HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Mr GEE: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Clause 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I believe we are on clause 1. The member for Kaurna is on his feet with a 15-minute preamble, I am sensing. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, Acting Chair. It will be slightly shorter than 15 minutes, I assure you. I would like to make a number of comments in relation to what we have heard about this bill. From the outset, it seems apparently clear that we have some very clear differences between the executive branch of the government and the judicial branch of the government as to this piece of legislation. This is a very serious issue for us, as the legislative branch, to consider. On the one hand, we have the Attorney-General saying one thing but, on the other hand, every single member of the bench of the Supreme Court is saying not to proceed with this legislation.

As legislators, we all need to decide who we believe in that regard. As legislators, we all need to decide what branch of government to believe in terms of whether to proceed with this legislation. Clearly, we are concerned that we would err on the side of believing the Supreme Court of South Australia. The Attorney-General has outlined eight separate concerns that have been raised about her legislation by each member, each justice of the Supreme Court.

We asked for that information a number of times and it was only provided once the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said in a letter to the shadow attorney-general that he would be releasing documents if the Attorney-General did not make a statement that accurately summarised his position to this house. We are not sure whether the statement that was made accurately satisfies his position and the position of all members of the Supreme Court. We will go through the process of checking that.

However, what we have heard is pretty startling enough. What we have heard is that there is a significant difference between the executive government and the judicial government. This is a significant concern for all of us on this side of the house and it really goes to those questions that we talked about earlier in terms of how did this come about, how much is it going to cost, what is going to be the impact on the court, what is going to be the impact upon delays and what is going to be the impact upon the administration of justice. Clearly, we have significant concerns from all those members of the Supreme Court of South Australia. They are saying that there will be an impact on the administration of justice in this state.

I think that it would be a very serious matter for the parliament to ignore that advice, for the parliament to take the word of the executive over the word of all those learned justices. It may well be that this house decides to pass this, which is par for the course in terms of the numbers in this place, but I would like to think that the other place would see it as important enough to be concerned about this position. During the break, we had the Attorney-General's party tweeting a meme saying, 'Here's a list of things we have opposed. Court of appeal, Labor opposed.'

Here we actually have all the justices of the Supreme Court opposing this. Every single member of the Supreme Court is saying that this is a mistake. Every single member of the Supreme Court is saying that we should not go down this path. I think it is pretty incredible that we got to the point where the Attorney-General had to make that statement and did not think, 'Well, maybe I will withdraw this legislation and go back to the drawing board and try to work out a situation where I can get all the justices of the Supreme Court on board.' Clearly that has not happened and clearly we are in this situation.

My first question to the Attorney-General is in relation to the first two concerns which she outlined and which have been raised by all the justices of the Supreme Court, namely, that this was not a matter that was raised by the court by either the current Chief Justice or previous chief justices with the executive, or it was not a matter that was raised with her by the law council or the Bar Association. Where did this come from? Where did this originate from?

I think that is a key question now, particularly given that this is a key question that the Supreme Court has raised in its rebuke of this legislation about the origins of it. It did not come from the court and it did not come from those associations. Of course, I bear in mind what the Attorney said earlier, that the Bar Association is happy with it, the Law Society has some significant concerns that it has outlined and clearly the Supreme Court has outlined significant concerns.

What was the initial motivation before this legislation? Was it that somebody raised it with the Attorney? Were there people who came forward to her, or was it her own idea that has led us to this place and time now?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The government's decision to proceed with the establishment of a court of appeal and present this to the parliament culminates from a significant period of consideration. Certainly there have been issues raised with me about the operation of the Supreme  Court and in particular the number of appeals from South Australia that were going to the High Court over the last few years. That was a very concerning issue.

In fact, it is a matter about which I spoke to the Chief Justice, together with others, and agreed with him that there had been some stemming of the numbers emanating out of our jurisdiction. I think it manifested itself in a number of concerns raised by members in the legal profession about the status of our jurisdiction. It has been raised with me in the context of the opportunity for a South Australian to one day get on the High Court, which I hope would happen at least in my lifetime, and the reputational position we had from South Australia. That is just one aspect of what has been raised.

