Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister

I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave in response to oral question No. 8 this afternoon.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not.

I am obliged to my colleagues. Earlier this afternoon I was asked by the Hon Lianne Dalziel whether I knew whether the Attorney-General shared the concerns expressed by the judiciary about the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. In response I said: “My memory—and I stand to be corrected—is that the Attorney-General gave the bill a clear vet.” By way of clarification, I say that in respect of the issue of identification of issues in dispute—the subject of the primary question—the bill received a clean vet from the Attorney-General. However, the Attorney-General issued two section 7 reports: one relating specifically to the proposed jury trial threshold, and the other relating to three other proposals. Two of these proposals have since been amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee to address the concerns of the Attorney-General, and the third, concerning retrials, is pre-existing legislation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The House has accepted the Minister’s explanation.