ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:54): During the debate on the Criminal Investigation (Covert Operations) Bill, I drew attention to the Attorney-General's dismissive description of a Law Society committee as 'the usual suspects' and as 'enemies of the people', repeating gratuitous comments made by the Premier in 2002. This is yet another example of the Attorney's attitude to the legal system and the legal profession.

Yesterday, in the other place, the Attorney-General added to the long list of embarrassing politically motivated actions which bring the high office he holds into disrepute when he made a feeble attempt at political point scoring against a member of the opposition. I will not dignify the point by repeating it, except to say that the Attorney referred to the remarks made by Judge Millsteed when recently sentencing one Terry Norman Stephens on his plea of guilty to making a false report to police.

The background is that in 2002 Today Tonight televised an interview with Stephens in which he made allegations against the former speaker. Mr Stephens, who, it transpires, has a long criminal history, has belatedly admitted to the falsity of his allegations. However, the Attorney-General chose to rely upon the Stephens statement—this now discredited person—to allege that a Liberal member was guilty of the offence of consorting with Stephens. It was a puerile attempt to besmirch a member who has expressed support for the establishment in South Australia of an independent commission against corruption, an issue much opposed by the Attorney-General for reasons he never satisfactorily explains.

The Attorney used the occasion to make gratuitously offensive remarks about Channel 7 and the producer of the Today Tonight program, Graham Archer, just as he has been making similarly offensive remarks about Hendrik Gout, a journalist who writes for TheIndependent Weekly. The Attorney-General's resuscitation of the Stephens affair reminds me of a discreditable attempt by the Attorney-General in 2004 to get the opposition to agree to the tabling of a report into Stephens' allegations by the then solicitor-general, Mr Brad Selway QC (now deceased), which was some 18 months old.

Mr Selway produced, I have to say, a very quick and shallow report, which is not surprising given the time allowed. Its shallowness was reflected in the fact that, notwithstanding Selway's view, it was the Channel 7 program that subsequently tracked down some of the guns which Stephens alleged had existed in the home of disgraced paedophile, Peter Liddy.

In February 2004, 18 months after that, the Attorney approached me seeking opposition agreement to support a motion authorising the publication of that report because section 12 of the Wrongs Act would have conferred upon the report certain protection. However, the Attorney declined to give the reasons for it. I promptly replied in writing, asking whether there were any pending civil or criminal proceedings and asking for the reasons that it was necessary. I received, surprisingly, no response to that letter, and the Attorney thereafter never attempted to table the report.

However, I later learned that, in fact, civil proceedings were coming on for hearing the very following day and that the Attorney had thereby sought to aid litigation without disclosing to the opposition the reasons why. This was conduct unworthy of the Attorney.

The title of 'first law officer' in relation to the Attorney-General is a mark of respect which accords to that office holder the respect which really arises from the position he holds in the hierarchy of the bar and the legal profession. It is an honour that has been earned over the centuries by the efforts of many. The conduct of the incumbent Attorney calls into serious question whether he is entitled to be accorded that honour.