Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2019.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (21:56): I rise this evening to speak to the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Amendment Bill 2019 and to indicate that Labor opposes this bill. We oppose the bill and we now know that the judges also oppose this bill. Labor initially opposed the bill on the basis that we did not know the position of one of the most important stakeholders, that being the Chief Justice and the courts.

The judges are opposed to the establishment of the court of appeal. Members would be aware that the Attorney-General, the member for Bragg in the other place, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, was forced to reveal that the Chief Justice and the courts were opposed. The Attorney-General initially refused to release, I am advised, any correspondence with or submissions from the Chief Justice that related to the proposed changes.

However, my colleague in the other place, the member for Kaurna, made the argument that the establishment of a new court is not an insignificant change—you may agree—and that members of parliament who are considering this change owe it to the parliament and owe it to the South Australian public that not only do they understand the impacts of such change but can actually explain the need for it or otherwise.

Following that, the shadow attorney-general received a letter from the Chief Justice dated 8 November 2019. That letter stated that the Attorney-General may be in a position to provide a summary of the judges' view to the parliament, without necessarily disclosing the correspondence. The Attorney-General outlined eight reasons why the judges are opposed to the establishment of the court of appeal as part of her second reading response. Those eight reasons are as follows. I am, of course, paraphrasing here, and I encourage you to read the Hansard from the other place, a riveting document.

1. The establishment of a court of appeal has not been formally proposed by the presidents of the Law Society and the SA Bar Association in their meetings with the Chief Justice.

2. Neither the Chief Justice, nor any of his predecessors, have recommended the establishment of an appeal division.

3. The utility and efficiency of a court of appeal is dependent on the population of the state and the extent of the litigation in its courts, and the judges do not consider that South Australia has the critical litigation mass to warrant a court of appeal.

4. The judges have also suggested that an appeal division must be constituted of at least five judges, with additional judges required because of the rigidity of the proposed structure. They have also highlighted that appeal judgements are often written by judges after the appeal has been heard whilst assigned to matters that do not make as heavy a demand on judgement writing. Judges appointed permanently to an appeal division will, from time to time, need unassigned months in which to write judgements; hence the need for the additional judges.

5. The judges have suggested that the present system of rotation through the appeal and trial lists of the court provides an opportunity to allocate judges to matters requiring their particular expertise and to allow others to deepen their experience in a broader range of matters. It also contributes to a collegial court, I am advised.

6. Judges have highlighted that the cost of appointing an additional judge with support staff is approximately $1.32 million annually. The cost of an appeal division will be greater if the remuneration is higher than the existing trial judges or if they are not accommodated within the existing Supreme Court.

7. The establishment of an appeal division may make appointment to the Supreme Court less attractive to some senior members of the bar. An appointment exclusively to the trial or appeal divisions will diminish the opportunities for a judge with strength in matters of a particular kind to hear such cases. An appointment to the Federal Court may become relatively more attractive, therefore.

8. The judges have also indicated that matters are usually listed in the Full Court within several months of parties requesting a hearing date, but the trial courts generally have longer wait times for a hearing.

My colleague in the other place, the member for Kaurna, has written to the Chief Justice to confirm that the rationale outlined by the Attorney-General fully reflects the judges' position. I am advised that we are yet to receive a response to that correspondence, but we will take the Attorney's summation of the judges' views at face value.

In addition to the reasons outlined just now, there are still many other questions that remain unanswered about this proposed legislation. How will court of appeal judges be selected? How many judges will there be in total in the Supreme Court and how many of those will sit on the court of appeal? When will the Attorney-General fill the current vacancies on the Supreme Court? Where will the court of appeal be physically located? What additional resources will be provided to the court of appeal? What will be the budget of the court of appeal and of the general division? Has anyone proactively requested that a court of appeal be established? These are questions that really deserve to be fully answered because it is becoming increasingly clear that the Attorney-General is under-resourcing the court system.

