SUPREME COURT FACILITIES

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:36): I move:

That this house calls on the state government to provide a modern building or buildings for use by the Supreme Court.

On 23 February, MPs were invited to tour the Supreme Court and many took that opportunity. Some people would say, 'The judges want to get a fancy new building or a new premises and that walk-around was an attempt to soften us up.' Any fair-minded person would say that the facilities and infrastructure, in particular of the Supreme Court, are not up to the standard that they should be.

People say it is not a top priority; I think it is a priority. A building should convey the importance of the functions that are contained in it. We could have parliament in a tent but I do not think it would indicate to the community that what we do here is all that significant. Those of us who went on the tour found that not only in the old Supreme Court building on the corner of Gouger and King William Streets but in the temporary (I will call them) upgraded facilities in Sturt Street there is a lot of work that needs to be done.

One thing that I inquired about was the wonderful new building that we have across the way, provided out of our taxes, the Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts Building at 3 Angas Street. I asked, 'Is that building fully utilised?' It is not under the control of the state government. I was told, 'No, it is not,' but there is a problem with using vacant courtrooms and other facilities because whoever administers them can never indicate when they will have a courtroom free.

That is not the solution to the problem but it could help in the short term. The solution may be better coordination and a willingness by the Federal Court administration to allow state courts to utilise any under-utilised courtrooms in that building.

I will point out some of the deficiencies of the Supreme Court building at 1 Gouger Street. Criminal trials cannot be held in that building if the accused or convicted person is being held in custody as there are no facilities to contain prisoners. Jurors cannot hear what is said at the Sturt Street courts when it is raining due to the poor noise insulation. That does pose a problem if you cannot hear what is being said in the court. It might work in your favour. It did not rain on the day that I appeared in the Magistrate's Court, unfortunately.

In Sturt Street the jury in one deliberation room can hear what is being said in the court room if they listen hard enough. That comes down to the integrity and commitment of jurors, but it is not satisfactory if the jury in one of the rooms can listen in to what is happening in court.

Some judges are a bit like some politicians. We can get a bit carried away with our importance—and judges are important—but what is more relevant is that they are exposed to security risks when walking to other courts to hear cases. There is a chance that they can encounter the defendant, friends and family of the defendant or victim and witnesses in the street. At Sturt Street the risk is compounded because judges use the same entrance as prisoners.

Our tour was quite surreal. We met afterwards with the judges—there was Justice Chris Kourakis, the Chief Justice, and others—and we all shared some drinks and nibbles. Justice Timothy Anderson, who heard the appeal in the Supreme Court said, 'We meet again.' It is a serious issue at Sturt Street that, as I said, judges use the same entrance as prisoners.

In hot weather and wet weather it is difficult for judges and their staff to make their way through foot and road traffic and across busy streets, all the while carrying their robes, files and papers, as they move to and from Sturt Street to the Supreme Court and the Sir Samuel Way building. There is no point of entry security X-ray or search security at the Supreme Court entrance into courts one and two. Except for court 12 there is no court with access for disabled persons who are members of the public.

Members would have noticed that the Chief Justice, on his holiday in France I think, broke his leg, or some other part of his body. He found that he did not have ease of access to the Supreme Court himself, because it does not cater for people in a wheelchair or with a serious disability. There is no court room in the Supreme Court that has access for a disabled justice to get onto the bench to sit and hear cases, so we still have a long way to go.

As I mentioned yesterday, in relation to the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the trials and tribulations in her trying to get around this place just show what challenges people with a disability face. I think that is an important issue.

Judges' chambers in an old temporary building, erected in the 1960s, are small and cramped and have inadequate facilities. Staff must be located in rooms which are not adjacent to the judge, which is obviously inefficient use of staff time. In the Supreme Court some courtrooms, such as four and five, are cramped and in need of major refurbishment.

You would not want to suffer from claustrophobia when you are in some of the courtrooms there. That is my defence as to why I cannot be sent to prison, because I suffer from claustrophobia and could not be detained in a cell, because I would find it very uncomfortable.

In the Supreme Court (1 Gouger Street) there are no rooms for counsel to interview witnesses or to speak confidentially with clients during hearings. Toilets for Supreme Court staff, counsel and members of the public are grossly inadequate and antiquated. To access the toilets a person has to leave and re-enter the building and walk in the rain or heat. There are not enough toilets. It is a bit like parliament prior to some changes 10 or 12 years ago. There were only one or two toilets for women in this place. That has now been rectified.

The registry office and the Probate Registry are in poor condition, with cracks in holes in the wall covered by A4 sheets of office paper to prevent dust falling onto desks. I do not believe I am going to be left any money by anyone, but I would not want a will that allocates a couple of million to me damaged as a result of the registry office and probate office getting dust on the key words that allocate me several million dollars.

Courts 1 and 2 have problems with acoustics, and the courtrooms lack what would be considered as contemporary audiovisual facilities. We know that with modern technology, with video links and so on, you can have a much more efficient and effective system. Sometimes it is appropriate for various reasons not to have the person in the actual courtroom, but technology is changing and these buildings are not equipped to deal with it. It is very difficult to provide efficient air conditioning and computer cabling because it is a Victorian era building. We love the heritage of it but, like Old Parliament House, it is not efficient in terms of air conditioning, and the ability to install modern computer cabling, and then there is the significant cost of building maintenance.

So, I think if any fair-minded person did a walk around—and obviously they cannot go where we went on that tour guided by the Chief Justice and others—they would come to the conclusion that it is time that the state government committed to building a modern Supreme Court facility. It cannot happen tomorrow, I acknowledge that, but I would be very surprised if there has not been some design work done already, but it would need to be updated. During the time of Hon. Trevor Griffin, the Magistrate's Court was significantly upgraded, and I acknowledge that this government has improved facilities in some regional areas, but it is important that the Supreme Court in Adelaide has a building which reflects the importance of the role that the court plays in our society. People need to have respect for judges and magistrates and, overwhelmingly, I believe that that is the case. People may disagree from time to time about a particular judgement, but if you want to have a facility which indicates that a community places importance on justice and what happens in the justice system, you need a facility that reflects that.

I urge the government, even though times are tough, and have become tougher recently, to at least start the process of actively seeking to create a building which is in keeping with the status and importance of the Supreme Court, because the courts belong to everyone. They belong to all South Australians, and they should be buildings not only where judges and magistrates can do their work but which also reflect the importance of the role that they perform. I commend this motion to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:48): I rise to speak on this motion and move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete 'provide a modern building or buildings for use by the Supreme Court' and insert:

'prepare a business case on the provision of facilities for South Australia's superior courts'

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: The mover of the motion has indicated that he will accept that, and I am enormously appreciative. During the time that I have been here, I have had the responsibility on behalf of the opposition—either as shadow attorney or as the opposition spokesperson in the lower house on shadow attorney matters—to ask questions of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court each year at the estimates hearing. These are the committees of the parliament which inquire of the government about expenditure that it proposes in the budget and which members of the departments usually attend. There is a rather quirky difference with the Courts Administration Authority; that is, instead of having a chief executive officer who is the person principally responsible for the management of the courts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court holds that office and attends each year. During that time I have repeatedly heard his plea for the upgrade of the Supreme Court facilities. For members who are not aware, the building was built in three stages. The first part, facing King William Street, was completed in 1867 at a cost of £4,000. The portion facing Victoria Square was completed in 1869 for £18,000 and, finally, the Supreme Court Library Building was built back in 1959.

Tragically and very sadly, I think, even with successive governments, there has not been any improvement to this facility for over 50 years. There has been an occasional fix-up, and some compliance works have been done to ensure that staff are not put at serious risk for occupational health and safety obligations.

I note that in response to a question that was asked last year at the Auditor-General's hearing, the Attorney-General responded that his government had undertaken two consultancies in the preceding year (that is 2011) with some $200,000 worth of reports on the assessment of the building, including occupational health and safety, for the purposes of renovation or minimal maintenance of the building. So, I think the government has acknowledged that the building is in an appalling state of repair.

