Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Supreme Court Buildings SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:21): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government, representing the Attorney-General, a question about the Supreme Court report. Leave granted. The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: In the annual report of the judges of the Supreme Court tabled here today (notwithstanding that it was dated 10 March this year), the Chief Justice again returns to the subject of the inadequacy of Supreme Court buildings. He highlights on this occasion an aspect not previously mentioned, that is, facilities for the public and for persons with disabilities. He says, for example, in relation to courtrooms 1 and 2 that there are no suitable waiting areas; the nearest public toilets can be reached only by leaving the building and walking 100 metres to public toilets at the back of the building; there is a lack of appropriate spaces for witnesses and other people waiting; hot water is not available in all the toilets; the buildings do not meet disability access standards; and there is disability access to only four of the 12 courtrooms, while only one of those 12 courtrooms provides disability access to the witness box. Previously when these matters have been raised, the government has rejected them on the ground that the judges are seeking the building of a Taj Mahal. The report goes on under the heading of technology to speak of the fact that the court cannot effect efficiencies because of lack of technology infrastructure. The report notes that they are considering using electronic transcripts for civil trials in Full Court hearings, subject to sufficient funding being available, the clear implication being that it is not currently available. The Chief Justice notes that the Courts Aboriginal Reference Group, established in 2007, has been abandoned for the time being, a matter about which people who are concerned about Aboriginal issues in justice would be deeply concerned. It is noted that the land and valuation rules have not been changed since enacted in 1970. The present rules are outdated and in need of revision. The judges do not have the time or the resources to undertake a comprehensive review. The judges say it is hoped that an appropriate budget allocation can be made to undertake this task. Finally, the judges note that in the Probate Registry the backlog of applications awaiting a grant has increased substantially. I am advised that it is now taking two months for probates to be granted, with consequent delays and inconvenience to families of deceased persons. My questions to the Attorney are: 1.	Is he concerned by the continuing difficulties, delays and inefficiencies in the courts' system, which are highlighted in the judge's report? 2.	What action or steps has he taken to remedy these defects? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:25): From my understanding just this week there was an announcement about new court facilities opening up in Sturt Street, but I will refer the question to the Attorney in another place and bring back a reply. I make the comment that this or any future government after the next election will be free to offer to spend money on whatever priorities they like. Members opposite have already said that they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on building a new sports stadium. If they are going to do that, I hope they tell us which areas they will be cutting. Members opposite tell us that they want new prisons, new courts and all these other— The Hon. D.W. Ridgway Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: We will get advice on the location, unlike you lot. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: So, he is going to give us advice on where the new courts will be, but what they really need to tell us is what areas of other government expenditure they will cut because, in case members opposite are not aware, we are in the middle of the worst global financial crisis the world, not just this state, has faced— Members interjecting: The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They say that that is our excuse for everything. Members opposite need to come up with a credible proposal. They want more money spent on building courts, and they want a new football stadium, new prisons, new roads and airstrips sealed. Just today they wanted airstrips sealed and all these other things. They will have to pay for these things in an environment in which finances are much more difficult to obtain than they have been for many decades. Members opposite need to say how they will fund these projects. Will it mean new taxes? Either it will mean substantial new taxes—I notice that they are promising to cut them as well—massive increases in taxes under members opposite, or else they will literally have to cut billions of dollars from other projects to pay for these things. Let them put up. I will refer the specific question to the Attorney.