Mr MATT KEAN (Hornsby) [3.33 p.m.]: I am delighted to speak in debate on the exciting and interesting Courts and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 introduced by my friend and colleague the member for Epping, who is doing an incredible job as Attorney General of this State.
He is tough but fair and is reforming for the better the way the New South Wales legal system works. I commend his efforts and his thorough work on this bill. It is great to see his dedicated team in the advisers area, led by Nick Santucci, who is very passionate about this bill. Like my colleague the member for Camden, I thank all those in the Attorney General's ministerial office for their contributions to this legislation.
Today we are joined in the public gallery by one of my constituents, Pasquale Vertuli, a well-qualified lawyer who works in the office of legal counsel. He has come to hear debate on this bill, and I welcome him to the Parliament. I am pleased to speak to the bill. We are making amendments to the courts and other legislation administered by the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice as part of a regular legislative review and monitoring program. The objective is to amend a number of Acts to improve the efficiency and operations of our courts and agencies within the Department of the Attorney General and Justice.
I turn now to some of the proposed amendments. My constituents in Hornsby have expressed considerable interest about the bill, and I know the member for Londonderry has also received correspondence about how to make our court system more efficient and effective. No doubt he will refer to those matters in due course. I turn first to the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the definition of "carer" is consistent with that in other New South Wales legislation. The question is whether this amendment will have implications for the definition of "carer" in other Acts that the Parliament has considered. This amendment relates only to the definition of "carer" in the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997. Therefore, it will not affect other Acts of Parliament. The purpose of the legislation is to bring the definition in the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 into line with another related Act. It is a minor and technical amendment.
I turn next to the Civil Procedure Act 2005. Questions have been raised as to whether the amendment extends the power of senior judicial officers of the Supreme Court to delegate functions to registrars. Section 13 (1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 enables the senior judicial officer of the court—for example, the Chief Justice, Chief Judge or Chief Magistrate—to delegate certain powers to a registrar by an instrument in writing. In the Supreme Court the powers of a registrar are conferred by section 121 of the Supreme Court Act 1970. Section 121 (4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 preserves the effectiveness of an order or direction of an officer of the court regardless of whether that order or direction is within the power of the officer.
Registrars in the Supreme Court already exercise many powers that are delegated under section 13 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and no objection has been raised about their exercise on the basis that they have no power. It was always the intention of the delegation power referred to in section 13 of the Civil Procedure Act to enable the senior judicial officer to delegate functions to officers of the court under the Act. Therefore, this amendment does not, in practice, extend the power of registrars or the senior judicial officer. The amendment is solely for the sake of certainty. It makes it clear that a registrar may exercise any function of the court under any other Act or law in respect of which the court has jurisdiction. That includes rules of court delegated to them under section 13. I note that there has been a change to the Court Security Act 1995 to permit regulations to be made allowing court security officers to require the temporary surrender of specified items upon entry or otherwise when detected in a courthouse.
This will enable court security officers to prevent a wider range of specified objects that may pose a risk to safety from entering courtrooms, following security incidents in recent criminal trials. Hornsby Local Court will be affected by this amendment, which is very important because we want to make our courtrooms safer. We want to ensure that people appearing before the judiciary can feel safe and that there is no threat to any person. This amendment will provide greater security powers to our court officers. I turn to the amendments proposed to the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The two amendments are, first, to provide that acting commissioners whose term of appointment has expired can complete matters that have been heard or partly heard, which is to avoid the negative finance and resource implications associated with having a part-heard matter concluded by another commissioner. I note that the member for Myall Lakes is in the Chamber. He is an experienced and qualified lawyer, and he is very interested in the amendments in this bill.
The bill contains very serious amendments. I guess the question that members are asking—I know the member for Riverstone is because he is nodding his head in furious agreement—is: What is wrong with the current situation in the Land and Environment Court? Currently an agent may appear in most Land and Environment Court proceedings if the client gives written authorisation. The exceptions are matters relating to criminal enforcement or appeals when an agent cannot appear, and mining matters when an agent can appear but only with the leave of the court. Agents play an important role in assisting parties to access justice and in assisting specialist courts, as they often have expertise in the particular area.
The problem is that concerns have been raised about the actions of some agents that have been detrimental to the effective administration of justice in this State, including failing to provide clients with copies of directions made by the court, giving misleading advice about their obligations and acting in a way that is obstructive to justice and detrimental to the interests of their client. I acknowledge the presence of the Attorney General in the Chamber. He is doing a remarkable job of cleaning up the court system in this State and fixing 16 years of Labor's mess. While clearly not all agents act in such a manner, the actions of some can impact not only on their clients but also on the effective functioning of the Land and Environment Court, they can lead to delays in matters being progressed and they can take up valuable court resources. This Government is about making our court system more efficient and effective, and making it work better for people right across this State.
Read the full transcript in Hansard here.
