HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-09-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 August 2018.)

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (20:21): I rise today to indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill and that Labor supports parts of the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill 2018 and opposes other sections of the bill. This bill is mostly technical in nature or fixes drafting areas or inadvertent mistakes. As I indicated earlier, we are generally supportive of the bill. However, in regard to Part 4, section 8—Amendment of South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013—we are opposed to this amendment.

The provision would appear to create a circumstance where a more junior member of SACAT could hear an application to review a decision of a more senior member. We do not think this is good legislation. Perhaps the Attorney-General would like to consider a compromise where the deputy president is also able to hear applications for reviews. We wait to hear the Attorney-General's opinion on that suggestion.

Sections 9 and 11 of the bill establish a review agency as the reviewer, the Hon. Kevin Duggan AM QC, under Schedule 4 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012 for both the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012. The Attorney-General's Department has put forward the argument that this amendment is needed to avoid the requirement for multiple appointments. However, the Attorney-General's Department could not categorically answer whether there could potentially be instances where there would be benefit in the respective reviewers being separate people. On that basis, we will be opposing those clauses. For the sake of saving a couple of pieces of paper, potentially creating a problem in the future, it does not seem to make sense.

I also flag the intention of the opposition to file amendments in the Legislative Council to part 7, section 13—Reports by Training Centre Review Board. We support the Training Centre Review Board preparing an annual report, but we want to ensure that the board must prepare an annual report for the 2017-18 financial year. It is likely the legislation as it is currently drafted will introduce that requirement if the bill was passed before 31 October 2018. There is, however, no guarantee the legislation will pass by then, so the opposition will prepare amendments for the other place to ensure this is the case.

Labor will pass the remaining provisions of the bill, reserving the right to ask questions and of reconsidering our position in the Legislative Council.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (20:24): I rise briefly to commend the bill to the house. It is clearly a bill that addresses a number of substantially procedural measures affecting a number of acts, six of them: the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017; the Liquor Licensing Act 1997; the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013; as well as amendments to the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012, which I will come back to in a moment; and an amendment of the Young Offenders Act 1993.

While I am pleased to hear that the opposition has indicated its support for the bulk of those changes, I note the opposition's indication that it will oppose the amendment so far as it concerns the reviewer, and my comments briefly will go to that aspect. It is simply that if the grounds for opposition to the change are driven by some apparent shortage of explanation, there is an opportunity to address that in committee. Otherwise, I would encourage there to be a consideration of the merits of the provision as drafted.

For the sake of understanding, the amendment would, it is true, have the effect of removing the need to make multiple appointments, but it is important to see it in context. Turning first to the Surveillance Devices Act 2016, the definition of the review agency is there set out at section 3(1). I note at section 3(1)(a) it already provides that for SA Police the review agency is the reviewer under schedule 4 of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012.

As it presently provides, for the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption it is to be a person who is independent of the commissioner and is appointed by the Governor as the review agency. Those words are analogous, if not identical, to the criteria for the appointment of the reviewer under the ICAC Act.

I make the observation that the proposed amendment would bring the review agency for the purposes of that act and in a similar way for the purposes of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012 in line with the way that it applies for SA Police and otherwise very much in line with the way in which that reviewer is appointed under the ICAC Act. So, I would simply appeal to the merits of the process, encourage exploration of it if necessary in committee, but otherwise look to focus on the merits.

It has been noted that the reviewer who is currently in the role so far as schedule 4 is concerned is the Hon. Kevin Duggan AM QC and that he has been appointed by the Governor as the review agency until 4 March 2020. For my part, I fail to see why, where there is the possibility to introduce simplicity and to avoid multiplicity of process, that opportunity should not be taken. Again, I encourage the opposition to perhaps think again about its opposition to that particular measure. With those short remarks, I otherwise commend the bill to the house.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (20:30): I refer to the remarks made earlier by the Attorney and the member for Heysen. I do not have in mind detaining us by reflecting on those remarks unduly except to emphasise the utility of the changes proposed to the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act by the legislation now proposed.

