STATUTES AMENDMENT (COURTS EFFICIENCY REFORMS) BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the council do not insist on its amendment No.5 but agree to the alternate amendment made by the House of Assembly.

The reason the government opposed amendment No.5 was that the amendment would have meant that a person who became Chief Magistrate and, by virtue of being appointed Chief Magistrate become a District Court judge, could then immediately resign as Chief Magistrate and we would be left with a District Court judge we did not expect and no Chief Magistrate. The alternative amendment moved by the government in the House of Assembly has the effect that a person holding such a position can only resign as Chief Magistrate and sit on the District Court bench with the approval of the Governor. My understanding is that the alternate amendment is acceptable to the opposition. The House of Assembly has agreed to amendments Nos. 6 to 13 made by the Legislative Council.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister has appropriately addressed her remarks to one particular amendment, but if I could just reflect on the progress since the matter was last before this chamber. I thank the government for its constructive engagement on the issues. In relation to the first matter, the Chief Magistrate and their status as a District Court judge, the opposition said that we supported that as long as the Chief Magistrate did not sit as a District Court judge. Whilst the government initially disagreed, it has agreed to that amendment, but it agreed as long as, if the Chief Magistrate resigns as the Chief Magistrate, they also resign as a District Court judge, and the alternative amendment being offered to us achieves that purpose and we welcome that.

The Legislative Council also insisted that this was not a case for retrospectivity, and the government has accepted the Legislative Council amendments in relation to retrospectivity. The government rejected the Legislative Council's proposal in relation to increasing a magistrate's retirement age. The government has acquiesced and a magistrate's retirement age will increase to 70. In relation to small claims, the government has now accepted the proposal to increase the limit to $25,000 rather than the $12,000, and to amend the minor statutory proceedings similarly.

I thank the government for their constructive approach on improving the bill. I believe this bill is another example which exposes the government's hollow rhetoric in relation to obstructive behaviour by this chamber. The Attorney-General, in particular, complains that, to use his words, his masterpieces are defaced by this council. I would not describe them as such. I remind the council that, in relation to the weapons bill, three-quarters of the Legislative Council's amendments were incorporated in full or in terms of their intent. In relation to parole, if the Legislative Council had not done what it did to amend the bill, the government's parole provisions were, in the view of the police, unworkable.

In relation to the ICAC Bill, which we are to consider subsequently, no matter what happens with the amendments before us this afternoon, 20 Liberal amendments were accepted by the government, some with modification. I believe that this bill and other bills that have been before this council highlight the valuable role this council plays. I urge the council to yet again remind itself that, in spite of bleats of obstructionism, in spite of long delays in the consideration of bills, we should not be bullied by the government into backing down on what we think is right for the people of South Australia.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will be supporting the alternative amendment put forward by the government, and we are pleased to see that the lower house has accepted the other amendments that the Legislative Council passed.

Motion carried.