House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Statutes Amendment (Court Fees) Bill Statutes Amendment (Court Fees) Bill Statutes Amendment (Court Fees) Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly 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 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) (12:02): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the District Court Act 1991, the Magistrates Court Act 1991, the Sheriff's Act 1978 and the Supreme Court Act 1935. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly 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 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) (12:03): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Magistrates Court Act 1991 to allow court fees to be based on the value of an amount claimed or on any other basis, whether or not the fee exceeds the actual administrative cost incurred. The bill also makes equivalent amendments to the Supreme Court Act, District Court Act and Sheriff's Act to allow for tiered fees to be introduced under those acts in the future should this be deemed feasible and appropriate. I seek leave to have the remainder of the explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it. Members interjecting: The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please do not heckle him. I cannot cope this early in the day. Leave granted. The State Courts Administration Council has undertaken a review of civil court fees. That review identified several options for the restructuring of court fees and to improve the efficiency of civil court matters, including, relevantly, to move to tiered civil claim lodgement fees in the Magistrates Court that vary depending on the amount claimed. To support the introduction of tiered civil lodgement fees, which will be fixed by regulation, amendment is first required to the Magistrates Court Act 1991 to allow court fees to be based on the value of the amount claimed or on any other basis, whether or not the fee exceeds the actual administrative cost incurred. The amendments have been drafted based on the equivalent fee regulation-making powers in the Victorian Magistrates Court Act 1989 (Vic). The Bill also makes equivalent amendments to the Supreme Court Act 1935, District Court Act 1991 and Sheriffs Act 1978 to allow for fees to be tiered under those Acts in the future, should this be deemed feasible and appropriate. The new regulation-making powers will also support proposed regulations to provide for courts to require a deposit as security for payment of trial fees in appropriate circumstances. This is to assist with a significant problem with unpaid District and Supreme Court civil trial fees. Upon the changes in this Bill taking effect, it is intended to introduce by regulation a series of tiered lodgement fees in the Magistrates Court civil jurisdiction. The fees will aim to maintain access to justice by having low lodgement fees for minor civil claims, with a progressively tiered increase to higher lodgement fees for general civil claims and corporations. The aim is to reduce the gap between District Court and Magistrates Court lodgement fees, bearing in mind that the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Act 2012 ('the CER Act') significantly increased the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates Court and led to more matters being lodged in the Magistrates Court with its lower application fees, which previously would have been lodged in the higher fee District Court. The proposed lodgement fees for general claims over $40,000 would still be less than before the CER Act changes, when those claims had to be lodged in the District Court. With the exception of New South Wales and Tasmania, all other States and Territories already have tiered civil lodgement fees in their equivalent courts. This proposal will align South Australia with the majority of Australian States and Territories. I commend the Bill to Members. Explanation of Clauses Explanation of Clauses Part 1—Preliminary 1—Short title 2—Commencement 3—Amendment provisions These clauses are formal. Part 2—Amendment of District Court Act 1991 4—Amendment of section 53—Court fees Section 53 of the District Court Act 1991 provides for the making of regulations to prescribe and provide for the payment of fees in relation to proceedings in the District Court and for the remission or reduction of fees in certain circumstances. The proposed amendments to section 53 would allow the regulations to provide for any or all of the following matters in relation to proceedings, or any step in such proceedings, in the Court: specific fees; maximum fees; minimum fees; fees that vary according to value, time, class of matter, or on any other basis; fees that differ for different classes of proceedings, different classes of party or different jurisdictions of the Court; the manner of payment of fees; the time or times at which fees are to be paid; and clarify that it is not necessary for a fee to be related to the actual administrative cost incurred. The regulations may— be of general or limited application; and make different provision according to the persons, things or circumstances to which they are expressed to apply; and provide in a specified case or class of case for the exemption of any proceeding, person or thing, or a class of proceeding, person or thing, from any of the provisions of the regulations, whether— (i)	unconditionally or on specified conditions; and (ii)	either wholly or to such an extent as is specified; and provide for the payment in advance of a fee or part of a fee prescribed under the regulations; and provide for the reduction, waiver, postponement, remission or refund, in whole or in part, of a fee prescribed under the regulations; and provide, in specified circumstances, for the reinstatement or payment, in whole or in part, of a fee prescribed under the regulations which was reduced, waived, postponed, remitted or refunded under the regulations; and confer a discretionary authority or impose a duty on the Court, a member of the Court's judiciary or the Registrar of the Court. Part 3—Amendment of Magistrates Court Act 1991 5—Amendment of section 50—Court fees The amendments proposed to section 50 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 mirror those proposed in relation to fees in the District Court. Part 4—Amendment of Sheriff's Act 1978 6—Amendment of section 16—Regulations The amendments proposed to section 16 of the Sheriff's Act 1978 have a similar effect as the amendments proposed to each of the other Acts included in this measure and will allow the regulations to make provision for differential fees according to different factors. Part 5—Amendment of Supreme Court Act 1935 7—Amendment of section 130—Court fees The amendments proposed to section 130 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 mirror those proposed in relation to fees in both the District Court and the Magistrates Court. In addition, current subsection (3) of section 130 is to be repealed as it would become redundant on the enactment of this Part of this measure. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Treloar.