Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 15 February 2012.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): I will continue on in terms of the court system. I must say that, based on my experience, I do not have a lot of confidence in our judicial system. I am talking about the need for magistrates, when they are selected, to be carefully selected. I do not believe the current arrangements are adequate or appropriate, and there needs to be proper training once magistrates are in place.

I go back to my situation, because it is the only one I am familiar with. Before I attended the court, a former senior police officer said, 'You won't win because that magistrate hunts with the other side.' They were his exact words. He is a very prominent member in the Lions Club movement, an honest and decent police officer, and that is what he said to me: 'You won't win because that magistrate (Joanne Tracey) hunts with the other side.'

That is a pretty outrageous thing for someone to suggest, but the point is that, in South Australia, we do not have a judicial commission to review the behaviour of magistrates and judges as they do in New South Wales. Members might recall that recently magistrate Pat O'Shane in New South Wales was called before that body to explain her behaviour in refusing to hear evidence from ambulance officers in a case where, allegedly, someone spat on the officer and assaulted that officer.

In terms of the appeal system we have here, I believe that federally it has been suggested that the courts should be able to admit new evidence. That is a bit of a two-edged sword, but I think it needs to be considered. What I find unsatisfactory is that we have a system where dodgy documents can be submitted and the court will accept them, where certificates have been whited out in part, written and changed with a biro, and the Magistrates Court will accept that as a legitimate certificate and so will the Full Court. I must say that I do not have a lot of confidence in the system here.

Moving on to other issues, I notice that the young lad from Callington was sentenced yesterday to 15 years nonparole. The question I think we should all ask is: how is it that at the age of 14 we have someone committing a crime as serious as that? The lad would not have been born a criminal; he has been turned into a criminal by society. I will not go into a lot of the personal details relating to him, but apparently he was suspended from school on the day of the offence, which highlights a policy of the department I have been critical of for a long time, that is, suspending students who are causing trouble at school and who are then out in the community causing more trouble. It is not good enough.

You cannot just release someone out in the community, particularly when there are not parents at home. As a society (and I mentioned this earlier in my speech), we need to take a more interventionist approach to ensure that, for young people who are put at risk because of their upbringing, the processes at home, that is, being subjected to a constant diet of violence and so on, do not continue. While I am not taking away responsibility from the lad, I think society has a lot to answer for in allowing a lad to go through the experiences he did, which resulted in the tragic death of a lady at Callington.

Just changing direction, in terms of the Burnside inquiry, I believe that should be released. The judge did not rule that it should not be released at all—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: What the judge said was that it could be reworked—I am paraphrasing—or parts of it could be left out. So, there is no excuse for not releasing that report. I understand there are recommendations for many criminal prosecutions in that report. One would have to wonder why it continues to be suppressed and why the government will not release it. It should be released. While it stays suppressed, there will be a lot of suspicion in the minds of the public.

In relation to the Arkaroola compensation, that was completely unnecessary. I do not believe Marathon Resources was genuinely in the search for uranium there. Experts have told me that CRA had investigated that area 20 to 30 years ago, that uranium of any substantial quantity had leached out and that where it is now is where it is being extracted through a leaching process on the plains surrounding Arkaroola. I do not understand why the government is paying money out when it does not have to and when we have so many things in the community that need financial support.

I understand the government is going to bring in an ICAC package soon. I hope to see it. I hope it is comprehensive. We certainly need it. We are the only state that does not have a body the police answer to. Theoretically, they answer to a minister but, when you look at some of the ministers we have had in the past, that is not worth the paper it is written on. They have not been accountable to anyone.

Likewise, the Police Complaints Authority—and I have raised this issue before and I raise it again—should be abolished, as should the Anti-Corruption Branch, and replaced by a genuinely independent group that can investigate not only police but other matters impartially and effectively. That is not happening at the moment.

Modern technology has provided us now with pilotless aircraft (unfortunately used mainly in modern warfare) which are readily available. I suggest that they be considered for use as fire spotters. They can be flown at relatively little cost over fire-prone areas, and immediately they detect smoke or fire they can report that back. I would urge the government here to have a look at the technology available in those pilotless drones to see whether there is an effective and useful role for them in helping to detect fires before they get out of hand.

Another matter, which may not seem top of the list, relates to the lack of toilet facilities in the metropolitan area. In particular, the new railway stations that have been built and are being built do not have any toilet facilities, and I think it is disgraceful. I have had women say to me that they have had to squat by the railway line or somewhere because there is no toilet facility.

I do not think we should give way to vandals. It is possible to design toilets that are relatively vandal proof. In particular, we can use those new electronically-controlled toilets. I think it is outrageous that in stations like Oaklands Park, Mawson Lakes or any of the other stations there are no toilet or baby-changing facilities. In a civilised society, if you want people to wait and catch a train, you would expect that they would at least be able to go to a toilet. As members will—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Who is going to look after these facilities?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, we've got plenty of people. We have got unemployed people we can employ to look after these things.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So they should be staffed?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, you do not need anyone in them. We are an affluent community. If you go to Holland, they have people working at railway stations. They give jobs to people. We used to have attendants at railway stations. I do not say we need someone to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's going to have to be three eight-hour shifts.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fisher, if you would like to finish off, I will give you a few moments because you did get an interruption.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: You do not need to have someone there with the new electronic toilets. I do not know where the member for Croydon has been—he's been on his bike too long, I think—but we have electronic toilets in the city. With the electronic toilets, which are self-cleaning, you do not need to have someone in the toilet. I do not want someone in the toilet when I go to one either. I think it is a basic, fundamental thing—not only toilet facilities but places where people can change babies' nappies and so on. Let us get civilised and let the transport system provide.