I would like to mention in passing the illuminating letter the Chief Justice sent to the Budget and Finance Committee in response to questions from the Hon. Terry Stephens. The questions were as follows:

Does the CAA continue to receive funding for Vanstone J?

How many auxiliary judges are available to the Supreme Court? Seven of the auxiliary judges are retired District Court judges and masters and three are retired Supreme Court judges. Why did the Attorney-General ask for them to be appointed if you do not use them?

There are ample auxiliaries. Why did the Chief Justice request the Attorney-General to facilitate their appointment if he was not going to use them?

These are penetrating questions asked by my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens, who was actually ripping into the system.

The letter of response from the Chief Justice to the Hon. Mr Stephens' questions raises, I think, some significant concerns. In summary, they are that the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Vanstone has not yet been filled; the vacancy created by the appointment of Justice Hinton as the DPP has not yet been filled; the refusal to fill those positions has resulted in a 16  per cent reduction in the capacity of the court, which undermines the proper administration of justice by the state's highest court; and the Chief Justice has said that auxiliary judges are not a satisfactory replacement. What this letter shows is a court under significant stress because the Attorney-General in the other place has refused to replace those judges.

I will return to the substantive point. The Attorney-General's refusal to replace those judges, combined with the establishment of a new court, could very possibly undermine the proper administration of justice in a system that is already under significant strain. This is of particular concern to me at least, and to others in this place perhaps, because the Attorney-General refuses to advise what resources the court will be allocated or how many additional judges will be required.

We have heard rumours circulating that the Attorney-General will only replace those judges once this bill has been dealt with. It is entirely inappropriate, I would submit to His Honour, that the Attorney-General could hold this chamber to ransom, linking the passing of this bill with the replacement of judges the Supreme Court desperately needs.

In closing I would like to provide some remarks on the less than satisfactory briefing I received on this bill. This is not to cast any aspersions at all on the character or the abilities of the briefing officers, but they were unable to explain to me the policy imperative behind the establishment of a court of appeal. All they could say was that the establishment of a court of appeal would increase the prestige of the Supreme Court—arguable, I suppose.

This may well be the case, but this is really an internal argument or, as they would say in America, an 'inside the Beltway' type of reason. It may be that I am not learned enough in the law and cannot actually come to grips with this argument fully, but I think the argument is fundamentally flawed. The court of appeal may have increased prestige; however, the general division will likely have reduced prestige because of it. Another way to improve the standing of the Supreme Court might be to replace the current vacancies appropriately, bring them up to strength, and give the court the resources it needs.

The Liberal government has now filed amendments to the bill. I am advised that an amendment was requested by the Chief Justice to ensure that rules or procedures governing the court of appeal will be made by the Supreme Court. I am further advised that the amendments mean that the rules of the court of appeal will not be made separately by judges of the appeal division but rather by any three judges of the Supreme Court. I understand this is the same process as how rules are currently made.

I will conclude by saying that Labor will be supporting the amendment because it is an improvement, to use an argument the Greens have made earlier this evening, but we intend to oppose this bill.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (22:06): I rise this evening to speak in opposition to the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Amendment Bill. The bill seems to destabilise the current structure of our judicial system. It proposes a significant, unnecessary change that our state does not require or need.

There are many problems I can identify in this bill. There are so many obvious flaws that fail to address South Australia specifically. Our current Supreme Court is not operating to its full capacity and is currently down two judges. It is unacceptable for the government to allude to the Supreme Court being inefficient when it does not appoint judges to fill existing vacancies. The Attorney-General may not be holding off on this decision purposefully, but it certainly looks like an intentional way to make the court process look slow and inefficient.

The current workload of the Supreme Court is causing delay in caseload management and pressure on existing judges. Chief Justice Kourakis agrees that it is not because of the current system that we are having these problems, it is because of the government's inability to replace retired judges. Chief Justice Kourakis stated in an interview, 'the failure to appoint permanent judges has strained the capacity of the Supreme Court judges to property discharge their duties.'

It is unacceptable that the Attorney has ignored her duty in appointing judges at this conjecture. We need to be addressing existing issues in terms of judge replacement, not creating new structures to address a perceived problem.

The transfer of the current Supreme Court to a two-tiered system would cause more obvious workload issues. Transferring judges to separate trial and court of appeal divisions narrows the scope of work undertaken, effectively deskilling judges. The two tiers also create a structure lacking flexibility. Regimenting the structure means that resources are unable to be redirected effectively whenever and wherever they are needed.

As highlighted by the Law Society and the Attorney-General during the committee stage in the other place, the government cannot determine the costing of the two-tier system. In their submission to the Attorney, the Law Society ruled that without the costing figures there was no way to determine that setting up the court of appeal would be worth any expense. They also voiced concerns about the current funding, or should I say lack of, into the Supreme Court. The submission suggests that perhaps if more funding was put into the current system, efficiency could be increased, delivering better outcomes for South Australians.

The Hon. Justice Margaret McMurdo expressed her experience of becoming a judge on the Supreme Court of appeal recently at the 20^th anniversary of the Victorian Court of Appeal. She mentioned in her speech that, and I quote:

…the creation of a permanent court of appeal tends to disturb the constitutional relationship between the arms of government and arguably the independence of the court's highest judges.

It is already so obvious with the vocal opposition by Chief Justice Kourakis that this will change the relationship between the courts and current government. Apparent tension is already obvious.

The two-tier court system also inflames a system by supersession. This supersession can attack the court as an institution if parliament uses it to retaliate against judges who decide cases contrary to government policy or reward others. South Australia has only five judges on the Supreme Court to mirror the population of the state. In such a small jurisdiction like South Australia there is no need to change the Supreme Court system. It is not only undesirable, it is basically impractical.

The potential cost, the disruption to the current system and the obvious inability of the government to give us any promise on the structure of the Supreme Court makes the task of supporting this bill difficult. This may work effectively in other jurisdictions; however, South Australia is a different state.

The Chief Justice has strongly opposed the decision to create a court of appeal; yet the Attorney and government have decided to ignore the recommendations of the highest Supreme Court judge in our state. There is a reason we have a system of separation of powers which divides the institutions of government into three branches—legislative, executive and judicial—and it is to ensure fair, responsible and democratic government.

The government may argue that this new system for South Australia will take the pressure off our court system. As the Law Society stated:

Some considered that appellate work and principles are not a discrete area of law in which specialisation will produce faster or better results, as opposed to specialisation in specific areas of law…where specialist judges and judge-managed case lists would be likely to improve efficiency.

Measures to improve access and effective justice are welcomed; however, we cannot be assured by these amendments that the justice system will be improved at all. The establishment of a permanent court of appeal is not without disadvantage, otherwise there would be more of them in Australia. South Australia is in no need of one and, therefore, I will not support the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (22:12): I rise to support the second reading of this bill and, in doing so, I would like to thank the Attorney-General for the time that she spent with me, including working through some of the Chief Justice's concerns in relation to the bill. I understand that in the other place members were concerned that they had not seen the Chief Justice's correspondence, but I am satisfied that the Attorney-General did put on the record all of the concerns that were raised.

The Chief Justice's views are not the only consideration to take into account. We also have a contribution from the South Australian Bar Association, the Legal Services Commission and the Law Society of South Australia. It is probably fair to say that this is not a topic that keeps the average member of the public awake at night. It is not something that occupies the minds of people much outside the legal profession, but the reason why the Greens are ultimately supporting the government on this bill are twofold. First of all, we have looked at the statistics for the delivery of judgements and we find them to be unacceptable.

It is very difficult to imagine a line of work where you can get away with sitting on a matter for a year or more and not be accountable to anyone. Judges are in a unique position because the people who are waiting for judgement, hoping with their fingers crossed that the judgement will be in their favour, are unlikely to complain. In response to that situation, I know that we have set up an alternative regime whereby complaints can effectively be filtered so as to be unidentifiable. Nevertheless, the Greens are supportive of anything that might reduce that backlog of judgements. We think it is unacceptable.

The second reason is that we are concerned about the reputation of our highest court, in particular its reputation amongst the judges of even higher courts, such as the High Court of Australia. It is probably overstating the case but it was put to me that, in an application for leave to appeal to the High Court, the first question was, 'Where is it from?' If the answer was 'South Australia', the response was, 'Leave granted.' That is very likely overstating the case but there is a risk, if we do not look at alternative models to structure our judiciary, that there may become even worse quality control issues in the future.

It is about a combination of those two things, namely, quality control and delays in delivering judgements, plus the supportive submissions that were made, in particular by the Bar Association. The one that is probably more influential to us is not the Bar Association or the Law Society—as important as they are, because they are very much part of the system—but the Legal Services Commission. Yes, it is also part of the system but their clientele are effectively legal aid clients. They are the people who are not the big end of town. They are people who need help with the provision of legal services, and they want that help to be granted in a timely manner.

When the Legal Services Commission, representing that pool of clients, comes out saying, 'We think a separate appeal division of the Supreme Court is a good idea,' that carries a fair bit of weight with the Greens. With those few brief words, we will be supporting the second reading of this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (22:16): I rise also to speak in support of the second reading of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Amendment Bill 2019. I thank at the outset the Attorney, the SA Bar Association, the Law Society of South Australia and individual barristers and solicitors for the comprehensive briefings that they have provided to us to inform us about the bill. I have listened intently to the somewhat polarised arguments both for and against the creation of a separate permanent South Australian court of appeal, including the views of the Attorney, the Chief Justice and the opposition.

I have also benefited from hearing about other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and, most recently, Western Australia, who have already created and, in some cases, also evaluated a supreme court of appeal. We have been additionally assisted by Western Australia's extensive inquiries prior to establishing its Court of Appeal, which found that a court of appeal raises standards in the courts and the legal profession, improves the quality and consistency of appellate judgements, increases the timeliness of judgements and contributes to shorter hearings. The development of the law through appeals was said to be better facilitated and there was an overall improvement in the administration of justice.

While we should not always blindly follow the lead of other jurisdictions—indeed, in years gone by South Australia was usually the trailblazer and not the follower—the creation of a court of appeal is an initiative which has garnered a lot of support here in South Australia. I have to say at the outset that it was disappointing to read the Attorney's comments made in the other place that judges who have been appointed under previous governments are not people that she would rush to as a first choice. I think that was an inappropriate cheap political swipe from our state's most senior legal entity who, one would have thought, was trying to garner support for this bill. I do not think that assisted.

Judges are always appointed by the Attorney-General of the day with recommendations by the Chief Justice, and it is not for parliament to conduct a public performance appraisal of our judges or to make reference to the government of the day that appointed them purely for the purpose of political pointscoring. It would be a very bad thing if this bill was seen in any way as a reflection, I think, of the current bench, including the Chief Justice. I have signalled all along throughout this debate my concern about the views expressed by the Chief Justice, but those views, of course, have to be balanced against the views that have been expressed by everybody else in this debate.

Our focus during this debate should not be on the judges themselves. It needs to be on the need or otherwise for a general and an appeal division of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which is a major reform proposal to streamline and improve the quality and timeliness of appeal matters heard in this state. Again, I have the utmost respect for our Chief Justice, but I think we know now that it is something of an Australian legal tradition for chief justices to express strong opposition to the establishment of a court of appeal in the first instance, before it actually occurs, while the barristers and solicitors who work within the court system every day are strongly in support of a separate court of appeal.

That is certainly the case that has been expressed here in South Australia. I have taken the time to speak to many individuals outside this place and, overwhelmingly, the view that has been expressed is one of support for this model. That has to be balanced against the views that have been expressed by our Chief Justice. I think it is worth noting in relation to the bill itself that it does maintain the Chief Justice as the head of both divisions and preserves his ability to sit on first instance and appeal cases, with a newly created president having responsibility for the appellate division.

The oversight of a president is a very positive initiative to ensure the appeal court sets and meets its KPIs, an achievement the current configuration of the court has not reached, apparently, for the past five years, with some judgements taking over two years to be delivered. In fact, I think when I met with the Attorney and I asked questions specifically in relation to those statistics it was indicated that sometimes those figures of cases were above 20 per cent and in some years above 30 per cent in relation to the 12-month benchmark that exists. That is clearly something that is not acceptable, and I am sure it is not acceptable to the Chief Justice either.

I think we have all heard anecdotally of judgements taking a very long time before they are delivered. I certainly heard of a case just the other day where it has taken up to five years to have a judgement delivered. We, too, have looked at the statistics referred to by the Hon. Mark Parnell and those offered by the Attorney, and there is no question that they are unacceptable. We need to appreciate, of course, that people's lives and livelihoods can be in limbo for an excruciatingly long time in these sorts of circumstances. We are all concerned at the chronic delays in our courts that bring them into disrepute not only locally but with the High Court, which is dealing with an increasing number of matters being given leave to appeal there.

I will get to those statistics shortly, but the reputation of the court ultimately suffers, and barristers and solicitors report—and they have reported to us—that they are often on the receiving end of client complaints about escalating costs, about delays and about uncertainties, inconsistencies and increasing unpredictability of appeals, all of which are outside their control. Against that backdrop, it is absolutely critical that we ensure that South Australians not only get their day in court but that they receive their judgements in a much more timely manner than is currently the case because, as the old saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied.

Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments for a South Australian court of appeal is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our state's higher courts and to increase their capacity to discharge both their first instance hearings and their appellate work. That is certainly the view of the Bar Association and, I think it is fair to say, the Legal Services Commission and other agencies that have expressed support for the bill.

Rather than taking a dichotomised view of the debate, I have been inclined to listen to the firsthand experiences of those barristers and solicitors I have consulted with because they appear every day, year in and year out in our courts, the federal courts and superior courts in other states and in other jurisdictions that have established separate courts of appeal. I have not found the number of opponents to the bill that I thought I would find.

I am also vitally interested in the accounts of people who have matters litigated in the Supreme Court. I am sure I am not the only one who is often contacted by constituents who have been waiting for very long periods for their matters to be resolved while meanwhile their businesses may be folding, their marriages may be breaking up and their lives are effectively suspended. Overwhelmingly, their assessment is that the court is slow and clunky with significant delays in hearings and judgements.

According to some of the statistics that have been provided to us, between 2004 and 2015, of the 30 matters referred to the High Court, 19 judgements were overturned. That is also one of the considerations, obviously, that has played a central role in the development of the bill.

Commentators have noted, particularly the members of the bar we have spoken to (and this is an issue that I followed up with those members of the bar that I spoke to) and the Attorney during our briefing, that while it is more expensive to file in the federal court across the road, many litigants choose that forum over the state's High Court because they can reasonably expect a more timely and reliable judgement from highly experienced, efficient, specialist judges in a fraction of the time.

Yesterday, I asked a couple of barristers I met with what the difference in cost would be in terms of filing fees for the courts and they said the filing fees can often be as much as $10,000 to $20,000 higher in the Federal Court jurisdiction. One of the other comments made was that their clients are willing to pay those fees because (a) they will have their matters dealt with swiftly, and (b) they are more likely to withstand scrutiny. I think that is a very telling point that cannot be ignored. On the other hand, one of the opposition's arguments in opposing the bill—and this is not the only argument—is that no case has been established for the bill because it has never been requested.

I think it is fair to say that, based on the briefing I received, this was certainly an issue that was flagged with the former government's attorney-general of the day, John Rau, and it was not pursued when he was advised that the Chief Justice was not in favour of the model. I understand that those opposed to it claim that this model will result in a new and unnecessary cost impost and that, if we had committed funding and appropriate resources to the courts, then we would not be in this position.

But I will just say in relation to that particular point, those issues of appropriate resourcing and funding are not new issues. They are not issues that have arisen under this government but they are issues that have existed for a number of years and have been aired very publicly for a number of years. As to the two new divisions that are being created within the current Supreme Court, additional resourcing to cover salaries and premises, it is argued, should be minimal—a cost that it is argued could well be offset by the improved efficiencies that are anticipated.

In terms of the average times—again, I think I have mentioned the fact that we have been told that for the past five or six years the benchmarks and KPIs have not been met—I want to note the comments of the Attorney-General in the other place where she referred to a radio interview by Lindy Powell QC. During that radio interview, she outlined her concern of judgements sometimes taking years before they are provided, which is of course a serious matter. It is a similar argument to the one that has been raised by members of the bar and otherwise.

I think it is worth noting the Attorney's reflection on the comments of Lindy Powell QC because they deal with some of the issues that are at the heart of this debate and that is the impact these delays have on people's lives. As the Attorney says—and she is reflecting on the interview by Lindy Powell QC—it is not such a difficult area in relation to murder or serious indictable offences or treason in South Australia because we do not have those cases.

In murder cases, because frequently there is a jury determination, sometimes not, but mostly a jury, the work of the trial judge is not to determine guilt or innocence but largely to consider sentencing submissions and the like. The delay in waiting for either a trial or a judgement in a civil matter means that whatever the determination—whether it is a compensation claim, whether there is a commercial aspect that needs to be considered or whether an estate is in dispute—people's lives are on hold while they are waiting for judgements. So it is very important that we understand the significance of months of delay, sometimes years of delay, and I think that is where our focus needs to be in this debate.

It is clear based on the feedback that we have received in this place and the discussions that have taken place that this bill will progress through this chamber with the support of the majority of members. I think there are members of the crossbench who have made their position clear now publicly, so I think it is time now, given that this is the outcome we are anticipating, unless something happens that we do not know about in the coming moments, to get on with the job of ensuring that our court operates effectively and that people's lives are not disrupted as much as they have been in the past as a result of the current systemic problems that our court structures have. With those words, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (22:34): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Amendment Bill. The Attorney-General in the other place has requested that I place onto the record a matter of clarification on her behalf, and I do so as follows.

The Supreme Court is 12 judges plus the Chief Justice. The 12 include Justice Judy Hughes, who, although holding a five-year term as President of SACAT, provides judicial assistance to the Supreme Court approximately once a week. Appellate work currently comprises more than 50 per cent of the Supreme Court's workload according to the Chief Justice.

During the debate on this bill in the other place, the Attorney-General outlined the views of the judges of the Supreme Court with respect to the proposal, which included that an appeal division must be constituted of at least five judges. To clarify, their view is that if five judges were appointed to the appeal division, that would require the appointment of three additional judges.

The Attorney-General has already indicated in the other place that the issues of who will populate the appeal court, how many will be selected and where they are to be located are all matters that she will continue to consult with the relevant stakeholders on, including the Chief Justice, should the bill pass the parliament. Therein ends the statement I read on the behalf of the Attorney-General.

Before concluding, if I can speak on my own behalf (these are not attributed to the views of the Attorney-General), I speak as a non-lawyer. We have eminent lawyers in this place speaking and putting, with the great exception of a scientist in the Hon. Mr Hunter, leading the charge on behalf of the opposition.

As someone who has been an observer, and with my Treasurer's hat on this time and 20 years ago, I can see the locked-in views that the Chief Justice has in terms of his support for the current system. I think as a couple of honourable members have indicated, that has been the position in other states when there has been change mooted: it has been strongly opposed by those who were opposing the change and were inhabitants of the old system.

What I would say is that ultimately, in my view, it is governments who are elected and it is parliaments who, through legislative change such as this, will make the final decisions in relation to appropriate structures. We will always give due respect to people who hold positions of significance in our community, whether that be, in this case, the Chief Justice or, in other cases, as I have put on the public record, an ICAC commissioner or indeed even a coroner. One must give respectful consideration to their views.

In and of themselves, they are not omnipotent. In and of themselves, their views do not have to be implemented or instituted by parliament and/or governments in relation to what occurs. They need to be given, as I said, due respect, but ultimately it is the elected government and parliaments who will make decisions in relation to whether or not we should have a structure such as a court of appeal.

The lawyers in this debate have put the views of other representative groups and I will not repeat those. I am sure the Attorney-General in another place has put those, but I think there is always the capacity for the Courts Administration Authority and those who control it, such as the Chief Justice and others, to look at how they might be able to do things better and how they might be able to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the service they provide. I say that obviously with a financial hat on. Those of you who are lawyers and deal in the system more closely than I will look at it in terms of the quality and the timeliness of the judgements they make, etc. I will leave that to those of you who are lawyers and more closely attuned to those sorts of things.

There is a need for the Chief Justice, the Courts Administration Authority and others to consider appropriate change. Change is not necessarily in and of itself always good, but in many respects it ought to be embraced. I have seen too many examples going back over many years—and these comments do not just relate to the current Chief Justice—where there is this in-built ossification that inhabits that part of the world.

Whether it be a treasurer in relation to financial efficiency or whether it be an attorney-general in relation to administrative or legal efficiency and the like, there is this in-built opposition to any change at all. I do not think that is good or productive. Any change needs to be argued, as it is being argued in this place tonight and also over recent weeks, and I look forward to any discussion in the committee stage of the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have just been asked to make, on behalf of the government, a matter of clarification on something the Hon. Mr Hunter said in his second reading. I am advised that the Hon. Mr Hunter made a reference to the Chief Justice and courts being opposed to the bill. I am advised that the Courts Administration Authority submission was separate to that of the Chief Justice. The Courts Administration Authority submission merely dealt with technical matters, such as the timing of the establishment of the court should the bill pass.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 10, lines 18 to 23 [clause 15, inserted section 19B(e)]—Delete paragraph (e) and substitute:

(e) all causes and matters which are required by the rules of court, or by the express provision of any other Act, to be heard or determined by the Court of Appeal.

The provision to be amended deals with the jurisdiction of the court of appeal to hear and determine matters. The provision in the bill relevantly includes all causes and matters required to be heard and determined by the court of appeal by the rules of the court, made by any three or more judges of the court of appeal with the concurrence of the Chief Justice. This amendment would remove reference to the rules needing to be made by any three or more judges of the court of appeal with the concurrence of the Chief Justice.

The additional jurisdiction of the court of appeal would still be able to be conferred by the rules of the court, but it would be rules made under existing section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1935, which simply provides for the rules of the court to be made by any three or more judges of the Supreme Court without distinction as to whether they are judges of the court of appeal or otherwise. This amendment is in response to correspondence received by the Attorney-General from the Chief Justice, who indicated a preference that the rules of court that affect the court of appeal be made by the Supreme Court in general and not only by those judges who will sit on the court of appeal.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 16 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 12, lines 18 to 24—This clause will be opposed

This amendment effectively seeks to remove clause 21 from the bill. Clause 21 would propose to amend section 72 of the act to require three or more judges of the court of appeal to make rules that relate only to the practice and procedure of the court of appeal. As noted in respect of the first amendment in this set, it is the Chief Justice's preference that Supreme Court judges in general have the responsibility to make these rules and not only those who sit on the court of appeal.

Clause negatived.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (22:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.