Bills

Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 February 2023.)

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (15:38): When I last was on my feet talking about the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, I was talking about the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and its report and the fact that it contains three recommendations. One was in relation to allowing the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to monitor and report on the observance of public sector principles and the code of conduct by the Courts Administration Authority.

Secondly, I was addressing the incredible work that our Sheriff's Officers do and that recommendation No. 5 (the second one to be adopted under that review report) is prescribing additional information to be included in the Courts Admin annual report, including a report from the Sheriff on the operations of the Sheriff and the security officers. I was remarking upon the particularly excellent work of the former member for Frome, the now member for Stuart, in raising the issues that Sheriff's Officers were facing and, for some time, were trying to get attention and remedy to the problems that they were facing in their workplace.

This recommendation goes directly to that, in that it provides a reporting mechanism for the Sheriff to be reporting to the parliament, and obviously to the public at large, about what is happening in the Sheriff's department, which was not provided for previously. I think that is an excellent move to provide some additional accountability and provision for Sheriff's Officers, who do such difficult work in our court system, to be able to have their voices heard, and for us as a parliament and the public to be able to have some scrutiny over what is going on.

Obviously, that is particularly important seeing as there are a number of measures that have come from the issues that the Sheriff's Officers have been raising. We will obviously want to take a look at the Sheriff's Officer cultural change plan as a parliament and make sure that what was outlined to be implemented there is actually being delivered. That looks at five key pillars: leadership and governance; communication; workforce capacity, which is a critical one; a capable workforce; and safety and wellbeing, which was central to the complaints that Sheriff's Officers were raising in relation to their own workplace in previous years.

I am glad to see that there is now that reporting mechanism, that that will be coming to us as parliament in the form of the annual report. I am sure that the greater public, especially through the media, will be scrutinising that report—I know I always did when I was a journalist. I used to take particular care looking at the Courts Administration Authority annual report every time it came down.

Recommendation 6, which is actually the third of the review's recommendations to be adopted and given effect in this piece of legislation, talks about the provision of the appointment of two additional non-judicial members of the State Courts Administration Council who can bring expertise in human resources and also finance or administration to the council.

Once again, to my mind that really goes to those issues that Sheriff's Officers have raised in the past. I think it really did highlight the need for some expertise, or additional expertise, around human resources management and also, of course, the finance and administration experience that is always welcome when we are looking at the running of something that is so significant, but also such a user of taxpayers' money, and that is our court system.

The provision of those two additional non-judicial members will provide some external advice to the council—some non-lawyer advice, some non-judicial officer advice—and, I think, make decision-making easier and strengthen the decision-making that is being made by the State Courts Administration Council. Together, those three recommendations—4, 5 and 6—that are being adopted in this legislation will enhance oversight and reporting requirements and, as I said, enhance the quality of decision-making from that organisation.

There were some other Statutory Authority Review Committee recommendations that were not adopted by the previous government, or did not require legislative amendment, so those are not given force in this amendment bill that is before us now.

There are some changes as well between the bill that was previously before this house in 2021 and now what we find ourselves with, the 2022 version. They are not huge changes but they are worth noting. The 2021 version of the bill provided for up to two non-judicial members to be appointed, whereas this bill requires two non-judicial members to be appointed. As I said, they will be drawn from the human resources management, finance or administration backgrounds. That is a good move, because obviously it does not give the council an option.

It expresses the will of this parliament, I believe, in saying, 'We want to have those two extra people. We want to have those people with that additional experience,' rather than providing it open to the council whether or not they wish to appoint them. I think that is an expression of this parliament saying that we want to have a more diverse expertise on that council, that we do not think that you can just have people all from the same line of work—that is, with judicial or legal experience—and that we want to see some more diverse experience there to strengthen the decision-making that is coming forward.

The house may also be aware that the government has tabled some additional amendments. Those are on file and we will be moving those. They concern the make-up of the Courts Administration Council to facilitate the participation of the Judge of the Youth Court, the State Coroner and the Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court).

I note that the shadow minister had filed amendments that were similar in nature in terms of inserting an additional paragraph that included the Judge of the Youth Court. I will leave it to him to explain his amendment, but my appreciation is that he is seeking to further the bill in that direction. These amendments incorporate that and go a little bit further in terms of adding the Judge of the Youth Court, also the State Coroner and the Senior Judge of the ERD Court. Those amendments are on file now.

