Summary Procedure (Abolition of Complaints) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 June 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:38): I rise to speak on the Summary Procedure (Abolition of Complaints) Amendment Bill 2016 and indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. In the relatively brief time we have had to consult on the matter, we are satisfied that our side has no objection to the terms as outlined. The Law Society have indicated that they take no objection—in particular, the Criminal Law Committee, which is probably the most likely to have members who might raise some complaint.

Let us just remember what we are doing and why we are doing it. The government have said that this is an efficiency measure which I suppose relieves South Australia Police of having to double-handle prosecution matters. That would of course save some time and presumably some money. In short, what occurs at present is that under a summary offence, this is established by the laying of a complaint supported by evidence in affidavit form. If a charge is in the minor or major indictable offence category, the process is to file an information supported by a written statement and verified by declaration.

What happens in practical terms is that if SAPOL prepare at one level and the charges are either upgraded or downgraded, the preparation and filing of the necessary charge and supporting documents are redone, depending on which way they are progressing. There are some historical reasons for the requirement of the two distinct provisions, but it is fair to say that obligations have changed over the years.

We now have statutory disclosure of material, etc., so the form is not as important. It serves as a bit of discipline to the SAPOL officers responsible for preparing these cases to have a good think about what level of charge they are progressing and, as best as possible, to get it right. The introduction of one standard form could leave this approach open to some laziness; nevertheless, we are prepared to accept it.

The second matter I want to comment on has not been traversed at the briefings I have had, but is referred to in the second reading. The current arrangement is that an affidavit is sworn by an authorised person (for example, a solicitor, Justice of the Peace, or a commissioner for taking affidavits). That is the current process. The Attorney highlights in his contribution that it is proposed that SAPOL would require all police officers to undertake relevant training to seek their appointment by the government as a proclaimed police officer under the Oaths Act. This is another category which can actually undertake this task.

Any requirement of legislative change to accommodate that does not appear in the bill; we have simply been informed of that. I have to say that on the face of it I would see it as a gross waste of resources and time to train every police officer in South Australia in the role so that they might, from time to time, be available to take oaths under the Oaths Act. I think it is reasonable that we get some information as to what is happening with that.

Perhaps the Attorney can send me information on what funding is being allocated to this, who is going to be doing the training and what is required, particularly as we have just signed off on another piece of reform for justices of the peace, who largely do this work. More importantly—not that the money is not important, nor the time spent by police officers signing documents rather than doing other police work—when statements are taken, they are recorded by the interviewing officers.

The statement is converted to an affidavit or declaration and then authorised by the proclaimed police officer. There is no independent party taking this oath, and I think that is potentially not a good practice. There is no other independence of the taking of that oath. It is all very well to have convenience, but we have some of these rules for good reason, so I just flag that. In the Attorney-General's second reading speech, he says:

This will eventually enable all police officers to administer oaths and ought to improve the quality of sworn affidavits filed by SAPOL.

That is not something I swallow easily, and I would want to have some further information on that in due course. Further, we will not be making any amendments.

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) (16:45): I thank the member for Bragg again for her comments in relation to this bill. I must say that this bill has caused some confusion in the sense that some members have asked me whether it would include complaints about them by their spouses or constituents and I have said, 'No, it's nothing to do with that. It's to do with complaints in the technical legal sense.' I think they were having a joke with me, Deputy Speaker, or at least I hope they were.

This bill is about courts efficiency. The courts efficiency situation is a complex series of small initiatives which we hope will ultimately result in the whole being more than the sum of the parts. There are lots and lots of little incremental changes.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is about many things. The other thing I should say to the member for Bragg is that I am going to be bringing in here very shortly some very wideranging initiatives in respect of reform in the major indictable area, which is something I have been promising for a while. I am looking at a man who is working very hard on that who works for me, Mr Evans. He is doing a fabulous job and I am led to believe that it will be ready very, very soon. When that is ready, some of the concerns that the member for Bragg has expressed here will be allayed because we will see that there will be a much better and much more rigorous procedure for major indictable offences. That addresses the point that was raised about being lazy.

In respect of the oaths proposition with police, I have been given some information on this. I am advised that the situation is that this will be done in the academy where police are trained and there is also an online learning module proposed or existing for current police officers, but I will seek further information about funding and suchlike. This is not a revolutionary piece of work, but it is a useful incremental reform. I would like to place on record actually here my acknowledgement of the very positive contribution being made by the new Chief Magistrate. Since she has been in the role I have said, 'If you have got any ideas about how we can smarten up things and make it easier for'—

Ms Chapman: It's not her ideas, it's the police's ideas.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think you will find that there are a number of different mergings of ideas around the place.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This one might be, but I am just giving her a bit of a rap too because she has been pretty quick out of the starting block. I regularly get correspondence from her, at my request I might add, where I say to her, 'Look, if you have any thoughts about things, let me know,' and she also regularly comes forward.

The reason I am explaining all of this is that there is no big bang way of solving all the problems in the criminal justice system. What we have to do is listen to all these relatively small incremental propositions, and my hope is that, as the parliament considers these and hopefully enacts them, we will see incremental improvement in the way the system is working. In this case, I thank the police, but I am very happy to acknowledge the Chief Magistrate's active pursuit of other matters.

I am pleased that this bill will be supported and I would ask members to look at this with the view in mind that the major indictable reform which I hope I will be able to have here very soon will, I am confident, cause a very significant change in the way we manage, in particular, major indictable offences through the system. I do not want to go too far along this track, but if I had to summarise the problem with major indictables, as I see it at the moment, it is that things get into the court list which objectively should not have been in the court list until they were properly prepared.

Ms Chapman: The trial list.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Into the trial list; I beg your pardon, yes. They get into the trial list and, if there had been a thorough shaking of the case and a thorough banging of heads earlier on, it would have been ascertained they were not ready to be in the trial list and they would not be in the trial list. Of course, once they are in the trial list, they bob along as the calendar moves through the months and whatever and, eventually, we discover, at the very last moment, 'This one is not ready.'

I accept that, from time to time, that happens because a witness dies or something happens. I understand that can happen but not to the extent that it does now. The knock-on effect of that is of course we have the overlisting that the District Court in particular uses as a method of dealing with the fact that they know statistically that a significant number of the matters they are listing will not actually be ready for—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Bragg asked about the early plea. I am actually quite encouraged by the way that is going, but that was never going to be the big bang either, but it is certainly making some difference. Anyway, I hope to be able to be more informative about the detail of what I have in mind in the not too distant future, but these things are all part and parcel of a much bigger project, which is to try to improve the efficiency of the justice system.

Bill read a second time.

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) (16:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.