It certainly inspired in me a desire to ensure that we do get South Australia's state courts to a level where we are an attractive forum for litigation, and in that regard the biggest single factor that has been brought to my attention by the legal profession—this is more the solicitors than counsel—has been the preference they indicate to me as to why they would issue proceedings, which are more expensive, in the Federal Court (that is, the Adelaide division of the Federal Court) rather than go to the Supreme Court.

That raised a concern with me, again, as to the loss of significant cases, not because we want to be the litigators: we want to see a situation where we offer a service. We have a very expensive court service that is there for good reason. It is important that we present it and provide for it in a way that it can function as best it can.

I was concerned in relation to this information coming to my attention that people were prepared to pay more to go to a Federal Court, have their commercial disputes resolved there, rather than do it in our own Supreme Court. I discussed it with colleagues in Victoria because they told me about a period of time in which they were losing work, so to speak, from their state courts to the Federal Court. They embarked on a considerable exercise to win back the profession and discuss with them how they might best have procedures within their own courts to again be attractive in that forum.

That also led me to make inquiries in New South Wales. There, I received a very clear message that the separation of having an independent appeal court was of very significant benefit to their jurisdiction. They referred me to articles such as that of Justice Kirby, which I read, and his assessment of the advantages.

I met with people in Western Australia, including the then chief justice (recently retired) of the Supreme Court. He was not a convert of a separate appellate court and his very clear position was that, although he was not impressed with this idea to start with, he felt that it had been of benefit to Western Australia. He was very helpful in providing advice as to any aspects that he might do differently were he to start again with a clean slate.

These matters brought about the approval by our cabinet to say, 'Let's have a serious look at how we might advance this.' We went on to consult and found that there was increasing support to achieve the aspirations I have outlined and also to ensure that we actually improve the situation. From that, I had discussions with the Chief Justice. We discussed various data. As I said, there was a consolation period exclusively for him to consider the matter. I met with members of his court.

I was hopeful that we were not continuing a passage of having a high level of appeals to the High Court. In layman's terms, that does not mean much; in legal terms, it has been seen as an indicator that decisions made in our courts could have been better so as not to have produced an appellant regime. The process confirmed in my mind that this would be advantageous for our state and South Australians who require legal services.

Remember, nearly all the other courts they go to have an appellate process up to the Supreme Court. This is not just for the Supreme Court people. This is not just for that select group. This is for all the people in South Australia who use the court processes in other jurisdictions, who might end up in the Supreme Court. This issue is relevant not just to the Supreme Court judges.

If you read the data, and particularly the latest online data to which I have referred the member, perhaps one of the most interesting aspects is the level of work that involves appellant work in the Supreme Court is over 50 per cent of their workload. I was very surprised. In fact, when I conveyed that to others, including the Bar Association, they were also very surprised.

I have no reason to doubt it, but in the discussions I have had with the Chief Justice, which we will no doubt finalise down the track if this bill is passed, as to the number of members that would be needed to populate an appeal court, these matters have certainly been persuasively put to me by the Chief Justice. Therefore, they are matters that we will take into account, given that workload.

To be fair, whilst we have a different view on the concerns in the list that have been raised by the Chief Justice, we do not want his team to feel like there is a level of collegiality that is at risk, and we have pointed to the data that suggests that in other jurisdictions it has been quite the reverse—that it has galvanised that. So it is not a necessarily question of the Chief Justice and I having different views.

The position is that the Chief Justice has raised some concerns and we have looked at them. There are a number of other corroborative events and reports that I would hope help to allay any concern of his and his judges and, most importantly, outline for the people of South Australia the benefit that they will receive.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney mentioned in her summing-up that she had given the Chief Justice and, by extension, the Supreme Court an earlier opportunity to be consulted during the consideration and drafting of this legislation. Could she outline the dates of when the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice were consulted earlier and what response she had? Was the response that she received from the Supreme Court consistent with what she has outlined in the parliament today? Were there any other issues that were raised by the Supreme Court at that time? Did that response include any issues that had been raised and were subsequently dealt with, disposed and changed in the bill before it went to the next stage?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was corresponding with the Chief Justice during April and May. I think that until about June there was provision of data and provision to the Chief Justice of a draft that had been prepared. He got back to me in July, indicating that he had identified two areas of reform that he would recommend in relation to the draft. In my recollection, both of those have been accommodated. They related to the question of leave to appeal—it is the question of who deals with this.

