HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Licence Disqualification) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2020.)

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:03): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Statutes Amendment (Licence Disqualification) Bill. I am the lead speaker, and perhaps the only speaker on this bill, but that remains to be seen. I indicate from the outset that we will not be opposing the passage of this bill through this place. We certainly will not be delaying it unduly, but we do of course, as always, reserve our right to interrogate and also to make changes, or to attempt to make changes, in the other place if we deem it necessary.

We will be using the time in between the houses to consult further with stakeholders because, once again with this government, what we see here is a bill that is in part reproduced from a bill—quite a hefty bill—prepared for and by the previous government. We see this time and time again. We see a bill that was quite a large body of work prepared for and by the previous government brought to this place. For whatever reason, it failed, parliament prorogued, as is the case with the origins of this bill, and then the government, after lengthy delays, brings back a small part of that bill for us to consider.

On that basis, I see no reason for us to oppose these measures, certainly not in the House of Assembly, but I would say that it is another example of that sort of delay, of the cherrypicking of work done by previous governments. It does raise the question why the entirety of the 2017 bill, the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill, quite a hefty piece of work that not only addressed inefficiencies in the court system around licensing and things like that, which are worthy measures—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: You have done all of them? You broke my flow, Attorney. It does raise the question why all the measures in the bill have not been enacted by this government, why they have not done it sooner, why they choose now, apparently on the back of a conversation with the Chief Magistrate, to introduce these efficiency measures. I will say again that we do not oppose them. These were measures brought in by the previous government, supported by all sides, I am advised, yet 2½ years later we see a small sliver of that work reappear in the parliament.

I will get back to the bill at hand before I go on. There will be a short committee stage but, as I said, we will not be delaying this in any particular way. I see the member for Heysen is here. He may also have a lengthy contribution, and I look forward to that. The bill essentially makes two small and minor changes to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Road Traffic Act to make the calculation of licence disqualification easier. I enjoyed, as I think the Minister for Transport did, the Attorney's contribution, the Attorney's second reading explanation, and the examples she gave of how this might work in practice.

I will try to distil my understanding of the bill. It deals with circumstances in which a police officer issues an immediate loss of licence and the same driver is then subject to a court-imposed licence disqualification. Under the current law, a minimum disqualification period is based on the level or seriousness of certain offences. If a matter reaches the courts, a disqualification period may be imposed that is longer than the minimum. When the court imposes a disqualification, certain calculations are required that take into account any time already served under an immediate loss of licence. In some cases, the immediate loss of licence may have expired before the court imposes a final penalty.

The current law, as I understand it, allows the court to set the disqualification period and take all relevant factors into account. The bill does not change the outcome necessarily, but it is an efficiency measure and it saves some time in making the calculations, we are told. The changes to the Motor Vehicles Act I am advised are consequential to this and they ensure consistency between the two acts.

This did form part of a larger body of work introduced into the parliament by the member for Lee, the then minister for transport, and it was a considerable piece of work aimed at efficiency and also at road safety. I think it underlines this government's lack of commitment to road safety overall. Since the election, one of the first measures in the first budget was to disband the Motor Accident Commission, to prevent it from doing its work in the last six months of its life even. During the life of the last government, we saw the road toll, the number of deaths on our roads, steadily decline over the last 10 years.

Upon the election of the government, and concurrent with the disbanding of the Motor Accident Commission and the running down of its functions, we saw a spike in road deaths, which we are still seeing continue. Of course, we have seen a drop in the road toll over the last three or four months, but that is because most of the state has been in some sort of lockdown. In fact, you would think, all other things being equal, you would see a far greater drop in the road toll than we have seen, considering the drop in road traffic. I am sure the Minister for Transport has the statistics on the decrease in motor traffic over the last three months.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: I do.

Mr ODENWALDER: Excellent. I look forward to your contribution, minister, because it underlines the point that the road toll in the first three months of this year, all other things being equal, should by any measure have dropped considerably. Time and time again, we have called for the reinstatement of the Motor Accident Commission, for the reinstatement of its functions, in terms of it being an independent body charged with advising the government and advising the public on road safety measures, measures that appeared to work over the last 10 years.

