Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (COURTS EFFICIENCY REFORMS) BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 1 May 2012.) The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:32): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Bill 2012 on behalf of the Liberal opposition. The bill was introduced on 23 November 2011 and an identical bill was reintroduced on 1 March 2012. The primary aim of the bill is to reduce court backlog, predominantly by extending the jurisdiction of the lower criminal and civil courts in allowing some functions of the court to be handled administratively. In the second reading explanation, the minister acknowledged that there has been an increasing backlog of criminal cases awaiting finalisation in the District Court. Defendants face routine delays of over 12 months in finalising criminal matters, some taking 24 months or longer. I think it is important for the council to realise that those figures are relatively bald, but when you think of the consequences of that on criminal defendants they are significant. If you are a person who is being remanded in custody while a criminal matter is being concluded, a delay of days, weeks and months is not only a significant cost to the state but it is also a very significant impost on people who may turn out to be innocent. As William Gladstone, the British prime minister said, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.' As the minister acknowledged in the second reading explanation, the efficient and effective operation of the criminal justice system is essential to maintaining public confidence in our legal system and is fundamental to maintaining peace, order and good government in the state. The genesis of this bill is so longstanding that the delay reflects the government's low priority on delivering services on the ground. In November 2005, the Chief Justice and Chief Judge requested that His Honour Judge Paul Rice prepare a report in relation to court delays and means of improving the efficiency of the court system. The Rice report, as it is known, was released in 2006 and highlighted the relationship between court delays and a range of factors, including lengthy pre-trial preparation by the Office of the DPP, non-enforcement by magistrates of the Summary Procedure Act and increased penalties. The report also forecasts an increase in delays resulting from new child pornography, criminal neglect, instruments of crime, traffic and aggravated offences. Solutions proposed by the report included more information about court processes being given to the accused, more preparation time before committal, greater training for prosecutors, use of CCTV, binding resolutions for pre-trial hearings and more expeditious DNA services. In October 2006 former attorney-general Michael Atkinson formed the criminal justice ministerial task force to examine how the court system could be more efficient. The task force recommended increasing the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court by allowing more serious offences to be heard there. However, the government has proposed that, instead of offence types, sentence lengths should be the determinant of jurisdiction. On 18 December 2010 Attorney-General Rau announced public consultation on the draft bill. That consultation closed on 11 February 2011. The bill makes a range of reforms, including changes to jurisdiction. The bill increases the sentencing jurisdiction of a magistrate from two to five years, imprisonment for a single offence and a cumulative total of 10 years. The bill increases the jurisdiction of the civil court from $6,000 to $12,000 for small claims and to $100,000 for general claims, motor vehicle injury and property. Whilst the opposition welcomes the majority of changes, we have concerns, and some of those will be reflected in amendments we will move at the committee stage. In conclusion, I stress that, as well as what we hope will be the positive contribution of this bill, there are other factors at play which threaten to increase the court backlog at this very time the government would hope that these measures would reduce it. In particular, I express my concern about the impact of rumoured cuts to the Office of the DPP. Both the outgoing and the incoming DPP have indicated their concern that funding to the Office of the DPP needs to increase rather than decrease, but earlier this year I highlighted my concern over advice we have been receiving about cuts being considered by the office. In particular, the office has been advised that contract staff at the DPP are being reduced and that there is discussion of changes to the witness assistance program and withdrawal of the DPP from committal proceedings. The Commissioner for Victims' Rights, Michael O'Connell, has warned that the mooted cuts to the witness assistance officers would reduce emotional and practical witness support, and that it would be a retrograde step to reduce services to victims of crime. Police have warned that any plans to withdraw the DPP from committal proceedings would put an untenable workload on police prosecutions. I find it concerning that, at the very time when the government has legislation before the parliament which acknowledges the very detrimental effect of delays within our court system, it is implementing budget cuts that will exacerbate those court delays. We also indicated our concern at the impact on shared services, on both the justice portfolio as a whole and on the DPP in particular. The opposition understands that in recent years the departmental charges for shared services in the Office of the DPP have more than tripled to $2 million, which is 10 per cent of the total DPP budget. We certainly will be interested in the estimates process to explore that more, particularly in light of what I understand is a new government edict, which allows portfolios to withdraw from shared services. We certainly believe that it is important to make sure we get value for money for every justice dollar, and in that regard justice money should not be used to prop up inefficient experiments in administration. With those remarks, I indicate that the opposition will support the bill, but we will have amendments at the committee stage. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women 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) (15:40): I do not believe there are any further second reading contributions to this bill so I will take this opportunity to make a few concluding remarks. First, I would like to thank those members who contributed to the second reading contribution. The bill arises from the government's concern about the backlog of criminal cases in the District Court and the delays experienced in criminal matters being finalised. The efficient and effective operation of the criminal justice system is essential to maintaining public confidence in our legal system and is fundamental to maintaining peace, order and good government in our society. The valuable recommendations of His Honour Judge Rice and the Criminal Justice Ministerial Taskforce in their respective reports addressing these issues have formed the basis of many of the reforms proposed by this bill. It is intended that these reforms form part of a suite of measures to address the many and various causes of delay in the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the objective is to improve outcomes for victims of crime and meet community expectations for the timely dispensing of justice while maintaining appropriate checks and balances to protect the provision of substantive and procedural justice for defendants. The measures in this bill are an incremental step in achieving that objective and must be seen as a piece of a much larger puzzle of the programs and proposals. As has previously been stated, the government welcomes input and suggestions from those who have an interest in seeing improvements made to the courts and the criminal justice system. As a matter of interest, I should say that one recommendation of Judge Rice (which has not found favour with legislation) is to provide for fast-tracking guilty pleas, attracting significant discounts and to encourage greater awareness within the profession of graduated discounts that sentencing judges apply on guilty pleas. That was also one of his recommendations that was reduced into a bill. I just thought I would mention it. Judge Rice says many things and we are trying to advance many of them even though sometimes we come across heavy weather. In relation to the small claims jurisdiction, there is no right or wrong answer about where you cut the number; it is a matter of judgement. However, given that we all agree that $6,000 is way out of date, the government's judgement is that to double it is a fair start in terms of keeping pace with community expectations. I agree that we should obviously review it more frequently, and the Attorney-General in another place has assured the other place that if he is still occupying the office in five years' time, he will be doing just that. The amount of work created by matters in the range between $6,000 and $12,000 being in the mainstream, should I say, rather than in small claims, is considerable and this will make a substantial impact on resource allocation in the Magistrates Court. I think it will be very good for the Magistrates Court and it is strongly supported by the Magistrates Court. However, courts often encounter difficulty when dealing with self-represented people. Sometimes something that might take 10 minutes with competent lawyers can take considerably longer with self-represented people. There are certain serial litigants in Adelaide who keep our courts tied up and who keep just on the right (or wrong) side of being vexatious. They are quite good at doing this and they occupy considerable time. As I said, there are challenges. The government is very pleased that the opposition endorses the idea of increasing the threshold. I think that for a first step a jump from $6,000 to $12,000 will be useful, and I think it is a positive step forward. Inasmuch as I understand there is general support for the bill, I thank the opposition and other members. Bill read a second time.