Mr STIRLING - 2001-07-04
Eighteen months ago the Attorney-General received specific recommendations from the Law Reform Committee about how the courts should fast track the hearing of cases involving allegations of sexual assault. The Attorney-General told this Assembly in February that he has accepted advice from the courts that it would not be in the interest of justice for sex offence cases to be fast tracked and that such a move would cost too much. I ask the Attorney-General why dollars and the interest of offenders are put ahead of the interests of the victims, many of whom would benefit from these cases being fast tracked?
ANSWER
It is a strange question coming from a shadow Attorney-General and the party that would criticise any government that tried to direct a judiciary. As I explained ...
Members interjecting
Mr SPEAKER: Order.
Mr BURKE: Their suggestion and their motion essentially asked that government dictate those procedures.
What happened, as I explained in the House, was we made a reference because of government’s concern on the way sexual offences are dealt with to the Law Reform Commission. The Law Reform Commission came back with a series of recommendations. Prior to accepting all of those recommendations I sought advice, as I recall, from the Attorney-General’s Department, the Chief Magistrate, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Justice. It was their comments, in fact, that led to government deciding that not all of the recommendations could be implemented in their entirety. That is it in a nutshell essentially.
It is the subject of a motion this afternoon, in which I will go into more detail. But somehow to suggest that government was driven by dollars is absolute nonsense. Government was driven by the advice of learned members of the judiciary who should advise the Attorney-General on these issues, to provide a balance between the Law Reform Commission’s report and the opinion of those such as the Chief Magistrate, who are practising and have an opinion on these issues on a daily basis. It was as a result of that consultation that the amendments were made.
ANSWER
It is a strange question coming from a shadow Attorney-General and the party that would criticise any government that tried to direct a judiciary. As I explained ...
Members interjecting
Mr SPEAKER: Order.
Mr BURKE: Their suggestion and their motion essentially asked that government dictate those procedures.
What happened, as I explained in the House, was we made a reference because of government’s concern on the way sexual offences are dealt with to the Law Reform Commission. The Law Reform Commission came back with a series of recommendations. Prior to accepting all of those recommendations I sought advice, as I recall, from the Attorney-General’s Department, the Chief Magistrate, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Justice. It was their comments, in fact, that led to government deciding that not all of the recommendations could be implemented in their entirety. That is it in a nutshell essentially.
It is the subject of a motion this afternoon, in which I will go into more detail. But somehow to suggest that government was driven by dollars is absolute nonsense. Government was driven by the advice of learned members of the judiciary who should advise the Attorney-General on these issues, to provide a balance between the Law Reform Commission’s report and the opinion of those such as the Chief Magistrate, who are practising and have an opinion on these issues on a daily basis. It was as a result of that consultation that the amendments were made.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016