Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2006
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party to the Courts Legislation Amendment Bill, which makes various amendments to legislation relating to the court system. As the two previous speakers have gone into detail I will not. The provisions in the bill have arisen as a result of the Attorney General’s regular legislative review and monitoring program, which looks for ways in which the current court system can be made more effective and efficient. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard a list of the Acts that the bill amends.
Leave granted.
____
The provisions make amendments to the following Acts: the Civil Procedure Act 2005; the Criminal Procedure Act 1986; the Crown Prosecutors Act 1986; the District Court Act 1973; the Judges Pensions Act 1953; the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; the Legal Profession Act 2004; the Local Courts Act 1982; the Public Defenders Act 1995 and the Public Trustee Act 1913.
___
As the amendments canvass many incidental changes to these laws, I will not exhaustively cover each of them. I simply refer members to the second reading speech by the Parliamentary Secretary in the other place. However, I draw the attention of honourable members to some of the more salient aspects of the bill, as the Hon. David Clarke has just done on other issues. It is quite interesting that we have both come upon some salient issues from different perspectives.
The bill amends the Civil Procedure Act 2005 to provide that proceedings taken to have been dismissed under clause 18 of the Civil Procedure Regulation 2005 before the repeal of that clause by the Civil Procedure Amendment (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2005 are taken to have never been dismissed. Clause 18 of the Civil Procedure Regulation 2005 provided for the automatic dismissal of civil proceedings after 12 months of inactivity, presumably to clear any bottlenecks in case management. In the second reading speech the Minister said:
Clause 18 has been repealed because it operated more widely than intended and because it was unnecessary as the Local Court and District Court could use Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 12.9 to dismiss proceedings where there was no progress.
That raises a couple of interesting questions. The Government has indicated that a small number of cases may have been affected by clause 18. For the benefit of my understanding, I would like to know how many cases are affected by this amendment. At first blush, where proceedings have been dismissed and now under this bill may be continued, litigants will need to prepare themselves to come before the court once again. I hope honourable members realise what that means. The apparent retrospective nature of this amendment may do more harm than good. The Legislation Review Committee stated, “The Committee notes that this amendment may adversely impact on defendants who had had litigation against them dismissed.” I also note that the committee does not consider that the revival of cases taken to have been dismissed unduly trespasses upon personal rights and liberties. I would think that that is exactly what it does.
A number of amendments made by the bill relate to the awarding of costs against a party.
For example, Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to prevent professional costs from being awarded to the prosecution where a person who has received a penalty notice elects to have the matter dealt with by the court and lodges a written plea of guilty within the required time frame. In 1998 the Government introduced reforms to enable defendants in summary criminal proceedings to inform the court of their plea in writing. A key objective of those reforms was to streamline procedures by reducing time-consuming, costly and unnecessary appearances before the court.
The bill also provides that the Supreme Court and other higher courts may make costs orders against a party in summary criminal proceedings, on an adjournment, due to unreasonable conduct or delays. The bill will amend the District Court Act 1973 to give a right of appeal to the Supreme Court against interlocutory orders by the Judicial Registrar of the District Court. The present state of play allows appeals only from final orders of the Judicial Registrar. The second reading speech says that:
… given that interlocutory orders of the Judicial Registrar may affect a party’s substantive legal rights, it is appropriate that there be an avenue for appeal against such orders.
The bill makes a couple of other amendments. The Judges’ Pensions Act 1953 is amended to enable judges’ pensions to be paid fortnightly instead of monthly. That is very sensible as it brings their payment into line with other salaries and pensions paid through the payroll system of the Attorney General’s Department. The Local Courts Act 1982 is amended to alter from 72 years to 75 years the age restriction in respect of the appointment of magistrates for limited tenure or the reinstatement of magistrates for additional terms of office. The amendment will allow acting magistrates to serve until they are 75, but the retirement age of full-time magistrates will remain at 72. This will make the age limit for acting magistrates in the Local Court the same as that for acting judges in other courts. It is clear that these amendments appear inconsequential, but I trust that they will bring about a real change in the efficient administration of the courts.