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thursday 23 November 2006 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of country. SEASONAL FELICITATIONS Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [10.00 a.m.]: I move: That the House take note of Christmas felicitations. Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish you and yours the very best for this festive season and thank you for your efforts in the Chair. I have said this to you privately and I say it now in the House that I believe yours is sometimes a very lonely task and a very challenging task in keeping the Opposition—and, from time to time, the Government—in some sense of order. I am confident I can say on this occasion on behalf of the whole House that we appreciate your efforts in your role as Speaker. Honourable members know that my appointment as Leader of the House has been recent and, to this point, brief. I appreciate the support and encouragement that many people have given me, but none more so than the Government Whips, Gerard Martin and Alan Ashton. They have supported me in my role as Leader of the House and they have worked very hard throughout the year on behalf of the Government to make sure members understand the time constraints and issues in the House.
  • Report on Inquiry Into the Pecuniary Interest Register

    Report on Inquiry Into the Pecuniary Interest Register

    LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL PARLIAMENTARY PAPER NUMBER 320 Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics Report on inquiry into the Pecuniary Interests Register Supplementary Returns Ordered to be printed 4 December 2002 Report 21 - December 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Report on inquiry into the Pecuniary Interests Register Supplementary Returns New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. Report on inquiry into the Pecuniary Interests Register : supplementary returns / Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. [Sydney, N.S.W.] : The Committee, 2002. – x p. 19; 30 cm. (Report 21, December 2002 / Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics) (Parliamentary paper ; no. 320) Chair: Helen Sham-Ho. “Ordered to be printed 4 December 2002”. ISBN 0958128936 1. New South Wales. Parliament 2. Legislators—New South Wales. 3. Financial disclosure—New South Wales. 4. Conflict of interests—New South Wales. I. Title II. Sham-Ho, Helen. III. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. Report ; 21 IV. Series: Parliamentary paper (New South Wales. Parliament) ; 320 328.944 (DDC21) ii Report 21 - December 2002 STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND ETHICS How to contact the committee Members of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics can be contacted through the Committee
  • Claiming Inheritance

    Claiming Inheritance

    Claiming Inheritance Aboriginal People, Native Title and Cultural Heritage: a Story from Dubbo, New South Wales Helena Onnudottir A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Anthropology Macquarie University August 2001 ♦ ■HaJk. m MACQUARIE HIGHER DEGREE THESIS AUTHOR’S CONSENT (DOCTORAL) This is to certify that I, ....(D.yvyo.V*.$.£} .V^.Y f............. ............ being a candidate for the degree of Doctor of ..................... am aware of the policy of the University relating to the retention and use of higher degree theses as contained in the University’s Doctoral Rules generally, and in particular Rule 7(10). In the light of this policy and the policy of the above Rules, I agree to allow a copy of my thesis to be deposited in the University Library for consultation, loan and photocopying forthwith. i V y Signature of Witness Signature of Candidate Dated this day of.....t / ? . 200 J This is to certify that I, Helena Onnudottir, have not submitted this work for a higher degree at any other university or institution and that all my sources of information have been acknowledged in the bibliography... n.*... .0.^^.?.¥>'.< ............... Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction p. 1 1) 'Nothing of Interest' p. 1 2) Methodology: Implications, Explanations and Definitions p. 7 Chapter Two: Native Title: A Brief Overview p. 19 1) W hat is Native Title? p. 19 2) The Emerging Picture p. 30 3) On Aboriginal Land Ownership p. 42 Chapter Three: The Most Studied People on Earth? The Anthropology of New South Wales p.
  • Vol. 5 No. 6 August 1995

    Vol. 5 No. 6 August 1995

    Vol. 5 No. 6 August 1995 $5.00 New/ Dale Spender's The Soul of Politics Nattering on the Net: Author Tour Jim Wallis, one of the leading Women, Power Christian activists of our time, raises & Cyberspace his voice agai nst the oppression of the weak by the powerful , in his first Is it true that women use technology book for several years, The Soul but men fall in love with it? of Politics. Dale Spender promises to change Responding to signs of cultural the way we think about computers. breakdown in Western societies such ISB N 1 B75559 09 4 pb $24.95 as poverty, racism, violence, sexism , and the absence of community, Wallis shows why both left and right visions • ANTI - NUCLEAR POLITICS are inadequate to the challenge of our major social problems. Daughters of the Pacific A sharp rem inder of the reality behind the deterioration of Zohl de lshtar politics on a global scale, Th e Soul of Politics generates opportunity where there is otherwise crisis. This book breaks the pattern of silence and disin­ formation about the nuclear industry, tourism and other Jim Wallis will be touring Australia on the following dates: political issues that threaten an area covering one-third of Sydney 16- 2l August (Con tact Denis Doherty 02-267-2772) Perth 21 - 24 August (Contact Philip Matthew 09-458-1618) our planet- home to almost six million indigenous people. Melbourne24- 30August (Contact Michael Henry 03-467-1777) ISBN 1 B75559 32 9 pb $24.95 Canberra 30 August The Soul of Politics 0006279384 $22.95 JJPINIFEX is available from SMALL PRESS, BIG ACHIEVER :=: HarperCollinsReligious Tel.