Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Judicial Conduct Commissioner (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Judicial Conduct Commissioner (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Judicial Conduct Commissioner (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council Treasurer The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:30): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading explanation and the detailed explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading them. Leave granted. Mr President, the Bill I introduce today makes miscellaneous amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act was passed by Parliament on 29 October 2015 and received Royal Assent on 5 November 2015. Since that date, the Governor has appointed the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the Hon Bruce Lander QC, as the first Judicial Conduct Commissioner with the approval of the Parliamentary Statutory Officers Committee. The amendments contained in this Bill were requested by the Commissioner. They operate to clarify some aspects of the Act and improve the efficiency of the judicial complaints process. The Bill allows the Commissioner to investigate if further information enlivens a complaint that would otherwise have been dismissed, and also allows the Commissioner to summarily dismiss complaints that could be dismissed under section 17. This would occur without the need to conduct a preliminary examination or to give notice of the complaint to the judicial officer concerned or to the jurisdictional head. This Government is reducing the administrative burden placed on the Commissioner. The Bill provides that the identity of the complainant need not be provided to the judge concerned or to the relevant jurisdictional head unless the complainant consents to the disclosure or the Commissioner is of the opinion that the disclosure of the complainant's identity is necessary in order to ensure a proper response to the complaint is filed. This is essential to facilitate complaints to be made to the Commissioner, especially coupled with an amendment to make it clear that any acts of victimisation from a judge towards a complainant can itself be the subject of a complaint. Lawyers should not be dissuaded from making complaints due to fears of retaliation when they next appear before that judge. The definition of 'relevant jurisdictional head' where the person the subject of the complaint is themselves a jurisdictional head has been amended to refer to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, meaning that complaints about a jurisdictional head are referred to the Chief Justice. The Bill also makes several minor points of clarification, including: 1.	Requiring a copy of the report of the Judicial Conduct Panel be provided to the Commissioner; 2.	Providing that where the Commissioner is also the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (as is currently the case), a person employed under section 12 of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 and directed to perform duties under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Actor a person seconded to assist the Commissioner be included as a 'member of the Commissioner's staff'; and 3.	 Making it clear that that the Commissioner has the explicit power to consider conduct that occurs prior to the commencement of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act. Finally, the Bill makes an amendment to address the circularity of the current section 33, which provided that a person must not, except as authorised, publish information relating to a complaint if the publication was prohibited. The section has been amended to clarify that information cannot be published unless authorised by the Commissioner. The provisions in this Bill have the purpose of clarifying the Commissioner's powers and assisting him in the discharge of his statutory duties. Mr President, I commend the Bill to Members. Explanation of Clauses Explanation of Clauses Part 1—Preliminary 1—Short title 2—Commencement 3—Amendment provisions These clauses are formal. Part 2—Amendment of Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015 4—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation This clause makes a minor change to the definition of relevant jurisdictional head to make it clear that, where a complaint relates to a jurisdictional head, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the only relevant jurisdictional head for the purposes of the complaint. The clause also clarifies that acts of victimisation by a judicial officer may be the subject of a complaint under the Act. 5—Amendment of section 5—Application of Act This clause clarifies that the principal Act can apply to conduct occurring before its commencement. 6—Amendment of section 10—Staff This clause ensures that section 10 properly reflects the position in relation to staff under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 by referring to staff of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (and not just staff of the OPI). 7—Amendment of section 12—Making of complaints This clause allows the Commissioner to determine not to give any notices under subsection (3) in relation to a complaint until the Commissioner has determined whether the complaint is one that must be dismissed under section 17(1). 8—Amendment of section 13—Preliminary examination of complaints This clause allows the Commissioner to dismiss a complaint before conducting a preliminary examination if the Commissioner determines that the complaint is one that must be dismissed under section 17(1). In addition, if the Commissioner exercises this power to dismiss a complaint, the Commissioner is not required to give any notification in relation to the complaint to the judicial officer who is the subject of the complaint or to the relevant jurisdictional head. 9—Amendment of section 16—Discretionary dismissal of complaint This clause amends section 16 to ensure consistency of wording and to allow for discretionary dismissal of a complaint where the Commissioner has previously considered the subject matter of the complaint or the Commissioner has determined that the subject matter of the complaint could not, if substantiated, warrant the taking of any action. Currently these are grounds for mandatory dismissal under section 17(1)(g). 10—Amendment of section 17—Mandatory dismissal of complaint This clause deletes section 17(1)(g) (consequentially to the amendments to section 16) and provides that, if the Commissioner dismisses a complaint under this section, the Commissioner is not required to give any notification in relation to the complaint to the judicial officer who is the subject of the complaint or to the relevant jurisdictional head. 11—Amendment of section 18—Referral of complaint to relevant jurisdictional head This is consequential to clauses 8 and 9. 12—Amendment of section 25—Report by panel This amendment requires the report of a judicial conduct panel to be provided to the Commissioner. 13—Amendment of section 27—Commissioner's annual report This is consequential to clauses 8 and 9. 14—Amendment of section 30—Immunity from liability This amendment ensures that the immunity from liability under section 30 extends to persons exercising, or purportedly exercising, powers or functions under the Act in accordance with a staffing arrangement established under section 10. 15—Amendment of section 32—Confidentiality, disclosure of information and publication of reports This amendment requires that a notification required to be given by the Commissioner under the Act to a judicial officer or jurisdictional head must not disclose the identity of any complainant except in certain circumstances. 16—Amendment of section 33—Publication of information and evidence Currently section 33 allows the Commissioner to prohibit the publishing of information or evidence relating to a complaint but then allows publication of material the subject of a prohibition in accordance with a specific authorisation by the Commissioner or a court. Under the proposed amendment, publication would only ever be allowed in accordance with a specific authorisation by the Commissioner or a court (so there would be no need for any initial prohibition by the Commissioner). Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I. Pnevmatikos.