As the member would have seen in the bill before us, it is proposed that the Supreme Court trial division, as such, would continue to be a trier of fact and sentencing and the like. It would still hear the appeals from the Magistrates Court, and the question of leave to appeal would be heard by the appeal court. That was a matter for which he had a suggestion.

Mr PICTON: What was the suggestion?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That the appeal court do that—so it has been accommodated in the model. The second suggestion for the trial division is basically on the question of its population, to give it a capacity to hear serious and more complex trials heard in the District Court. We have not canvassed that any further; that is more a question of practice. To be fair, the subject matter relates to, for example, in the criminal area, the Supreme Court hearing matters of treason—it does not happen very often and certainly has not happened to my knowledge—and murder. There are some complicated multi-manslaughter cases.

For example, I remember a case recently in which a person who was providing birthing services had been alleged to have committed manslaughter by allowing a certain number of babies to die, so it was quite a complex matter. From memory, again, Justice Vanstone heard that case. Manslaughter is generally in the remit of the District Court, but the Chief Justice was indicating a capacity to accommodate that. He has since spoken to me about other cases that he thinks they might be able to pick up from the District Court—again, they do not specifically relate to that—and then he wrote to me on 4 October.

There is the question of the constitution of the court, to be three judges unless the parliament determined otherwise, to enable it to be two judges. This is the result of some recommendations that came in during the consultation that make provision for the decision to be made by two judges not three. The practice has been, I am advised—the Chief Justice was most helpful in this regard—that under current law two judges can hear an application for appeal. One would think, 'Alright, it's an even number, so what happens if one says they should come and one they shouldn't?' In those circumstances, the practice has been, I am advised, that leave is granted for appeal, as distinct from having a third person to make a casting judgement.

The only other circumstance in which I think it would be beneficial to enable two judges is if three were hearing an application for leave and one were to die or no longer be available, and then two at least could still provide that decision about whether leave were granted. It is seen as a preliminary application. My understanding is that that has not been a problem in the past, but ultimately we agreed to move to three to satisfy stakeholders that we would avoid the problem even if it did arise, even if it has not arisen historically.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Member for Kaurna, I assume this is your third question, as opposed to the clarification you sought during the Attorney's deliberations?

Mr PICTON: Correct. You are so fair, Acting Chair. The Attorney-General in her summing-up listed a whole range of people she had received correspondence from and consulted with in relation to this bill. Is that the entirety of the feedback the government received on this, or were there any other groups or bodies who provided feedback to the government on this proposal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will quickly run through them: the Law Society; Bar Association; Women Lawyers' Association of South Australia (no response); Legal Services Commission; Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (no response); Chief Justice, as I have advised; Chief Judge (no response, although I personally had a discussion with him); the senior judge of the environment court, who is the Chief Judge (no response); Licensing Court judge (no response); Acting Chief Magistrate; State Coroner; Judge of the Youth Court (no response); President of SAET and Return to Work; President of SACAT (no response); Judicial Conduct Commissioner; Acting Director of Public Prosecutions; Commissioner of Police; and Office of the Valuer-General.

The only person I have not mentioned was the State Courts Administrator, which is the CAA executive. She did provide a letter. I do not have it with me, but I think it was more technical, from memory, and was just in relation to some technical matters. Of course, I have had repeated consultations with the Solicitor-General and Crown Solicitor, advising me on how this model should operate.

Just to be clear on the previous matter, all applications now have to be heard with a minimum of three judges. As to the proposal by the Law Society, that we in some way codify when five should sit, which is thrown up as a bit of a light-bulb sort of idea, it seemed to me that there is nothing else with it, nobody else has ever asked for it and I did not see it as necessary. It seems to me that the court, whether it is this court or the current Supreme Court, are perfectly capable of making a decision where a matter is of such significance that it would warrant having five members sit as the appeal court. I think they are grown up enough to make that decision.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the third of the eight concerns raised with parliament by the entirety of the Supreme Court justices, this relates to whether South Australia's size and judicial workload are equivalent to require such a court as the government is proposing and therefore what the impact of it is going to be on the budget, what the impact is going to be on efficiency and what the impact is going to be on various resources. Can the Attorney outline why she differs in her opinion from all the Supreme Court justices in her analysis of whether that is required in South Australia and whether there is the number of cases that would justify this separate court that she is proposing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have already indicated the workload of the current court, which is 12 judges plus the Chief Justice. According to them, more than 50 per cent of their workload is appellant work, so I think most certainly it does. That is information that has come from the court itself. In other words, it is not a situation where they have come to me and said, 'We only do 10 per cent of our work as appellant work, so really it is a month's work for the year and we don't need to have an appeal court. We will just meet when we need to.' The fact is that it is a very busy court in relation to appellant work. It is apparently more than 50 per cent of its workload, and I accept that.

