Justices of the Peace (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 June 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:43): I rise to speak on the Justices of the Peace (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. This is a bill introduced by the Attorney on 8 June. On face of it, it makes some minor amendments to the Justice of the Peace Act 2005.

Both the Attorney and I were here at the time when the former attorney-general revolutionised the justices provisions in South Australia. Essentially, everyone was cut off the list. We had a new set of rules. Certain training obligations needed to be undertaken for those who wanted to be special justices, and we had a cleansing of the list, I think is the kindest way to describe it. We had all sorts of new rules about not being able to write 'JP(Retired)' on your letterhead, and things of that nature.

In any event, for the last 10 years or so the legislation has largely come into operation, the new applicants registered and the special justices were trained. We now have over 7,000 Justices of the Peace in South Australia doing their work—witnessing signatures and declarations and the like—and probably closer to 60-odd special justices, with just fewer than 20 who are regularly sitting on a more regular basis, and they undertake duties. They receive a sitting fee for a session. It is not a very generous one, I might say; nevertheless, it is some small remuneration or acknowledgment for the expense incurred for them to undertake this work, rather than as any kind of recognition of the employment, as clearly that would be inadequate. In any event, they do a good job and we thank them for the services they provide.

However, this bill essentially is to remove the requirement for cabinet, via the Governor's signature, to approve various things in respect of the appointment, suspension or removal of justices or special justices of the peace. In short, we agree for justices of the peace who are under rules to have periods of suspension. If they are not available—they go on a long holiday, a caravanning trip around Australia or whatever—there are certain processes that need to be attended to. Largely, for justices of the peace, we consider that the transfer of the body that is to appoint, suspend or deal with JPs is reasonably transferred to the Attorney-General.

What we are concerned about is the appointment and/or dismissal of special justices who have quite a different role in this jurisdiction. Justices of the peace are represented by a group known as the Royal Association of Justices of South Australia, and they have a subcommittee representing the special justices. They are the body the government identified to us that had been consulted, and they were happy with the amendments. I had a discussion with a number of members of the Royal Association of Justices and, as a result of that, I formed a very different view about what their concerns may be.

Firstly, whilst one had not seen the bill, I had been given a precis of what the bill was about, that it was a red tape reduction initiative and that it all appeared to be in order. However, as one went further and interviewed other members, it was patently clear that either they had not been informed or they had been led to the impression that this was just a red tape reduction initiative and that the removal of the cabinet from the role in their appointment or dismissal to the Attorney-General, in general, did not worry them. What really became alarming were the proposed amendments in respect of delegation that was to allow the Attorney-General to refer that on to any other prescribed person. In the briefings that were provided, the Commissioner for—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: He has a longer title than that. I think Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Liquor and Gambling is his full title. I thank him for coming to the briefing because he is the person, at an administrative level for the government, who presumably deals with the background work and the preparations for recommendations, the processing of the applications and all that goes with the security of the list, so to speak. It seemed, on his advice, that he would expect, being the senior person in that position, to be the recipient of any delegation. That seemed logical, but that is not what the proposed bill said. It was to 'any prescribed person'.

Unsurprisingly, this started to unnerve the special justices I spoke to. Whilst they were disappointed that they had not in their view had full and frank disclosure about what this was all about, they were quite happy to consider the matter further. I indicated that today, in the absence of the government agreeing to withdraw the special justices' areas of responsibility being transferred from cabinet to the Attorney, and the removal of the delegation power, we would seek that the bill be adjourned at least in the committee stage and that some opportunity be given to the consideration of that exclusion. I had word back subsequent to the briefing that the government would consider this between the houses.

I cannot think of how many exactly, but it is multiple times that the Attorney has said how often we should be sorting out these issues in this chamber. In the absence of hearing anything from them in the affirmative, I propose to move amendments essentially to ensure that the relevant authority for the purposes of JPs will be the Attorney and that the relevant authority for special justices will be the Governor. In other words, the appointment/dismissal in respect of special justices will remain a cabinet decision. Secondly, we would remove the delegation in the absence of the government coming back with any specific delegation.

When I raised, with at least one of the special justices, whether that would be reasonable or whether they would be agreeable to that being delegated to the commissioner, whilst this is no reflection on the particular commissioner, they did not see it as entirely appropriate. Bear in mind that we have a number of special justices who sit in hearings. They cannot send people to gaol, but they do issue fines and they do hear and determine matters. They pick up the enforcement of a lot of the reviews in respect of the Fines Payment Unit, which is now an administrative unit rather than a judicial unit. They do the support work for that.

