STURT STREET JUSTICE PRECINCT

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:24): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney explain to the parliament what is the nature of the criminal cases that will now be heard in the newly refurbished Sturt Street court, which he just described as 'many other matters'? The Attorney-General has already pointed out the criticisms raised by the Public Service Association—and, in particular, Mr Peter Christopher—with respect to security.

However, whilst he claims in his previous statement the support of the judiciary, Justice Trish Kelly adjourned the Carly Ryan murder trial most recently when defence counsel, supported by the prosecution, made that application on the basis that the courts were not fit for multiple defendant cases. The opposition also notes the government's intention to progress the many outstanding child sex abuse cases where the protection and privacy of witnesses and victims will be paramount.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is way beyond anything necessary to explain the question.

The SPEAKER: I think the member for Bragg's explanation is an example of my extending the same courtesy to members of the opposition in their explanations that I do to ministers. The Attorney-General.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:25): Mr Speaker, if the member for Bragg were to look over the cause list on the Courts Administration Authority's website on any particular day, she would see that the vast majority of criminal trials have single accused, not multiple accused.

Regarding sexual abuse cases, I do not know of any government that has tried harder to reform the law of sexual abuse and child sexual abuse. Members will recall that it was this government, in cooperation with Family First, that lifted the statute of limitations that prevented sexual abuse cases before 1 December 1982 even being the subject of charges. The Liberal Party wanted to keep that immunity for sex offenders. Indeed, I have the very document in which the attorney-general (Robert Lawson), in the blink of an eye, approved the continuation of that immunity. So, if Robert Lawson—who knows what he does these days to fill his day—had had his way, sex offenders before 1 December 1982 would have gone unpunished.

I am certain that many sex abuse cases will be transacted at the Sturt Street courts, and that justice will go swifter in South Australia because of the large amount of taxpayers' money that has been devoted to the police, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Services Commission, and the three extra judges recently appointed to the District Court by this government. I note that the member for Bragg was there for the swearing in of two of them, so I think it is all-round good news for the criminal justice system in this state.

It would be very disappointing to the member for Bragg that the Sturt Street courts cost taxpayers only about $3 million because, if the Liberal opposition had its way, it would build a Taj Mahal on Victoria Square costing between $100 million and $150 million for a new Supreme Court. That is the difference between the Rann government and the Liberal opposition. We are willing to invest in a modest court building—modest, but functional.