The question will come as to what the numbers should be for an appeal court. The Chief Justice has put to me a view about what he thinks it should be, and I think it is very persuasive, but rather than have a discussion about what that should be yet it will be a matter for detail that we need to consider at the time. I do not have a view different in relation to the money. I think that the Chief Justice, by virtue of the information he has provided us, does relate to, obviously, an expense and it is around about $1.326 million per extra judge.

Whilst we have a fairly high scale of remuneration in South Australia relative to all other jurisdictions—I think only New South Wales pay their Supreme Court judges any more than we do—nevertheless, it is all relative. There is a case, I think, for a small increment, which in some jurisdictions is paid to appellate court judges around Australia, and in other jurisdictions it is all the same, but they are the details of which we will sort out.

Mr PICTON: Is that a decision of government, or is it a decision of the Remuneration Tribunal, and have you sought any advice in terms of what the payments would be? Do you have an estimate in terms of what the costs would be of additional resources to be paid to these justices?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If I did not make that clear, the answer to that question is, yes, from the financial advisers to the Courts Administration Authority, which relies on the judicial entitlements. As the member would probably know, that is set by the Remuneration Tribunal. The cost also assumes a certain level of support staff, associates and the like who are necessary per judge. In addition, budget assessments have been prepared by Treasury. I simply make the point that this is not an area of dispute. There will be extra costs.

As I have said, I think both in opening and also in reply, that is a matter that will need to be accommodated, and there will be up-front costs in establishing this court. If the parliament is of the view that this is a model that is to be supported, then we would obviously need to work on that.

Mr PICTON: As part of that estimation that the government has done, obviously the inputs into that are important. What are the inputs that you have put into it in terms of the number of justices that there would be in the general division and in the court of appeal division under this system?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I said before, that is yet to be determined, but we accept that, once we have resolved the number to be in the appeal court and the number to be in the general division, to be very clear, there will be no less resource than what is available in current judges. There is an argument for more but, depending on how many go into the appeal court and how many would be required for the divisional court, that is yet to be determined.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr PICTON: Would you put out a call to justices of the Supreme Court to say, 'Do you want to put up your hand to be on the Court of Appeal?' What is the process you would go through? There are interviews in other states and federally that have happened from time to time with justices. What is the process you envisage following the passage of this legislation to work out, of those on the current Supreme Court, who would be appointed, or would outside people come on to be on the Court of Appeal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have an obligation in recommending the appointment of judges to the cabinet to present for commission to the Governor to do a number of things. This follows previous practice, and that is to consult with the Chief Justice, even if it is for a magistrate, but also for other courts; the head of the jurisdiction, if that is separate from what we are talking about, so if it is in the District Court of the SAET then it would be with the head of those jurisdictions; the head of the Law Society; and the head of the South Australian Bar Association.

I usually have a private conversation with each of those to present anyone they think is of merit to be recommended. Obviously, in respect of the Supreme Court, we already have 11 who are in those positions. I have already had a conversation with the Chief Justice about any of his current judges he might recommend, but for obvious reasons I would not advise any further on that.

As I understand it, that is the usual practice and that is something that I have done already since being Attorney-General, to follow that general course. It is not one that goes through any sort of advertised panel process at this level. It does for magistrates, but in other jurisdictions that is not the case. It is a matter where, obviously, one has to consider those who are in the profession and the advice that is given in regard to people who might be suitable.