They are doing real judicial work. I think it is fair to say that they have even offered in previous submissions to the government to have their threshold increased in respect of the value of claims held before them. Quite frankly, given the recent amendments to bring small claims down from a $30,000 limit to a $12,000 limit, there is probably a good case for special justices to have their jurisdiction increased. In the absence of receiving anything from the government to move accordingly themselves, I will introduce some amendments.

I will not speak at length to them, as I think I have made it pretty clear what our position is. The government has had an opportunity to consider it. Frankly, I think it is a matter that should be dealt with in this house. There should be no reason to deal with it in this manner on the basis that, if and when the government decides that it wants to come back with an idea and it has properly consulted with the relevant parties, they might want to identify an acceptable prescribed person in the other place.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (15:53): I would like to make a small contribution to this debate in support of this bill. I note that the objective of this bill is 'to provide for a more efficient mechanism for the appointment, suspension and removal of a justice or special justices of the peace from office'. I support that endeavour. Our justices of the peace play a very important role in the community. Making their life easier by cutting some of the red tape obviously would assist them, and it would also assist with the appointment.

Often, appointments can take quite a while. This is not a criticism of the current process, nor is it a criticism of the Governor, but they do take a while. The rigorous processes you need to vet applicants to make sure that people are of appropriate character, etc., are appointed, I can understand fully, but it has not been unusual in the past to take from six to nine months to appoint somebody. It is actually easier to appoint a chief justice of the Supreme Court than a justice of the peace sometimes. Anything that can reduce red tape and make the lives of applicants easier is welcome.

We have to remember that justices of the peace serve in a voluntary capacity. They are volunteers, like many other volunteers in our community. If there is one grievance you hear from volunteers these days, and I am sure every member hears this, it is about the additional red tape and bureaucracy involved in just being a simple volunteer and all the hurdles you have to jump over to volunteer in your community, whether you are cooking a sausage sizzle at your local footy club or volunteering in other areas.

Some of those checks and balances that we have in our systems are very important. When people are dealing with children, obviously police checks are important. But I think sometimes we do not risk manage the process that well. We are more risk averse than risk managing. That said, this bill seeks to reduce the level of bureaucracy and the level of red tape and that is to be welcomed. To give you an indication of how important JPs are in our community, we have a JP service in our electoral office, as most MPs would. Over the last 10 days, for example, we have had 117 people come into our office and we have signed and witnessed over 225 different requests.

I am fortunate in that I have been able to recruit a lot of JPs who actually sit in our office, which means that my staff can actually do all the other work. We have a roster and, with the exception of one afternoon, we have an additional JP in the office doing JP work and they are run off their feet. They play an important role and I would like to personally thank the JPs who work through my office because it does release my staff to do other important work in the electorate.

To get a better idea of the work done by JPs, I am a member, as are others, of the Barossa and District Justices Group. This is one of the subassociations of the royal association and this association works with JPs. They meet regularly and also provide training. Just to put it in context, this particular group, the Barossa and Districts Justices Group spans a large area from Gawler to Eudunda and surrounding areas. They hold regular meetings, comprising training and development, throughout the district. They meet anywhere from Gawler to the Barossa, from Angaston to Tanunda and Eudunda, etc.

If I recall correctly, their AGM was held only last week, and the current executive committee comprises the following members. The Chairman is Mr Chris Johnstone OAM, JP from Nuriootpa. The Vice-Chairman is Mrs Jacqueline Raphael JP, who just lives around the corner from my house in the wonderful suburb of Kudla. The Secretary of the association is Mr Colin Drew from Gawler and he is also the coordinator of the Gawler group.

The Treasurer is Mrs Margaret Buckley JP from Nuriootpa. Publicity and reports are the responsibility of Mrs Maxine Chenoweth from Gawler River. The immediate past chairman is Mr Robert Brookes from Lyndoch. The Nuriootpa JP Service Room Coordinator is Mr Peter Flaherty and, as I mentioned, Colin Drew looks after the Gawler area. This group was formed on Friday 17 October 1980 with the inaugural chairman being the late Mr Cyril Cockshell JP from Gawler. I knew him quite well and I continue to know his family. The towns currently covered by the group are Robertstown, Eudunda, Nuriootpa, Angaston, Freeling, Roseworthy, Lyndoch, Williamstown, Kapunda, Gawler and Evanston. Half of those are in my electorate and half are in the electorate of Schubert.

