Bills

Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 4.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Do you want to continue on this clause, or do you want to move to a different clause?

Mr TEAGUE: There is no time to waste.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): No.

Mr TEAGUE: In all the belligerence that we have just seen, I thought it would be wise to check in on just where exactly that leaves this committee.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): There is 35 minutes of debate left on all the clauses remaining in the bill, so if you wish to debate this clause or move to a different clause?

Mr TEAGUE: So that is where the committee is at. So much for the work of the whole of house committee.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Heysen, I would ask you to respect the decision of the house. Do you wish to ask a question on this clause or move to a different clause?

Mr TEAGUE: Let me be so admonished, and I thank you, Chair. The point, and it may be lost on others and we have seen some evidence of it, but the creation of the Master's position, in terms of the District Court in 1986, is one that is now attended by nearly 40 years of tradition, so it is a relatively modern office coming off the back of what is a relatively ancient one, in terms of the way it is expressed in the District Court. Yet with the anomalies in the judicial circumstances of particularly those Masters of the District Court that is what has remained the substantive differentiator, and in the course of all my time appearing before them and otherwise active as an advocate in the profession it has certainly not come to my attention that anyone was under any illusions as to the relative importance attached to the title, let alone any particular request for a change.

So, in the straitened circumstances in which I now find myself, I just, again, take the opportunity at this clause 4 to urge on the government that, should it actually be serious about the modernising, so-called, of the role of Associate Judges in particular, because at least they will now be differentiated as between the two courts, then spare a thought for those now to be termed Associate Judge.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will urge the Attorney-General to read the transcript in order to glean suggestions for further reform.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Are there further contributions on clause 4?

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Heysen, do you wish to make a contribution—at which clause? We are at 5. Do you want to make a contribution at 5 or move to a different clause?

Mr TEAGUE: I might make it at 5 and in the circumstances it might have to serve to speak for the subsequent several clauses. Let me just make the observation that this has been the subject of treatment, including, as is well-known by Messrs Bentham and Bennett—R.W. Bentham being a member of the Middle Temple, a barrister at law, and a lecturer in law at the University of Sydney, and J.M. Bennet, a solicitor of the Supreme Court New South Wales and a research assistant in the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney—in their article for the Sydney Law Review 1961 in which they provide a treatise on the development of the office of Master, in particular circumstances in equity in New South Wales, and in the course of their treatment they take back the analysis to the early history of the English courts of law and the evolution of the role of Master, including the reservation of the appointment of their chief, being the Master of the Rolls, and we see those terms then sound through history.

I certainly, just to do some sort of justice to the change that is associated with this and the subsequent many clauses, draw attention to that particular contribution in the Sydney Law Review and, indeed, that is written all the way back now, more than 60 years ago. It is still finding relevant citation, including in a treatment of the experience of the Supreme Court in the ACT that was written only in recent years by the Hon. Justice David Mossop, in which he dealt with the evolution of the position of Master in a jurisdiction in which the term Associate Judge had been adopted by then.

That treatment, the Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, is one that I also make particular reference to, including page 28 of that treatment where His Honour makes a comparison with other jurisdictions, including South Australia. We have not heard from the government about whether there has been any particular reference drawn to the Hon. Justice Mossop's contribution or to that comparative experience, but I make particular reference to that contribution as well.

While we are at it, I also make particular reference to the comparative treatment by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2000 on the parallel circumstances that might be observed in the Australian Law Reform Commission's work Managing justice: a review of the federal civil justice system in which the Federal Court and its practice and procedure in case management is unpacked in some detail and we see the analysis of the differences, somewhat, between those two means of managing the court's work.

I just make reference as well to a contribution a little over 20 years ago now, titled Case management reform: a study of the Federal Court's individual docket system that was written by Caroline Sage, Ted Wright and Carolyn Morris. Again, like the Australian Law Reform Commission's contribution, we see there a treatment particular of the evolution of the Federal Court's system of managing the interlocutory stages, including as I had referred earlier to the 1997 introduction of what is described as this distinctive and significant model of case management to be found in an Australian superior court.