The process then is that an approach would be made to those who might be suitable and, if they agree to their name being presented, then that is a matter that would follow the course to cabinet. That is as I understand it. That is the process I have been advised that has operated in other appointments, which I would continue. In this case, I can indicate that I have already spoken to the Chief Justice about who he would recommend in his court who would have the special skills to be able to undertake work on the appeal court.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney-General says there is a standard process. Obviously, this is a little bit different in that this is creating a new court where it could be that some members of that court go onto this new court. Can the Attorney-General advise whether she is open to considering people from outside the court going onto the Court of Appeal, or would she only want to look at the current justices of the Supreme Court to be appointed to the Court of Appeal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: All I have done at this stage is ask the Chief Justice to give some consideration to who he might recommend. I am not suggesting that there be a closure of either. For example, it may be that he ultimately does not recommend to fill an agreed number to populate an appeal court. They are matters still to be determined, but I have asked for advice and I would value his advice in relation to those who he might think would have the skills sufficient to undertake that role.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the fourth of the concerns that have been raised, as stated by the Attorney, by all the justices of the Supreme Court, in relation to the government's proposal, this relates to the justices saying that there needs to be five judges because of the rigidity of the proposed structure, also highlighting that appeal judgements are often written by judges after the appeal has been heard whilst assigning 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 additional judges, which obviously makes some sense as some of these judgements can take a significant time period to write. Will the Attorney agree with the concerns that have been raised by all the justices of the Supreme Court to have at least five justices as part of this appeal division?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have said publicly and in these debates, the suggestion of five has some merit, given that the information we have to date is that more than 50 per cent of the work that 12 judges plus the chief judge undertake is appellate work. I think there is no question that the suggestion that an appeal court of five—which would be president and four—has some merit, but that has been by no means finalised at this point.

I make the point—and I think he does as well—that there needs to be consideration of whether seven are going to be enough, even if there is less than 50 per cent work left in the trial court, so to speak, or in the general division. It is more than five obviously, but again that is the machinery of what we need to look at. It may well be that we need extra judges overall to complement a severance into two different divisions—that is, to interrupt the flexibility that he is talking about in that section—but, again, that is the machinery that we will consider.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr PICTON: I think it might be 12 years since I was admitted to the court, not that I would consider myself an appointment here. In relation to the number of judges, and correct me if I am wrong on the maths, there is currently a Chief Justice and then provision for 12 justices of the Supreme Court. Currently, there is one vacancy and very soon there is going to be a second vacancy, meaning that we are going to have 10 and one, and it seems like that is going to be the case for the foreseeable future, according to answers by the Attorney on that.

If you appointed five, which presumably would include the Chief Justice, to the Court of Appeal, would that leave six? Potentially the Chief Justice is an additional one, so you would have five and five, which would be quite a small number in the general division dealing with the case load there. I guess my question is: does the Attorney agree that at the very least, if this were to come into operation, you would need to make sure that all those judicial vacancies were filled, of which there is currently one and soon to be a second one; otherwise, the workload in the general division might become too great?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is right, correct.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the remuneration, this has been touched on by the Attorney already. However, she did indicate that she would imagine that there would be some additional payments that would be required. I do not know if we got an answer to whether the remuneration tribunal had already been consulted and received notification of this and had started considerations as to whether there would be additional remuneration, but clearly there would also be an additional remuneration cost in terms of the president. I am wondering whether any consideration has been given to what that additional remuneration would be. Therefore, not only would we have additional remuneration for the Court of Appeal justices but then also additional remuneration for the president as well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, consideration has been given to both of those, that is, an extra amount for a president and also for the judges of the appeal court. That may or may not translate ultimately to being offered but, yes, we have certainly considered it and costed it. As I have said, some jurisdictions do not offer any extra payment to their appeal court judges, but others do.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the sixth matter raised by the Chief Justice on behalf of all the justices of the Supreme Court regarding concerns they have with the government's proposal, essentially this was one where the Attorney, from my quick reading of the rush of Hansard, has not quoted directly but is paraphrasing what the Chief Justice said, and I am seeking some clarification. Is the concern that essentially the cost of the additional judge, being $1.329 million annually, would be better applied elsewhere in the justice system, in terms of making it a more efficient court process, rather than adding additional judges, which would not necessarily, in their belief, add to that efficiency?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Looking at article 6 again, which refers to the cost of the additional judge, the $1.329 million, including costs, the cost of an appeal division would be greater if remuneration is higher than the existing trial judges or if they are not accommodated in the existing Supreme Court complex. That is pretty clear. That is what has been raised.

