STATUTES AMENDMENT (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 May 2012.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:19): I rise on behalf of the opposition to address the bill. The bill was originally introduced by the Attorney-General in November last year. However, it was not debated before the prorogation of parliament and was reintroduced on 1 March 2012. The opposition broadly supports this bill as it addresses a range of matters within the Attorney-General's jurisdiction to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The bill amends 12 acts and has a particular focus on court functions and processes, but does touch on the justice sector more broadly.

As I said, the opposition is generally in support but we do have a couple of amendments. In particular, the opposition is maintaining its general concern about the centralisation within the correctional services portfolio and we will have an amendment which seeks to resist that trend. Another concern relates to the proposal in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The bill addresses the matter of where powers are assigned to the Director of Public Prosecutions and how they are delegated. Whilst we might consider alterations of delegations in specific instances, we do not believe it is appropriate to provide a blanket delegation power. As the member for Bragg highlighted in the other place, it is better practice to provide specific provisions in authorising acts delineating the extent of delegation permitted, if any.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the effectiveness of reforms such as these to improve court functions and processes is not unrelated to the court facilities within which those functions and processes operate. It is disappointing to note the current state of court infrastructure and facilities, in particular the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court complex on Gouger Street and in Victoria Square is an ageing asset. The first part of the Supreme Court building facing King William Street was completed in 1867 at a cost of £4,000; the portion facing Victoria Square was completed in 1869 for £18,000; and I understand the Supreme Court library building was built in 1959. Other than refurbishment, no capital expenditure has been made on the building in the past 52 years.

The Supreme Court complex is in a very poor state of repair. Only about one-tenth of the complex could be said to be adequate. Recently retiring Supreme Court justice, Justice Bleby, said:

The home of the highest court in the State is, frankly, a disgrace. It is inefficient to work in; its facilities for staff are appalling; it fails any basic occupational health and safety tests for its inhabitants; it is in a sorry state of disrepair; the facilities for counsel and litigants are almost non-existent; it is user-hostile to the disabled on both sides of the bar table; and the ability to be able to provide any sensible degree of court security, particularly in respect of serious criminal [matters] is rendered impossible. We cannot even have a Special Sitting in our own court. The premises are widely acknowledged to be the worst facilities of any superior court in Australia. The judges, in their annual report to parliament, without any response, have drawn attention to this state of affairs every year now for the past 11 years.

The reality of Justice Bleby's remarks was brought home recently by an unfortunate accident involving the Chief Justice. He was confined to a wheelchair and, as none of the courtrooms have disability access, he was unable to access any of the courts. So at the highest level of the courts we had a judicial officer not being able to discharge the full range of his duties. That highlights how the physical facilities of the court can impact on the efficiency of the court.

It is a poor reflection on this government that workers in and users of the justice system are such a low priority that the government has already broken its election commitment in relation to justice sector capital needs; that is, the government promised to invest in the Southern Community Justice Centre and that promise was broken as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review in the second half of last year.

I hope that in the future the Attorney-General will be more effective in advocating within cabinet for justice portfolio requirements because court efficiency relies not just on improving court functions and processes but also making sure that the courts have the physical and other resources that they need to effectively discharge their responsibilities.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (16:24): I understand that there are no further second reading contributions to this bill so I would like to take this opportunity to thank honourable members for their contributions and the indicated support, albeit qualified, for this bill.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Almost overwhelming.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Almost overwhelming! I look forward to dealing with this bill expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.