So, for the reasons I have described, it is not to urge a change in the jurisdictions that are the subject of the change to the Masters role presently—if ever for the reason of the multijurisdictional nature of the District Court and Supreme Court, in particular—but those are matters that might be compared.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Thank you again. I appreciate the input from the shadow attorney and will make sure that the Attorney-General is made aware of the contribution he has made for further reform in the future.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 to 31 passed.

Clause 32.

Mr TEAGUE: If you will bear with me for a moment, Acting Chair.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I appreciate that it was a large jump.

Mr TEAGUE: We are skipping ahead, rather.

Mr WHETSTONE: Mr Acting Chair, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr TEAGUE: On clause 32, I think it has been made clear along the way not only in the course of the committee that, in what is a bill that has a rather large number of clauses, 49 of the clauses are perhaps in a nod to management of government business. If there were a drafting means of doing a global search and a cut and paste on the 49 clauses, it might have been wrapped up into one—but there we are: 49 out of 51 clauses dealing with the uncontroversial, albeit as I have endeavoured to unpack insubstantial changes. I thought we might have just returned to reality for a moment, but no.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order, members! The member for Heysen has a right to be heard in silence.

Mr TEAGUE: There we are, with the 49 out of the 51 clauses that are the global search, find and replace measures. It is a pity, but here we are having heard the government describe those measures as being routine matters that are wholly and solely about modernisation. I have endeavoured to put that into some sort of context. There is no greater issue that the opposition has with the change. In particular, if there is some indication that it is meeting a request or an indication—I think I pointed to the ACT as an example of where titles of that kind have been used sometimes, so we will see perhaps that there is a parallel tradition.

In relation to clause 32, we come back to the observations, including those that I would more particularly cite in terms of the Attorney-General's contribution to the public debate that day on the radio on 7 May and what the government has more broadly contributed in both houses in, of course, the second reading debate, in terms of what characterises this bill.

Rather than even see it named—'this is what we are doing'—or to see it described as being somehow consistent with policy or something that has been announced ahead of time, we rather see it diminished to the point where this matter that has been the cause of such furore, sufficient that if the government's position were actually how the Attorney-General described it on the radio on 7 May, then that is the sort of thing that might inspire a reasonable government to do something as straightforward as to say, 'Righto, we will press on with the 49, but let's leave the two for another day.'

I have described it as 'furore'. With his permission, I make reference in particular to the view of just one member of the senior bar who, ironically, writes as a member of Elliott Johnston Chambers: Elliott Johnston who was a hero in so many ways. We have talked a bit about heroes earlier today. Elliott Johnston was a lawyer of unique achievement and a political thinker of great note, and his name and his legacy are recognised in Elliott Johnston Chambers.

Dr Neville Rochow KC, as a member of Elliott Johnston Chambers, has addressed his concern about the circumstances that prevail right now, because I understand that this is the subject of ongoing consideration even as presently as right now. He has addressed his concern to his association, the South Australian Bar Association, in the following terms. He brings to the attention of the executive, and there is no need here to paraphrase, so I refer to the letter:

Dear Executive

I write to invite a response by the South Australian Bar Association to the recent reports of statements attributed to the Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis regarding those who have been appointed Queen's Counsel, now, of course, King's Counsel, of which I am one.

Reported in the Adelaide press in early May 2024 are, among others, the following attributions:

'What is offensive about that [use of the postnominals KC]…they do it for personal reasons, for personal exploitation of an office that is in the public interest' (5AA Radio).

'South Australia's top legal eagles are appointed to serve the public and not exploit clients by using a royal title to charge more money, the state's top judge says. (The Advertiser).

These remarks—

Dr Rochow KC says—

are offensive—

and at this point I pause to indicate that this is a member of the senior bar bringing to the attention of his association remarks published in the media and attributed to the Chief Justice, and I say no more than that. It has elicited this response, and no doubt there will be a range of further responses and characterisations about what is meant and by whom, but so far as Dr Rochow KC is concerned, those observations are made clear—

at many levels and are defamatory of an otherwise well-respected branch of the South Australian legal profession. They are made without any evidence to support them and, to my own knowledge of the members of the Senior Bar in this State, factually wrong.

