HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-02-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I move this bill currently in the name of the Deputy Premier. The Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022 implements three of the recommendations made in the report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, following its inquiry into the State Courts Administration Council—Sheriff's Office. It makes the following three material changes:

it repeals section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act 1993, to allow the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to monitor and report on the observance of public sector principles and code of conduct by the Courts Administration Authority;

it provides for the appointment of two non-judicial members of the State Courts Administration Council who can bring expertise in human resources management, finance or administration to the State Courts Administration Council; and

it prescribes additional information to be included in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report, including a report from the Sheriff on the operations of the Sheriff and security officers.

An earlier version of this bill was introduced by the former Attorney-General in this place last year, but it did not progress beyond the second reading stage before the conclusion of that parliament. The bill differs slightly from the 2021 bill, and I will explain those differences as I explain the bill below.

Recommendation 4 of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee report proposed the repeal of section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act, which prohibits the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment from exercising functions under subsections 14(1)(c) or (f) of the Public Sector Act 2009 in respect of the Courts Administration Authority. Subsections 14(1)(c) and (f) enable the commissioner to monitor and report on the observance of public sector principles, and code of conduct and employment determinations, and provide advice on and conduct reviews of public sector employment or industrial relations matters, respectively.

The repeal of section 21B(4b) will mean that the commissioner can undertake those functions and, further, that staff of the Courts Administration Authority will be reassured that the commissioner has oversight of employment practices within the authority. The Statutory Authorities Review Committee proposed at recommendation 6 of their report that the Courts Administration Act be amended to provide for the appointment of two non-judicial members of the council with extensive experience in human resources management, finance or administration.

The 2021 bill provided for 'up to' two non-judicial members to be appointed. This bill requires two non-judicial members with extensive experience in human resource management, finance or public administration to be appointed. Because of that difference, there are some consequential amendments to this bill that differ from the 2021 bill relating to the appointment of deputies for the new non-judicial members, and to clarify the quorum and decision-making requirements of the council. The requirement for two non-judicial members with experience outside of the law is a fitting way to bring a diversity of views to the council.

Finally, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee noted that recent reports of the Courts Administration Authority did not provide adequate information about important aspects of its operation and was lacking in detail about workers' compensation, occupational health, safety and welfare, training, and human resources information. They also noted there was no report on the work of the Sheriff's Office and an absence of a dedicated section for each division, as had previously been included in annual reports of the former courts services department. To address these concerns (reflected in recommendation 5 of the report), the bill prescribes this type of information to be included in the annual report of the Courts Administration Authority.

The 2021 bill included a requirement for the Coroner—along with similar requirements for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judge of the District Court, the Chief Magistrate, and the Youth Court judge—to provide a report to the administrator about the operation of the court for inclusion in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report, and requires a report from the Sheriff. However, the bill does not require the Coroner to provide a separate report for inclusion in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report.

The Coroner already has a requirement to provide an annual report pursuant to section 39 of the Coroners Act 2003 directly to the Attorney-General, which is then required to be laid before parliament within 12 days of receiving it. This requires the Coroner to report on the administration of the Coroners Court and the provision of coronial services, and must also include all recommendations made by the Coroners Court under section 25 of the Coroners Act (that is, the recommendations made following an inquest).

As the Coroner must include information about the non-court related functions of that office, it is appropriate for that report to continue to be made separately. It is also appropriate that the Coroner's annual report continue to include both types of information in a single annual report rather than splitting them up. For this reason it does not include a requirement for the Coroner to prepare a separate report to the administrator for inclusion in the annual report of the Courts Administration Authority, although this does not preclude general information about the operation of the Coroners Court being included.

Further, both the Coroner's and the Courts Administration Council's annual reports are required to be provided to the Attorney-General on or before 31 October each year, and both must then be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 days, meaning that it is likely that both reports can be easily viewed together if that is necessary.

In addition to addressing the recommendations of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, this bill clarifies the process for appointing and removing the State Courts Administrator. This is to remove any uncertainty about this process. It makes clear that the appointment is by the Governor on the recommendation of the council, and clarifies that the administrator cannot be dismissed by the council alone but must be dismissed by the Governor with the concurrence of the council.

The efficient, effective and accountable administration of South Australia's courts is an important part of the governance of this state. The reforms in this bill will further refine the operation of the Courts Administration Council and Authority to ensure that justice can continue to be done and be seen to be done. I commend this bill to the chamber, and seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Courts Administration Act 1993

3—Amendment of section 7—Composition of the Council

This clause amends section 7 of the principal Act to require an additional 2 members, having extensive experience in human resources management, finance or public administration, to be appointed to the Council, and makes related procedural provisions.

4—Amendment of section 9—Proceedings and decisions of the Council

This clause makes a consequential amendment to section 9 of the principal Act.

5—Repeal of section 13

This clause repeals section 13 of the principal Act.

6—Amendment of section 14—Additional reports

This clause deletes 'further' from section 14 of the principal Act to clarify the operation of the section.

7—Amendment of section 16—State Courts Administrator

This clause amends section 16 of the principal Act to require the recommendation of the Council in relation to the appointment of the State Courts Administrator.

8—Amendment of section 21B—Application of Public Sector Act and Superannuation Act

This clause repeals section 21B(4b) of the principal Act.

9—Insertion of Part 4A

This clause inserts new Part 4A into the principal Act, providing for annual reporting by the State Courts Administrator.

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

1—Annual report

This clause makes a transitional provision applying new section 23A in relation to the whole of the financial year in which clause 9 of this measure comes into operation.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:23): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition, and indicate the opposition's support for the bill. I have an amendment on file and look forward to the opportunity to deal with that in due course in committee.

This is a bill that, like so much of the legislative agenda so far in the Fifty-Fifth Parliament, originates from uncontroversial legislation that was introduced in the last parliament, and I recognise the work of the previous Attorney-General and member for Bragg, Vickie Chapman, who introduced this bill in a substantially similar form and shape in October 2021. It arises, of course, out of the report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and the recommendations that it has made and, as the minister in his speech just now has indicated, this is with a view to implementing measures to particularly improve accountability and the appropriate functions of the Sheriff's Office in response to that report on its inquiry.

Apart from the reporting requirements that are set out in the bill, the recommendation for the appointment of non-judicial members to the State Courts Administration Council is a core structural change. The form of the bill as it has been reintroduced by the present government mandates the appointment of those non-judicial members. It makes adjustment to the State Courts Administration Council with respect to the formation of quorum, to ensure that those judicial officers responsible are necessarily part of comprising a quorum, and otherwise with the objective of ensuring the continuing smooth operation of that council and the administration of the courts more broadly.

It is in respect of the composition of the council that I indicate my amendment in due course, and that is to propose the inclusion of an additional head of jurisdiction in the judge of the Youth Court. That is a matter I have raised with the Attorney in the other place and his office, and I take the chance in this moment to indicate my appreciation for the opportunity to be briefed in relation to the bill. I took that opportunity to flag that in the present circumstances, where we are engaged in reviewing the membership of the State Courts Administration Council, it is appropriate to include, in addition to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judge of the District Court and the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court, also the judge of the Youth Court.

I want to highlight the important role as head of that important court that the judge of the Youth Court plays. Judge Eldridge, as the structure requires, is a judge of the District Court assigned to head the Youth Court and, as has been for some time the case, the judge of the Youth Court is the only judge of that court and is responsible for the oversight of the jurisdiction as a whole.

Members will recall that we quite recently moved what were meritorious amendments, the subject of another bill, to provide some means for delegation of the work of the Youth Court judge precisely in those circumstances where there is only one judge, and that is a help. The Youth Court judge works with several magistrates of the Youth Court in discharging the jurisdiction of the court.

In terms of the make-up of the council, it is in circumstances where there is evermore focus on, in particular, the civil jurisdiction of the Youth Court, comprised as it is, dominated as it is, by the care and protection jurisdiction within the civil jurisdiction, in addition to adoptions and surrogacy. The care and protection jurisdiction is, in my view, an increasingly important component in terms of the justice system and its response, its ability, to support better outcomes for vulnerable children.

I have sat in on proceedings in a variety of ways in the Youth Court and spent what time I can in the Youth Court as an observer of those proceedings, which range from quite formal judicial proceedings through to informal working around of problems and the development of solutions in the interests of improving outcomes for children. It is with great respect I acknowledge the important leadership of the judge of the Youth Court in that respect.

That jurisdiction is conferred by the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. We know that there is work ongoing in relation to that piece of legislation. At this time and while this bill is before the house, as we look to the composition of the State Courts Administration Council, it seems to me that there has not been a more appropriate time to consider adding the Youth Court judge to that council.

I might say that is also in circumstances where there has been a focus on the relatively challenging circumstances of the Youth Court facilities. We know that that is a building that was opened going on 40 years ago, if not somewhat in excess of that time. It has had an increasing case load over the journey in that standalone building. To my observation, it is a jurisdiction and a facility that serves a jurisdiction that is overdue for improvement and expansion so that the judge and the magistrates who do their work in that court can do it all the more effectively and that it can serve those who need to use it.

Of course, the court also has a substantial criminal jurisdiction by virtue of the Young Offenders Act 1993 and a broad civil jurisdiction. As I say, it is dominated by care and protection, but it covers that range of other activities.

I want to emphasise as well that, when we talk about appropriate facilities for the court to operate in, we know that family group conferences are undertaken there. I would speak up for the efficacy of those fora with a view to achieving outcomes that can have families supported and, where possible, reconciled in circumstances where there has been difficulty and separation. That might be a way of outlining some views in relation to the make-up of the State Courts Administration Council, which is otherwise being reformed in the way I have described, the subject of clause 3.

The balance of the bill is familiar to those who were here in the course of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament. It is a meritorious improvement, the result of the report by which we are informed and for which we are grateful. With those remarks in the context of the proposed amendment, I look forward to the committee stage and otherwise the efficient passage of the bill through the house.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Michaels

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:36): We all have a responsibility to make our workplaces as safe as possible, reducing the risk of injury in a physical manner but equally from a mental health wellbeing perspective as well. When it comes to looking after the wellbeing of workers, we absolutely need to make sure and make it clear that bullying and harassment is not tolerated. It has no place and it should be stamped out wherever it is found.

I know I cannot be the only person in this chamber who was shocked by the findings made by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee's inquiry into the courts' Sheriff's Office, particularly when it comes to the noted large percentage of mental health diagnoses in the submissions received and how the submissions received highlighted that the unprofessional culture continued to exist without much improvement as the complaints of bullying and harassment behaviour in the Sheriff's Office spanned across a long period of time. Steps need to be taken to rectify the matter.

I believe it is important to reflect on the original intent of the Courts Administration Act 1993. It was to be able to establish a new Courts Administration Authority to enable a more effective and more efficient means of providing a unified, cheaper and accountable courts administration in South Australia. This was in light of the developments at the federal level and was at the behest of the then Chief Justice of South Australia, the Hon. Len King, the namesake of the seat that I am now proud to be representing. He insisted that an efficient courts administration could only be secured by the existence of a structure of administration that was both effective and compatible with the needs of an independent judiciary.

Considering the significant change that the bill represented at the time, accountability was sought through a number of methods including annual reporting and ensuring the State Courts Administration Council's members appeared before parliamentary committees. Fast forward to 2019 when the Statutory Authorities Review Committee began their investigation into the state courts administration Sheriff's Office. Whilst the specifics pertaining to a large percentage of the evidence received remain confidential, it became evident to the committee that incidents of bullying and harassment had become normalised within the Sheriff's Office. In fact, one Sheriff's Officer had this to say:

…speaking to other people who have been employed there longer, it had been going on for 10 years before that, from their knowledge. They had obviously been employed for 10 years longer than I have been, and they said it has always been that culture. Bullying and harassment is always condoned and it's useless going to management because they will cover it up, and you are banging your head against a brick wall, and basically, if you do complain, you will be the next target.

This is absolutely not okay, and I have little doubt that this was not anticipated or envisaged when the structure was established by this parliament some 30 years ago—particularly as a previous goal stated in the first Courts Administration Authority report back in 1993 was to provide a satisfying, safe and healthy environment in which staff have the opportunity to achieve professional excellence.

It also pains me to learn that many victims of this workplace were said to have also been scared off from supplying any submissions to the inquiry, as they feared the negative impact that revisiting those traumatic times would have on their mental health and wellbeing—and that the fear unfortunately went further than that. As the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos highlighted from the report in the other place, I understand that threats to funding and the possibility of privatisation were also used to scare staff from providing evidence, and that by giving evidence they would be putting themselves in the crosshairs.

It is important to note that of the evidence received, the committee was most concerned about how the CAA would investigate the Sheriff's Office, having received concerns about an unclear complaints process, a fear of retribution felt by employees to make complaints against unethical and unprofessional work behaviour, the low level of communication provided to its employees during these matters, and not providing adequate evidence for the basis of findings against its employees, which makes it near impossible for them to seek reviews of such decisions. This is why we are here today discussing this very matter and how we can restructure the governance structure to create better protections for workers in the Sheriff's Office.

This bill implements three of the recommendations made from the Statutory Authorities Review Committee following its review into the state's Courts Administration Council Sheriff's Office. I understand that some of the other recommendations of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee did not require legislative amendment. It also clarifies the appointment process for the State Courts Administrator. As the Hon. Kyam Maher explained in his second reading speech in the other place, it:

Repeals section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act 1993 to allow the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to monitor and report on the observance of public sector principles and code of conduct by the Courts Administration Authority.

Provides for the appointment of two non-judicial members of the State Courts Administration Council who can bring expertise in human resources management, finance, or administration to the State Courts Administration Council.

Prescribes additional information to be included in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report including a report from the Sheriff on the operations of the Sheriff and security officers.

These recommendations will go a long way in helping to enhance the oversight, reporting requirements and decision-making.

I appreciate that this bill is similar to what was introduced by the previous government. The differences, I understand, are primarily with whether we legislate for two or up to two non-judicial members. To ensure diversity of experience in the make-up of the council, this bill will require two non-judicial members.

The appointment of deputies for the non-judicial members is another difference between this bill and the last, to clarify the quorum and decision-making requirements of the council that are consequential on the change to the composition of the council.

This bill also differs from the 2021 version of the bill by removing a requirement for the Coroner to provide a report to the administrator about the operation of the Coroner's Court for inclusion in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report. Why? Because the State Coroner already has a requirement to provide an annual report pursuant to section 39 of the Coroner's Act 2003 directly to the Attorney-General.

Section 39 of the Coroner's Act requires the State Coroner to report on both the administration of the Coroners Court and the provision of coronial services. It must also include all recommendations made by the Coroners Court under section 25 of the Coroner's Act; that is, the recommendations made following an inquest.

We rightly expect that our courts are operating at their highest possible standard. To achieve that, we are acting to ensure that the culture of our courts is one which promotes a safe workplace culture, one where workers are free to speak up about instances of inappropriate behaviour, and one where there is a clear process for reporting that behaviour, free from reprisal, thus protecting their mental health and wellbeing—not just in the immediate circumstance but over the course of their life as well. As the report makes it clear, the lasting negative impacts of inattention to matters such as bullying and harassment never really leaves a person.

We are serious about protecting workers, and I am pleased that this bill will go a long way to helping make things better for a cohort of workers who have been found to have been let down. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (16:44): I rise today in support of the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022. Constituted by the Courts Administration Act 1993, the Courts Administration Authority, or CAA for short, is a means for the judiciary to control the provision of the administrative facilities and services required of our state courts to carry out their judicial functions. Sitting within the Courts Administration Authority is the Sheriff's Office.

The Sheriff's Office is a statutory office appointed on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The office was first established by the Supreme Court Act 1837, which provided that the court should have ministerial and other officers as might be necessary for the administration of justice in the court, and for the execution of judgements and other orders. Since then, the functions of the office have expanded to include things like administration of the Juries Act 1927, in-court support service, court security service—which I understand the member for Badcoe will be speaking about—prisoner security service, and service and execution of civil and criminal processes.

The Statutory Authorities Review Committee is a standing committee of this parliament established in 1994. The committee comprises five members, all of whom must be members of the other place. The principal function of the committee is to inquire into, consider and report on statutory authorities referred to it. In early 2019, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee began an investigation into the Sheriff's Office. I understand they investigated the employment practices and overall effectiveness of the Sheriff's Office, including management and what systems the office employed to address allegations of workplace bullying, harassment and misconduct.

Our courts best serve our community when they are effective, efficient and accountable, and the amendments outlined in this bill go a long way to achieving this. Before discussing further amendments included in this bill, I would like to thank the Statutory Authorities Review Committee for their work in shining a light on the culture and workplace environment of the Sheriff's Office that was in desperate need of reform.

Many of our colleagues in the other place have reflected in their contributions on the bill on the accounts of bullying, harassment and systemic mistreatment that had been perpetrated over decades. We all have the right to feel safe at work, free from bullying, harassment and intimidation. This bill is just the first step toward providing better protection for workers in the Sheriff's Office.

Much of the content of this bill was proposed by the former Attorney-General, and I would like to thank them for their work, listening to the concerns raised in the committee's report, and to the best of my understanding, fully intending to implement at least some of the committee's recommendations. I also wish to thank the current Attorney-General from the other place for all his work in bringing this bill before us, a bill which goes even further in providing protection for workers in the Sheriff's Office.

The bill before us today differs from that introduced by the former state government in 2021, as I understand the 2021 version provided for up to two non-judicial members of the state courts administration rather than requiring two. There are also some minor differences relating to the appointment of deputies—is anyone else trying to not sing that song about sheriffs and deputies; no, just me?—for the non-judicial members and to clarify the quorum and decision-making requirements.

Ms Stinson interjecting:

Ms CLANCY: I have been advised no singing is allowed. The bill implements three recommendations of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee's report into the Sheriff's Office. These recommendations are as follows: recommendation 4 of the committee's report was to repeal section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act which prohibits the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment from exercising functions under subsections 14(1)(c) and (f) of the Public Sector Act 2009 in respect of the Courts Administration Authority.

These sections of the Public Sector Act enable the commissioner to monitor and report on the observance of public sector principles, code of conduct and employment determinations. They also enable the commissioner to provide advice on, and conduct reviews of, public sector employment or matters of industrial relations. By repealing section 21B(4b) we empower the commissioner to undertake these functions, reassuring staff of the Courts Administration Authority that the commissioner has oversight of employment practices within the authority.

The Statutory Authorities Review Committee noted that recent annual reports of the Courts Administration Authority did not provide adequate information about important aspects of its operation, often lacking detail about workers compensation; occupational health, welfare and safety; as well as training. The committee also noted that there was no report on the work of the Sheriff's Office and an absence of a dedicated section for each division, as had previously been included in annual reports of the former courts services department. As such, the committee's fifth recommendation was to prescribe additional information to be included in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report, including a report from the Sheriff on the operations of the Sheriff and the security officers.

The committee's sixth recommendation was to provide for the appointment of two additional non-judicial members of the State Courts Administration Council who can bring expertise in human resources management, finance or administration to the council. Such an amendment would provide greater experience outside of law and is a fitting way to bring a diversity of qualified views to the State Courts Administration Council.

As I understand, the remaining recommendations of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee were either not accepted by the previous state government or did not require legislative change to be achieved. The recommendations included in this bill will enhance oversight, reporting requirements and decision-making. They go a long way to ensuring that workers in the Sheriff's Office can do their jobs in a safe and respectful workplace, a right that should be afforded to every worker in South Australia and, indeed, across the world. I commend this bill to the house.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (16:51): I rise to speak in support of the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I believe in justice, the right to a fair trial and that we should all have a well-run court system to ensure that people have confidence in our justice system. This is why I am supporting this bill that will enhance oversight, reporting requirements and decision-making, improving the administration of justice on behalf of the people of South Australia.

The Courts Administration Authority is constituted by the Courts Administration Act 1993 and, as you would expect, is independent of the legislative and executive arms of government. The authority is a means for the judiciary to control the provision of the administrative facilities and services required by the South Australian courts. The Courts Administration Authority is governed by the State Courts Administration Council. The State Courts Administrator is the council's chief executive officer, and the Sheriff's Office sits within the Courts Administration Authority.

The bill implements three recommendations of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee following its inquiry into the Sheriff's Office and also clarifies the appointment process for the State Courts Administrator. These recommendations are important and to be supported. This bill is based on a bill that the previous government introduced in 2021 but that did not pass parliament. Once again, Labor is getting the job done to improve our state.

The three recommendations that are enacted by this bill include recommendation 4 to repeal section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act to allow the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to monitor and report on the observance of public sector principles and code of conduct by the Courts Administration Authority.

Recommendation 5 prescribes additional information to be included in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report, including a report from the Sheriff on the operations of the Sheriff and the security officers. I believe it is important that, as the Sheriff's Office sits within the authority, the Sheriff submits a report about the operations of their office as part of the authority's annual report.

Recommendation 6 is a sensible recommendation that will provide for improved governance as it recommends the appointment of two additional non-judicial members of the Courts Administration Council who can bring expertise in human resources management, finance or administration to the council. Unlike the previous bill, this bill requires two non-judicial members to be appointed to ensure a diversity of experience in the make-up of the council. The 2021 version of the bill only provided for up to two non-judicial members to be appointed. Our government believes in quality decision-making and recognising the diversity of our community.

The government will also be moving additional amendments concerning the make-up of the council to facilitate the participation of the Judge of the Youth Court, the State Coroner and the Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court. These are additional to current council members, the Chief Justice, Chief Judge and Chief Magistrate.

This bill also differs from the 2021 version of the bill by removing a requirement included in that bill for the Coroner to provide a report to the administrator about the operation of the Coroners Court for inclusion in the Courts Administration annual report. The State Coroner is already required to provide an annual report directly to the Attorney-General.

The State Coroner is required to report on both the administration of the Coroners Court and the provisions of coronial services. They must also include all recommendations made by the Coroners Court following an inquest.

The government believes as the Coroner's annual report requires the inclusion of information relating to their non-judicial functions as Coroner and the provision of coronial services, it is more appropriate for that report to continue to be provided to the Attorney-General. This is sensible and avoids extra administrative work for the Coroner.

I note that the 2021-22 Courts Administration Authority's annual report recorded that the Sheriff's Office Cultural Change Plan 2021 and beyond, was established in 2021-22, comprising five pillars:

Leadership and Governance;

Communication;

Workforce Capacity;

Capable Workforce; and

Safety and Wellbeing.

The Sheriff's Office Consultative Working Group re-formed in August 2021 with a representative from the Sheriff's Office staff, People and Culture, the Courts Administration Authority and the Public Service Association. The Sheriff's Office has successfully implemented a number of initiatives of the Sheriff's Office Cultural Change Plan through consultation with the working group, including the Your Voice Our Culture report, the first female Sheriff of South Australia being appointed, improved career pathways and training opportunities for staff, and better conditions and workplace culture for the staff. I would like to thank all those who work in our justice system. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (16:57): I rise to express my support for the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I thank those who have put their time and effort into putting this bill together. I thank the speakers who have spoken so eloquently so far, and I am sure will continue to do so, in relation to the important role of our justice system.

Many in this chamber would know that my former life was spent in our courts as a court reporter for more than a decade. My daily life relied on the Courts Administration Authority, whether that was staying up late at night scouring through the many, many court lists looking for what it was that I was going to be covering the next day and informing the South Australian community about, through to calling the media office and speaking with them about how we might obtain information and be in the right place at the right time.

I spent many hours in courtrooms themselves, listening to lawyers put the case for the state, for claimants or, indeed, for those who were defending claims against them and, of course, listening to judges and hearing the rulings that they were handing down. I have to say, sentencing submissions were probably what I found the most interesting.

Certainly, our court system is a combative system. We have one side and another going head to head, but when the case is done, when a verdict has been reached, often that is when you find out the real story. When you actually sit there and listen to the sentencing submissions, what you are talking about there is the why. In a trial you are talking about the what happened, who did it, when it happened, who is guilty, but in sentencing submissions, which come after a finding of guilt, you are talking about why someone came to the position that they did and committed the crimes that they did and what impact that has had on victims, on their families and sometimes even the families of offenders themselves. I was very fortunate to spend more than a decade of my life listening in our courthouses, and in our courtrooms, to what goes on in South Australia, and particularly in our justice system.

I would also like to pay tribute to the witness and victim assistance officers. They do an incredible job in our Courts Administration Authority, looking after people in their time of greatest desperation and greatest need. It is harrowing to be a victim of crime, and the unfortunate system we have is that people need to relive that trauma when they go through the justice system, when they seek justice for themselves or for a loved one who is no longer with us. That is a horrible process, but it is the process that we have in order to deliver justice to those individuals, and also on a grander scale, across our community.

Those witness and victim assistance officers do an incredible job in supporting people and providing them with information about how the often confusing and alienating court system works, and their role in it. Also, importantly, they advise those people on how to have their say, how to put forward a victim impact statement, how to make their views clear to a judge and to the court so that their needs are met and addressed, both in sentencing and in the cathartic experience of being able to share what has happened to them on a public stage. For some people that can be quite important, and maybe even more important sometimes than the verdict that might be handed down in their loved one's case or the case that personally involves them.

Obviously, I also want to thank the very hardworking Sheriff's Officers. There are quite a few measures in this bill that go directly to the role of our Sheriff's Officers. They are remarkable people. They are the ones who keep our courthouses ticking. They are there opening the doors at the beginning of the day, and they are there closing them at the end of the day, and there is so much that goes on behind the scenes that people simply do not see.

Most people would not be aware of the extensive infrastructure that is under the courthouse building, and behind it, where alleged offenders are brought in and out. The cells are underneath the Courts Administration building and the courtrooms of the District Court and Supreme Court; and there is the Magistrates Court complex as well. On that note, if members get the opportunity you can see all this if you go to the Courts Open Day, which is held once a year. You can have a look at the inner workings of the courthouse.

The Sheriff's Officers are the ones who deal with offenders coming in and out of courts, sometimes through the front door, sometimes being brought in from various correctional facilities or remand centres, and that is challenging. Not everyone wants to be there. Not everyone is keen on appearing before the judge, and it is a stressful experience for people who are having to go through the process, whether they end up being convicted or not. Of course, that stress is something that our Sheriff's Officers have to deal with every day. Sometimes, it manifests itself in violence towards our Sheriff's Officers. They have to go through some very difficult experiences. That is part and parcel of their job. Their job is to deal with those situations, to keep the rest of us safe and to ensure that our justice system can run smoothly so I have great admiration for them in doing that.

As much as they deal with offenders, and alleged offenders, they also deal with the other side of the justice system. They deal with judges and their associates, they deal with lawyers for the DPP, and also defence lawyers, and they deal with people coming in for civil cases, as well as criminal. They deal with victims, they deal with witnesses and with general members of the public, and they also deal with members of the media. I have to say that does cause some trouble for the Sheriff's Officers from time to time, and sometimes contributes to tense situations, becoming even tenser particularly outside the court buildings. Obviously, I support the right of journalists, being a former journalist, to be able to interrogate what is happening in our court system. But it does get pretty hairy sometimes, and the Sheriff's Officers are the ones on the frontline who have to deal with that.

A number of these changes are to do with our Sheriff's Officers, and I have to say it has been troubling to hear some of the things that our Sheriff's Officers have been raising over many years about their own treatment and their workplace environment. I might take this moment to actually acknowledge my colleague who is here right next to me, the Minister for Regional Development—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms STINSON: —and Local Government and now the member for Stuart who, in his former role as the member for Frome, really took up the case of Sheriff's Officers who were experiencing these difficulties and really went into bat for them. It was not clear cut and there was a lot going on there.

I think they were very happy and very lucky to have an advocate in him to be able to push their case and get to essentially where we are today: where we have had some detailed work as far as human resources go to look into their claims, the things that are going on with them and, essentially, to investigate them and make something that was wrong right. That is what this bill is about. It is about righting a wrong—

An honourable member: A journey and a half.

Ms STINSON: A journey and a half, yes; that might be an understatement. This bill implements three recommendations of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee following its inquiry into the Sheriff's Office which the member for then Frome, now Stuart, was so instrumental in. It also clarifies the appointment processes for the State Courts Administrator. It is based on a bill that the previous government, to their credit, introduced in 2021 but unfortunately did not pass.

The three main recommendations are the repeal of section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act to allow the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to monitor and report on the observance of public sector principles and code of conduct by the Courts Administration Authority. Although that sounds largely administrative, it is actually incredibly important that that oversight is put in place.

It also prescribes that additional information be included in the Courts Administration Authority's annual report, including a report from the Sheriff on the operations of the Sheriff and security officers. Obviously in this place we are quite used to reading those annual reports and they are a useful tool in informing us as parliamentarians and the broader community about what is going on. It is important and critical that the Sheriff now has a role in being able to report to us. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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