There are some minor differences between the bill and the 2021 version of the bill relating to the appointment of deputies for the new non-judicial members and also to clarify quorum and decision-making requirements and those are consequential on the change of the composition of the council, as I have discussed.

The bill also differs from the 2021 version by removing a requirement included in the 2021 bill for the Coroner to provide a report to the administrator about the operation of the Coroners Court for inclusion in the courts admin annual report. That is, previously there was to be a section for the Coroner in the courts admin report. That is not in existence in this 2022 version because section 39 of the Coroners Act already requires the State Coroner to report on both the administration of the Coroners Court and also the provision of Coroner's services more generally.

It is the view of the drafters of this bill, and indeed the government, that it would simply be doubling up to have it in two annual reports. There will still, of course, be a requirement for the State Coroner to include that information in his or her annual report, which is tabled in parliament.

I have to say I used to pore over that Coroner's annual report. There was usually quite a lot of information in there that was of newsworthy substance. The Coroners Court, I think, is actually one of our most fascinating courts. It really gets to the why and it gets to accountability and for the purposes of government, I really think it is a court that government departments and ministers often pay particular heed to because there can be recommendations coming out of those court cases, sadly enough, that show us the way on how we can improve legislation or policy to make sure that tragic circumstances either do not happen or the risk of them happening is lessened.

That is a particularly pertinent court for this place and one that I, as a journalist, always really enjoyed covering because of the depth of information that the Coroner and counsel assisting would get into and the ability to really analyse what had happened in a particular tragic situation and how that might be avoided in future.

It is quite different from the rest of the court system, which is really about who did what when and penalising wrongdoers. The Coroners Court is really about finding out how something happened and how we might avoid it in future, which I think is incredibly important. The Coroners Court provides a critical role in some quite shocking and sad cases that we see from time to time in our community.

Critically, this change does not actually stop the administrator from including general information about the Coroners Court in the overall CAA annual report, so reference can still be made. It just means that there is not a requirement and we will not, hopefully, see so much doubling up.

Those are all the remarks I really wanted to make aside from mentioning that I am particularly pleased at the appointment recently of two fine women taking up positions as magistrates who have Aboriginal backgrounds. I think that will be quite an inspiration to Aboriginal people who are coming through studying law or who are lawyers at the moment. I would like to take the opportunity to commend the Attorney-General on those very important and influential appointments.

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (15:49): Today, I rise in support of the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I am glad to be supporting it today, as I do believe in a strong justice system, and very much appreciate the way that amendments like these can have a real impact on the day-to-day workings of those within courts administration.

The Courts Administration Authority is constituted by the Courts Administration Act and is independent of the legislative and executive arms of government. It is a means, of course, for the judiciary to control the provision of the administrative facilities and services required by the South Australian courts. The Courts Administration Authority is governed by the State Courts Administration Council, and the State Courts Administrator is the council's chief executive officer.

The purpose of this bill is to implement three recommendations of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and clarify the appointment process for the State Courts Administrator. The three recommendations are:

recommendation 4: repeal section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act to allow the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to monitor and report on the observance of public sector principles and code of conduct by the Courts Administration Authority;

recommendation 5: prescribe additional information, to be included in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report, including a report from the Sheriff on the operations of the Sheriff and the security officers.

This recommendation is particularly important and provides lived experience and real perspective from the operation of the Sheriff and those security officers involved in the administration of justice. Very much like the member for Badcoe, I have seen the work of the Courts Administration Authority firsthand. I became incredibly fond of and often reliant on the Sheriff's Officers at the Courts Administration Authority, and I was particularly saddened to hear of the plight of those officers in the course of their regular work.

Everyone does deserve to be safe at work. That is actually the premise upon which many of us end up in this place in the first place, that being the defence of people in their working lives. I also commend the member for Stuart for his work particularly in this space.

I interned at the Magistrates Court for some months as well as many law firms during the course of my law degree and would like to particularly acknowledge the role of Sheriff's Officers in our justice system and the fundamental yet often under-recognised role that they play in the sound administration of our courts, and in justice overall. The third recommendation is:

recommendation 6: provide for the appointment of two additional non-judicial members of the State Courts Administration Council who can bring expertise in human resources, finance, administration or the like to the council.

