Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7877] 
6.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has he received any recent expert legal opinion on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill; if so who was the author? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; I have seen a copy of a legal opinion prepared by Sir Geoffrey Palmer President of the Law Commission in response to the opinion of Peter McKenzie QC. 
Sue Bradford 
: What does Sir Geoffrey Palmer say about Gordon Copeland’s assertion that the amended bill would expose parents to the risk of prosecution if they placed their child on a naughty mat? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In the opinion I have seen Sir Geoffrey Palmer disagrees with Gordon Copeland’s assertion and states: “We disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.” 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does Sir Geoffrey conclude it is unlikely that parents would face prosecution and conviction if they placed their child on a naughty mat for time out and why does Sir Geoffrey think it highly unlikely that parents would ever be prosecuted for doing so? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Sir Geoffrey has noted that the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines require prosecutors to exercise their discretion and to assess the likelihood of achieving a conviction. He advises that even if there were a prosecution it is questionable whether in such cases—for example time-out cases—a jury could ever properly convict beyond reasonable doubt. That may tell against the likelihood of prosecution. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister seen the report from the Law Commission of November 2006 signed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the report signed by Peter McKenzie QC of March 2007 each of which states that parents cannot rely on a defence of corrective purpose when they take a child for time out and therefore that action will constitute an assault under the Crimes Act? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have seen the reports the member refers to. The pertinent point is that the police will continue to investigate cases where suspected child abuse takes place. They do so now and they will do so in the future. Basically that is not changing. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Law Commission conclude that it would be a good idea to further amend the bill in order to achieve a more robust exception for the time-out situation and does it express any reservations about pursuing such an amendment? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes it expresses reservations about pursuing such a course. Although the Law Commission understands there may be a good intention it points out very clearly that further amendments would in all likelihood have a perverse effect of exposing children to a greater degree of risk. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Law Commission report of 8 November 2006 which states in clause 12 that parents cannot rely upon a corrective purpose for their actions in reference to time out. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the report from Peter McKenzie QC dated 2 March 2007 which similarly concludes that a parent would be potentially subject to action under the Crimes Act for assaults in respect of time out. 
Document not tabled. 
Sue Bradford 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Sir Geoffrey Palmer President of the Law Commission dated 8 March 2007 which gives further opinion on this matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.