Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio No 3) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 September 2017.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:33): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio No 3) Bill 2017.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you the lead and only speaker?

Ms CHAPMAN: Mercifully, I think I will be the only speaker. I am not sure that I will be brief, but I will endeavour to be. The bill introduces a suite of amendments, which are largely uncontroversial, to the Young Offenders Act, the Bail Act, the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Act, the Guardianship and Administration Act, the Legal Practitioners Act and the Second-hand Dealers Pawnbrokers Act. The last of those does raise some concerns, but in any event, we on this side have no objection.

The matter that does raise concern, however, is the provisions to amend the Magistrates Act of 1983. That is a proposal that has been introduced in this bill to allow the Chief Magistrate to appoint the Deputy Magistrate with a term to be determined by the chief, but not exceeding five years. This is a novel addition to this position. No explanation has been given by the government as to why we need to do that. It follows a period of the time that I have been in the parliament when the government have been up to all sorts of mischief in respect of the positions of the Chief Magistrate and the Deputy Magistrate, so it does not come with a very satisfactory history where we can rely on the bona fides of the government as to why this is being progressed.

On the briefing, it purports not to be any further attempt to deny Mr Andrew Cannon some responsibility or continuity or elevation or promotion, or anything else, because he is to retire and will be away from the attempts by the government to do all sorts of things to his position and/or capacity to be appointed on the last occasion as the Acting Chief Magistrate. We do not need to traverse the history there but it does leave a rather sour taste in the consideration of this matter. That is particularly so because when this draft bill was circulated for consultation it went, as you would expect, to the Law Society of South Australia, obviously a significant interest in ensuring that our legislation is appropriate and is going to be effective with the reforms proposed, and there was no reference whatsoever in that draft for consideration by the Law Society.

It may be that it had been circulated to other interested parties—if it were, I would be interested to know who they are in respect of the draft bill—but it is fair to say that for a number of the amendments I would expect there to be a fairly narrow distribution. For example, in relation to the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Act, an amendment which comes to us on the recommendation of the board, it would be reasonable to put the proposed amendments back to the board for at least their chief executive's consideration; after all, they recommended it. One would not necessarily expect that there would be a large amount of interest in parties other than those who represent those in the construction industry who are eligible for the benefits of accumulating long service leave for the purpose of entitlement.

It is curious why this should now be in and that another provision will be out, namely, the Spent Convictions Act proposals. But, as we would expect with the government, at the last minute, in fact yesterday, they presented to us an amendment to include the provisions for the Spent Convictions Act, so we are now back on that matter for consideration. For obvious reasons, we have not considered that because, although we were alerted to concerns of stakeholders as to the applicability of the exemptions that were proposed in the amendments in relation to the Spent Convictions Act, it was not necessary for us to discuss it because when the bill came to us there was no mention of it.

I do not know whether the Attorney is going to explain to us in due course, when he presents these amendments and gets the suspensions of this parliament to receive it and be able to deal with it and open another act to do that, but I certainly expect he should, not just because I have asked for it but because he owes it to this parliament to explain why it was not in the bill to start with and why he is now going to ask to introduce it. It certainly comes with some concerns. I will have something to say about that if and when the Attorney proposes to advance it.

Nevertheless, as indicated, we are not happy with the Magistrates Court amendments. We need some explanation as to why we would go against the time-immemorial responsibility of the executive to make the appointment, usually on recommendation of the Attorney-General, and not leave it as a job for the Chief Magistrate to pick her or his deputy as they see fit. That, I would suggest, totally politicises the appointment. There may be some valid reason for it; I would be interested to hear it if there is.

I will certainly be expecting to have some opportunity to consult further on it, given that it appears that no-one else has been asked except the Chief Magistrate, together with a copy of the draft being sent to the Chief Justice about a month ago. Whatever he has to say about it we are yet to hear. With those comments, I indicate that all but the Magistrates Court amendments in the bill at present will be opposed.

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) (17:41): I thank the deputy leader for her remarks. I will do my best to provide a response in a moment. I am wondering if we can adjourn consideration of this matter on motion briefly to deal with a message. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.