During the life of this government, we have also seen complete bewilderment from the motorcycle rider community on the government's lack of action in terms of the loss of life and the road trauma suffered by motorcycle riders. We saw a significant spike in 2017 of motorcycle road trauma which led to the then minister, the member for Kaurna, convening the Motorcycle Reference Group which made a whole series of recommendations through CASR to government, none of which have seen the light of day.

As this government has progressed over the last two years, the motorcycle community has become increasingly frustrated. They have come to see us. They came to see me. They came to see the member for Croydon, the Leader of the Opposition, and said, 'We are confused. The government is not listening to us. In fact, it will not even consult with us. It will not meet with us. Not only will it not enact the measures recommended by the CASR report, it will not even convene the Motorcycle Reference Group to find out what we want or if indeed we still want those recommendations re-enacted.'

As it happens, they did want some of the licensing provisions around motorcycle licensing enacted, so in the absence of any action from the government, in consultation with the shadow cabinet, I decided to bring a bill in here which did precisely what the CASR report recommended, which is to make the licensing of novice and new motorcycle riders more stringent, to place greater safeguards around early licensing, to make the licensing period longer, to make the age of an initial licensee higher, all those measures which are proven and, as we are told by the experts in CASR and elsewhere, which will significantly reduce road trauma and death among motorcyclists.

The government's record on road safety is not good. It appears to have taken the Chief Magistrate's advice in introducing this efficiency measure, which on its own is perfectly fine, but as I said before, there was a significant body of work introduced in the previous parliament which not only addressed efficiencies around licence disqualification and all those other measures which do clog up our courts—I accept that, and they clog up police work as well—but also road safety. I look forward to the committee stage. I look forward to finding out where the rest of these measures have gone. I hope that the Attorney can speak on behalf of the road safety minister and the Premier in terms of assuring the public that they are going to start taking road safety seriously.

In fact, the immediate post-COVID emergency time presents them with an opportunity to readdress road safety, to look at changing traffic patterns. They are already reassessing our needs for public transport, which is another story which we will get to later on, but it does present an opportunity for them to reassess how our roads are being used, what measures might be put in place, including a reinstatement of an independent body like the Motor Accident Commission in order to keep road users, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists safe. I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill through this place. There will be a couple of questions in committee, as I said, but we will not be delaying it unduly. I commend this bill to this house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:13): I rise to commend this bill to the house and take the opportunity to make some observations about how it will operate. I have listened carefully to the member for Elizabeth in his contribution to the debate and his endeavour to provide some context around the development of the bill and work that might have been done by the former government in the course of its time in power.

I understand there was a transport portfolio bill that progressed some substantial part of the way along the journey up to the election, or indeed at least up until late 2017, and might have addressed a range of things, including some of the subject matter that is presently before the parliament. It caused me to reflect on the difference between process on the one hand and delivery/outcomes on the other.

There is one thing that we have seen very clearly in the very early days of this Marshall Liberal government, which came to power in March 2018. In just these first two years, we have seen outcome after outcome after outcome. As the Premier oft indicates, a corollary to that is 'underpromise, overdeliver' and be able to talk about what has actually been done. What are the outcomes?

The process and the consideration of a range of different things that might be brought before a parliament and might be taken through the process to become law are all very well, but we as legislators are here working for a real community comprising real people, who live their day-to-day lives very much in an environment where it is not theory and process that govern but the outcomes that are delivered and here, relevantly, the subject of legislation that comes to this place and is passed through this place.

I welcome the opposition's indication that it will support the bill. I am usually somewhat discombobulated by this formulation that comes along about reserving the right to analyse things in committee, in this case all the more so perhaps given that the member for Elizabeth has emphasised how much this is the result of the good work of the previous government. I will listen carefully in the committee and, if that was really rising no higher than a general catch-all in case something occurs at the last moment, well and good.

Otherwise, I note the member for Elizabeth's reflections about the work that has been done on this by the previous government. It is unsurprising, therefore, that it would support this bill. It will be interesting to see if there is any as yet unrealised source of question or analysis that might come at later stages, but let us proceed in the meantime with a degree of optimism about what we might expect in terms of the smooth passage of the bill.

The bill regularises a process that involves the interaction of police with the courts and is very much directed towards simplifying the process of imposing relevant mandatory periods of disqualification in the context of court process following police imposing a disqualification by a notice. Those who are following the debate and taking an interest in this specific area need look no further than section 47IAA of the Road Traffic Act, where the work of the amendments is to be found.

The bill would amend subsection (9)(e), as it presently stands, to ensure that there is one of two clear available channels for the court to follow when matters come before the Magistrates Court as a result of charges being pressed following police having issued a notice imposing a period of disqualification.

In the first of those two cases, the court will be dealing with circumstances in which the police have imposed a period of disqualification and the matter comes before the court before that period has ended. In those circumstances, as those who are following the debate I think would readily acknowledge, understand and support, the relevant period may be backdated so as to commence at the time that the initial disqualification commenced—the on-the-spot disqualification, or, as it is described in the section, an immediate licence disqualification or suspension by police.

So, there are some cases in which there will be an immediate loss of licence imposed on the spot by police in the appropriate circumstances. There is then a charge that follows and the matter comes before the Magistrates Court before that period ends. In that case, the new subsection (9)(e)(i) will allow for the commencement of the period imposed by the magistrate to apply from the date of loss of licence.

The second of the two circumstances is where the period of disqualification by police has expired by the time the matter comes before the magistrate, subject of charges, and the magistrate is going about imposing a period of licence disqualification. In those circumstances, the bill would provide for the period that is to be imposed as a period of licence disqualification by the magistrate to take into account that completed period of disqualification.

There is perhaps one point of further clarity and understanding that is worthwhile focusing on for a moment in this regard. Section 47IAA as a whole deals with the power of police to impose immediate disqualification or suspension. Subsection (4)(b) provides for the notice that is given by police of immediate disqualification, in the case of a person who holds a driver's licence, for the licence to be suspended for the relevant period as defined, and the relevant period is then defined in terms of the mandatory minimums for a first offence.

This is where one might ask: why would the notice that is issued by police for disqualification ever vary from the mandatory minimum, and why, therefore, would it be necessary for a magistrate to be routinely or regularly imposing some different period of disqualification? One of those circumstances is going to be where the offence is a subsequent offence. Just to be clear about the potential for there to be a difference, the relevant period of the police notice might be appropriate in a whole range of circumstances, including those where the offence is a first offence, but it almost inevitably will not be equivalent to the mandatory minimum in circumstances including a subsequent offence.

To illustrate that point, for a category 2 drink-driving offence, which is a relatively serious drink-driving offence defined in section 47A of the act, there is a mandatory minimum disqualification period of six months for a first offence, but that then goes up to two years if the offending is sustained and there have been multiple offences. Similarly, the more serious category 3 drink-driving offence starts at 12 months and proceeds to a mandatory minimum period of three years for multiple offending.

That might make it clear that, while the relevant period of the police notice is issued on the spot, and therefore in the case of a licensed driver the period applies from the moment of offending, the relevant period might well in many cases ultimately be the entire period of disqualification. Where the matter comes before the court and all the circumstances are considered, there may be two different possible sets of circumstances: it may be that the magistrate determines that it is appropriate to apply some greater period of disqualification than the mandatory minimum but, secondly, it is conceivable that it comes to attention that a different mandatory minimum is applicable in the circumstances, in which case there is at least a necessary extension of the period of disqualification.

So one can see where the court needs to deal with the extension of a period of mandatory disqualification imposed by police, either the result of the exercise of judgement and all the circumstances following a charge or in direct compliance with the act and the whole of the landscape of mandatory minimum disqualifications as they apply, where it might transpire that there are multiple relevant offences, and then the need to apply a different period.

It is a practical matter that is part of what the Magistrates Court is dealing with on a day-to-day basis. It is for that reason that, notwithstanding it having not been brought into force by the previous government as part of its broader portfolio work, it has remained a source of unnecessary complexity and complication in the day-to-day business of the court. For that reason, as I understand it, the court has continued to seek this reform and the government has responded accordingly.

It ought to provide, therefore, in one aspect of detail in the administration of this area a means by which a court can dispose of this business in an orderly way and without having to get out the abacus, the calculator or other tools to do a complicated calculation as to time. It need not do that where these matters are clarified, which is the subject of the bill.

I have referred to the category 2 and category 3 drink-driving offences that are provided for in the section. Section 47IAA also relevantly provides for mandatory minimum periods of disqualification in circumstances of the refusal to submit to an alcotest or breath analysis. In the same way, the same structure of mandatory minimum imposition applies to the refusal or failure to submit to a drug screening test, oral fluid analysis or blood test. Further, this applies in the particular circumstances of a driver in an accident refusing to submit for tests when being treated at a hospital.

As I said at the outset, this is reform that is, for all substantive purposes, wholly contained within section 47IAA of the Road Traffic Act. It includes an essentially consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act to bring that in line with the substantive amendment. It will make the business of the court more straightforward and efficient. It is an outcome that we should all support, and I commend the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:33): I thank members for their contributions, particularly the member for Heysen. The opposition raised a matter as an expression of concern, followed by an indication that they will support the bill. Nevertheless, the concern raised by the member was, 'Why now, 2½ years after a new government?'—I wish it was 2½ years; I think we are two years and three months, which has been a generational change of government in this state—because this had previously been part of an eight-tranche reform that was presented by the previous government.

The Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court, Judge Hribal, had been seeking this reform for a number of years, which overlaps with the previous government to date. In short, the answer is that, although there are other areas of reform that have been picked up, and some advanced and some continuing in the previous bill, this aspect that is the subject of this bill is one that is exclusively within the domain of a request by the chief judge. While these other matters are being looked at—and I will indicate what they are shortly—this was one that was easily severable and one that we could advance.

That is precisely why the government of the day have said, 'Look, this is a machinery operation in relation to court efficiency. The Attorney-General has brought this to our attention, along with the Minister for Transport, and we can easily address it.' Sometimes I come to the parliament, as newly a member of the government, and the opposition complains that we have just taken a little piece to advance, and why do we not wait until we get it all ready and do all the reform? Now they are complaining because we have taken a piece off, which we think is easily severable and which we can present, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Judge Hribal has raised this with me as Attorney-General and, although it was within a package of previous transport reforms of the member for Lee, who was the minister for transport during the introduction of the previous composite bill, as I said, this was a matter that could easily be excised.

The road traffic law and regulations, which was introduced by the member for Lee as a composite bill back on 15 November 2017, was largely to cover reforms, including dealing with the procedure for expiation of offences detected by safety cameras. The administrative burden of having declarations was also a concern, and there was a process to bring matters online. I would have to say that this government has been very active in making sure that we provide services online.

There was a significant penalty for the nomination of statement having false and misleading information in it in creating an offence. I remind the member that we recently passed legislation in this house which allows for offences relating to online information. It was largely to accommodate the court's advance of the ECMS program to enable online lodgement and a portal access. Documents being lodged electronically has meant that we have had to recreate a specific offence for that. In fact, only recently, I think in the last week, I wrote to the Chief Justice and other heads of jurisdiction that that law had passed and was now to be operational.

The second was to make sure that companies could not just shield unsafe drivers who worked for them by not disclosing their name when they got a penalty for a road traffic offence. I think the boss used to pay $300 and there would be no disclosure of who was driving. It was higher than the usual rate, but it was designed to be able to process matters and get a fine processed, without the employer presumably having to go around, search all his truck drivers or whomever might have produced the offence and be able to identify them. Obviously, in some companies where there are a very significant number of employees or people on different shifts or people who share vehicles—there are lots of examples—this is sensible law reform, and in fact we have already done it. That is the second.

The third relates to expiation of notice, the first and second offences, in relation to being unregistered and uninsured. I am not sure what has happened with that, but I will certainly follow it up with the Minister for Transport. In relation to the immediate loss of licence and the consequence in relation to a number of those aspects, we are dealing with that now, and it is important reform. A seventh area of the bill relates to light vehicles that are illegally parked on clearways. I do not know the answer as to the progress of that, but I am happy to make an inquiry.

The eighth initiative, which was proposed by the previous government in this bill, was to make changes to the Motor Vehicles Act to ensure that all licence holders gain the requisite driving experience at each licensing level. I know we have had lots of different changes in relation to provisional and unrestricted drivers' licences. I do not know whether we still have a heavy vehicle licence. I think we still have motorcycle licences that are different. There is different, graduated licensing. We can make some inquiries as to the advance of that, but there seems to be hardly a session of the parliament where we are not making some changes to licences, both in standards and suspension of licences. That is a matter we will certainly have to follow up.

I make this point: back in November 2017, I think the previous government had a different agenda of the importance of priority. It was all about electoral boundaries. The member for Lee, who was the minister for transport, comes in with his comprehensive bill, says this was important reform to make it faster, fairer and whatever their other slogan was at the time, and then does nothing more about advancing it. They were in government; they could have actually dealt with this issue, but they did not.

They set the priorities, and I do not take any view on any of these other reforms. On the face of it they seemed sensible, and some things we have advanced and some things are under consideration. However, it is up to the government of the day to prioritise what they progress in the parliament. Whilst the member for Lee introduced this piece of legislation, apparently long-sought—including by Judge Hribal, in relation to the aspects of which she was seeking relief for her magistrates in the assessment of periods of disqualification or suspension of licence—the priority of the government of the day was electoral reform.

What happened in that last week? We spent all of Thursday with the attorney-general and various other players, including the now Leader of the Opposition in the other place, as he was at that time, rushing around to prioritise what was important for them. That was to remove provisions under legislation relating to electoral boundaries, in particular section 83. That was their priority: get rid of the fairness clause, have all these meetings with the Greens about how that was going to progress, throw it in on that last day when other important legislation was left swinging in the dust. That is what actually happened.

So, please, when members come into the house and decide that this government has taken up the responsibility of important reform—some of which is still being considered, as I understand it, but which we are happy to follow up—we will action areas of priority. This is one which could have been done, even by the attorney-general, as a separate bill if he wanted to, back in 2017. We all know what the priorities of the previous government were, and it was not this. So spare me the crocodile tears about the failure to advance something when the situation is patently different. I have a very long memory. I think I am a very forgiving person but I never forget.

As to the substance of the bill, that has been clearly identified, with an indication from the opposition that they support it. As I said, I thank the member for Heysen for his assessment of that as well, and the importance of us advancing this legislation. I commend the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have a few short questions. I thank the Attorney for her fulsome second reading wrap-up. She answered, in part, some of the questions I have. The remainder of the questions I am sure will not tax her or her advisers' minds unduly. Notwithstanding the Deputy Premier's speech about the government's priorities in the last term, the question still remains why this measure has taken two-odd years to get to this parliament, given that the Chief Magistrate then and now wanted this particular change. We will leave the other changes for now, but why has this change taken so long?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it was implicit in the matter I raised that this was part of a transport portfolio bill back in 2017. There are three ministers in our government, and I think there were three ministers in the previous government, who had different responsibilities from the Motor Vehicles Act, the Road Traffic Act and one another—we are not amending it today, but I will just quickly find it—the Expiation Offences Act.

The Minister for Transport has responsibility for at least two of these, and there may even be a third. We also have a road traffic minister who has a say on these matters, the Minister for Police, in our government. I cannot remember who it was in the last one, but there was one. I remember Michael O'Brien, the member for Enfield, at one stage took that role, but I cannot remember who was the most recent one before the change of government. Was it the member for Kaurna, perhaps?

In any event, whilst there is an overlap of interested members, directly in their portfolios, in these bills, they are dedicated to the Minister for Transport. Whilst that bill was re-consulted on and progressed, my recollection is that Judge Hribal raised it in her meetings with me, as to the advance. I have some correspondence from 2019 in which she raised that, and then us going through the process of extricating that from other matters that had not been advanced so that we could do it as a standalone matter.

Mr ODENWALDER: I appreciate the Attorney's answer. You hinted at this again in your second reading wrap-up, but will you take on notice the progress of the other matters which you said you would in that speech? Will you or perhaps the Minister for Transport take that on notice and provide the house with a report about the status of those other measures?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot answer for the Minister for Transport, but I think I indicated two things in the contribution I just made: firstly, most of these seemed to be meritorious ideas at the time, and whether they are easily translated into the former bills process we are yet to see. I undertook to bring them to the attention of the Minister for Transport and, doubtless, he can deal with the matter when he deals with the other substantive matters that remain outstanding.

Mr ODENWALDER: Apart from the Chief Magistrate, then, what other further consultation has occurred on this bill in the last two years? Was it just the Chief Magistrate or did you consult with, for instance, police or councils?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that SAPOL are in the process and, because it was administrative, Judge Hribal. I think as a matter of course these amendments go off to the Chief Justice anyway, do they not? The bill may have in the end, but I think it is just a process. I know I sign about eight usual suspects when it comes to bills that relate to court matters: Chief Justice, Chief Judge, magistrate and so on, and SAPOL is obviously in that sort of group.

Obviously, this was consulted on by the previous government. These have been identified areas of reform that were sought, and we were excising that piece for progress. Certainly, SAPOL in the consultation came back to us to confirm that they also appreciated this legislation being advanced to the extent that they of course operate the prosecution unit, which appears in the Magistrates Court, so I expect they would have the heavy lifting to do in relation to these matters. Police officers at the time were ensuring their ILOLs, which is the instant loss of licence.

They issue those notices in the first instance, but they also have the heavy lifting and the progressing of these matters in the Magistrates Court, and obviously the magistrates themselves. But it is an efficiency measure for the purposes of the magistrates in then having to deal with the determinations—and I think in fairness we need to make sure that there is a just and equitable approach to those who are appearing who might be subject to a disqualification or suspension.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will be brief. Given the Attorney's previous answer, how much time could you expect to save per case, do you think, with this measure in place? What will the efficiency be? Has there been some work, an estimate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I could not give you a time limit. I suppose it would depend on the mathematical capacity of magistrates who hear these matters or their clerks. They do not have associates in the Magistrates Court, so some poor, hapless person has to sit down and actually do the calculations on these things and, I imagine, provide a brief to the magistrate. It is a time issue. Also, of course, if you do not create a law which is easily implemented, of course it is usually vulnerable to error. I think the important thing here is that that date of commencement will be clear.

Nobody has ever suggested to us that we get rid of ILOLs, because they are an important tool in taking people off the road who are clearly intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or who are refusing to have a test. It is one way or the other—there are about four or five different offences we are covering here. Nobody has ever suggested that we take away that immediate action process.

Really the only other thing that can be done by the police—and sometimes they do assist in this regard, as the member probably knows—is that they may assist in obtaining alternate transport for the person who might be detained at the time of identifying that an alcohol or drug problem is evident. They might call an Uber or whatever the current situation requires. I know that the police try to assist those who might be left. For example, if somebody is left in the car who might be a partner or small children, clearly they have got to get home, so police obviously assist in this regard. I think that is a good thing to do, but the driver, who is the subject of an alleged breach of these laws, needs to be able to lose their licence straightaway.

It just becomes complicated when you have mandatory minimum periods which then apply. This is the legislative resolution of that. It will make it easier for the application by the adjudicators and, with that, ipso facto, the prosecuting officer, and the defence counsel if they have representation, in hearing these matters. It is a time saver for everyone—no lengthy verbal areas of calculation which can be in error in the submissions by counsel and minimising the room for error in a determination by the magistrate.

These are the general reasons that hopefully will save a lot of time in the Magistrates Court, which has, as members know, a very high turnover of people attending every day. In fact, it is one of the courts that has been the most complex in terms of managing the COVID situation because many people attend in person and are required to respond to a summons or warrant and they may have other support persons.

There is a high turnover of cases, and it has been a very complex exercise to try to keep magistrates and staff members safe while at the same time ensuring we have a timely progressing of administration, so it is a case of anything we can do to assist the court. In that regard, I want to commend Judge Hribal for her excellent attention in dealing with a very difficult period for the high turnover court she deals with here in Adelaide, as well as in the suburbs and our regions.

Mr ODENWALDER: My question follows on from that. I assume there has been a decrease in these types of offences during this COVID period during the time the Magistrates Court has been under the pressure you talk about. What has been the decrease, and what is the quantum of that decrease in these types of offences being brought through the Magistrates Court? I understand that you might need to take that on notice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will have to take that on notice. The Commissioner of Police has made statements in relation to COVID and its consequences in relation to crime generally, and I understand that overnight arrests are down considerably. If we are talking about drug and alcohol-affected people, whilst the closure of restaurants and hotels has been a nightmare for the people who operate and work in those businesses in terms of economic damage, the instances of people out in the public arena has a meant significant reduction in the consumption of alcohol while people are out and about.

How much of that is translated to the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs at home—people might be at home because they might be mature aged and protecting their health, or because of any other COVID circumstances—we are yet to identify, but it seems that overall there is a reduction in overnight arrests.

Whether that is translated in relation to motor vehicle circumstances I do not know, but I do know that during the two or three months we have been in this period of heavy isolation there has been a big reduction in motor vehicles on the roads. It is crawling back; I think we are back to pre-COVID traffic when it comes to 3.30 in the afternoon or 8.30 in the morning because schools are back. All these things have an impact on motor vehicle use.

I do not have the data on that, but I am sure the police commissioner is keeping a fairly close eye on it. As I said, conduct arising out of the consumption of alcohol in a public place has been significantly identified during the period. People do not want to be locked up in their houses forever and it does not mean they have stopped consuming alcohol, but they might just collapse on the couch rather than going out driving and committing an offence.

Mr ODENWALDER: This is my final question, I hope. Could the Attorney tell the committee whether there have been any other measures requested by the Chief Magistrate, whether there are efficiency measures or other things that have not been enacted or brought to the house yet?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised there are none specifically. I meet with the Chief Magistrate on a regular basis and from time to time she raises her recommendations with me, which I have largely implemented. Often they are in Attorney-General portfolio bills, as you might appreciate. I cannot think of any that are current that she has asked for, but she certainly makes comment in relation to criminal law reform.

She is, of course, a party who is regularly consulted, and I think the last area about which I specifically consulted with her was in relation to keeping her informed about provisions for commercial tenancy under COVID-19 bills because it is her court that would ultimately be the appellate body dealing with disputes between landlords and tenants in a commercial or retail circumstance. As you know, SACAT is the body that deals with residential matters under that legislation. I think that is the last thing I specifically dealt with with her, but I try to make sure that we advance where we can.

If there is a current portfolio bill or other amendments coming, obviously we add to them, especially if they are to affect other courts. Sometimes, we might need to change the other courts, whether that be the Coroners Court, Supreme Court, District Court, her own court or the Youth Court, which are the principal courts in the court structure, or the environment court and others.

As the member would know, the Magistrates Court is not only a very busy place but it is also the court of first instance for certain civil matters and all criminal matters. Although the superior court has the capacity to receive information in relation to a felony charge, it does not as a matter of course. The magistrates deal with all these matters in the first instance, from murderers to shoplifters, so it is a very busy court.

I try to make sure, in relation to something like major indictable reform, that although she does not deal with the final matter, her magistrates have to deal with everything in the first instance. It is important that I get a very clear understanding of how any law reform like that has an impact on their court.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:02): 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