There are town representatives from the local towns, representing their communities and encouraging their JPs to join the Barossa group and organise regular meetings in their areas. This has proved a very successful venture since the group was formed over 35 years ago. Currently, the Barossa and District Justice Group consists of 65 members. The JP Service Room (the name was changed just recently from the Library Daily Room) was set up originally in the library at Nuriootpa along with a service in Gawler.

The JPs actually have a service that they provide through the council libraries and they provide a couple of hours in the town of Gawler. As most of us would know, when people want a JP they want a JP then and there; they do not want to have to wait three or four days until the service is available. That is why officers like our own officers are regularly visited by people for JP work.

Both JP service rooms are used by the local community on a regular basis, with local JPs on a roster system attending on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Regular professional development training is conducted to keep member JPs current on documentation and regulations requiring JP services in the community. I recall reading one of this group's recent newsletters which stated they actually had a training session on advanced care directives. There is a bit of controversy about that documentation. I have certainly written to the health minister and Attorney-General, as others probably have, about these directives. I am not sure whether that controversy has been sorted out yet.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The member for Ashford indicates that, no, it has not been. This group has granted life memberships to show appreciation for a number of JPs in the community. Life membership has been grated to the late Cyril Cockshell JP, being the original recipient of the award. Some of the other recipients have been Dr Bruce Eastick AM JP, who would be known to people in this chamber. Dr Eastick was leader of the Liberal opposition in the mid 1970s—I think from 1977-79—the member for Light for over 23 years, and former mayor of the Town of Gawler on two occasions.

Mrs Margaret Raggat JP has also been granted life membership, as has Mr Clive LePage JP. If my memory serves me correctly, Clive was also the CEO of the former district council of Angaston, where he served with distinction. Mr David Lilliecrap OAM JP, whom I know quite well, and Mrs Maxine Chenoweth JP have also been granted life membership. The latest member to join the group is Mrs Jenny Dowling from Two Wells, who was secretary of the new recessed lower north JP group.

I would just like to emphasise that JPs play an important role, and one which is not often well understood in the community. People who come in to have a document witnessed will often ask the JP for advice on whether the form is completed correctly, etc. The JP will usually say, 'We are just here to make sure that you know what you are signing and what you are saying is truthful.' We often have to decline providing advice to the person who wants a document signed.

Having said that, JPs do go out of their way to assist and will direct people to other documentation, such as those provided by the Legal Services Commission or other fact sheets, to help them through the process. With those few comments, I support this bill, and again acknowledge the very important role that JPs play in our community.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (16:03): I rise to speak in support of the Justices of the Peace (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016, which essentially seeks to streamline the appointment and reappointment processes for justices of the peace. Justices of the peace perform a valuable function in society and we have heard a lot from my colleague and previous speaker, the member for Light, on the function they serve. It is also noteworthy that it is on a voluntary basis.

They witness hundreds of thousands of documents every year. They are typically someone of good stature in the community authorised to witness and sign legally binding documentation. I thought at this point it would be a good opportunity to reflect on the history and the origin of justices of the peace. This in fact can be tracked back to 1195 in Britain, with the commissioning by Richard the Lionheart of certain knights to be able to act in this role.

King Richard I believed this to be a wise measure in order to preserve the peace in unruly areas. These specially appointed knights were responsible to the King in ensuring that the law was upheld. They were more commonly called 'the keepers of the peace'. It is believed that they were rightly known as the forefathers of the justices of the peace. I say 'forefathers' because of course in those days they were inevitably men. During the early 1320s, keepers of the peace were appointed in each county and by the 1340s these keepers had powers to hear and determine trespasses and punish offenders. The title justice of the peace derives from 1361 during the reign of Edward III, making the office one of the oldest in the common law system.

Over time, justices of the peace in Britain were authorised to perform functions ranging from hearing and determining offences to licensing public houses. Justices of the peace in Australia today play a more limited role and have little in common with their earlier British counterparts. Justices of the peace were recognised in the Australian colonies from 1788 and the first justice of the peace was appointed after settlement of South Australia in 1836, so it is clear there is a long history of this role, as demonstrated. Indeed, there is depth and experience that has been shown in this role, and generally on a voluntary basis.

