Courts Administration Authority

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (14:42): My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General update the house on how public health is being promoted by the state's courts?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:42): Thank you, member for Heysen, I certainly can. As members would be aware, the Courts Administration Authority is almost a unique model in Australia, but we have a system where our state courts are headed under the Courts Administration Authority by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His executive administrative head, Ms Julie-Ann Burgess, and her team are obviously very involved in how they are exercising the best possible protections, not only for their own staff operating in the courts but also the general public, and indeed the litigants, witnesses, professional representatives, etc.

The Courts Administration Authority has made a number of announcements concerning what arrangements they have put in place to protect the public during the C-19 pandemic and managing that risk. Several arrangements have been put in place. I will say, in appreciation with the Chief Justice and Ms Burgess, that they are seeking advice and have the ongoing advice of the chief executive of the Department for Health, and can of course continue to work with the coordinator, the Commissioner of Police, now that we have a major emergency declared. The situation at the moment is—again, this is consistent with the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT), which is outside of the Courts Administration Authority, who are doing what they can to ensure that we limit face-to-face interactions.

Much use of audiovisual links and telephone conferencing is underway. When non-attendance at the court is not possible, then strict distancing protocols are being observed. The access to the courts is reported in requests for unnecessary attendance at the court. Some members might be aware that the magistrates' measures include enabling administrative adjournments in direction hearings in appropriate cases, excusing defendants in criminal matters from attending court unless the matter is to finalise and varying bail applications in chambers.

In our District Court, which is also a very busy court in South Australia, there will be no new jury trials commencing prior to 1 May 2020. The matter will then be reviewed. Listing arrangements are being adopted to minimise the risk of people in court at any one time. First directions hearings for March and April have been cancelled. Again, the use of audiovisual links for defendants in custody is being utilised where that's available and appropriate.

The Supreme Court is dealing with directions hearing adjournments and possession matters by email, where they can be. Settlement conferences are held between parties by telephone, mediations are being postponed unless all the parties agree, and other similar measures are being implemented in the Youth Court, which of course provides for the care, protection orders and juvenile crime matters in that court.

The Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court also operate in South Australia, and they are also largely in the Victoria Square precinct. They, too, have issued on their websites a number of measures to identify. It's fair to say that the Federal Court is very advanced in relation to audiovisual technology; like SACAT, they have had quite a bit of experience in being able to suspend the requirement for physical attendances and have the capacity to be able to implement that. The Law Society of South Australia and the Bar Association have also been very active in providing advice to the profession and to the public on these matters.