Two changes are contemplated: firstly, there is considerable merit in allowing additional time for the prosecution to be commenced on the basis that an alleged offender did not have a reasonable opportunity to elect to be prosecuted; and, secondly, there is also considerable merit in ensuring non-government bodies cannot refer a civil debt to the fines unit for recovery unless that body is prescribed by regulation. I thank the Attorney for examining the matters I have addressed earlier at the earliest opportunity.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (20:31): I wish to make a few observations in light of some matters raised by the member for Ramsay. Before I do that may I thank her for indicating general support for the amendments proposed in this bill on multiple matters. I also thank my colleagues, the members for Kavel and Heysen respectively, for their contribution and continued interest in all matters relating to the Attorney-General's law reform. I find it a valuable addition to have fresh eyes on a number of these things, and I thank them for their diligent work.

The member for Ramsay, on behalf of the opposition, has indicated three areas of anticipated amendment and some desire to have that agreed to. Firstly, I will address the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the issue in relation to applications for review and who should hear them. The SACAT was established some years ago now by former attorney-general Rau presenting a bill to the parliament for this to occur. I think we were the last jurisdiction in Australia to have an administrative tribunal but it started with the second bill transferring residential tenancy disputes and guardianship board matters to it.

From there it has now received a number of jurisdictions and is about to get a whole lot more—a relatively small number but some matters in relation to valuation and freedom of information. These are all matters now before SACAT.

Over the course of the last three or four years, especially when the last bill came to the parliament, I asked the former attorney-general, 'Is there a sufficient resource in SACAT to actually absorb this extra workload?' Everything was fine, and he then subsequently announced that he was going to populate the positions in relation to SACAT under a new structure. From its inception, its president was a Supreme Court judge half-time, Justice Parker, and the other half of the time he did his general duties as a Supreme Court judge.

I think from memory the District Court judge at the time, District Court Judge Cole, was a quarter-time member of the tribunal, and again her duties otherwise were, I think from memory, in the general District Court. She may have been in the ERD Court, but in any event she had other duties. Then, of course we had a number members of the tribunal who did, principally, the work in relation to guardianship and tenancy dispute matters.

In the last year or so the government of the day, the former government, appointed Justice Judy Hughes, former crown solicitor, to the Supreme Court and made her a full-time Supreme Court Judge, President of SACAT, but discontinued District Court Judge Cole's role. So, effectively, they picked up some extra role with the presidency—a Supreme Court judge—but lost their deputy president, the District Court judge.

Again, I made inquiry when we were doing the last tranche of jurisdictions to be transferred to the former attorney, to say, 'How is this entity going to cope? The reply was, 'They are getting this extra capacity.' Since coming into government, I have met with Justice Hughes, who is an impressive leader of the SACAT and a justice of the Supreme Court, and I have also inquired of her whether there is any problem that she anticipated in absorbing these extra jurisdictions with the workforce she has. I have had every indication from her that that will not be a problem.

She did ask that any transferring or proclamation to actually institute these new jurisdictions that have come to her not take place until next year because they are actually physically in the process of moving the former guardianship board applications from the Collinswood property, the ABC building, into the city, and geographically they need to make some structural changes, so 'Please don't do anything quickly because we need to attend to that, and we are doing that in the latter part of this year.' It is all going according to her expectation, and I thank her for her leadership in that regard.

So it is a little bit puzzling to me that the opposition would say, 'We think that you need to be able to include in here a deputy president.' We simply do not have one, and the former attorney-general said that we do not need one. I have not had any requests from anyone, particularly the president, that she needs one. I can say to the member for Ramsay that we are not in a hurry to rush out and give a tribunal or court extra judges or deputy presidents when they have not even asked for them.

I just find it a little bit puzzling. This has come a bit out of left field here. By all accounts, the people running the show say they do not need it, so I am not about to do it. It seems a little pointless having legislation to cover that. The president, therefore, undertakes the review process within this tribunal, and by all accounts she is doing a good job and not asking for any change.

The second matter that was raised was the question of the appointment of the reviewer of ICAC, who also has these other roles under the Surveillance Devices Act and also the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. I recall recently reading the annual reports from His Honour, former judge Kevin Duggan QC in relation to these areas. He has completed them, and I may have even tabled them this morning, but certainly they are on their way and it is a job that he does. He also has the role of reviewer of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and their operations.

