Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

As I have already indicated, the amendments in proposed subsections (2) to (5) are basically saying what is not sufficient. The case is quite explicit. It is not for a person to simply state if this is the case. All they are asking to do is rather than just simply saying, 'There is another person that may face charges or might have to give evidence in relation to a criminal trial at a future date,' these amendments have the effect of requiring a person seeking that stay to actually explain to the court the risk of the prejudice in the circumstances. But again, we have comfort from proposed section 319(1) that the final overarching discretion of the court is we rely on proposed section 319(1) to stay proceedings. As I indicated and you would know from the report, this area was covered significantly in evidence and in the report. I will not assert something I do not know, because I am not sure about the Australian Government Solicitor's report. I am not familiar with the legal advice, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that these would be matters that they would all have focused upon, and given the comfort that I am advised the government has from the advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, I would think that the advice I am provided with, the proposed subsections (2) to (5) limit but certainly do not remove the overarching discretion of the court under the proposal section 319(1) to stay proceedings. I hope that is clear.