I will now return to the present day and to my electoral office of Elder, as daily we see a constant flow of people coming through the doors of the office for various reasons, requiring the services of a JP, which I am pleased to say that on most days we are able to offer. We regularly attest or witness the execution of a document, take an affidavit for use in court, take a statutory declaration, certify a true copy of an original document or certify a person's identity. We complete a waiver of rights when someone is buying a second-hand vehicle from a dealer and we witness that waiver of rights. We explain the effect of signing the waiver of rights, so there is quite a conversation with some of these people.

We also witness for people with disabilities and also the complex advanced care directives, which my colleague the member for Light made mention of. There is also power of attorney, general power of attorney and enduring power of attorney. We also have the enduring power of guardianship and medical power of attorney that we see come through our office doors.

The other examples I can give of JP services that we assist with through our electoral office is that we quite commonly have someone come in from a second-hand car yard which is close by. The proprietors often bring in a fine, together with a stat dec, so they can declare that they have sold the car. They name the person they sold the car to and then the police have the ability to follow up the infringement notice with the new owner of the vehicle. Without our service, they would have to go further afield to find a JP who could sign the paperwork.

Businesses in the area with a fleet of company cars will bring in a fine as well requiring stat decs to be signed so they can declare who was the actual driver of the car at the time, as opposed to having the company being liable for that fine. My electoral office is surrounded by numerous businesses and a busy shopping centre across the road with many banks, so we find many customers will come from across the street and from the back streets to use our JP services. Because we have a significant migrant population we regularly help with documentation and certifying documents to do with immigration matters as well.

You can see from just these few examples that the role of the JP is extremely important to the community. It is a great way to engage with people from all walks of life in the community and it is something that I and my staff enjoy doing. I would like to acknowledge and thank my staff for giving their time through commitment to the community by agreeing to take on the role of a JP and performing this critical service. This bill seeks to reform the appointment process by allowing the Attorney-General, instead of the Governor, to make and remake appointments. This removes a lot of the regulatory burden by allowing for quicker appointments and reappointments to occur. His Excellency supports the proposal.

The bill also removes the requirement of a statutory declaration to be submitted with the information supplied in support of a JP application. The main benefit of this is it allows online JP applications. The removal of the requirement for a statutory declaration is balanced by the creation of an offence for knowingly making a false or misleading statement when providing information required under the act. With all of those comments, and the little bit of a history lesson, I support the bill and look forward to a more efficient system that allows JPs to quickly and easily work with government to continue their valuable volunteer work without regulatory burdens.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (16:10): I would like to contribute to this debate because, having been a JP since I was 21, which is quite some time ago, I have been interested in the work of JPs and also in encouraging particularly women but people who I think would be able to serve in the community to become JPs. I believe I am responsible for quite a number of people actually becoming JPs and realising that they not only had the skills but also, in some cases, the time to actually help in the community in a very important way.

One of the reasons why I originally became a JP is that, when I was working at the Working Women's Centre, a number of women would come into the centre who had had one day's sick leave and, because of the problem they had with the reason they had had that sick leave, had not bothered to go to the doctor, could not afford to go to the doctor or it just was not possible for them to go to the doctor and get a sick certificate for one day. What they would do, and what they were compelled to do in many industries, was make a statutory declaration to say they had been genuinely sick on the day they had taken off and then take that to work.

I was really shocked a couple of weeks ago, when I was doing JP work at the electoral office, to have someone from the private childcare centre come in. We all know, as much as we love little tackers, the germ carriers that they tend to be, as do primary school children, and I can say this from experience but also from other people's experience.

This particular childcare worker had picked up one of the bugs from the children in the childcare centre and was compelled to come in and see us in the electoral office to get a statutory declaration to say why she had taken the day off and that she had been genuinely ill. It is quite a few years since I worked at the Working Women's Centre, so I was really dismayed to see that we had gone back to the future with regard to industrial conditions, particularly in areas where, as I said, childcare workers and teachers, I know, certainly complain regularly about what they are exposed to with regard to the people they have in their care.

Just like the member for Light and, I know, other members of this place, we have had to have a roster of JPs every day in the electoral office because of the demand of work that is needed. If we did not have those wonderful volunteer JPs in the office, I am sure the staff in the electoral office would not get any work done at all. So, in addition to the many phone calls and emails—I must say, the huge number of emails—and the work that they do on behalf of and for constituents, the JP load is very heavy in our office and has been ever since I can remember. Fortunately, I am a JP, as I said, and one of the things that I really encourage staff members to do is become a JP, so we have been in the situation for quite some time where the permanent staff in the electoral office are JPs.