I do not know that I can help other than to say that, in relation to the cost of accommodation, again that is a matter still to be determined. I have indicated that I have already had a site visit with the Chief Justice to consider what available accommodation there would be at the 1 Gouger Street property.

Mr PICTON: So the Attorney is saying that therefore the concern is that having additional cost or an alternative location would make the Supreme Court less attractive. Is that essentially the concern?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know what the concern is other than the fact that it will cost more—and I think that is their point—to have a separate appeal court. That is what they are saying and I do not disagree with that. How much that is will depend on how many extra judges there are, and other support staff and any other entitlement there; whether there is any loading for being an appeal court; and the cost of accommodation of those judges, if they are not able to be accommodated at 1 Gouger Street, for example.

They are the sorts of things that are all up in the air. Of course, we have not presumed a position of the parliament on this matter; we have made some preliminary assessments. I do not take any issue with the facts that the Chief Justice has put there. I have just made the point in response as to the efficiencies that would be gained.

Mr PICTON: In relation to that, the Attorney has acknowledged that there is going to be some additional cost, and she has acknowledged that there have been some Treasury costings as to what that additional cost would be. Can the Attorney outline whether this will be additional funding to her agency and to the courts generally, or whether there would have to be any offsets to account for that cost?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We have not yet determined what the cost would be, but I would expect that that would be provided for. There is a clear understanding that to establish an appeal court will cost money—I think I have said that several times—not just the up-front costs but the ongoing costs. If, in fact, the parliament determines that we have a separate appeal court, that new cost will need to be accommodated, just as we accepted it would be a new multimillion cost to buy the Sir Samuel Way Building for use by the courts as an asset that would ensure that they saved $6 million a year in rent.

These are the sorts of efficiencies that we understand have some cost associated with them, but this is one that we think will have a demonstrable benefit, as has been evidenced around the country, that results in our having a better system and the benefits that I have outlined.

Clause passed.

Clauses 13 and 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr PICTON: In determining the location of the Court of Appeal, what will be the process that the Attorney and the government will consider? Is it the preference to try to fit it within the existing Supreme Court building? If that does not work, is it the preference to try to locate it within a relatively short distance in the particular courts precinct? What requirements would the Attorney seek in terms of what would be necessary for the Court of Appeal and its location?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take the latter first. Obviously, the size of the appeal court will determine what would ultimately be required for its accommodation. I make two points; one is that I have accepted the Chief Justice's invitation to attend at 1 Gouger Street and conduct the site assessment, and I have an indication that, in his view, he thinks this would be better accommodated on site where there would be a level of collegiality. That is his view, and obviously I will be willing to have a look at that, but again it depends on what the numbers are and how that might translate.

However, significant work is being done on the Gouger Street property as we speak, which is to be operational within the next few weeks—I think by early December—to start using the new courts that have been rebuilt there and some accommodation.

Secondly, we will take into account where all our other courts are. As the member might be well aware, SACAT is now in the city; SAET, which incorporates the industrial court and the Licensing Court, operates from North Terrace; and pretty much every other court is either in Victoria Square or in Wright Street, the latter accommodating the Youth Court. The Coroner's Court and Magistrates Court are in the square. The Federal Court, which includes the Family Court and now what is called the Family and Circuit Court (I think that's its full name) and the District Court and the Environment, Resources and Development Court all operate in the Victoria Square precinct, in addition to infrastructure that we have in regional South Australia.

There is proximity, obviously, in relation to that fair concentration of courts in that region. There are administrative appeal tribunals, and so on, at the federal level as well dotted around mostly the city precinct. Taking into account the number, we will look at where and obviously the access to other facilities. As the member might also be aware, the Attorney-General's Department, including the DPP and Crown Solicitor's Office, has recently moved to the GPO building, which as he might appreciate sits in Franklin Street just behind the GPO.

Its move to that location, I suppose, would support the concept of remaining in the proximity of the Victoria Square precinct because a good number of people who deal with these courts come from the Attorney-General's Department in one way or another, and we are obviously mindful of the police prosecution facilities, which also have city-based headquarters.

