Statutes Amendment (Court Fees) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 October 2017.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:04): The proposal we are considering today is a result of a review of court fees undertaken by the Courts Administration Council. Essentially, it has been suggested that lodgement fees for civil claims in the Magistrates Court should be tiered and a new setting-down fee should be introduced for listing civil matters for trial in the Magistrates Court. Although there is no suggestion that fees be tiered for any of the superior courts, the bill makes the relevant changes to allow for this in the future. I understand this has already happened in most other states, with the exception of New South Wales and Tasmania.

In the Attorney-General's second reading, he said that the introduction of a fee for listing a civil action should encourage more parties to attempt to settle civil claims before trial and reduce the number of civil claims being listed for trial. I am not convinced that this is the only outcome it will have and am very concerned that increasing fees will only serve as a barrier to justice for those who cannot afford it.

I thank the Attorney-General's staff, who have been very helpful in providing information—comparing the fees South Australia currently has, what the proposed changes are under this bill and how this compares to other states. The fee increases will result in South Australia having the highest fees for civil claims in the Magistrates Court. This is even the case when we compare our fees with Queensland, which has an upper threshold of $150,000; that is, $50,000 more than South Australia's threshold.

I am alarmed at the increases the government is proposing. Advance SA would like to know why the court fees in South Australia are so much higher than interstate. Why does it cost more to seek justice in South Australia than it does in any other state in the country? Unfortunately, it is not only court fees where we are the most expensive; we have some of the country's most expensive speeding fines, stamp duties on property, land tax and workers' compensation premiums, not to mention the cost of electricity.

The tiered civil claim lodgement fees and new setting-down fees are expected to generate an additional $607,000 per annum. I would like to know what the revenue is going towards. Will it be put back into the courts to upgrade the facilities, which definitely need maintenance work undertaken? I am yet to see a compelling reason as to why I should support this bill and reserve my right to oppose it in later stages.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (12:07): I thank members for their second reading contributions to, and indications of support for, this bill. The Hon. Andrew McLachlan asked a number of questions during the second reading debate on the bill, which I will answer now. I think that will make the committee stage very easy indeed. The first question related to the Courts Administration Authority's review of court fees, from which the proposal to introduce tiered fees in the Magistrates Court and the need for this bill arose. I am advised that it is important to clarify that the courts fee review was not requested by the Attorney-General or the government; it was an internal, own motion initiative of the Courts Administration Authority.

The review was a Courts Administration Authority council report prepared as an internal working document and not intended for public release. That is why it is not available to members, I am advised. In terms of whether there has been a discussion of also introducing tiered fees in the higher courts, I am advised that the proposal received by the Attorney-General from the Courts Administration Authority stated that the courts will, over the next few years, introduce an electronic records management system that will provide for a range of new court processes. This may lead to future opportunities to introduce tiered fee structures in other jurisdictions.

I am advised that there are at present no plans to introduce tiered fees in the higher courts. However, on the advice of parliamentary counsel, the introduction of tiered civil lodgement fees in the Magistrates Court requires a specific regulation-making authority to that effect in the Magistrates Courts Act. The Courts Administration Authority sought amendment to other acts contained in this bill, so that, as an extension to the existing regulation-making powers under the various courts acts to fixed fees, there is no future impediment to also structuring those fees on a tiered basis.

The Hon. Andrew McLachlan referred to concerns raised by the Law Society, both in initial consultation with the courts and subsequent consultation conducted by the Attorney-General about the bill and its proposed regulations, in particular about the potential impact on access to justice. In developing the proposed new tiered civil lodgement fees for the Magistrates Court, the Courts Administration Authority was mindful to structure those fees so as to minimise any impact on access to justice. Lodgement fees are not proposed to increase for claims under $25,000. For claims over $25,000, the impact of the increased fees will predominantly affect large corporations rather than individuals.

On average, I am advised, only 4.8 per cent of claims by individuals and small businesses—that is, those that are not prescribed corporations—will be affected by the proposed tiered fees, based on data from the 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 financial years. My advice is, for example, that for the 2015-16 financial year, there was a total of 20,563 civil lodgements by individuals and small businesses, with a claim value from $0 to $100,000, of which 1,107 were claims in excess of $25,000 and would therefore be impacted by the proposed new tiered fee structure.

It is also relevant to note that until changes to the jurisdictional limits of the Magistrates Court by the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Act in mid-2013, claims over $40,000, or $80,000 in the case of vehicle injury and property claims, lay to the District Court with considerably higher fees than the Magistrates Court civil lodgement fees. The proposed increased fees for those claim ranges would still be lower than the District Court civil lodgement fees that would have applied to those claim ranges prior to mid-2013.

I trust this answers the Hon. Andrew McLachlan's question, and I look forward to the speedy consideration of this bill through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for his second reading summing-up and through him, the officer who prepared that very comprehensive response, because it satiated every inquiry that I possibly could have. As a consequence of that and my reflection upon it, I do not have any questions for the minister during committee, nor will the Liberal Party be seeking to amend the bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 7) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (12:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.