Criminal Law (Legal Representation) (Reimbursement of Commission) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 March 2020.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:40): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to this bill. I also indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill, the Criminal Law (Legal Representation) (Reimbursement of Commission) Amendment Bill 2020. The bill addresses operational issues that may present a barrier to the efficient management of serious cases by the Legal Services Commission.

The commission operates on a budget of more than $40 million per annum, with contributions from state government, commonwealth government and private sources. The vast bulk of these funds are used for important but regular assistance. A small number of cases arise each year for which the commission may seek specific reimbursement by the Treasurer. I presume that is difficult with the current Treasurer. By their nature, these may involve different stages of proceedings in different courts and may involve multiple defendants.

This bill seeks to wrap up different elements of a larger case, some of which may not be reimbursable under current arrangements, and allow these to be dealt with in a single funding arrangement. These serious cases vary significantly in frequency and cost. In the past five years, the total annual cost of these cases has ranged from $60,000 to more than $1 million. As such, while this bill will improve the management of a small number of cases, it will not have a major impact on the budget or operations of the commission. It is important to note that.

The opposition notes that the Legal Services Commission has increased both its revenue and activity in recent years. This has resulted from the commission being chosen to deliver specific programs for domestic violence and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. These achievements reflect the quality of work delivered by the commission and its value to South Australians who may otherwise not be able to access critical legal support.

In reflecting upon the success of the commission, the opposition notes that other community-focused legal supports have not flourished under this current government. In June 2019, the Welfare Rights Centre, including its Housing Legal Clinic, closed its doors. The government is currently undertaking a tender that will roll up tenant information advocacy services with three other services. Changes such as this do not reflect well on the legal and social wellbeing of the most vulnerable amongst us. In offering its support for this bill, the opposition reminds the government of the need to ensure that vulnerable South Australians have access to the legal and other supports that they need.

I also note that this bill, as has been noted, is a relatively minor but important change to the legislation; however, it is not pressingly urgent at this moment that this be passed. It is not urgent that this happen this week or there would be some dramatic change in the world around us. We have had in this parliament today another bill, which was presented by the opposition, which would make a significant change. It would have the ability to significantly change the outcomes for many small businesses across South Australia in terms of the council rates that they are having to pay.

The government turned that down from being debated. They turned down the ability to deal with that because they said that dealing with government business was more important. Here we have this legislation being dealt with—instead of that issue to help small businesses with their council rates—which is not urgent, which is not pressing, which does not need to pass today.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

Mr PICTON: It shows how this government just does not care about those small businesses and the issues that they are confronting at this time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, you know the rules. There is a point of order. You need to take a seat.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not only is the member straying from the subject matter of this bill but he is now referring to and, I suggest, reflecting on a vote of this house earlier today as to the question of a suspension of standing orders in support of advancing legislation that he says should have been dealt with. I would ask on both those grounds that he either be sat down or brought back to the substance of the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Attorney. I think in this instance I will ask the member for Kaurna to come back to the bill and the debate at hand and to ensure that his comments relate to that.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This bill, as I said, is an important piece of legislation but it is not urgent. It is not going to involve people losing their businesses if this does not pass through today. It is not going to involve significant financial hardship that many businesses are facing through this pandemic. It is not a pandemic related piece of legislation and we are using the parliament's time to debate this on the government's decision rather than debating other things. This could easily wait until next week or the week after or the week after that to be debated without any particular change—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, you have made that point.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, and I will continue to make that point, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Except that you have stood to contribute to the debate on the bill, I think.

Mr PICTON: Yes, that is right. It is disappointing that we were unable to debate other important matters which are impacting upon the livelihoods of many South Australians at this time. It is disappointing that the government has decided not to debate that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I said, member for Kaurna, you have made that point. Is anyone else seeking the call? Member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:45): Briefly, in relation to the bill that is before the house properly in the course of government business here today. We are back in this place legislating, importantly, for both the necessary and temporary measures that are required in response to the global pandemic but also importantly sending a message of confidence, good order and good government to the community and the population throughout South Australia that parliament continues.

The work of the parliament continues in terms of getting on with necessary legislation. Reforms that are required for the day-to-day lives of people in this state continue. The government's business properly is not deterred or delayed or unable to proceed, and that is in large part due to the extraordinary leadership that we have seen properly recognised and acknowledged from those who lead the way in our health department as well as those leading us in the government, and I applaud them. That is no reason to suggest that the routine important business of government should not proceed in an orderly way. I am glad that it does, I am glad that we are here and I commend this bill to the house very much in that vein and in that spirit.

This is legislation that the Legal Services Commission, as I understand it, has requested to facilitate the better provision of funding for those who are to be assisted by the commission in the important work that it does. I take the opportunity in highlighting that important work to recognise most recently the service of Michael Abbott AO QC as the immediate past chair of the Legal Services Commission and, because I have not had an occasion in the house to recognise it, to thank Jason Karas for his willingness to carry on that important work as still a relatively new chair of the Legal Services Commission, having been appointed late last year to take on that role at the end of Michael Abbott's term as it occurred in January this year.

Both men are well known to me. I have enormous regard for Michael Abbott and his service in particular to the law, the legal profession and the system of justice in this state. That includes a whole range of other contributions to the life of the state, not least in relation to the arts, but I will not digress.

I am so glad that Jason Karas has been available to take on this role. There are very few legal practitioners in the country, let alone in the state, who are more highly regarded than Jason Karas. Perhaps more than anyone else, bar his partner at Lipman Karas, Skip Lipman, he has certainly demonstrated what tremendous leadership in the profession can be achieved globally from an Adelaide base. Having established the practice with Skip Lipman over the last two decades globally, I am delighted that Jason Karas is serving in this very important capacity as Chair of the Legal Services Commission.

I take the opportunity also to recognise the tremendous work of Gabrielle Canny as the long-serving leader of the commission in the day-to-day sense in her role. I have known Gabrielle Canny for many years. We have not worked closely, but I have a high regard for her leadership in her role as the director of the commission also. That is to underscore that, when the Legal Services Commission requests that certain reforms be implemented so as to make their job easier or more efficiently able to be carried out, I am very pleased to see this government acting on that to ensure that the commission and those who lead and direct its work are best equipped to be able to do so.

I see that among the changes that are to be implemented in the course of these changes are really clarifications and an expanded more robust definition of what constitutes legal assistance costs and a substantial expansion and reworking of section 18 of the Criminal Law (Legal Representation) Act dealing with the entitlement for the commission to be reimbursed. It is a brief piece of legislation and very practical in its nature in terms of ensuring that the commission is able to do its work efficiently. Where we can make improvement, we ought to do so.

I will perhaps say one thing more about the important work that this bill helps to facilitate all the more in relation to the Legal Services Commission's capacity to represent assisted persons. It can be said over and over again, in terms of the very high-quality justice system that we are fortunate to have in this state, that it is so important that there is provision for the proper and professional representation of people who find themselves before our courts.

Of course, the Legal Services Commission performs that function. Were it not for the Legal Services Commission's work and capacity, based on the funds that it is provided from the government to perform that role, we would see so many more examples of people who are unfortunately not properly advised and find themselves appearing unrepresented in court. That has the effect of doing a potential and likely injustice to those unrepresented people. In a practical way, it has the effect of almost inevitably delaying the day-to-day work of the court in discharging what it needs to do in terms of the list.

In my experience, and the Attorney has urged me to reflect to some degree about this on the civil and commercial side, I have seen the special difficulties that a judge faces when dealing with an obvious imbalance in the nature and extent of the representation that parties enjoy before the court. That is all the more amplified in the criminal context, where someone's liberty is at stake. It is so important in circumstances where someone's liberty is at stake that they have the very best opportunity to get to grips with what they are facing, to understand and be advised about the legal issues and to navigate through the process of the justice system in a way that ensures that, for their benefit and for the benefit of the whole community, there can be confidence that there is fair access to the law and legal advice.

Justice is seen to be done because it is able to be demonstrated that a fair trial is able to be provided, and that is very much predicated on the capacity for those who come before the courts, where they appropriately qualify, to be assisted by the provision of representation and advice. The Legal Services Commission provides such an important service in that regard. With those brief words, expanding to some degree on the importance of the Legal Services Commission and the work that it does, I commend the bill to the house as a further important reform in assisting that important work.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:59): I thank members for their contributions and, from the opposition, for the indication that the bill will be supported. I would like to reflect on a couple of things that have been raised.

Firstly, for the member for Heysen, and his acknowledgement of the Legal Services Commission and the work that is done by them, I noted his commendation of Michael Abbott QC, who is a former chair of the commission, and his successor from late last year, Jason Karas, who has taken on this responsibility. Gabrielle Canny was also recognised as a director, and she is the chief executive of the commission.

I would like to acknowledge that contribution because all too often we fail to recognise the significance of those who give. Sure, there is a payment made and so on for the work that is undertaken, but it is a lot of work, it is important work and it is work that not everyone rushes to do. Since the establishment of commissions all around the country so that we might have independent agencies to deal with legal representation for those in need—and largely it is a means-tested process for the bulk of the work in criminal and in family law—and whilst it provides many other excellent services, this is the bulk of the work undertaken in jurisdiction work by the Legal Services Commission, and the private sector supplements significant work in this area.

Since 1992, and since the Dietrich v The Queen High Court decision, we are under an obligation to deal with the payment of legal representation because that court made it very clear, and this has been the prevailing law since, that people who are charged with serious criminal offences are entitled—all of them—to legal representation for the trial. Quite clearly, they have held that if a person is charged with a serious criminal offence and unable to gain legal representation, then the trial should be adjourned and stayed until he or she can find such representation.

That was a groundbreaking decision at the time, but it is imposed on us as a government with the Legal Services Commission to provide that and to fill that gap. We cannot have a situation where people are charged with serious crimes and they are not dealt with. They have to be dealt with. People have to have representation, and obviously as the taxpayer we have to pay for it if they do not have the financial means to obtain that legal representation. This is not an optional extra. This is not a non-urgent, 'we will do it when we feel like it' sort of approach.

When it comes to the tightening of the legislation that we have in place to deal with this, I want to explain to the parliament what the consequences are if we do not deal with it, or if there is a case that remains haemorrhaged into stagnation as a result of our not dealing with it; i.e., there is a dispute about who is getting paid what, for the purposes of a multi-defendant case; they are all languishing in gaol pending their trial being brought on; and they get the stay because the Legal Services Commission has not sorted out what funding arrangement they are going to have. This is just not acceptable. The public would be outraged if we had the way of the member of Kaurna, who thinks this is just some kind of elective piece of legislation. No, it is not. It may not have the urgency—

Mr PICTON: Point of order: the Deputy Premier in her speech is implying improper on my behalf and actually misquoting what I said as well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I put this to you—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Perhaps he can rule on the point of order first.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can speak on that issue.

Mr PICTON: He can decide if you get the call or not.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He can decide on it, but I would like to make a contribution.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Kaurna. You have raised the point of order and I am in the Chair at the moment. Given what you have raised, the Attorney probably can have the opportunity to address that, and be cautious in her remarks, and she is making a contribution at the moment on the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I have made the point of the significance of this legislation. I want to also explain that the public would be very unhappy if we left people at large who were charged with serious offences, who could not get legal advice issues sorted out and they were just not progressed. The people who claim to be victims or witnesses, or who are outraged by the conduct that is allegedly committed by this person or persons, are seemingly on the face of it getting away with it because there is an indefinite stay of proceedings.

It is a very important principle that has been enunciated by the High Court, and we have a direct obligation to make sure that we provide for it. We have a structure—certainly in a recent case I dealt with with the Legal Services Commission—that does not really cover the circumstances. Sometimes you need a particular case to actually work out what you are going to do with it. Sometimes they are a little bit extraordinary.

I will use a past case, such as the Snowtown murders case, with multiple defendants, multiple victims, people who had killed different victims but who were all involved in the same conspiracy to murder. It was obviously a shocking case that everyone is familiar with. I remember attorney-general Atkinson coming to the parliament and answering questions on that case at estimates—I know, because I was asking him questions about it—and the extraordinary costs; special arrangements were made in the budget for the cost of that case. That is one that is in the past.

Another situation now before us in serious criminal cases is that quite often an extraordinary amount of documentation is provided in discovery, in the initial disclosure of material, which may make the committal process more complicated and therefore need a lot of extra attention. It is these types of things which come to the attention of both the government and the Legal Services Commission—in this case, it is the Legal Services Commission that brought the matter to our attention—and which we need to address to make sure that we comply with the obligation imposed on us in relation to dealing with people charged with serious offences and their legal representation.

Two things were brought to our attention by the Legal Services Commission—as I said, it was certainly a direct case that came before me for consideration, as I have to sign these agreements with the Legal Services Commission—and highlighted the need for us to sort out this issue. One was to allow the commission to include prearraignment costs when calculating the legal assistance costs incurred in a matter subject to a case management plan.

For members not aware, we have those in relation to these cases under the Expensive Criminal Case Funding Agreement. The second was to deal with related trials to be combined under the same case management plan where appropriate, and that is usually where there are multiple defendants.

These are key things that we need to sort out. I appreciate the opposition's indication that they will support the bill. They are important matters. They have been fully consulted on. I would urge the parliament to consider them appropriately. It took a little while, even in the consultation period, even going back to the Legal Services Commission when they wanted to make some adjustments to the bill. Obviously we worked with them to try to bring this to a conclusion. We have endeavoured to bring the matter to the parliament.

I also wish to acknowledge the Treasurer, which I do not usually, because not only has he been consulted in this process (he is not always supportive of a lot of things) but he has personally advised me of the support for the proposed changes.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In acknowledging the interjection, there was not to be a material cost consequence apparently from his assessment. That is fine—wait until he gets the bill through. In any event, I appreciate the fact that the Department of Treasury and Finance obviously had a good look at this as well as to how we might manage this. Management plans, just so people are aware, set out an agreement between the Legal Services Commission and myself as Attorney-General as to how much there is going to be for a capped provision for a particular trial.

We will continue to pursue the current practice, but this legislation will help us to deal with the types of issues that I have just raised and make sure that we properly prosecute cases that need to be dealt with, particularly for the benefit of the victims and the community generally and, secondly, to ensure that we have a fair trial and, probably thirdly and not insignificantly, ensure that the court processes are not overburdened by having an unrepresented party attempting to defend himself or herself, and the cost of litigation or court time then being taken up perhaps unnecessarily.

That is just a practical consequence of having people attempting to deal with a matter which is really beyond their expertise. With that, I acknowledge the contributions and seek that the bill be read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: In relation to this bill, I firstly acknowledge my fear that the Treasurer, the Hon Rob Lucas, is supportive of this bill, which should send a shiver down the spine of everybody, particularly anybody concerned about the budget of the Legal Services Commission. I was reminded by the shadow treasurer just before that there were some cuts, I believe, to the Legal Services Commission in the government's first budget as well, so that is also a concern.

Particularly in relation to the budget and the nature of these funding requests that happen for these particular cases, how many requests have occurred over the past two years? What was the quantum of funding requested? How many were approved, how many were not approved, and what was the quantum of what was approved?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have been advised that the amount fluctuates each year. We have even more than what you need, with the last five financial years. In 2018-19 it was $1,051,000; in 2017-18, $254,000; in 2016-17, $859,000; in 2015-16, $60,000—goodness, there is a lean year; I am glad I was not Attorney that year—and in 2014-15, $400,000.

I do not have the numbers, but I probably signed one, two or three in the last 18 months or two years. I know one at least took a couple of variations to be negotiated according to the advice I was receiving. So they are not common, but I think there would be one, sometimes two cases in a year where that needs to be considered, a plan is presented, it is ultimately agreed, and then a counsellor is approved to progress the representation.

Mr PICTON: Perhaps the Attorney can take on notice the full question that I asked in terms of the numbers that were both requested but also approved. Is the Attorney suggesting that every single request has been approved in full, or were there any requests that were not approved or approved for a lesser amount?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can recall one that I have referred to—I will not give you the detail of it; it is still a current case—where there had been back and forth consideration as to how it should operate and the moneys involved. I cannot recall otherwise there being any rejection of a case plan, or a case, I should say. The case plan is really the culmination of the arrangements that are ultimately agreed between the government and the Legal Services Commission, which is within the confines of them. They are the signatories to it, but it then is operationally managed by the Legal Services Commission to council, who are then employed for that purpose, or commissioned for that purpose.

Mr PICTON: Can you take it on notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As to whether I have rejected any case plan, or whether the case plan has lapsed as a result?

Mr PICTON: Or the Treasurer has?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Treasurer has no role in this. I am happy to check if in the last two years I have said no to somebody and they are presumably running around loose out there, not charged.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering if the Attorney-General can answer, do the proposed measures guarantee that there will be less pressure on the commission's general budget from expensive criminal cases?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I understand the question correctly; that is, because the Legal Services Commission has a budget largely from the state government and the federal government, is there any effect on their budget as a result of these agreements? I just want to say that the agreements establish a process where they get extra to cover for these extraordinary cases. This is why we have a management plan outside of their usual budget. I hope that answers that question. They get extra under this deal to cover these extraordinary matters.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: Was the Law Society consulted on this bill? If they were not, why were they not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In this instance, no. The reason is simply that they are not a party to the agreement. It is really a financial agreement between the government and one of the institutions as to what money they get, and so obviously, if any one of the agencies comes to me and asks for more money, I do not run off to the Law Society and say, 'Well, I am going to ask the Law Society about what they think in that regard.'

This is really a matter that in statutory form sets out what the obligations are in relation to the parties, as to what is to be taken into account and what model is to apply for the purposes of dealing with this issue, that is, how much extra money and how is it going to be applied to the Legal Services Commission from the government for these special cases? The Law Society is neither a party to it nor under any responsibility to make provision under it and so no, they have not been consulted.

Mr PICTON: Did the Legal Services Commission request other changes to improve its efficiency or budget position that have not been included in this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. The two principal issues, which I repeated in the response, were the two areas about which they had written to me, seeking for them to be attended to. I am not aware of others, and I am advised that we cannot have any immediate recollection of anything else they asked for.

Clause passed.

Clauses 3 and 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, is there any risk under these measures that the total funding for individual, expensive criminal cases could reduce rather than increase? I have set out a number of questions that I will ask separately in relation to that. For example, this bill improves efficiency by allowing different parts of a case to be viewed as one proceeding; however, under existing arrangements that could view these as separate matters, could there be more support available to the defendant if they were viewed as those separate matters rather than as one together?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just explain what happens. At the moment there is a funding obligation for the trial of a matter. This is the pointy end of the pencil, I suppose, when it gets to criminal matters in serious cases; that is, there is going to be evidence presented to establish the guilt or innocence of the person or persons accused. The High Court have said in Dietrich that this must not be allowed to proceed unless this person who is accused has legal representation here and has given us the job to do it.

The whole structure has been set around paying for legal representation for the trial. As I alluded to in response, criminal trials are not that simple. You do not just get arrested and then go to trial, because there is so much documentary record around and processes now to disclose and even going through admission of fact processes. In fact, we have done criminal procedure to death, so to speak, in this parliament.

Major indictable reform was a huge exercise. A few years ago it was found to be wanting and we have just done a comprehensive review under it, but when we looked at that again, it reminded us of how complex criminal trials have become, or the whole process has become. We still have a period after the case is first presented to the Magistrates Court and we still have a committal process. As I explained before, depending on the nature of the charges that have been laid, whether it gets referred to the Supreme Court or to the District Court, it is that cohort in the committal process that can rely on the need for counsel to give advice to the defendant or defendants, read an enormous amount of documentation and provide advice on that before you even get to the trial.

Then, of course, there can be all the voir dires, which is just a fancy phrase for a whole lot of interlocutory issues, or issues that need to be sorted out before you get started—for example, a preliminary matter as to whether or not a confession should be admitted in the evidence. There is all the legal argument that happens before the jury even gets brought back into the courtroom to actually hear the case, so it has become complex. A number of trials now, and even these preliminary processes, are very long and very expensive in terms of time; but, again, they are an important part of the process, so we have to look at that.

I think what the member is asking is, if you fund the trial and separately fund these other things, would they get more? Possibly they could, but at the moment we have a model which says you only get money for the trial. We are trying to acknowledge that, in the 21^st century, people do need to be represented and they do need to have advice, and I suggest the court needs assistance to be able to get through these matters, even in those earlier stages.

The reviewing of documentation—for example, all the witness statements and things of that nature—is something that has to be done. It may have to be re-read when the trial comes up, and there is a lot of work that can overlap here. It is more complex. We agree with the Legal Services Commission that we need to look at that issue and modernise it for that purpose to achieve those three things: efficient court management of these cases; proper prosecution, which the public demands of us to operate; and a fair trial for the defendant or defendants.

Mr PICTON: Lastly, with regard to cases with multiple defendants and/or multiple trials, what are examples of where the Attorney may not be satisfied that it is appropriate for the trials to be combined under a single case management plan?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I think the Snowtown murder cases, for example, would be one, but I did not deal with that—attorney-general Atkinson dealt with that. As the member might recall, that was not multiple offenders killing the same person; it was multiple offenders killing multiple people, some of which had overlapping involvement and some of which were done on their own. That would definitely be a situation where, in that case, there were separate trials, different counsel for a number of these people and I would expect they would each have had their own plans.

Mr Picton: So different crimes?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, some overlapped. For example, sometimes these things are dealt with on the basis that a person is accused—say there are three accused involved in the killing or disposal of the remains of one person. It may be determined by the trial judge that they will have the three accused dealt with in the same trial. On the other hand, you might have three people die from one, but there may be some overlap with one of the others in relation to the disposal. I am putting these as hypotheticals at this point, but you can get a big case like that.

Another case has been well publicised at the moment in which multiple offenders are in gaol, allegedly charged with killing someone in another outlaw motorcycle gang. One person died and all of them are charged with killing this one person. It gets complicated. So, we need to accept that the court will make determinations after they have heard applications of counsel representing each of these people as to whether they have separate trials, for example, or whether they all be heard together.

Usually there are applications for separate trials, but these things have a long way to go, especially when you have multiple defendants involved and if you have different people advising them as to what their client is doing, including providing information that might assist the prosecution in relation to the conviction of others. So these things are different, but they are more complicated, especially when there are multiple defendants.

Mr PICTON: I ask the indulgence of one more question, even though I said that the previous one was my last. Regarding the situation the Attorney mentioned previously in relation to where there had been one approval that had involved some back and forth in terms of how it was going to be structured (and I appreciate that the Attorney said she did not want to go into the details of it), has that back and forth been resolved and a plan approved, or is there still a back and forth undertaking in relation to that matter?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am looking for advice here. I am also certain that it has resolved. It is again a current case, so I do not want to go into any detail relating to it. However, I am certain in my own mind that I had signed the final agreement in relation to that matter, but I will check because, as I say, I have done two or three of these in the last 20 months or so. I do remember one in particular that went back and forth several times.

In relation to finding out the information of exactly the number of agreements I have signed up since I have been Attorney, which really has been the last two years, and whether any of them have been rejected—and obviously I will check on that one in particular—one I recall had had several minutes of advice to me and requests from the Legal Services Commission, so it did take a little bit of extra time. I have in the back of my mind that it was resolved. If it is not, then obviously with the data I will make that available.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.