My advice is that this is not really just to save paperwork; this is a process which currently occurs, as I understand it, as a matter of practice. Therefore, we are aligning the legislation with current practice. When these things are identified as appropriate to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General, I understand that is exactly what they have done and have said, 'This is what we have been doing anyway.' However, it ought to have the same compliance in all the pieces of relevant legislation, and that is what we are tidying up. As I said, we are not doing it to save paperwork; we are doing it to ensure that the process is accommodated in an approved legal form.

Finally, in respect of the Training Centre Review Board's annual reports, I can honestly say I am stunned at this proposal. This is not because I would not have liked to see an annual report for 2017-18 from the Training Centre Review Board; in fact, I have been begging to have one of these for years. Victoria has been a leading state in this area, and I have found it quite instructive over the years, particularly when I have had responsibility for juvenile justice on behalf of the then opposition, to read the Victorian training review board's annual report. It was quite enlightening in relation to how they were managing our youth—generally aged between 10 and 18 years, although sometimes they are kept in youth detention facilities a little bit past the age of 18 if they are immature or likely to finish their sentence in a short time, etc.

I found that quite helpful, and I was always puzzled as to why we received a Parole Board report—the review body for adult prisoners—but we did not receive anything for children. This is supposed to be one of our priorities. I am a bit concerned as to why we have never had one, especially as the member for Ramsay is a former minister covering youth justice. It just seems astounding. Nevertheless, my plaintive pleas fell on deaf ears and we were not able to have one.

When issues arise, such as with the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in the Northern Territory—the concerns raised about the treatment of juvenile offenders in that facility hit the headlines. This is why I think it is so important that these agencies (in this case, the Parole Board for juvenile offenders) provide a continuous report, aside from all the royal commission we have into these things. Providing us with annual reports is one way of doing that.

I recall asking the former government (I am not sure whether it was the member for Ramsay or her predecessor) whether there were activities in our youth detention centres—our children's prisons—similar to what we were seeing on our television screens at the Don Dale centre. Were there allegations, for example, as to whether spit hoods were being used for the purposes of calming and managing residents at these training centres? Ultimately, it was identified that the answer was yes. From memory, it appeared to be 20 or 25 times a year. I was subsequently informed that this was multiple use on one resident. In other words, 25 children had not been administered spit hoods; it may have been two or three children but they may have had to use them multiple times for the behavioural management of these residents.

The spit hoods were not treated as spit hoods in South Australia in the same way as the Northern Territory—theirs was an apparatus worn over the head, designed to stop the wearer from being able to spit or bite their gaoler as such and, therefore, to be a protective mechanism for those who were trying to manage the resident in the facility.

But they were different in South Australia apparently because, whilst the spit hood was placed over the head, there was a slot, or at least an area of transparency, where the eyes were. It sounds a bit like a burqa or something where you can actually see through the apparatus and, therefore, they were not to be seen as such a draconian piece of equipment, which was like a bag over the head of a child.

Somehow or another that was supposed to make me feel more comforted by the fact that our children in South Australia were actually having this administered to them. I was not, I can tell you, and I made further inquiry about it. But if we had had annual reports from our children's training centres, that is, our children's prisons' parole board review people, we would have had some idea about what the hell was going on and not end up with a situation where we are left in the dark about what potentially could be totally unacceptable and probably in breach of human rights conduct in the security of children in these training centres.

Finally, after getting into office, I was able to say, 'Look, I think we do need to have some accountability here.' We have not had a royal commission into our children's prisons down here and I hope—I only hope—that the sort of conduct that has been identified as happening in the Northern Territory has never happened here. I do not know the answer to that but I make this point: at the very least, whoever is responsible for these children has to give us a report on an annual basis and, under this law, which I am asking the parliament to support, they will be required to do so. So it is very important to me that we pass this legislation and ensure that those reports are made and prepared.

That is why I find it so stunning to find that the opposition is now saying, 'We are going to agree to this. We think this is, presumably, a good idea, but we not only want you to do it now for the future but we want you to make them do a report from last year.' I can tell you that I have never been asked for legislation to impose an obligation to prepare reports retrospectively—never.

