HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MAGISTRATES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 June 2013.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (18:11): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate our support for the Magistrates (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013. The Liberal opposition supports the government's stated intention to expedite the passage of this bill through the parliament. On 2 May 2013, Attorney-General John Rau introduced the bill on the basis that the bill was to modernise the Magistrates Act 1983 and improve public confidence in the judicial system.

The bill modernises the Magistrates Act by removing references to outdated terms and positions. Notably, all references to stipendiary magistrates are to be removed and replaced with references to magistrates. The government contends that the term 'stipendiary magistrate' is antiquated and it is neither understood by the public nor used in other jurisdictions.

In light of the court's expanded jurisdiction and increased workload, the bill amends the act so that the chief magistrate has clear flexibility to administer the court. In the interests of consistency, the bill purports to place the responsibility and control of the administration of the magistracy on the chief justice by removing the proviso that the administration of the magistracy is 'subject to the control and direction of the Chief Justice'. Similar amendments have been made to the District Court Act 1991. I note that despite these amendments the court hierarchy remains and the chief magistrate and the Magistrates Court are still overseen by the chief justice and the Supreme Court. I am not clear what will change in practice in this regard.

The bill also intends to codify the current practice of the attorney-general consulting with the chief justice and the chief magistrate when deciding who to appoint to the magistracy. Currently the act only requires that the chief justice be consulted. Further amendments propose to remove the requirement that only current magistrates are eligible for appointment as the chief magistrate or deputy chief magistrate. The amendment will merely require that the person have at least seven years practice as a legal practitioner.

Notably the bill makes amendments to the grounds for removing magistrates from office. Clause 12 of the bill proposes to replace section 11 of the Magistrates Act which governs the removal of magistrates from office. Former attorney-general Michael Atkinson introduced a similar bill in 2009, the Magistrates (Removal from Office) Amendment Bill 2009. That bill lapsed in the House of Assembly at prorogation.

The current bill proposes to add to the circumstances which amount to proper cause for removing a magistrate to include where 'the magistrate is guilty of conduct that renders the magistrate unfit to hold office as a magistrate, regardless of whether that conduct relates to the functions of the office'. This provides for a wider set of conduct to be considered as proper grounds for removing a magistrate. Interestingly, the 2009 bill proposed to amend the act so that the Governor may remove a magistrate on an address from both houses of parliament praying for their removal—a similar process to the process for the removal of judges of the District Court and justices of the Supreme Court.

However, the magistrates bill provides for a process similar to that already contained in the Magistrates Act; that is, that the Full Court of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate whether or not the magistrate should be removed from office and the Governor may act on that decision. I query why the government decided not to follow the approach taken in the 2009 bill.

Again, on behalf if the Liberal opposition, I welcome the government's intention to expedite the passage and proclamation of this bill. If that occurs, it will serve to allay concerns as to the reasons the government was failing to commence part 7 of the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Act 2012. I note that in response to a question asked by the member for Heysen in the other place, the Attorney-General stated that:

...it is intended, when the other piece has been dealt with—and that is in the hands of the opposition and others—that it will be proclaimed.

The Attorney-General was suggesting that, when the magistrates bill was dealt with, the reform act would be proclaimed. The opposition does support the expeditious passage of the bill. On behalf of the Liberal opposition, I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (18:16): I rise to thank the opposition and others for their support for this bill, and also thank the opposition for their second reading contribution. The bill seeks to amend the Magistrates Act and it is really seeking to modernise the Magistrates Act in a number of ways. The bill seeks to introduce changes that are designed to improve public confidence in and understanding of our judicial system, and I look forward to this being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (18:19): 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