Since 1970 I have been to that courtroom in three different capacities. In 1970 I appeared there as a witness—I hasten to add in a civil case—and I spent some days waiting to give evidence. I had to wait in a corridor to give evidence. That hearing was held in what is known as the Supreme Court Library Building, a fairly cramped courtroom, but it was actually pretty modern compared to the rest of it. There was really no separation of witnesses or protection for me as a child witness; it was a pretty inadequate facility. At that stage I was probably concentrating more on being cross-examined by Robin Millhouse QC than anything else. That was the first experience.

Later, as a legal practitioner, I attended there with clients for civil and criminal cases. This was a time when hearings involving women who were victims of sexual offences, who were claiming what was the old criminal injuries compensation, would have to turn up to this court; and witnesses had to give evidence in criminal cases against defendants. We obviously had a raft of civil litigation happening in those courtrooms.

I recall one case in particular where I was appearing for a woman who had been the victim of a multiple rape. There was a $2,000 maximum available for criminal injuries compensation for someone who was a victim of an assault, and she was ultimately granted that. She had to give evidence and she had to be available for cross-examination. It was a very difficult hearing for her, suffice to say that family members of the later convicted persons were in the precincts of the court. This was in the old part of the building. I remember her hiding down near a toilet facility to avoid the relatives of some of these people during those hearings. I found that very concerning.

As the member for Fisher indicated, I recently went back to attend a viewing of the court as a member of this parliament and to see what services were available. Those very same toilet facilities were there. I do not think they have had even a coat of paint since then. It very much concerned me when I went into the Chief Justice's office to find that it is the poorest facility I have ever seen for a superior court judge anywhere in Australia, and I have seen a few.

If one were to compare that facility to the facilities available not only to the Attorney-General—who has had very significant money spent on his own previous office—but also to the federal courts, to be quite frank, it is just shameful. It is shameful that His Honour Justice Doyle, who has served this state with distinction, is left in such a poor facility. The Chief Justice's office would fit into the toilet suite of the Federal Court judges' offices just across the road. It is disgraceful. I am very concerned for him.

But let me say this: the reason I particularly speak on this today is to plead with the government to understand that a $70,000 or $150,000-odd business case cost is not out of the park; they clearly have the money. It is not just a question of whether the Attorney-General's department cleans up their own facilities, but they handed out $500,000 at last year's budget to do a business case to relocate the mineral core library which sits behind the Glenside hospital site for a proposed relocation. I have no criticism of that; I simply say they have half a million dollars to do that, so why can't they come up with the $750,000-odd to do a business case for the Supreme Court of South Australia?

This is not because of the Chief Justice, and not because of me, or because of legal colleagues, but because of the appalling circumstances which people in the Courts Authority, people in the public services, witnesses, defendants, litigants and applicants—innocent people who have to line up and wait in the most despicable conditions, when they are given protection in lots of other forums (such as police offices). Many police come down as witnesses to these facilities.

There are people across the board—thousands of people a day—who go through the Supreme Court seeking access to justice who are not just the rich lawyers, judges, or anyone else that people want to dismissively treat as though they do not deserve anything better—leave them aside; they are a minority. I ask members of the house to appreciate the thousands of people, some of whom have already gone through either a brutal offence in which they may have been a victim, or may have been stung mercilessly on some financial swindle, or who deserve some recompense for a motor vehicle accident, or are families who are disputing over wills or estates—these are ordinary people.

I ask the house to support this motion so that we have a business case, and that the Attorney-General gives some priority to this and understands that the ordinary people of South Australia deserve a lot better.

The SPEAKER: Was there a seconder for the amendment?

Mr Marshall: I seconded it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, thank you. The member for Norwood has indicated that he seconded the amendment. The mover is not here, but can I place on the record confirmation that he had nodded his indication that he would accept the amendment, so I am happy for that vote to be put, or for the debate to be adjourned.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.