The roster has been made up of people in the community who are willing to go through the process. As the member for Light said, as much as we understand the need for proper checks with regard to people becoming justices of the peace, it has taken a long time, and I compliment the Attorney-General for the priority he has given to making sure that, as quickly as possible, we try to progress JPs. I thank him for doing that because, certainly in the past, it might take more than six months: it might take a year, or in some cases a couple of years, to get these people processed. I thank him for that, and I am very pleased that we are looking at streamlining the system even further.

One of the things that has also added to the workload in the electoral office is people who are volunteers needing to be screened. Again, I support that process, but quite often the process of having documents certified and getting information, like applying for different licences—certainly we seem to have the taxi industry in our office all the time and we also have a number of international students having to certify documents—will take different volunteers and staff members over an hour to assist each person. So, you can imagine the workload, having people lining up quite often, and particularly, as I said, overseas students, but also people who are not local residents or who are new residents coming in to get these documents certified.

There have been a number of directions put out—and very helpfully, I must say—from the royal JP association, of which I am a member, and I thank them very much for all their work. Just lately, there has been some concern about how we are to deal with advance care directives. I have raised this with minister Snelling, and I understand there are going to be some extra briefings available for us so that we can make sure we are dealing with the very important initiative of advance care directives in the proper way and perhaps minimise the amount of stress that a number of people experience in actually going through that process.

Because, let's face it, when you are looking at advance care directives (and I can say this from personal experience) you really do need to confront a whole lot of issues if you want to make those advance care directives useful. Again, the JPs in our office try to spend as much time as possible to be supportive of people who are considering their advance care directives. All the decisions are their decisions, but quite often there is a lot of stress associated with their going through the process.

I would like to thank all the volunteers in our office, and I must say that whenever I find a good person who is about to retire I always suggest that something they could do that would be very helpful to the community would be to start the process of becoming a JP. As I said earlier, I am very proud of the fact that a number of very good JPs in our community are there as a result of encouragement from me and also from the workers in the Ashford electorate office. I commend the Attorney for this bill and thank him for the attention he has paid in a very busy portfolio to make sure that we can all provide the best and most varied service possible in our electorate offices.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:18): Can I thank all those members who have said something, and in particular I note the acknowledgement by many members, I think, of the slowness that the present scheme has involved. It is a completely process-driven slowness, which I know is frustrating. Occasionally, my ministerial office receives often quite agitated calls from members of parliament who have staff they are trying to get on the roll as a JP about the time that it takes and the hoops that need to be jumped through.

Of course, we have this super-efficient commissioner who will be able to process these things at lightning speed once this goes through, and I think this is a serious step forward. It is also good that, if there are any problems in the future, which I do not anticipate, we know who we can ring up and have a chat to about it because he will be the chap who can fix it. The member for Bragg made a couple of points. First of all, her general support for the bill is welcomed, and I thank her for that.

Secondly, just to be clear, it is true that the member for Bragg did raise a number of issues in a consultation exercise with Peter, from my staff, and the commissioner, and his people, but we only actually saw the black and white version of the amendments about an hour ago. We are a bit like the member for Bragg, we like to move—

Ms Chapman: Two hours ago.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Two hours ago. We like to move quickly. That is something we like to do, and we know she does too. There is nothing we like more than legislating.

Ms Chapman: Nimble.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And being nimble. We like to be—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a word I am thinking of when I think of you—'nimble'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: 'Nimble,' no, perhaps not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Isn't that a reindeer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, that's Nipper.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I beg your pardon, you are right—Nipper and Nimble.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: They are on the interweb. We could check that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It has been a long time since I have been to the Magic Cave, so I have forgotten many of those things. I do recall there were two floats, Nipper and Nimble, and as I recall, and the member for Bragg might recall this too—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She was probably on one.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: She is in the same ballpark as me—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or secretly wanted to be.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —in the age department. I am not going to go any further, but we would have similar memories of watching the Christmas Pageant in black and white on our tellies.

Ms Chapman: We were too poor to have a telly.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Bragg would at least have met somebody on the island who had a television, who would have relayed these stories to her. There was quite a contest, as I recall, for the young lady who would get to ride Nipper or Nimble. They would get done up—

Ms Chapman: They are not a JP, so let's move on.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, I was diverted. It does happen. There have been a number of proposals put forward by the member for Bragg for amendment, and I am happy to say on this occasion, with one exception, that I am very comfortable with them. I suggest that we go into committee, we deal with the ones I am comfortable with (which is all bar one) and we allow time between the houses for the remaining matter to be resolved. I will explain briefly on the record what that is. For those people at home who are listening to this, 'Hello.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Incapacitated in their beds and unable to change the station.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, those people who are tied to their chairs with involuntary audio going on around them—and also for those people at home waiting for the rushes of this to come out on the interweb. Just to make clear what is going on, most of what the member for Bragg is suggesting is simply to substitute the words 'the Attorney-General' with the words 'relevant authority'. There is no problem about that. That actually means that I am quite happy with her amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 because all those do that, and there is no issue about that.

In her remarks about amendment No. 6, she said that she would be happy if the commissioner—because she clearly has confidence in him, as we all do—were to be the delegate, but not if anybody could be the delegate. I am quite comfortable with that as an amendment. The only reason I do not want to accept at this point her amendment No. 6 is that it obliterates the whole section altogether about that. We do not really have time to redraft what is her amendment No. 6, which alters clause 12.

To be more specific, clause 12, and, in particular new section 16B, which talks about delegation, I think that both the member for Bragg and I know what we mean. We mean that to say, 'The Attorney-General may delegate a power or function of the Attorney General under this Act to the commissioner.' The only question is whether or not some of the provisions in the current bill under 16B(2) may need to survive to make that proper and effective. I will have to get some advice on that; I will get that. Can I say that I have no difficulty, in principle, with the proposition the member for Bragg has advanced because it was never my intention that somebody other than the commissioner, who is universally held in high esteem, should be doing this.

We find ourselves in theoretical unanimity, but for the purposes of today I just indicate that when we go into committee I will accept amendments Nos 1 through to 5, I will oppose amendment No. 6 for the technical reason I have just explained, and between here and the other place we will come up with a satisfactory set of words that makes it clear that it is either the Attorney-General of the day or the commissioner, but it cannot be delegated on to any other individual.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the procedural matter of the time taken for applications to be processed, can the Attorney give an indication at present of what time it takes from the time an application is submitted until the decision is confirmed by cabinet of an application for a JP?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of answers to that question. The short answer is that it varies. The reason it might vary, for example, is if a person, in making an application, improperly completes the application documentation and therefore it is necessary to go back to the person to ask for further material—

Ms Chapman: It is from the date of a valid application being accepted.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A valid application. I am assuming, from the point of view of 'valid', that the appropriate checks about whether or not they have a criminal record and so forth have been done; that is the second point. Assuming it is filled in properly, there is still an onus on the commissioner to check whether, notwithstanding what is said on the application, this person does or does not have a criminal record, or perhaps an undisclosed criminal record, because that is a ground for refusing the person. That will vary according to the individual.

That said, the next bit of it is where it slows down, which we hope will be better here because the next bit of it is that they tend to wait until they have a bunch of them. The bunch of them then has to become the subject of a cabinet submission. You do not do a cabinet submission for one JP to go on, although occasionally we do one for one to come off. In fact, almost invariably we do one for one to come off. They accumulate a group of them.

There would then have to be a cabinet submission prepared. The cabinet submission would then have to go into cabinet office. It would have to deal with the 10-day rule. More often than not, these are dealt with in subcommittee, so they do not actually require deliberation by cabinet, but they are on the formal cabinet agenda. They could be pulled out by any cabinet member who wished to escalate a subcommittee matter into a debated matter in cabinet.

After cabinet has dealt with the matter, we then have to wait on the decision set to come through, although that is not normally very long. Then there is the process of getting it to Executive Council, which again is not normally lengthy, and then it has to go through Executive Council. After it goes through Executive Council, I think they are gazetted and then technically that is it, isn't it? Then there is a formality after that, where they get a nice bit of paper.

What we are doing in this is removing about the last four steps in the process. It could mean weeks or months, depending on how long they are waiting to accumulate people for that pool of applicants. It certainly means fewer steps, and each one of those steps is potentially a step that could delay us for a week or two, depending on what is going on. Cabinet submissions do not materialise out of thin air. Although this one is a fairly proforma one, it still does take time for them to be prepared, and then there is a process that has to be done through. We are probably pulling out the last three or four steps in the process.