Mr PICTON: In her second reading response, the Attorney stated that there would be flexibility to jointly authorise a judge of the appeal court to temporarily sit in the general division and vice versa. Can the Attorney advise whether the Chief Justice is satisfied with that arrangement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no reason to suggest otherwise. Always in the course of these discussions we have had about the proposed appeal court this has been the assumption—that there would be the role of the Chief Justice still sitting as the head of the court and that there be a process of how this would be managed. It is a matter they need to deal with between themselves. Apparently, it works quite well in Western Australia upon which this model has been developed.

I am advised that the Chief Justice saw this in the draft that he had early on and then this most recent draft that culminated in this presentation and did not have any adverse comment to make about it.

Mr PICTON: The last question I have relates to the eighth and final matter raised by all the justices and through the Chief Justice in relation to this bill. What I understand they are saying is that effectively the Full Court hearing appeals—which is being replaced by this provision—hears things within several months of people requesting a hearing date, but trial courts have much longer waiting times for a hearing.

The Attorney has listed a lot of statistics in terms of the concerns raised about the time for appellate hearings. I would like her to clarify whether she has a central issue in terms of the complaint that at the moment it is easier to get an appellate hearing as opposed to a trial. Secondly, can the Attorney assure the house that she believes that, following the implementation of this measure if it were to be passed by the parliament, we would see waiting times for both measures go down rather than up?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: First of all, in relation to this matter, the information is that Full Court matters (here, we are talking about civil matters, as distinct from court of appeal matters) are heard within several months—and I have no reason to doubt that—and that trial courts would generally take a longer time. I think one of the concerns is that there has been a delay in trial times mainly in civil areas because, for obvious reasons, murders and cases in criminal matters usually receive attention. Keeping people in custody is obviously not desirable, and that is usually the case in those very serious matters.

However, that is not the problem. I think the problem—if the member listened to Lindy Powell QC on the radio this morning—is the delay in the judgements emanating from these hearings in both the Full Court, which is for civil appeal matters, and the civil cases. Lindy Powell QC raised the matter of waiting 18 months to two years for a judgement in the public arena this morning. I have no reason to doubt the information in item 8.

Mr PICTON: I might just ask one last question.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Might you? Very quickly.

Mr PICTON: Excellent. I did not hear the interview, but I understand that Lindy Powell offered that listeners to 891 could go and get some firewood from her property.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Is there a question there, member for Kaurna? Member for Kaurna, I was really generous.

Mr PICTON: The very last question, Acting Chair, is: in relation to all these concerns that have been raised by the justices of the Supreme Court, does the Attorney consider this the end of the matter—it is in the parliament and justices will deal with what has been presented—or is she continuing discussions with the Supreme Court to try to resolve those concerns?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): There are two questions there, member for Kaurna. Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I understand the question. Having read the presentation by the Chief Justice that was delivered to my office late last week, there are a couple of new things in it, such as population matters, which I had not heard before. Apart from that, whilst I have a different view, which, as I have said, is supported by other matters, as to the concerns that have been raised in the schedule, absolutely I intend to continue to work with the Chief Justice, and with the other judges if he wishes me to do so—as I indicated, I have agreed to meet with them—as to all the detail of any proposed court. I think I have already demonstrated this.

We have been discussing numbers, we have been discussing workload and we have been discussing venue and the division of work. These are all very important matters on which we will continue to work with the court. In addition to that, ultimately who should sit on the appeal court and who should sit in the general division very much involves the Chief Justice. As I have indicated, I have already opened that conversation and I will continue to do so.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (16 to 21) passed.

Schedule passed.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just before you put the title, Mr Acting Chair, may I indicate that late last week the Chief Justice also raised the question of the rule-making power in the event that a court is able to be established, if it is the will of the parliament. I think the rule-making arrangements relate to clause 21 and may even relate to an earlier clause. I have indicated to him that I will give some consideration to that. Usually what happens, as I understand it, is that the rules in the Supreme Court are at the moment made in concert by the judges of the Supreme Court. This bill proposes a structure where the rules for the appeal court would be constructed by the members of the appeal court, including the Chief Justice.

That was prepared on the advice that I received from the Crown Solicitor. Notwithstanding that, I indicated to the Chief Justice that I would have a look at that. If it is a matter that we are able to accommodate, then we can consider it between the houses. For obvious reasons, I have not presented an amendment to that effect because we have not yet had an opportunity to do that, but we will have a look at that.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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