Furthermore, I have never, to the best of my knowledge, ever asked the former government to do it. One of the practical problems when you impose an obligation to do something retrospectively is that there is every possibility that the information—which we are now requiring be provided in this legislation if it is passed—may not have even been collated.

I do not know the answer to that, but what I do know is that it would be entirely improper for us to go back and ask a board to retrospectively prepare a report and provide information to us, of which they had no obligation to during that time. I am happy to ask them. The chair of the review board is the Chief Judge of the Youth Court, and I am happy to ask the judge to consider whether she thinks she is able to comply with the request of the opposition and provide that.

I think it is unreasonable to make it retrospective, but I will ask her, and if she thinks that she could collate together a report covering this information for last year, even though they had not been on notice to provide it, then I am either happy to report back to the parliament and to the opposition between the houses of this debate to indicate their capacity and willingness to do that.

If that is the case, and they find that to be not an onerous task, then that may well be able to be acceded to, but I am stunned to think, after all these years of not even having a report, when we finally get into government and actually introduce a bill to say, 'This is an important thing for South Australia,' I have the former minister asking me to retrospectively apply it. I can tell you I am stunned.

Nevertheless, I have to be grateful that there seems to have been some acquiescence to the merits of the other matters before parliament. I do appreciate that. I will inquire of Her Honour whether there is a capacity to provide either a report or the data that is outlined in the proposed section 40 for an annual report for the 2017-18 year. However, about the other matters, I hope I have satisfied the opposition. They really are proposals that are—I would not say misguided—either inappropriate or unnecessary.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have a general question about the consultation that you did on this bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The consultation included the Independent Commission Against Corruption; the Hon. Kevin Duggan, who is the reviewer under the ICAC Act; SA Police; the Chief Magistrate; the Senior Judge of the Youth Court, who is the presiding member, as I indicated, of the Training Centre Review Board; the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner; the Department of Human Services; the Department for Correctional Services; SACAT itself (I am not sure who; it may have been Justice Hughes or the registrar); the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit; the Law Society of South Australia; and the Guardian for Children and Young People.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you very much, Attorney. Is it possible for us to have copies of those submissions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know whether this was conveyed at the briefing, but the general position is that we do not. I have outlined at some length in previous bills that the Law Society submissions are online. However, for the departmental ones and offices of the government, their advice to us on their letters of request is to say, 'Please, Attorney, when you are looking at opening up the bill next, can you consider dealing with A, B or C?' The Law Society is in that list and it is the only one of that list, in this case, that was consulted outside of government.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If you are not prepared to pass on those submissions, perhaps you could outline the nature of them.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Largely, the government ones are requests to us. They are not a submission: they are a letter to the government. I think they are usually addressed to me, but they may be dealt with on the way, before they get to me, to identify an area of refinement or amendment that they would recommend and request. Sometimes, we will then consult with other agencies. So if Mr Duggan came to us and said, 'The practice has been this in relation to reviewing,' we would check that with ICAC, obviously, and check if there were other things to be done.

The Law Society—who are really, I suppose, the keepers of protecting the interests of the citizens through the legal process—look at all of these amendments and often alert us if there is some area of breach or interference with civilian rights that we may have inadvertently not considered. Sometimes the police ask things that might seem like a good idea to them, but they are probably going too far in relation to protecting the interests of the public.

Mr Picton: Like what?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Like search powers—you know damn well what. I make the point that we do need to cross-check some of these things, obviously. We do not just say anything to any agency that comes to us and says, 'We think this is a great idea; can you fix this?' Fortunately, I have a whole army of legal people in the Attorney-General's Department, brilliant people like Emily here, who can give me advice. The nature of each of the submissions, largely from government agencies, relates to a request and why the amendment is required.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My question is about outlining the need for this amendment. If the Attorney could elaborate on that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will try to summarise that advice to the extent that there were provisions under section 44 for an extended trading-hour process—authorisations and the like. When we debated this law reform post the Anderson review, we were considering a three-hour break in trade, and there was some discussion about that. We dealt with it. We introduced a new regime once that was resolved, but section 44 was left in accidentally, so we have deleted it. It was already in the bill. After debate, the resolution has been included but this bit should have been removed. You can chastise the former attorney for failing to deal with it.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Specifically on this, did you consult with the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) on this amendment, and what was their response?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can certainly tell you that on the original bill, when we debated this, there was very extensive consultation with the AHA. In fact, this was an issue for a number of the stakeholders in this debate as to how this three-hour break in trade was going to work, when it was to occur and whether there could be some flexibility in the hours that were used, etc., and so everyone had a say on it. So, yes, they were consulted.