Ms CHAPMAN: If we are removing that time frame at the end, one of the problems is that it still leaves a very long time frame for the process of obtaining a clearance under the police checks. The Attorney is probably familiar with this problem. It is not something that is unusual—it comes across our desk as MPs—for volunteers and so on. For job applications, often there is a more extensive scrutiny process. In addition to the general police check, there are other inquiries that have to be made. I am hoping that, in looking to reduce the authorisation process, some attention is given in the future to ensuring that we reduce the time frame for these police checks.

I appreciate that another agency and another minister are responsible for that. We have heard in the parliament from time to time attempts by her to improve this process. However, the reported frustration to me, in this bill, is the problem. Whilst we are accepting in any event that for JPs this process is abbreviated or abridged through what is about to pass, bear in mind that it is not going to resolve whole problem unless we have another minister attending to the reasonable timing of that and not what we currently suffer.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a very good point. I am paying attention to that, too, because if I am not mistaken I have something to do with bringing forward a cabinet submission to try to get a streamlining of the screening process. I know that is a matter of general interest to members because it has been a cause of great concern.

Ms Chapman: Angst.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And angst, yes. We are looking to do something in that space fairly soon, I can tell the honourable member. That said, the screening thing that we are looking at doing is predominantly focused on working with children issues. Even though a person might be successfully screened in that sense and would be, under our new model, I am confident, more quickly and efficiently successfully screened, that does not necessarily mean there are not offences of dishonesty or other offences which might not have anything to do with working with children checks but might nevertheless be relevant to whether or not the person was a fit and proper person to be a JP. The message is heard and we understand it.

Ms CHAPMAN: A general matter I want to ask about is the provision for members of the local council to be appointed. I do not think it is in the current act, but I might have missed it. I thought this was just a process where it was going to remove the cabinet, essentially, for the Attorney-General. In any event, is everyone, from government advice, satisfied that a person who is a member on council is able to do that under the Local Government Act?

Technically, it could apply to MPs as well. I do not think that the meeting fee or sessional fee that special justices receive is not remuneration, by definition; it is really a compensatory payment. In any event, not many MPs these days are JPs. I am talking about local government, members of council, as distinct from people who are in the public sector.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that this is intended to mean that people who are principal members of the council, which I am interpreting as meaning elected members of the council, are entitled to make application for appointment. As far any money associated with that is concerned, I am led to understand that is, conceptually at least, reimbursement of expenses rather than a salary.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Chapman–1]—

Page 3, lines 24 to 32—Delete the clause

This is the first clause to deal with the appointment of, or removal of, special justices being transferred to the Attorney-General.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Chapman–1]—

Page 4, line 21—Delete 'Attorney-General' and substitute 'relevant authority'

Amendment No 3 [Chapman–1]—

Page 4, line 23 [clause 9(4)]—Delete 'Attorney-General's' and substitute 'relevant authority'

Amendment No 4 [Chapman–1]—

Page 4, line 25 [clause 9(5)]—Delete 'Attorney-General' and substitute 'relevant authority'

Amendment No 5 [Chapman–1]—

Page 4, after line 25 [clause 9(6)]—Insert:

(7) Section 11—after subsection (6) insert:

(7) In this section—

relevant authority—

(a) in relation to a special justice—means the Governor;

(b) in relation to a justice who is not a special justice—means the Attorney-General.

I move these amendments for exactly the reasons I indicated in regard to amendment No. 1.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 10 and 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of amendment No. 6 in my name, I withdraw the same on the basis of the undertaking of the Attorney.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank honourable members and, again, the member for Bragg for her assistance. It just shows that when we put our minds to legislating, we get things done. It is terrific.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And it had nothing to do with her getting her own way, did it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Madam Deputy Speaker, in the course of debate, you said something about 'then as it was now' or 'now as it was then'. The member for Bragg might recall a fellow Master Boehm who used to—

Ms Chapman: Cough a lot.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: He used to cough a lot, yes, but he was very fond of an expression, and I will probably pronounce this incorrectly, which was 'nunc pro tunc'. I heard that for about five years before I summoned the courage to ask what that meant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And what did it mean?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Apparently, it means 'then as it is now'. There you are. Next time, Deputy Speaker, you feel inclined to Latin-ise your contributions in committee, 'nunc pro tunc' or 'nunc pro tunc' depending on—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No-one knows how Latin is really pronounced, do they?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Nobody would have a clue, so you can say it any way you like, actually. That sums up what I have to say about the matter.

Bill read a third time and passed.