I do think as well that this is a particularly important addition as it broadens the experience and expertise of those on the State Courts Administration Council outside of solely judicial experience. We do know that a number of people have a role to play in strengthening our justice system, and it is not just those with judicial experience—even perhaps a court reporter, such as the member for Badcoe, could provide assistance in some way to that system. I do believe that it is everyone's responsibility to assist, no matter your profession, in the further development and strengthening of our courts and justice system.

It is important to note that this component of the bill does differ from the previous 2021 bill slightly because the 2021 version of the bill provided for up to two non-judicial members to be appointed, whereas this bill requires two non-judicial members to be appointed to ensure a diversity of experience in the make-up of the council. There are also differences within the bill relating to the appointment of deputies for the non-judicial members, and to clarify the quorum and decision-making requirements of the council. I think that all these things are incredibly important, particularly for the day-to-day administration of those processes, and also to specify in real terms what is required by those bodies at any given time.

These recommendations are very important and will enhance the oversight reporting requirements and decision-making of these bodies, which are incredibly important in the administration of justice across our state. There were other recommendations made by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee but they were either not accepted by the previous government, or indeed our government, or did not require legislative amendment.

I would like to acknowledge, despite not being included in the bill, the work that goes into making those recommendations. There is a lot of work that goes into recommending in situations like these but also a breadth of experience that comes out of those recommendations to better the lives of those working within the justice system.

The government will also be moving additional amendments concerning the make-up of the council to facilitate the participation of the Judge of the Youth Court, as well as the State Coroner and the Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court.

This bill also differs from the 2021 version of the bill by removing a requirement included in the 2021 bill for the Coroner to provide a report to the administrator about the operation of the Coroners Court for inclusion in the annual report. The State Coroner does already have a requirement to provide an annual report, pursuant to section 39 of the Coroners Act, which is provided directly to the Attorney-General. This assists in relieving that double up in terms of the process.

I am very happy to be supporting this bill today, as I do believe it has a real practical effect on the workings of the Courts Administration Authority. I would again like to acknowledge the work that goes into administrating our courts across South Australia, particularly at the ground level, to assist with the judicial process. I am happy to commend the bill.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (15:56): I simply close the debate by thanking all those who have participated in this chamber and the other place in bringing this legislation to us.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 2, after line 14 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1)]—Insert:

(ca) the Judge of the Youth Court, appointed by the Governor in accordance with subsection (1aa); and

(cb) the State Coroner, appointed by the Governor in accordance with subsection (1aa); and

(cc) the Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court, appointed by the Governor in accordance with subsection (1aa); and

Mr TEAGUE: I will take this chance to address that. Amendment No. 1, standing in the name of the Deputy Premier, was filed on 17 February this year. I note that I first became aware of that in the course of debate, I think in the course of the contribution of the member for Gibson on 23 February this year. Responding as it does to the amendment that I filed on 16 November last year, I had raised it with the Attorney's office around that time, around November last year, and I thought that I had received a kind of interesting 'not the government's view at this time'. I am glad, albeit in circumstances of somewhat surprise, to see that that bore a bit more fruit than I was anticipating in November.

In case the Deputy Premier has not taken the opportunity to, I thought I would read the rationale of the government in relation to the amendment. Let's be clear, it is an amendment to provide for the judge of the Youth Court, the State Coroner and the Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court to be also part of the composition of the State Courts Administration Council.

I am glad that that has inspired a broader view about those heads of jurisdiction, and I note that that has then been couched in terms of an expression of interest by each of them, and then tenure only so far as the extent of each individual. That is interesting, but I do not propose to cavil with what has been described as the feedback of the State Courts Administrator on the advice of the council. I am glad that the council is apparently fully apprised of and engaged with what that will look like.

I have an undated memo that is subsequent to the timing that I have just described, and follows on from my request for context in terms of the government now moving the amendment. That provides as follows:

The Government has filed amendments in the name of the Deputy Premier to the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill.

The amendments provide for the appointment of the Judge of the Youth Court, State Coroner, and Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court to be appointed as members of the State Courts Administration Council.

The amendments provide that the judge of the Youth Court, State Coroner, and Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court can be appointed to the Council by the Governor upon their written request to be appointed, and with the concurrence of the Chief Justice. The appointments are not 'automatic' in the same way as the existing Council appointments.

The appointment is limited by the tenure of the relevant judicial officer—meaning that on resignation/retirement/other change from the role, their successor will not be automatically appointed but will again have the option to seek appointment should they choose to do so.

There are consequential amendments to the quorum and decision making provisions which have the effect that the amendments do not change the quorum or decision requirements.

This suite of amendments arose in the context of seeking the views of the Council via the State Courts Administrator, on the amendments proposed by the Shadow Attorney-General. The State Courts Administrator advised that the Council and heads of jurisdiction did not support that amendment, and instead sought the amendment which has now been filed by the Government.

The Council and heads of jurisdiction were subsequently provided with a copy of the draft amendment via the State Courts Administrator, to ensure it was in keeping with their request. The Administrator subsequently advised that the Council did not have any comment on the draft amendment.

End of advice. In those circumstances I take it that there was acquiescence if not embrace of the amendment in those terms. So, in the circumstances, I welcome the amendment, support the amendment and will, in due course, not proceed with the amendment in my name subsequently.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Although that was not framed particularly as questions, I think nonetheless a general question has been raised in the sense of: how has this come to be that these amendments have been filed? So, in that case, I would like to take the opportunity to give some of that context, although much of the context that the honourable member has given is absolutely accurate. That is not to suggest that any of it was inaccurate, but just for the full picture.

So, I will explain that this amendment amends subclause 3(1) of the bill to insert new subparagraphs (ca), (cb) and (cc) to provide for the appointment of the Judge of the Youth Court, State Coroner and Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court as members of the State Courts Administration Council in accordance with the proposed new subsection 3(1aa).

This amendment was requested by the council and relevant heads of jurisdiction by the State Courts Administrator as a result of consultation on the Teague amendment—so, indeed, the sequence of events described by the honourable member is absolutely accurate. The government is acceding to this request by moving this amendment and those related to and consequential upon it, which are all of the subsequent amendments standing in my name.

The State Courts Administrator has advised that it is the view of the council and relevant heads of jurisdiction that it would be beneficial for there to be capacity for the Judge of the Youth Court, State Coroner and Senior Judge of the ERD Court to be represented on the council so that they can appropriately participate in the decision-making of the council that affects their courts, should they wish to do so.

The government has been advised that it is their preference for these appointments to be made only upon request of the relevant judicial officer; that is, these appointments will not be automatic in the same way that the Chief Justice, Chief Judge and Chief Magistrate are legislated as members of the council. This appointment mechanism has been specifically requested by the council and heads of jurisdiction via the State Courts Administrator.

The council and heads of jurisdiction have advised via the State Courts Administrator that in their opinion the amendments will have the benefits of ensuring a mechanism by which the heads of jurisdiction can seek to be appointed to the council in the event that they feel that the council is not properly considering issues relevant to their jurisdiction, and providing additional accountability mechanism between council and the heads of jurisdiction.

With those words, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale and who has had input into that, and appreciate the indication from the honourable member that other amendments will not be proceeded with.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 2, after line 18 [clause 3(1)]—Insert:

(1aa) A person appointed to an office referred to in subsection (1)(ca), (cb) or (cc) may only be appointed as a member of the Council—

(a) on the written request of the person; and

(b) with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Amendment No 3 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 3, after line 14 [clause 3(1)]—Insert:

(1ca) The office of a member of the Council appointed under subsection (1)(ca),(cb) or (cc) becomes vacant if the member—

(a) ceases to be the Judge of the Youth Court, State Coroner or Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court (as the case requires); or

(b) is removed from office by the Governor at the request of the Chief Justice; or

(c) resigns by written notice to the Governor.

These amendments are consequential upon the matter we just discussed.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 4 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, line 17 [clause 4(2)]—Delete 'section 7(1)(d)' and substitute 'section 7(1)(ca), (cb), (cc) or (d)'

Amendment No 5 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, line 20 [clause 4(3)]—Delete 'section 7(1)(d)' and substitute 'section 7(1)(ca), (cb), (cc) or (d)'

These amendments are consequential on previous decisions.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 9), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (16:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Mr ODENWALDER: Once again, I reluctantly draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: