Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 August 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:24): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill 2025, introduced to this chamber on 21 August by the deputy leader and Attorney-General, the Hon. Kyam Maher. This bill makes a series of technical but important amendments across a number of acts within the Attorney-General's portfolio. While varied in subject matter, these amendments share a common purpose to strengthen the integrity and operation of our justice system, remove obsolete provisions and ensure our laws keep pace with contemporary practice.

Clauses 3 and 4 would amend the Bail Act 1985 to require that electronic monitoring of people on bail be undertaken by a public sector agency. This largely reflects current practice in South Australia, but is a prudent and timely measure. It follows the sudden collapse of BailSafe Australia, a private operator, which left people on bail in Victoria and NSW without any monitoring. Those jurisdictions have now moved to prohibit private monitoring altogether and it is appropriate that South Australia provides the same assurances to the community.

Clause 5 amends the District Court Act 1991 to allow a resigning judge to continue solely for the purpose of finalising part-heard matters. This mirrors the existing provision in section 13A(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 and will promote judicial efficiency, preventing costly rehearings and avoid trauma for parties that would otherwise need to relitigate matters from scratch.

My understanding is that clause 6 amends the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 to allow the Attorney-General to delegate authority to make payments from the fidelity fund, and I indicate that I just have a few clarifying questions at clause 6.

Clause 7 introduces a new section 19A of the Legislation Interpretation Act 2021. This will clarify that an amending act or instrument is to be read as part of the instrument it amends, providing certainty for courts and practitioners. This responds directly to concerns arising from the Deripaska v Minister for Foreign Affairs 2024 FCA 62 decision and will ensure our state legislation operates with the same clarity as its commonwealth counterparts.

Clause 8 repeals section 35 of the Summary Offences Act 1953, which restricts newspaper reporting on so-called immorality in legal proceedings. This offence is not only archaic and unused, referring quaintly to '50 lines of 13 ems wide', but sits uneasy with modern notions of press freedom. Its removal is overdue.

Clause 9 extends the review period for the Surrogacy Act 2019 from five to seven years so that our review can be informed by the ongoing national inquiry into surrogacy by the Australian Law Reform Commission. This is a sensible alignment of resources that will avoid duplicating work and ensure our law is informed by the best available evidence.

Finally, clauses 10 and 11 extend the sunset clauses for both the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2005 and the Terrorism (Preventative Detention) Act 2005 by a further 10 years to 2035. These powers have regrettably become part of the ongoing legal architecture we require to combat terrorism, and their continuation remains necessary for community safety.

In summary, this bill is largely technical in nature, but it makes prudent and measured improvements across a number of statutes. It strengthens public confidence, promotes efficiency, removes obsolete provisions and ensures our laws continue to serve the South Australian community effectively. The opposition commends the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:28): The Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill contains a number of amendments. The first one is to the Bail Act 1985 to provide that electronic bail monitoring services must be provided by a public sector agency or an entity acting pursuant to a contract for services that has been approved by the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services. This is in response to the recent collapse of BailSafe Australia and the implications of this in Victoria. No such incidents have occurred in South Australia, but we want to prevent this from happening here. It ensures that DCS approve and oversee a private provider, if engaged.

In regard to the District Court Act 1991, there are amendments to clarify that a person who resigns from judicial office or from their term of appointment may continue to act for the purpose of completing the hearing and the determination of any proceedings that were part heard before their resignation. Currently, there is no power in the District Court for a judge or an associate judge to hear remaining proceedings after resignation. There is currently an ability for such continued acting in circumstances of retirement but not of resignation. This amendment ensures consistency with equivalent provisions in the Supreme Court Act.

In regard to the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, there are amendments to enable the Attorney-General to delegate powers and functions in relation to the authorisation of payments from the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund. Such payments are largely for providing compensation to people as a result of solicitor malpractice. Currently, there is no power for the Attorney-General to delegate powers to make payments from the fidelity fund to any persons in the absence of an express provision. Delegations must be in writing and are revocable at will.

In regard to the Legislation Interpretation Act 2021, there are amendments to provide certainty regarding the validity of the listing technique that is used by parliamentary counsel to give effect to declarations and designations made under legislation. The validity of this listing technique was challenged in a recent High Court matter, Deripaska v Minister for Foreign Affairs. While the judgement ultimately found the listing technique to be valid, this required reliance on section 11B(1) of the commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act. As there is currently no equivalent section in our state act, this amendment creates such a section, equivalent to the commonwealth act, to safeguard against future challenges of this listing technique.

In regard to the Surrogacy Act 2019, there are amendments to defer the upcoming statutory review of the act, which must be completed by 1 September 2026, for a further two years, so that it must be completed by 1 September 2028. The Australian Law Reform Commission is currently undertaking a review of this act, which is due to be published in July 2026, and this statutory review is therefore being deferred to await the findings of that review.

In regard to the Summary Offences Act 1953, there are amendments to repeal section 35 of the act, which imposes on certain newspaper reports restrictions on immorality, unnatural vice and indecent conduct. The original offence was enacted in 1929 under the now-repealed Indecent Reports (Restriction) Act 1928. It is believed to have originated at a time when homosexuality was illegal and the government at the time wanted to prevent corruption of public morals. It can only be prosecuted with the consent of the Commissioner of Police and no longer serves a purpose in modern society. Victoria is the only other Australian jurisdiction to still have this offence.

There are several other existing offences that will be retained that will continue to protect the publication of inappropriate content, such as in part 8, divisions 3 and 4 of the Evidence Act and section 33 of the Summary Offences Act.

In regard to the Terrorism (Preventative Detention) Act 2005 and the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2005, there are amendments to extend the expiry and sunset provisions in those acts by a further 10 years; that is, until 8 December 2035. This ensures that the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act will continue to operate and will ensure the state would be unable to use these provisions to prevent or respond to potential terrorist acts.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:34): I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this bill and look forward to questions during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have some questions about clause 6, but if the Attorney is happy to take them now, then we can just get along. Can the Attorney please explain what about the current delegation of payment arrangements was not workable, and did the request for this change come from the Law Society itself?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, this was not a request from the Law Society; this was from internally within the Attorney-General's Department. The genesis of this is every single payment made from the fidelity fund, no matter how small, has to be personally approved by myself as Attorney-General. When there are payments from lawyers—payments as low as a few hundred dollars—I have to sign off on them personally as Attorney-General. This is an efficiency measure, so that a lot of those very small amounts can be delegated for approval rather than the Attorney-General having to approve every single one of them.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the Attorney for his answer. Can the Attorney just clarify—sorry, for my purposes—does the Law Society currently have delegation? So does it go through you and then it goes to the Law Society or just through you?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is just through me.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Will the Law Society be resourced by the government to fulfil this role, given the fact that they will now have delegation to authorise those payments? Does the Attorney feel that it will require any additional resourcing?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sorts of ones I am describing, it will not be the Law Society delegated; it will be something like the Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department or an office holder within the Attorney-General's Department. As I have said, the genesis of this is payments for even several hundred dollars need to be personally approved by the Attorney-General. This creates that efficiency where it can be delegated and the intention is that it be within the Attorney-General's Department—the chief executive or a delegate of the chief executive—for those.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the Attorney for clarifying.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The CHAIR: Clause 6 is a money clause. I point out to the committee that, this clause being a money clause, it is in erased type. Standing order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon any such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill.

Remaining clauses (7 to 11) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.