We have not gone back to them to deal with this because really it is an error of drafting. The original drafting is fine; it is just that when we do make amendments through these parliamentary processes, there is a bit of a review on the run with these things. In all fairness, it is not the former attorney-general's fault, but it is his responsibility at the time to make sure that these things are done properly. If extra time is needed to make sure that they are done properly, then that should have happened, but it did not and so I am fixing it up.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have no more questions on this clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My question is: does this amendment potentially create a situation where a more junior member of SACAT could hear an application to review a decision of a more senior member of SACAT?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I hope I can be brief on this as well. If it is an application for a review of matters in relation to their own jurisdiction, it does not change. Where the president is the reviewing officer, for example, of a tribunal member, then she—that is, Justice Hughes—is the reviewing person, and that confirms this. There is no position of deputy president in the structure now. We now have a full-time president who attends to all of these, and I can tell you that I am not about to appoint another one just because somebody thinks it is a good idea.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: On that topic—and you did elaborate in your speech before—I am advised that there is some rotation of members of SACAT through that position of the deputy president; if that is not correct, I would like to hear your thoughts. Can I clarify that you do not intend to fill a position of deputy president?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not proposing to appoint anyone to be the deputy president. Recently, the president went on leave, and in fact the president of SAET came in to be the acting president for SACAT because they have a similar structure in relation to how the rules operate for the tribunal—in fact, one is an exact mirror of the other. In relation to SAET, although it has an industrial court component to it, it actually operates now under a model under the SAET Act, which enables it to have a similar structure—rules of evidence, process, etc.,—when it is acting as a tribunal.

It was a convenient temporary appointment, which was at the request of Justice Hughes and at the acquiescence of Justice Dolphin. I appreciate their advice on that, and it seemed to work very well, so it is not as though we are not without a backup if that is any concern of the member. We are able to have a functioning tribunal for the purpose of its operations, which is largely to determine matters that have been dealt with as an administrative review, and then there is a review process within it for the judge to hear a matter. Ultimately, as does occur from time to time, there is a capacity to transfer it to the Full Court of the Supreme Court, but that is obviously rare; it is not something that we would expect to occur very often.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have no further questions.

Clause passed.

Clause 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can the Attorney elaborate on what the rationale is for this amendment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As indicated in the second reading on this matter, the further amendment is proposed for the Surveillance Devices Act to correct a minor drafting error. The bill amends section 31 of the Surveillance Devices Act, which mistakenly refers to the chief investigating officer of an investigating agency, rather than to the chief officer of an investigating agency. So 'investigating' is there twice; we are deleting one of them.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can you guarantee that there are no circumstances in which there would be problems in the respective reviewers being the same person?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Nothing has been brought to my attention that suggests that there would be an adverse impact as a result of having the reviewer of all these entities being the same person. The advantage in it occurring is that we have oversight, considering all the factors at the same level on all the matters.

For example, what we could have in a situation with different reviewers, even though they have all been done by the same reviewer at the moment, is that one person may take the view that the review should take place over 10 different aspects, whereas another might take the view that only eight areas need to be examined to comply with the obligation of the review as specified in each of the acts. Therefore, you may have an inconsistent or an inadequate review by one and not the other. That is the advantage of having the same reviewer.

Let me give you an example. Recently, I appointed former judge Michael David to undertake a review, which from time to time he has done for government. He advised me that the person who had been instructed to do the previous reviews, of which they had provided reports to the former attorney-general and which had been provided to parliament, had reviewed the matter at a level that I think was seen to be significantly inadequate in the opinion of Mr David. He felt that to have conducted the review it was necessary to undertake a whole lot of other steps.

His view was that the previous reviewer had interpreted the role in a very narrow way and therefore had not, in his view, adequately complied with doing the job. He probably did quite well in what he did review, but he had not done it in sufficient detail. So you can see what happens when two different reviewers, especially if they are lawyers, come up with different lists about what they think has to be done.

