HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2022.)

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (11:58): I rise today to speak on the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. This bill has been a long time in the making. In early 2019, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee began an investigation into the State Courts Administration Council—Sheriff's Office. The committee specifically looked at the effectiveness and employment practices of the Sheriff's Office, including the management systems, processes, procedures and protocols in place to deal with allegations of workplace bullying, harassment and misconduct.

The inquiry also looked at staffing issues from interactions with other agencies under the administrative umbrella of the State Courts Administration Council. Having sat through all the evidence as a member of the committee, and proceedings for this inquiry, I can attest that the accounts we heard were nothing short of extreme. It was evident throughout our investigation that incidents of bullying and harassment had become normalised within the Sheriff's Office. A culture of systemic mistreatment cultivated over decades ensured the cycle of abuse continued.

The committee heard overwhelming evidence from former and current CAA employees that showed inconsistent practices implemented by CAA management. Reviewing these accounts, the committee found that there were potential breaches of the Public Sector Determinations and the CAA's own guidelines and policies. These inconsistencies relating to industrial relations matters had serious adverse impacts on employees' health and wellbeing.

Eighty per cent of written submissions were from current and former employees of the Sheriff's Office with almost half of this 80 per cent current employees. Of the 50 written submissions received by the committee, only four were positive toward the CAA. Although the committee received historic accounts dating back to 1995, 73 per cent of submissions contained allegations of bullying and harassment within the last 10 years.

The mere quantity of anonymous submissions received by the committee was alarming. Anonymous submissions detailed fears of retribution from CAA management for speaking out about conditions. A submission even detailed:

…once word of this inquiry first surfaced…met with the Sheriff's Officers at the Adelaide Magistrates Court and mentioned that, as a result of the findings, privatisation may be on the cards and the vibe that they would know who would be giving evidence. So, they basically scared off current staff from giving evidence, that they would lose their jobs or be in the crosshairs if giving evidence.

Threats such as these were not uncommon even without the threat of an inquiry findings. This style of threatening retribution meant CAA management was able to maintain control and perpetuated a cycle of abuse. From these accounts, the committee was able to suggest a suite of changes to both practices and legislative instruments that would provide better governance structures for workers within the Sheriff's Office.

As the Hon. Kyam Maher outlined in his second reading speech, this bill enacts several recommendations from the Statutory Authorities Review Committee's report. The bill addresses recommendation 4 repealing of section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act, which prohibits the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment from exercising functions under section 14(1)(c) or (f) of the Public Sector Act 2009 in respect of the Courts Administration Authority. This will enable the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to monitor and report on the workplace regarding Public Sector employment and industrial relations matters.

Recommendation 6 of the report is also addressed with an amendment to the Courts Administration Act with the addition of two nonjudicial members to be appointed to the State Courts Administration Council. The two appointed members will have extensive experience in human resource management, finance or public administration. Having nonjudicial members involved in the hierarchy of the workplace it will bring greater diversity and experiences from outside of the law to oversight.

Finally, the bill enforces the Courts Administration Authority to provide additional information in their annual report. The Statutory Authorities Review Committee's report found that there was inadequate information about important aspects of its operations, and was lacking in detail about workers compensation, occupational health, welfare and safety, training and human resources information. The bill prescribes this type of information to be included in the annual report of the Courts Administration Authority.

I note that most of these changes were proposed by the former Attorney-General. I thank her for her work, heeding the report evidence and findings, and intending to implement some of the recommendations. The bill goes further in restructuring the governance structure. It is the first step in creating better protections for workers in the Sheriff's Office, which should always be in the forefront of this government's deliberations and actions.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (12:05): I rise today to speak in support of the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022. There is a fairly long tale surrounding the bill that we now have before us. Anybody who has been around this chamber, or the other, would know that trailing back to last year and pre-election, and even a different A-G, there has been quite a bit of discussion in this chamber and the other, and, indeed, in the newspaper, about the conduct of sheriffs and the Sheriff's Office. It certainly came under the microscope in the Statutory Authorities Review Committee.

As Chair of that committee now, I remind the council of the committee's 73rd report, which we tabled in this place, entitled 'An inquiry into the State Courts Administration Council—Sheriff's Office'. For those playing from home, I know everyone loves reading Hansard and going back and finding what we referred to, and, if you do you will find some pretty interesting reading. The report focused on the operations, the effectiveness and the employment practices of the Sheriff's Office which included the management systems, processes, procedures and protocols in place to deal effectively and efficiently with allegations of workplace bullying, harassment and misconduct in the Sheriff's Office, and staffing issues in the Sheriff's Office, including interactions with other agencies under the administrative umbrella of the State Courts Administration Council, as well as any other matters relevant to the operations of the Sheriff's Office.

