HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-07-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Supreme Court (Distribution of Business) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 June 2023.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:07): I rise to speak briefly about the streamlined changes the Supreme Court (Distribution of Business) Amendment Bill 2023 will bring to our justice system. The South Australian Supreme Court (Distribution of Business) Amendment Bill 2023 aims to update the laws that govern how cases are assigned to judges in the South Australian Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of South Australia includes the Court of Appeal and the general division of the Supreme Court, where most cases are handled.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court identified a need to optimise the capacity of the judges working within the Supreme Court to preside over matters in either the Court of Appeal or the general division of the Supreme Court. This amendment bill amends the Supreme Court Act 1935 to allow greater flexibility in distributing work between these divisions, providing the opportunity for judges to be assigned cases in either the Court of Appeal or the general division of the Supreme Court.

Section 47 of the Supreme Court Act currently allows for the distribution of business through agreement between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the President of the Court of Appeal through the assignment of a judge from one division to another for a period not exceeding 12 months. This amendment bill (1) provides for the authorisation of a judge to move from one division of the Supreme Court to another, either for a period of time or in relation to specified proceedings, and (2) separately provides for the assignment of a judge from the Court of Appeal to the general division of the Supreme Court to hear a particularly complex proceeding where it is deemed necessary.

This means that cases can be assigned to judges who are well versed and knowledgeable about the specific legal issues involved. Complex cases being handled by judges who have the right expertise and experience in the relevant area of law will mean judges are better able to understand the complexities of cases assigned to them.

The bill includes clause 3(1), which proposes that, before assigning a judge from the Court of Appeal to the general division of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice must be first satisfied that the assignment is necessary due to, firstly, the limited availability of judges in the general division and, secondly, the complexity of the specific proceedings. Once this determination has been made, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will need to consult with the President of the Court of Appeal.

The amendment includes a clause stating that this consultation must happen according to a set of rules and guidelines. The protocol to be established will be approved by a council of judges, which will ensure that the process of moving judges between the Court of Appeal follows an agreed upon process.

The South Australian Supreme Court (Distribution of Business) Amendment Bill 2023 promotes a structured and systematic approach that will optimise our judicial resources and improve the overall efficiency of South Australian courts. Importantly, the South Australian community will benefit from the streamlined and efficient court proceedings this amendment brings, ensuring fair and timely justice is provided. I commend this amendment bill to the house.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:11): I rise to speak on the Supreme Court (Distribution of Business) Amendment Bill:

Be still my heart—the content of the matter of this bill before us. No, I am not actually mocking our esteemed learned colleagues of the law. This is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation, from what I understand, which allows for the distribution of business between divisions of the court through agreement between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the President of the Court of Appeal.

Clause 3 of the bill amends section 47(1), resulting in the decisions relating to distribution of business to be the responsibility of the Chief Justice in circumstances of complexity of a specified proceeding and the limited availability of judges for the general division, after consulting with the President. Clause 3 of the bill would also allow the movement of judges from one division to another for the purposes of specific procedures such as complex matters, not just for a set time period.

Clearly, it is an important matter, which is to enable the courts to manage their own business in a more efficient manner. I think we all appreciate that justice delayed is justice denied. All efficiencies and improvements to the management of flow through the courts is something to be supported and therefore we will be supporting this bill.

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the opposition's position as of the last sitting week in this parliament. They are the words that we heard read by the opposition on behalf of the Liberal Party last sitting week in this chamber.

Did the opposition I wonder, though, before making that speech of all of three paragraphs, bother to actually ask anybody about the issue that has seen the behaviour that has unfolded in this chamber today? That is what I want to know. I want to know from each and every one of them, did anyone on those benches bother to pick up the phone, ring a stakeholder group and find out, 'Do you have a position on this?' Did you bother to ring your friends at the Bar Association and say, 'President of the bar, do you have a position on this?'

Did the shadow attorney-general, for the love of God, even look at this bill before his caucus approved it with the support of the entire party through this place in the last week? Did the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Ms Henderson, the Hon. Mr Hood, the Hon. Mr Hood, the Hon. Ms Girolamo, the Hon. Ms Centofanti, the Hon. Ms Lee—who else is there?—bother to read the bill that they fully supported in this chamber in the last week of parliament—that is what I want to know—before the person who had carriage of this bill in this chamber came in here in the last sitting week and gave a glowing review of the government's position?

I am so keen to know the answer to that. I am so keen to know whether they bothered because apparently, according to every one of their friends in the independent Bar Association and anyone at the Law Society, they did not. I do not know if the shadow attorney-general even knew what this bill did, or is it perhaps that, once he finally understood—because others in this chamber bothered to do their jobs and go and find out what people thought—he realised, 'Oh crap, the Liberal Party have made a big mistake. The Liberal Party have made a big error in judgement. We don't want to upset anyone with our position, so let's backtrack today. Let's use every underhanded means possible in this place today.'

Talk about collegiality; your collegiality has gone out the window. Your reputation has gone out the window today because you have used every underhanded measure available to you—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, pointing is out of order. We do not do that in this place.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Mr President, I wish you knew the half of it today. I really honestly wish you knew the half of what the opposition have shown that they are capable of today. I just wish you knew the half. Notwithstanding that, if the Bar Association or the Law Society want anyone to blame for this matter being listed on this paper today, then they can look fairly and squarely at their friends in the Liberal Party.

It is no wonder the Liberals are in the tatters that they are when they cannot even go and consult on a bill that they say in their words is a straightforward piece of legislation that requires the support of this parliament, that they say in their own words is a straightforward piece of legislation that will result in efficiencies and improvements to the management of flow through the courts, that they say in their own words—not my words, not the government's words, not anyone else's words but their words—is a straightforward piece of legislation that is intended to ensure that the Chief Justice possesses the authority to distribute court business by assigning work to members outside of the court for a limited period of 12 months.

They thought it was a grand idea. They thought it was a grand idea because they, with all the resources available to them, could not even go and consult on something that we all know is indeed a straightforward piece of legislation. It is exactly what the opposition have painted it as, unless and until your politics get in the way of your decision-making. It is absolutely no surprise—no surprise—that they would stoop—stoop—to the levels that they have all stooped to today—

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Point of order, Mr President.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I want to hear this.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The honourable member is pointing. You have already warned her.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I did not point to you. I would love to point to all of you.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, go ahead.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Okay. No skin off my nose, mate.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Bonaros, sit down. There has been a point of order raised. I agree with the point of order. I have asked you to stop pointing.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I did not point.

The PRESIDENT: Please stop pointing. Continue and then conclude.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Like I said, that they would stoop to the levels that they have stooped to today, to the dirty, disgusting, political tactics that they have stooped to today, apparently in the spirit of collegiality, nothing to do with keeping their friends in higher places happy and nothing that I certainly do not object to—for the record, let me just say this: the only one in this place who actually went to seek the opinion of the Bar Association, the only person in this place who actually went to seek the position of the Law Society was guess who? It was not anyone from the opposition bench. It was not the shadow attorney-general, who you would think would have some interest in this bill. It was us. We asked.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Their lies.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, not their lies.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It was us. This is a bill that the opposition supported and they want to point the finger now at the Attorney-General. That is who they want to point the finger at.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If I can do my job, on the staff that I have—and you are telling me he should do his job because you do not have the resources to do it—then you need to take a long hard look at yourselves, that is what I have to say. You need to take a long hard look at yourselves because a member resigning from the party today is the least of your problems if you cannot even get your head around a piece of legislation. You are legislators. For the love of God, this is your job.

The shadow attorney-general today is sending me message after message after message telling me—the only person who actually went and did it—what my position is. What a fine day we have set in this place today. What an exemplary example you have set for everyone today. You have all come to me today to tell me what my position is on a bill that you supported because you realised that you stuffed up. You stuffed up your own politics and you want me to undo that for you. You have used every dirty tactic available to you to achieve that end.

I am not surprised in the slightest that your party is in the mess that it is in when you resort to that sort of underhanded and undermining behaviour. For every woman on that crossbench: go home and look at yourselves in the mirror. Go home and take a good hard look at yourselves in the mirror and think about what you have done today. That is what I want you to do and I am looking at each and every one of you. Do not ever come back in this place and lecture me about how I do my job, because I did my job. I went and consulted and I got the very feedback that you were relying on today to try to turn the agenda of this place upside down.

For the record—and I hope that everyone is listening to this from the Bar Association and I hope everyone is listening to this from the Law Society—you all needed convincing in the last week of parliament that we should adjourn this bill because it was so damn straightforward. It was so clear in terms of the efficiencies and improvements it would provide. It was so clear in terms of the extent of what the government was trying to do that I needed to convince you to adjourn it so that I could have a look at it, so that we could consider some amendments.

When I saw that there was nothing to consider, I told the Attorney, in good faith, 'Yes, I am happy to proceed with this next Thursday,' because whatever I needed to do—whether that involved amendments or otherwise—I knew I could do in a week. Even on the shoestring staff available to us, even with the fact that we had everything else to consider, I still knew that. I do not even know how many there are on that side, but I know they all have staff and they have a tonne more staff than me and they could not even, before we voted on this bill last time, bother to consult with their own membership base on a piece of legislation they now know they stuffed up on.

That is where we are today politically. That is a sad day in South Australian politics and even sadder than that, even sadder, is what they have been willing to do to get their own way today. You are not getting your own way today. You think this is a win? You think that if we adjourn this bill you have pulled off some minor miracle? You have pulled off nothing. You have shown how incompetent you are as an opposition. That is what you have shown today: your sheer incompetence. You have shown that your shadow attorney-general had no idea what it is that his caucus agreed to when they agreed to this bill.

The Attorney-General did exactly what he told us he did. I bothered to go to the briefing with the Attorney. I bothered to find out whom he had consulted with. I bothered to find out what the views of others were, and here we are. You just do not like the advice that I have received because it does not suit your political agenda, and you have come in here and tried everything—every undermining, underhanded tool—to get your way.

I am going to say it once more for the women: go home tonight, look at yourselves in the mirror and think about how you would feel if your colleagues did this to you. You think about it really, really hard: how you would feel if your colleagues did what they did today, then come back to me and tell me what your position on this bill is. I do not care if the bill gets put through today. I do not care if the bill gets debated today. What I will not stand for—what I will not ever stand for in this place—is the behaviour that the Liberal Party has had on full display for this whole chamber to see today.

I will personally pick up the phone after today is done and I will personally advise the independent Bar Association of whose position—you all told me today what my position was, according to everybody else except for myself. I am glad you told me that; thank you very much. I will personally pick up the phone and let them know that it is your incompetence that landed us here today, not mine. I will personally tell them that I am quite happy for this bill to be debated when we come back after the winter break.

But what I will not tolerate in this place, what I will not tolerate from anyone opposite in this place, is the disrespect that they have shown not just to me but to this chamber and to this place. I will not tolerate you going and doing your political bidding and using other members of parliament as your political scapegoats, and that is what you are all responsible for. That is what you have all done. You are the ones who have been undermining, you are the ones who have been underhanded, you are the ones who need to go home and look in the mirror—and do not come talking to me about anything.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L.A. Henderson.

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