HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 July 2011.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:06): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill. I appreciate that I am a tail-end Charlie and thank the government for facilitating my contribution this morning. Being tail-end Charlie, there is little need to add to the critique of the budget overall that has been provided by my colleagues, so I will focus on the aspects of my area of portfolio of responsibility, that is, justice.

The 2011-12 budget shows that Labor does not recognise that our courts are in crisis. Again, Labor is failing to invest in the basic justice facilities that are needed to provide timely justice and to provide appropriate support to victims and other people involved in our justice system.

In his retirement address to a Special Sitting of the Supreme Court on budget morning, Justice Bleby took the opportunity to highlight that the facilities of our courts are the worst in the nation—and I refer to parts of his speech where he refers to the need to upgrade the Supreme Court precinct. He said:

The home of the highest court in the State is, frankly, a disgrace. It is inefficient to work in; its facilities for staff are appalling; it fails any basic occupational health and safety test for its inhabitants; it is in a sorry state of disrepair; the facilities for counsel and litigants are almost non-existent; it is user-hostile to the disabled on both sides of the bar table; and the ability to be able to provide any sensible degree of court security, particularly in respect of serious criminal trials, is rendered impossible. We cannot even have a Special Sitting in our own court. The premises are widely acknowledged to be the worst facilities of any superior court in Australia. The judges, in their annual report to parliament, without any response, have drawn attention to the state of affairs every year now for the past 11 years...If governments are truly representatives of the people, I think it is a sad reflection on the values of our society that a government will commit $535 million to the development of a sports stadium, with no financial commitment from the supporting institutions who will benefit, while restraints on other spending prevent even adequate resourcing of judicial functions—functions which are at the very core of democratic government.

That in turn gives rise to the serious concerns about possible incremental undermining of the rule of law and of judicial independence.

These are very serious words from a very senior judge. I am keen to engage the legal community to fully understand the implications of the lack of funding. The judge's references to undermining the rule of law and judicial independence should be taken very seriously.

Later that day, the budget was delivered and Justice Bleby was destined to be disappointed yet again. The government's response to the courts' infrastructure crisis has been three modest investments. The first is window-dressing a former shop and the latter is driven by occupational health and safety concerns.

First, there is a $1.3 million investment over two years to upgrade the facade of the Sir Samuel Way building. One wonders what will be the impact on delivery of justice services considering we are talking about the facade. There is also an allocation of $411,000 over three years to upgrade the prisoners' lifts and $2.1 million over two years to upgrade security at the Supreme Court and the Port Adelaide, Adelaide and Elizabeth Magistrates Courts.

Justice Bleby stated that the Supreme Court building fails any basic occupational health and safety test for its inhabitants. I found that comment interesting because, in estimates, the opposition questioned the government on this very point. We drew attention to the targets for the 2010-11 budget and the reference to a risk assessment of all buildings in the Supreme Court being completed in that financial year. In response, the Attorney advised merely that the study had been completed and that the study indicated that more work needed to be done. He also said that SafeWork SA has been to the precinct independently and audited the building, and it found that there were no noncompliances. Personally I cannot rationalise Justice Bleby's comments and those of the Attorney-General.

In terms of the investment in the courts, the Attorney-General admitted in the estimates that the government has no plans for a purpose-built superior court facility for the South Australian state courts. The Attorney-General acknowledged the poor state of the courts and said that over time they have to be fixed but in the current budget year, and in the current forward estimates, there is no allocation for that purpose. That was clear in the budget papers; that was not a surprise.

What was surprising was that the government has not even been wiling to do an assessment. The Attorney said to the estimates that there needs to be a good continuing discussion with the courts about exactly what they are looking for over time so that we can consider what can be provided and what elements will need to be provided. The Attorney fleshed this out by raising a series of questions. For example, he said that we need to ask and have proper answers to questions, and I quote:

...such as how many courtrooms would one require; what mix of civil and criminal courtrooms would one require; would one require cells, or would there be transport options factored into the thing; what sort of audio-visual material or use would be made of the court; would you have one of these fully computerised courts, with all of the document stuff done? There are all of these issues, and then there are issues about how many courts. Obviously, there are the Supreme Court, the District Court, the Magistrates Court and the Coroner's Court and so on. There are varying degrees of sense in looking at the option of accumulating one or any of those in the same place. So, all of these questions are still questions; they are not answered.

Later, he goes on to say:

That work is work that is some distance down the track. It is not work that I think would be work that is misplaced.

The Chief Justice supported the need for that sort of work when he spoke about the need for a detailed business case. Again this is in estimates, and he said:

We really need, as a starting point, the funding for a detailed business case and we have not actually got that money at the moment. That is really step one, before you even have something to present to government. We are trapped in the position of the poor relative. We cannot afford to do the business case without the funding.

The member for Bragg noted in those same estimates proceedings that in the 2011-12 budget there is a business case proposal for the relocation of the core library site in Conyngham Street for the primary industries department. Whilst the department is described in the budget as having had world-class facilities, the government could still find $500,000 to do a business case for a relocation to another purpose-built facility.

Interestingly, the Attorney-General estimated that the cost of a courts' business case would be in the order of $500,000 to $700,000, so, on the one hand, government is looking to relocate a department which apparently is in adequate facilities, and is failing to address a long-term need in relation to the courts. I would stress that is a need to assess the problem. Again, we have a situation where the government seems to be locked in a 'hear no evil, see no evil' position. If you do not do the business case then you will not know how big the ask is.

The Chief Justice suggested at a public address this week that he thought the redevelopment of the Supreme Court site would be in the order of $100 million. I would note at this stage that the government has not even found the money to ask the question how much is needed?

Only this week the Chief Justice reminded us that there are other investment needs beyond the precinct. TheAdvertiser reports that he said that there would be a need for $10 million to bring the computer systems of the Courts Administration Authority up to standard. Speaking at the South Australian Press Club luncheon on Tuesday or Wednesday (certainly earlier this week), the Chief Justice renewed his call for more funding for the judicial system, branding the Supreme Court facility pre-Victorian and its technology outdated.

The Chief Justice said that he thought the government was ignoring law and order resourcing, particularly in capital expenditure, stating, 'We don't have the funding for innovation and change that I think we need.' He said:

15 years ago the courts' IT system was considered an international benchmark. (Today) they're still the same systems and they're...out of date.

The opposition condemns the government for failing to address the crisis in our courts. I also touch on the government's failure to address the need for an improvement to our public integrity infrastructure. This year there is an allocation for $10 million over four years for an ICAC-lite model. This is not an ICAC. The government previously asserted that an ICAC would cost $30 million a year. Its ICAC-lite model will cost around $4 million a year

I note, too, that there is no funding for recruitment or set-up in the current financial year, so clearly the government is not planning to honour its commitment to have the office up and running by 1 July 2012. I also note that, in spite of the spin from the Attorney-General before the budget, the budget continues to refer to a public integrity office. The word 'independent' has not been included.

I would also like to briefly touch on the way the budget undermines justice by cutting standards in key services. For example, in forensic services, the target for the turnaround for DNA crime scene cases with no suspect within one month has been reduced. In 2010-11 the target was 80,000; in 2011-12, the target will only be 50 per cent, so it is from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. In 2010-11, the actual performance was 53 per cent, so the government aims to drop the target to below the current actual. I am also concerned to see that the crime prevention program within the police has been cut by 13 per cent.

In conclusion, I want to briefly reflect on the first 12 months of the Attorney-General's leadership of the justice portfolio. The contrast between the current Attorney-General and his predecessor is stark. The Attorney is clearly interested in the law and has worked hard to rehabilitate the government's relationship with the legal community. I welcome that. We weaken the courts, the parliament and the executive when the parliamentary executive fails to show proper respect for the legal community.

In terms of the office of the Attorney-General, there has been a significant improvement in the relationship with the courts and the profession, but it will take more than a public relations offensive by the Attorney-General to restore the trust of the legal community in the Rann Labor government. In that regard, the recent events have been a test of the Attorney-General's leadership, and he failed them. At a time when the Premier was refreshing his attacks on the legal community and went into a war of words with the Bar Association, at a time when the police minister used parliament to engage in a matter beyond the parliament, at a time when the former Attorney-General used parliament to refer again—

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member is wandering away from the Appropriation Bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Attorney-General is the head of the Department of Justice, and in that context he has a responsibility as the chief law officer to stand up for the role of advocates in the law and the integrity of the legal processes generally. After all, if the Attorney-General will not stand up for the integrity of the legal system when he is the state's chief law officer, South Australians can have no confidence that he can stand up for them if he ever leads the state.

I would remind the council of the former Labor attorney-general and then chief justice, Len King, writing in the Australian Law Journal. As the then chief justice he reflected on the role of the Attorney-General in the following terms:

...the Attorney-General as a law minister has, beyond the political responsibilities of a ministerial portfolio of the same nature as the responsibilities of other ministers, a special responsibility for the rule of law and the integrity of the legal system which transcends, and may at times be in conflict with, political exigencies. The Attorney-General has the unique role in government of being the political guardian of the administration of justice. It is the special role of the Attorney-General to be the voice within government and to the public which articulates, and insists upon observance of, the enduring principles of legal justice, and upon respect for the judicial and other legal institutions through which they are applied.

In the year ahead, in the budget that we are looking at, where the Attorney-General will have custody of the Department of Justice, the Attorney-General has two particular challenges: first of all, to address the crisis in our courts in terms of the infrastructure, and also to step up to the plate as the chief law officer and protect the administration of justice from this government.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I want to take this very brief opportunity to thank all honourable members for their second reading contributions. A number of questions were asked during the second reading debate. For those questions where information is available, I am happy to take them on notice and bring back a response. As we know, the Appropriation Bill simply authorises the government to spend money, and it is obviously critical for the ongoing functioning of our Public Service and the management of services and amenities in this state. We look forward to the committee stage being dealt with expeditiously.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 8) passed, schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (11:24): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the council.

A quorum having been formed:

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