When that happens, you can get inconsistencies, which ought not necessarily mean that either is wrong but to which there has not been the same level of threshold or standards applied for the purpose of that review. Can I guarantee that there will not be any problems? None have been brought to my attention at all; in fact, the request has been to consider sorting this out because it is what we are doing anyway.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Turning to 40(1)(f), looking at reports by the Training Centre Review Board and the power the board has to include matters in the annual report, or for the minister to direct the board to include matters in the annual report, how will parliament know when the minister has directed the board to include something and will that direction be tabled in parliament?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: On the latter question, firstly, it is unlikely that the direction would be tabled in parliament. There is no obligation under this proposed legislation to require that to occur. It only happens in certain circumstances, and I am sure the member, having been a former minister, would understand this. Sometimes, there is an obligation for a statutory officer, independent by virtue of the statute usually, to be protected against the direction of a minister.

Sometimes it is absolute. I can recall after the Mullighan inquiry, when the Guardian for Children and Young People, who was the person responsible for the protection of children under the guardianship of the then minister, provides an annual report, he or she shall not be directed by a minister in respect of their report.

That is a specific legislative protection to them from an interfering minister. Mr Mullighan took the view that they had to be absolutely free of any imposition or interference or threat from the minister. I will not necessarily go into the reasons why, but he made it clear that that needed to be in the statute, and this parliament put it in the statute.

Other occasions we have where, if a direction is given, it is so important that the parliament know about it that it specifies in the statute in the circumstances of when that is to occur. For example, I think if I direct the DPP to do something, as Attorney-General, which is not considered to be something that should be frequent, that I need to account in some way to that.

I know there is a provision in the Police Act, for example, that if a minister of the Crown gives a direction to the police commissioner, that that direction has to be tabled in parliament, I think in both houses. The reason for that is because we need to protect the integrity of the independence of the police commissioner who, just like the DPP, has to have the power to investigate, as the DPP has to prosecute, independently of influence of the Crown. This is a very important principle. In this instance, we are just asking them to prepare an annual report and put in it what items must be in it.

Last year, before the filing of annual reports, the then premier issued some kind of direction or guideline—I am not sure exactly what status it was, but it seemed to have the imposition of the High Court rules—that there had to be a change of format in relation to annual reports. There were to be, I don't know, no more pictures, there were not allowed to be paragraphs of self-congratulation, all sorts of things in it, which were streamlining the reports. We got the sanitised version—we have, really, bugger all, frankly, in our annual reports anymore under that direction.

In any event, I do not know whether he was under any obligation to even tell us, as a parliament, why he did that, but he certainly did it. Frankly, I can recall at least one agency that I was supporting at the time that was pretty cranky about being told how they were going to do their report. From memory, it was the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee that was pretty miffed that the premier should come and start telling them how they should report to the parliament.

Anyway, let's get back to this one. We are not imposing that obligation. We do say, though, that if there are other aspects that the board wants to cover or that are considered to be important to report on, like how many children in the training centre are required to wear spit hoods each year, then I would put that request to them to give that information to the parliament and I would expect that that would be complied with and that they would probably put in their report, 'We have received a request during the course of the year from the Attorney-General to make provision of this information', and accordingly do so.

The only other time I have seen it is where there has been a direction in respect of financial matters. I only recall this because I was chair of the audit committee of the TAB 15 or 20 years ago. The then minister required us to report a certain matter in the annual report. I said, 'That's only going to happen if you give me a ministerial direction and I will be reporting it in the annual report.'

All different types of rules apply for these things, but in this instance this is a summary of the separations and detentions of children, largely, and we expect it to be annually reported. If things come up that we think do need to be reported to the parliament, the minister of the day, who would at this point be the Minister for Human Services—possibly me, I am not sure. Probably me, as the chair of the board is also a Youth Court judge, but in any event whoever the minister is at the time who has the file committed to them. Youth Offenders Act—yes, I have the act, I think, and the actual detention facility is with the minister for justice, who is now our Minister for Human Services. Great. I think we are on the same page.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (14 and 15) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (21:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 21:19 the house adjourned until Thursday 6 September 2018 at 11:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT