HIGH COURT VACANCIES

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (14:36): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney inform the house of vacancies that will soon arise in the High Court and what expectations does he have for the appointment of a South Australian?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (14:36): It has been more than a year since I last advised the house on the topic of upcoming High Court vacancies.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: More than 100 years—never. In that time, the Hon. Justice Callinan (personally my favourite High Court judge) retired from the court at the age of 70.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Not a teller of ripping yarns like Justice Callinan. Justice Callinan went on to head the commonwealth's equine influenza inquiry—

The Hon. M.D. Rann: And did a brilliant job.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And did a fine job—and was replaced in the court by a fellow Queenslander, the Hon. Justice Keifel. The next few months will mark the start of a period of substantial change to the High Court bench. Firstly, another two vacancies will open on the bench, including that of the Chief Justice. Secondly, for the first time in 12 years (since the appointment of Justice Kirby), these vacancies will be filled by a federal Labor government. I again pledge to do all I can to see a South Australian fill one of these vacancies.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen says, 'Why not both?' The selection of High Court justices is among the most important appointments a federal government can make. The High Court is the last avenue of appeal for both civil and criminal matters from the state, territory and federal courts of Australia. Alas, I certainly voted against the proposition to abolish appeals to the judicial committee of the Privy Council when it was put to referendum in 1977, but I found myself in a minority at that time.

Mr Koutsantonis: It's where you're happiest.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is right; quite.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Don't remind me of what the Liberal Party did to remove the regnal year and Latin from our statutes—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: What year?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: For the information of the member for Port Adelaide, the regnal year is the year of the reign of the current monarch.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Davenport says that I could reintroduce it on my letterhead. That is a very good thought—and I will hold that. The High Court in the main has taken a centralist approach.

Mrs Redmond: Or an Eastern States approach.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Or an Eastern States approach to federalism. I am one of those who believes that the engineers case was wrongly decided. Perhaps the most recent important decision of the High Court has been that of determining the constitutional validity of the coalition's federal WorkChoices law in which the majority minimised the history, spirit and intent of our constitution.

I note that the Prime Minister won the federal election on a platform of reform, which included renewed federalism in Australia.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, I do actually. I hark back to the days when the Liberal Party actually supported federalism in Australia—the days of Malcolm Fraser's new federalism. But those days are long gone and members opposite are happy to see all power taken to Canberra. I do not know why they minimise their importance in the federation. I would think any state member who supported centralism in Canberra would be suffering from some kind of cognitive dissidence.

Mr Hanna: We do not need state parliament.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Mitchell says that we do not need state parliaments. Well, why do you not reach the logical conclusion of that, put down your magazine and leave the house—resign again. The views of the new appointees may play an important role in the success of this new federalism. Their role will be even greater should a new appointee rather than an existing member of the court take on the role.

The Hon. M.D. Rann: Does 25 years as a JP qualify?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No. Interestingly, I note that now retired High Court Justice Callinan made a parting shot at the High Court judiciary late last year, arguing that they ought to be absolutely candid about any personal philosophy they may bring to a constitutional question and noting that they did not always reveal their real reasons for deciding a case. Although I fully support the former justice's call, I am not holding my breath waiting for change.

Rather than try to predict a candidate's personal politics, I think that, once the basic threshold of demonstrated judicial excellence, industry, suitable temperament and strong sense of civic duty is reached, the state of origin of the judicial nominee in relation to the current and historic make up of the High Court bench should be a factor of elevated importance in decision making; and I note the member for Heysen supports me on this.

In the 106-year history of the High Court there has never been a South Australian High Court justice, and I do not think it is owing to a dearth of suitable candidates. John Bray, Len King and Dame Roma Mitchell would have made great High Court justices. The South Australian legal profession holds a wealth of talented people—and I know the Premier agrees with me on that. As Attorney-General I have worked with and known many of the state's best legal minds, and I want to see at least one of these men or women on the High Court bench in my time as Attorney-General.