As you are well aware, I am a longstanding member and strongly committed supporter of the Bar in South Australia and of the Australian Bar Association.

I add at this point, I am personally aware that Dr Rochow is, from my own observations, my own experience, both a longstanding member and strongly committed supporter of the bar and of the association. He goes on:

I have served on the Council of the local Bar and on committees of both the State and National bodies. I was appointed Senior Counsel in 2008 and was the first to be appointed with that accolade by the former Chief Justice Doyle. That, at the time, entitled the use of the postnominals 'SC'. In every conference after my appointment, solicitors would start with an explanation of what 'SC' meant and that it was the same as having briefed a 'QC'.

The reasons for giving appointees a choice of postnominals were well canvassed previously; and over the objection of the Chief Justice, the reform providing the choice was implemented. This was a good reform and the current Bill is regressive. Having worked overseas, I found the recognition of 'SC' to be negligible. It had to be explained frequently and in response it was common for the inquirer to ask, 'Well, why don't they just use "QC" instead then?' It was because of the very poor 'brand recognition' of 'SC' that when offered the appointment as a 'QC' by the former Attorney-General, I readily accepted. Since accepting that appointment and using the postnominals 'QC' and later 'KC' in my overseas work, the recognition in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada has been immediate. It is also readily recognised in Germany, Belgium and other European Union jurisdictions and even in the United States. I have also noted that in working with Silks in London, there is an immediate according of equivalent respect. Working with international clients, the same has been the experience of immediate recognition.

There are other problems with the legislation that confines future appointments of Silk to SCs. First, because of the manner in which the Chief justice has been involved and spoken publicly about [this] and his opinion of KCs and their personal ethics, the administration of justice has been fractured in this State.

I pause there. I stress that these are the observations of a senior member of the bar and the point is that, for the purposes of this debate, this fracture, this furore, this dismay, sits squarely at the feet of the government. It is not as though the government was not warned. It is not as though the government was not given an opportunity to say, 'Okay, wow.' This is actually not just some sort of portfolio name change modernisation. This has real effect in terms of the way that people conduct themselves, the way people are regarded with integrity, and, dare I say, the circumstance in which there is a public expression of angst writ large here, vis-a-vis, the judiciary and the senior profession. It is a terrible state of affairs and the government has brought this on and not without warning and the opportunity to make a change. Dr Rochow goes on:

The first way in which this [fracture] has occurred is that there may now be a reluctance to brief KCs and, in many possible cases, take advantage of their experience and expertise for fear of disapproval from the Bench. A second way in which the Chief Justice has, by the remarks attributed to him, prejudiced the administration of justice is that, for those clients who do instruct a KC, they may feel compelled to make application for the Chief Justice to disqualify himself from hearing cases by reason of manifest bias. Such an application would be advised particularly when the opposition has briefed an SC.

It is completely inappropriate for the Chief Justice to have made defamatory, false and misleading statements regarding the barristers' profession, as has been reported. Moreover, it points up all of the constitutional reasons for a separation of the judiciary from the political process. Well-established and time-honoured principles have been breached with the predictable consequences. The Bar ought to respond to these statements in the clearest of terms.

Will the South Australian Bar Association now do so and denounce the process by which the current Bill has been wrongly promoted?

Those are the observations of a member of the senior bar. They are observations made in the context of a public debate that this member of the senior bar is regretting, and they are made in such a way that is highlighting a characterisation of the participation of the Chief Justice in that debate. The whole situation is regrettable. The whole situation is something that ought not to have occurred.

Can I say this as well: it happens not to have just come out of the blue. It sits against the background not of the centuries of history of the development of roles, not talking about something that goes back to 1066 and has not changed ever, and no-one has ever really thought about it, but we all have to modernise—no. All this comes against the background of a very thoroughgoing debate—and a bill, I might add, that at least had the name on it—to go about establishing a process for choice independent of politics, a choice that responded to the sincerity of those members of the senior bar and a recognition of titles that are recognised in the way that they well are.

It was a process that occurred only a few years ago that was preceded by perhaps the most thoroughgoing engagement that one could have imagined with not only the Bar Association, those who are immediately most affected—of which 98 per cent of members express their approval for the change—but also the broader profession, the members of the Law Society of South Australia, which takes in predominantly solicitors and practitioners, all those who are working in various ways in the legal profession.

The significant majority, 70 per cent of the members of the Law Society of South Australia, regarded those reforms as being appropriate, as taking a step that took us beyond the changes that had been made very thoughtfully in 2008. It was a process, I might say, of auguring away from what, if we go back to a few years after the turn of the century in about 2003, 2004 and 2005, had actually been another form of fairly thoroughgoing fracturing, when the government decided that it would go in and have a go at the bar for doing its advocacy work.

It was a restoration over the bulk of those following 20 years, and I recognise the work of former Attorney the Hon. John Rau and former Attorney the Hon. Vickie Chapman in that regard. If you would say anything about where we were at immediately before this piece of legislation sort of landed out of the blue on the parliament and on everybody else who subsequently became aware of it, it was that the profession was, in very large measure, in a mode in which political turmoil or controversy or drama was at a 20-year low point; I think I might put it that way.

Then this comes along, and all hell breaks loose—for what? It was my question at the outset of this debate, this debate in the committee that started after dinner tonight. The government first suspended standing orders in the middle of the day to tell the house we would sit beyond midnight: 'We will suspend standing orders when everyone is here to tell the house we will sit beyond midnight.'

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Heysen, you are reflecting on a decision of the house. Your remarks should be confined to the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: Now, here we are in a guillotine environment. The government is forcing through this bill in its entirety with all of these 49 of 51 clauses addressing this relatively innocuous name change and then these substantive matters that at the very least you would expect to say, 'We as a government, we as a parliament let alone, went and engaged with you all very thoroughly a few years ago, but we have another bright idea. We are calling it a routine portfolio matter that does not really make much difference. We will not be spending much time on it, but you know it is a modernisation and we have this idea. We reckon you absolutely need this, and so here we are.' You would think that at the very least there would be a revisiting and a bringing along and a 'yep, okay, we have taken another step towards improvement.' But what ensues?

It is a great source of regret and dismay for me. I do not pretend to be the one who feels it the most—far from it. As I said at the outset of the debate, I indicate an interest in every sense. I aspire to these roles. I have worked with many of the members of the senior bar who are feeling aggrieved in much the same way as Dr Rochow has expressed, much in the same way as I have had the privilege to work alongside and closely with our Chief Justice, including for what I have described as the nanosecond or so as our state's first law officer.

We have this wonderful abiding history in terms of the justice system in the state of South Australia that it is not characterised by a politicisation, that it is not categorised by a process of having these sorts of public controversies and circumstances in which you have this sort of disharmony. It is bad for the justice system. Whatever anybody thought they might have been achieving by making the change that is the subject of clause 32, then let the last couple of months, including I might say the record of this debate in this committee, work as some sort of journal towards how not to do this in this way again.

So, at this late stage—I say 'late' in the context of a guillotine that has just been imposed—my question to the government is: will the government now withdraw this clause 32, and clause 31 while it is at it, render the bill the subject of changes that one might reflect on in terms of the evolution of those roles and make a great stride back towards restoring relations among and between those most senior contributors to our justice system in this state?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I believe the question is will we withdraw the clause before the house? No, we will not.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Further contributions on this clause?

Mr TEAGUE: I seek your guidance, Acting Chair. I am not so familiar with the terms of the guillotine that has been imposed upon the committee. Are we presently in circumstances where the committee must conclude within the next minute?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): That is correct.

Mr TEAGUE: Having indicated that those are the circumstances in which this committee finds itself, I will indicate that I prefer to see an orderly conclusion to the committee process and I note that we have been allowed only a further 40 seconds or so for that purpose.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (33 to 51) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (22:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank all for their contributions.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (22:11): I just indicate that in the circumstances the committee, in my view, served a useful purpose of elucidating somewhat the 49 of 51 clauses that were, if you like, the forgotten aspect of this bill in the course of the debate, I did not anticipate that there would be any great cause for public debate or reflection, let alone time to be spent in relation to those 49 clauses, and there had not been any particular warm-up to the reasons why, let alone the history of the roles of Masters in both the Supreme Court and the District Court.

The committee has served the purpose of identifying that there has been some suggestion as to the appropriate new name of those judicial officers, and I think the reflection on the history of the role of the Masters, particularly in the District Court since 1986, tells the story as to why there might be some ambivalence about a change of the title. It is certainly not something that has somehow become the subject of infamy or something over the journey: quite to the contrary. In fact, while we did not canvass it in its particulars, the history of the role of the Masters, if one goes back a bit further, is not without some cause for reflection in terms of the reputation of the Masters going back to the 1600s.

We saw a sort of history going back that long of what in that Sydney Law Review article that I referred to refers to the work of Holdsworth, who said that in around those early 1600s it was observed that the sale of the office of Master was carried on with a certain amount of eagerness, and the value of that office rose as someone who had influence over the process of the court as early as that. And yet, not for the 1600s was there a Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill to come and modernise the name of the Masters, and do away with all of that. No, we saw that role continue, and I commend the Sydney Law Review article from 1961 to those who would want to reflect on why some of these roles stay a bit, because there is a long history attached.

The committee provided some further elucidation on the motivation for the change of name, and I have made some reference in the course of all of that to one of the jurisdictions in Australia where we have seen the adoption of the title Associate Judge in the Australian Capital Territory. In the ACT, the Hon. Justice David Mossop has given a considerable reflection on both the history and the functioning of the Masters or Associate Judges as they are known in the ACT.

I was endeavouring to unpack—and here the government might not be subject to too much criticism; at least they were sort of up-front in this regard about the bill not amounting to much—if there was anything of substance that sits behind it or in parallel, including a proclamation that is available to the government, as I understand it, vis-a-vis the anomaly that applies to, particularly District Court Masters, the one that is a matter that might be a cause or a source of substantive improvement that might go along with the name change.

So the committee afforded, albeit as it turned out, a truncated opportunity to look at reasons why motivations and some exploration of the more substantive matters that might be attended by the change of name. It is a source of particular regret that all of that was part and parcel of what we have seen then in terms of a guillotine being applied to the debate earlier tonight. There is no doubt, though, that from the outset regarding the concerns of this side of the house and the opposition's indication in relation to its attitude to the bill, all of it was clear.

There are two clauses, about two-thirds of the way through this bill, which are not in keeping with the balance. They are not just simple matters of name changes and modernisation, contrary to what the Attorney-General has indicated publicly and in the course of the debate, and let alone the way that the government has perpetuated that characterisation. The evidence has shown now, evermore, the direct opposite.

I have indicated it is a source of particular regret that we are here in a debate that, from the outset, the government said it was not too terribly ambitious about and was characterised as being a matter of routine. And yet, even if you might say, 'Gee, the government got taken by surprise,' what do you know: there are these two clauses that are the subject of real feeling; they are the subject of matters that go to the core of individuals' professional integrity.

In the context of the bill that has been characterised as 'kind of portfolio, routine, not much time to spend on it, not a great priority, doing other things', for the government to anyway in the face of the storm that has erupted just sort of press on with it as though, 'No, we characterised it at the outset as nothing to see here, we're not too terribly interested in the furore that has erupted'—they are still characterising it as nothing to see here and are pressing on anyway—it sits, then, wholly and solely at the government's feet in terms of the fracture that we have seen articulated, particularly in terms of the senior bar and, as I have indicated, the justice system as a whole.

We are talking about individuals and groups of people of great integrity who are expected in the professional service of our state to conduct themselves with the utmost diligence, expertise and, as I said, integrity in all that they do. For there to be a circumstance arising in which those senior leaders of the judiciary and of the senior bar are fractured and dismayed and suffering a difficulty, is a travesty and I do not know what you do to repair it.

I have been admonished in the course of this debate for taking a bit of time, for highlighting where I see the problems have arisen, for perhaps being somewhat stepwise about going down this path, all in circumstances in which the opportunity is there for the government to do other than what it has insisted upon and pressed upon.

The government has not, in the course of all that process, said, 'Actually, no, the reason why we're pressing this at all costs, the reason why we're causing such a difficulty with the pressing of this legislation right now, is because actually it means a lot more than the way it was characterised at the outset. Alright, okay, reset. It's actually much more of an article of faith than what we characterised it as, and so that's why we're pressing on with it.' No, we have not heard the government say that.

I have just been admonished for taking any time over it at all beyond what was supposed to be routine and was not justifying time and all the rest of it. The government sort of admonished any time taken on the debate, because 'it's just routine, we're insisting on that'. The government has not responded to the debate by saying, 'Yes, okay, we thought this might happen. We didn't think it was necessarily going to happen, but it is an article of faith and here's where you find it in the foundational documents of the government's manifesto and at the core of its foundational values. Here's where you find it and this is why we're doing it.' But they have not done that.

We have this half-baked substitution, where anybody who might make reference to something as grandiose as ideology is just told, 'No, it's nothing to do with that.' On the other hand, anyone who is saying, 'You know, it's no so routine,' you are hearing it now from all sorts of sources. And then hang on, it is not even that you are just hearing some counter voices, you are now seeing this becoming the source of acrimony among and between members of the justice system, and yet it is still pushed on and yet it is still characterised in this 'does not mean a lot' routine, 'do not spend much time on it' way. So it is a particularly inadequate process and it is a particularly regrettable place that we have got to, at least in relation to those two clauses.

I hope that the course of the committee process has placed into some sort of context for reference where we are at now in terms of the role of the Masters and what opportunities there might be to do more substantive work to improve the circumstances of the Masters' service in those roles. I just say to the house: do not be surprised if in relation to those substantive matters, the subject of clauses 31 and 32, this is not going away anytime soon. There is going to be much kneading to be done, and it pains me to say this sits wholly and solely at the feet of the government.

The opposition has been clear in its support of the balance of the legislation, the opposition stands stridently against clauses 31 and 32 for all the reasons I have endeavoured in my rather inadequate way in the course of the debate to articulate, and it is my sincere hope that there may be opportunity to revisit and repair this, just as soon as the opportunity affords itself.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (22:27): On the third reading, I rise to reflect on the bill that we are dealing with. Through the course of this debate, I have listened to the second reading speeches and I am yet to ascertain from anyone on the government side as to why they are pursuing this matter.

Allegedly, the Chief Justice has made some comments that have been reported in the press, and certainly that has caused extraordinary offence to many people in the legal profession. The scale of that disappointment is quite unfamiliar to me in the 14½ years I have been in this parliament and the 30-odd years I have been involved in politics. For the government to reflect on what they have brought through that, the breach of faith is really very distressing for those of us who place great value on our institutions. This is a great deal more than whether the use of the word 'king' should or should not be included in the use of expressing the names of senior members of the legal profession.

We use the word 'king' today in this parliament in reflecting on celebrating those who have been given awards under the King's Birthday Honours, and those people in the community do not seek the word 'king' as an anachronism just because their honours have been given on a king's birthday. In our legislation, with the Public Holidays Act, we use the word 'king'. We have, in fact, all sworn an oath to our monarch, and their heirs and successors, as well as the people of South Australia.

The very basis on which the two clauses in this bill in question is founded is utterly without standing, and it baffles me as to why the government has seen fit to bring this legislation. Why did they not just vote against it a few years ago when they had the opportunity then if they had the courage of any sort of convictions at the time? Their view to bring back the option for QCs, as they were then, was not a first order issue of priority for the people of South Australia, but they supported the bill and then for years said nothing about it.

They told the people of South Australia nothing about this issue before the election, and then we have this bill which, for 49 clauses, deals with issues such as Masters. I was learning a lot about Masters prior to the Leader of the House deciding to use the guillotine. I am very disappointed that that has happened. The use of the guillotine—and it is, I think, relevant in the third reading debate, reflecting on the entirety of the debate that has happened—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): That may be so, member for Morialta, but you may not reflect on a vote of the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am going to the motivation, sir. The use of the guillotine has happened, I cannot remember the exact number, but it would be in the order of a dozen times, maybe 15 times in the history of South Australia. I did it myself on a number of those occasions, and there were purposes that led to those occasions. We had, I think—and reflecting on a vote of a previous house, I believe, is orderly—hours of discussions on short and long titles. At one point, I think the member for Kaurna and the member for West Torrens brought out a thesaurus and looked through—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The government members are remembering this with a certain amount of joy and glee. We listened for hours as people were reflecting on alternative potential titles for bills which were utterly irrelevant to the conversation. The member for Heysen's comments on the first two or three clauses of this bill did not merit that approach.

With the government having said that they were wanting to sit past midnight, we were resigned to the fact that they wanted to push this bill through—fine. We did our votes on the second reading and we made our position very clear on that. We had made our points. We wished to ensure that the detail was scrutinised at every point and that the record would truly show our concerns and our interest and that the concerns that had been brought to our attention by senior members of the legal profession and other people around South Australia were given every airing. But the government saw fit to move the guillotine, and I make no reflection on the decision of the house to do so.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Member for Morialta, again, please refrain from reflecting on a vote of the house. You may make remarks about the bill, which you were doing before, so please go back to them.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I make no reflection on the vote of the house and I will not come close to the issue again, probably. On the bill, 49 clauses, whether necessary or not, are uncontroversial. On the two clauses in question, I think for many people it is baffling as to the reasons why the government would move this way, having not previously expressed any interest in doing so.

Questions need to be asked there. Questions need to be asked about the basis on which they say that the legal profession is in support of it because, frankly, that is not what I have been hearing. Questions need to be asked about which members of the legal profession, or what status, that support has come from because it strikes me as a very narrow level of support: 70 per cent of Law Society members surveyed not that long ago were very much in support of the previous arrangements, or at least supported moving to the previous arrangements. It may well be a different number now.

Of those who have been given the opportunity to either take the QC or the KC title or not, a majority—as I understand, a significant majority—are using the KC title. The basis upon which that seniority is understood by those who are making use of the legal profession and the several dozen, I think five or six dozen, Senior Counsel in South Australia is that many of them are people for whom KC or QC is a readily known term. Many of them are people for whom the letters SC could mean any number of things. I declare an interest: my wife is a special counsel at a law firm. She is not an SC as will be understood here.

As the King's Counsel whom the member for Heysen was quoting before identified, the explanation required at the beginning of a conference or a hearing in a jurisdiction that is not South Australia is a clipping of the wings of some of the people whose work we should be celebrating and applauding. I come back to this question. Nobody has asked for this. Well, that is incorrect; at least one person has asked for this. The government is yet to name another, as far as I can tell. That is not a basis to have the law.

It is not a basis, having had the Appropriation Bill debated at great length over the last couple of days and having decided to start this bill after the dinner break tonight, in effect, to sit past midnight. Sure, that might be a reason, but this is the priority above—and I will take a leaf out of the member for West Torrens' book from many debates before—25 bills that I am not going to name because we do not have time, but all of those bills that the government previously thought were important. I will name the Statutes Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill; that strikes me as something that the government would have thought was important.

The Late Payment of Government Debts (Interest) (Review) Amendment Bill will be delayed, so that the government can talk about their capacity to end what they describe as anachronistic use of King's Counsel. I guess they are proud of themselves. The bill will pass and the opposition is disappointed in the way the government has undertaken this. I think the people of South Australia will be pretty disappointed in the same.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 22:36 the house adjourned until Thursday 27 June 2024 at 11:00