What initiated the Statutory Authorities Review Committee to produce that report? In starting this conversation I probably need to pay respect to the member for what was then Frome and is now Stuart, the Hon. Geoff Brock. Geoff Brock started having a few conversations with some people who came to him and outlined a number of concerns. Those concerns were about the kind of conduct already outlined by the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos in relation to what was happening down at the courts.

There were lots of allegations made, and such was the concern at those allegations that obviously we initiated what was quite a wide-reaching terms of reference into the Sheriff's Office. What we found was quite concerning. We found many inconsistent practices implemented by CAA management which led to potential breaches of the public sector determinations in the CAA's own guidelines and policies.

It is easy just to say that is a pretty small thing, that is an administrative thing. Those guidelines, those policies, those public sector determinations really outline the kind of conduct that we want to be seen by people—pretty basic things. We want to make sure that when people are appointed to roles that is done in a way which is transparent and easy to understand. We want to make sure that everyone feels safe in their workplace. We want to make sure that everybody has rules and guidelines about who you talk to if you do not feel safe, and if you talk to them you would have confidence that some action would be taken, that your matter would be looked into fairly and not just dismissed out of hand, put in a drawer or, in fact, you are then attacked for making your concerns known.

What we found, going back to the committee report, were inconsistencies. We found a lack of accountability in the administrator's role regarding industrial relations matters that had led, in that committee's view in producing that report, to significant adverse impacts on many employees' health and wellbeing throughout the Sheriff's Office. It has already been outlined by the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos in regards to a few more specifics, but it was interesting in the committee that we had and the report that was produced, the number of people who wished to remain anonymous when giving evidence to our committee. It is telling, as the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos went to, that many of them felt that if they gave evidence in some way there would be retribution by people employed in the Sheriff's Office. I do not think we can really be too flippant about how dangerous that is.

Certainly, there was some discussion between myself and the Chief Justice in the newspaper about whether or not it was fair for that evidence to be considered and received. I think that really goes to a level of understanding about how maybe we ended up in this place, how that report ended up being produced. What was put forward by the Chief Justice was a view that because that evidence was anonymous it gave too much credibility to that evidence and that the committee should not be considering that because, in some way, people are allowed to say whatever they want when it is anonymous.

I disagree with that view. Giving confidential evidence to committees is a fundamental process of what we do here. That is something that I have already put into the newspaper, and the Chief Justice and I had a little discussion about that in the media—that was fun—but it goes back to a basic principle. It is not about him, it is not about me, it is about whether or not we can produce reports like this. It is about whether or not we then take subsequent action on those reports. I will come back to that.

The committee also found that human resources practices dealing with the Sheriff's Officers within the CAA were grossly inadequate, with employees complaining of a consistent belligerence by management that was left to fester over many years. Again, we really should not ride too roughshod over this and the seriousness of this. I think I can recall at least four—I think it might go up to as many as twice that—human resources reviews that we had during the conduct of SARC's review of the CAA.

They changed the structure of the human resources department so many times that each time we brought them in we were dealing with something of a new structure. That was over about 12 months, but what kind of organisation that is run well would restructure itself four times in 12 or 18 months? I cannot think of one. The only types of organisations that would be run well in that regard would be ones dealing with a pandemic where they need to change what they do on a rolling basis; certainly not one that deals with basic things like how many employees you have, whether or not there are policies that cover those employees, who wrote those policies, how they are dealt with, reporting structures—basic things like that—certainly not anything that would require massive restructures.

When the committee finds something like human resources practices being grossly inadequate, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that policies of the organisation were so deficient that employees felt abandoned. I will come back to that one too.

Through that committee, we also found examples of bullying and harassment leading to serious adverse health impacts on CAA employees, which were detailed in that report. Anyone who wants to go to that report can find those. I will not detail them here today, suffice to say: those findings were quite serious.

Those findings really led to most people just seeking out of what we were doing some sort of justice for how they were treated. They had gone beyond the idea of some sort of compensatory device. They had gone beyond the idea of ever going back to the Courts Administration Authority. They literally just wanted some sort of idea that someone had listened to them, that someone had done something or that someone was going to do something.

In regard to each of these things that I mentioned, this bill seeks to address some of them. It seeks to address some of the concerning findings of the report and implement at least three of the recommendations that that report made. Just as a quick note in that regard, for anybody who is doing reports out of committees, the implementation of recommendations out of the report is not something that necessarily happens commonplace, certainly not out of every single inquiry report that is going to be produced. The implementation of three of those is a significant step forward.

Firstly, repealing section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act 1993 allows for the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to monitor and to report on the observance of public sector principles and code of conduct by the Courts Administration Authority. This addresses recommendation 4 from the committee report, which proposed exactly that.

Section 14(1)(c) and (f) of the Public Sector Act enable the commissioner to monitor and to 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. That goes a little bit to what I said before. What we are going to see now is more reporting and more reviewing to make sure that those matters do not reach the kind of concerning levels that we had seen and which prompted SARC to have to intervene so spectacularly as what we are seeing now.

There is also the repeal of section 21B(4b) of the Courts Administration Act, which will mean the commissioner can undertake these reviews and these functions. Staff of the Courts Administration Authority will be reassured—at least I feel that they are—that the commissioner has oversight of employment practices within the authority. So, once again, we will see some of those policies. We will see some of those structures put in place that will make sure that employees are entitled to and will receive a safe workplace.

Secondly, this amendment addresses recommendation 6 of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, which proposes providing for the appointment of two non-judicial members to the State Courts Administration Council, who can bring expertise in human resources management, finance or administration of the State Courts Administration Council.

The SARC did not have much truck with the Courts Administration Council, so I cannot really comment on those who are already on it, but I think certainly the appointment of two non-judicial members is beneficial in the objective sense. What you have is the ability to have new skills brought onto the board. At the end of the day, you cannot expect judges to have every skill in the world—they are not going to have finance or administration skills—so the appointment of these kinds of people really is, I think, going to add quite a bit of additional spine to what is probably at the moment quite a legalistic, heavy committee, I would have thought.

In any event, it is an important improvement to the earlier version of the bill introduced by the former Attorney-General in the other place last year, which only provided for up to two non-judicial members to be appointed. This bill will require two non-judicial members with experience outside of the law, which really is a fitting way to bring to the council the kind of diversity we want to see.

Finally, this bill addresses concerns reflected in recommendation 5 of the report. As noted in the Statutory Authorities Review Committee inquiry, recent annual reports of the Courts Administration Authority were pretty weak. They did not provide adequate information about important aspects of its operations. They were lacking in detail about pretty fundamental things. The Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos already went through some of them, but things like workers compensation, occupational health and safety, training and human resources information you would not have found in there. What you did find was a glossy brochure that many workers certainly looked at and said, 'That's not reflective of operations.'

The committee inquiry 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 within that, as had previously been included in the annual reports of the former Courts Services Department prior to it being transferred across to the Courts Administration Authority. What I mean by all that is that when the courts were in charge of running their own documents, there was really an absence of any meaningful information in their annual reports. What they had become, as I mentioned, is a glossy broadsheet that was put out saying, 'How good are we?' and the answer was, 'Well, you wouldn't know.'

What we are saying, and what this bill is going to achieve, is that their annual reports now actually have some spine, actually have some information and actually have something that, if you want to know how they are running it down there, you will find out. That used to be the case, prior to us giving the courts free run in producing their own reports. It is good to see that they are going to be forced into doing that.

This bill will address these concerns. It will prescribe additional information to be included in the Courts Administration Authority annual report, including a report from the Sheriff that was not necessarily previously in there on the operations of the Sheriff and security officers. It is pretty strange that was not in there.

I welcome, if it is not clear by now, many of the steps taken by the Attorney-General on this bill to address the recommendations of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee report. These measures are going to go a long way to improving the accountability, transparency and increased visibility of matters that affect the Courts Administration Authority employees and industrial relations matters that may come up from time to time. It really starts to reflect the kind of thing that I think we want to see certainly not just in all public sector workplaces but in all workplaces full stop.

I am conscious, even having said all this, that more work needs to be done. All seven recommendations of the committee were worth implementing and certainly worth considering. I look forward to, if we do not see the kind of outcomes that we want from what has been proposed in this bill, revisiting those recommendations. I do not mean that as some sort of axe hanging over the Courts Administration Authority's head: I just mean that it is a set of expectations.

If they can meet the finish line, then, great; maybe they will start remedying the kind of conduct that forced the outcomes we are at now, which we should not need to have, but here we are. I think that if they can meet that finish line, then maybe we will not have to implement those recommendations. Until then, they sit there, and they sit there as a meaningful thing that the Courts Administration Authority should be aware of. People here have not forgotten the kind of things we saw that led to us even having to introduce this bill. I have to concur, in finishing up, with the Attorney-General when he said:

The efficient, effective, and accountable administration of South Australian 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 could not concur more. It is good that justice be seen to be done not only by those who go through the courts but also by those workers who are in the courts, and this bill is going to start to look at that.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (12:22): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this bill, which is substantially the same as was introduced by the former Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, on 27 October last year, in response to the report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. Those members who participated in that would know all the personal stories behind what was taking place there. It has led to recommendations that are necessary and important, and we are pleased that they are taking place.

I commend the Statutory Authorities Review Committee for undertaking that inquiry. I think it demonstrates the value of our committee system in being able to examine things in some detail. It must certainly provide some comfort to those people who provide evidence to these committees that change is taking place as a result of them being brave enough to turn up and tell their stories to initiate change.

This particular bill amends the composition of the State Courts Administration Council. It requires that two non-judicial members with experience in alternative fields—specified as human resource management, finance or public administration—be appointed by the Governor to form part of the council. As a result of this amendment, the bill includes consequential amendments that provide for the appointment of deputies for the new non-judicial members and clarification of the quorum and decision-making requirements of the council.

The amendments are substantially the same as the 2021 amendments, mandating the appointment of two non-judicial members. The bill also prescribes reporting requirements of the courts. In particular, clause 9 of the bill is the same as that in the 2021 bill with the exception that the state Coroner would not report pursuant to this act. The state Coroner is required to report pursuant to its own act. Notably, the principal judicial officer of the Youth Court is not a member of the council. So, we support this particular bill. My notes say with an amendment, but I do not think I have filed an amendment. I might just need to check what we did there, but we support the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:24): I rise to speak on the Courts Administration (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022 on behalf of SA-Best. I think the reasons for this bill have been well articulated by the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and the Hon. Justin Hanson. I note that my colleague, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, also served on that committee and would, I think, agree with all those sentiments that were expressed today in terms of the need.

As we know, it has been, as has been highlighted, introduced off the back of the recommendations made in the Statutory Authorities Review Committee into the State Courts Administration Council and the Sheriff's Office. My understanding is that we are seeking to implement recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of that report, specifically those that deal with the issues that have been highlighted around the functions and operations of the Sheriff's Office.

I think it would be an understatement to suggest that the committee was alarmed at the evidence it heard about the mental health issues and bullying issues that all exist within the Sheriff's Office ranks and the wellbeing of officers being significantly impacted under the current Courts Administration Authority governance structure.

I think it is correct to say that the bill does not take on a key recommendation found in terms of the Sheriff's Officers with public servant status under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Act to have that position fall under the purview of the Department for Correctional Services. Instead, it seeks to address the issue via a different means, and that is to remove the existing prohibition under the Courts Administration Act of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to exercise its powers under the Public Sector Act with respect to those employees.

That would allow the commissioner to monitor and report on observance of the public sector principles, the code of conduct and employment discriminations, and provide advice on any conduct reviews of public sector employment or industrial relations matters respectively. I think it is generally agreed that we have got to the same outcome via a different means, which is a good outcome.

I note also that I think there is a worthy amendment regarding the Coroners Court, which I will just make mention of, and the reason for that in terms of the annual reporting requirements. The reason for that change is in relation to preventing duplication processes. I make that point simply because, as members would know, we talk about the Coroners Court in this place often. The last thing we want to be doing is adding any additional burdens on what is an already burdensome jurisdiction, which has existing reporting obligations under its respective legislation. I think that is an acceptable outcome.

Of course, there is also the change in relation to the issue of a quorum. I think that the Attorney has outlined the very valid reasons that have been expressed to him for the appropriateness and need of those changes, to ensure that there is never any question of the Chief Justice in terms of the exercise of their vote and transparency and accountability measures. I agree that that is a good proposal that was put to the Attorney, and I am glad to see that the Attorney has taken that on board in terms of this bill.

I think overall it is generally agreed that the bill strikes the correct balance between transparency and diversity of views with respect to various issues and the government acting decisively on the recommendations from the report that I and other members have referred to today. With those words, I indicate our support for the bill once again.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (12:29): I thank honourable members for their contributions on this important bill, and note the work that has been done by many members of this place in committee work that has informed this bill. I also thank the former Attorney-General for her work, which led to the development of many elements of this bill today, and note there is still work to do in this area.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (12:31): 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