NIARCHOS, MR N.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:28): The Attorney-General recently said (on 15 October):

Earlier this year I stumbled upon a disappointing example of the problems created by self-governance within the legal procession when I noticed in the daily cause list—and I try to read the cause list every day—the name of yet another former Law Society luminary and Criminal Law Committee guru.

He went on to name that person as Mr Nicholas Niarchos and said that his name was listed to appear before the Supreme Court in what he 'eventually discovered' was an application pursuant to section 49 of the Legal Practitioners Act to continue to practise law despite entering into an insolvency agreement. The Attorney went on to say:

It was only upon requesting that a staff member of mine attend the matter in court that I learnt the nature of Mr Niarchos's appearance.

He went on:

At no point did the Law Society appear to have any intention to inform me as Attorney-General of Mr Niarchos's hearing. He was a Law Society mate; that is 'mate' spelt with three As. This is disappointing, as one would reasonably think that it would be prudent to ensure maximum transparency about such matters rather than to allow a situation where the Attorney-General finds out only by my assiduously reading the cause list that a lawyer is applying to continue to practise...

Finally, he said:

The Law Society would have covered up for one of its nomenclature nicely. Mr Goldberg was quiet as a mouse.

Mr Goldberg, a past president of the Law Society, wrote to the Attorney-General a letter dated 19 October, which has been forwarded to all members of parliament. In that letter to the Attorney-General, he said:

You said in parliament that: 'It was only upon requesting that a staff member of mine attend the matter in court that I learned the nature of Mr Niarchos's appearance.' That is not so. You learned the nature of Mr Niarchos's appearance in the Supreme Court from me prior to the hearing. We both attended a dinner...on 5 December 2008, and afterwards, at the bar, you asked me why the matter of Niarchos was in the cause list. I informed you that Mr Niarchos was making an application to the court to continue to practise while insolvent. In the circumstances I take objection to your characterisation of my conduct as: 'calculated silence'.

Mr Goldberg continued:

You asked me what it was about; I told you.

Who is speaking the truth here: the former president of the Law Society or the Attorney-General? One explanation for the Attorney-General's apparent lapse of memory is that he was in that after dinner haze which sometimes affects members of the Labor caucus, the most recent outbreak of which occurred at last year's 'Kevin for Premier' dinner. However, given the Attorney-General's form, that innocent explanation is not credible. I only have to mention the long series of cases where the Attorney-General has made personal attacks on others to make that point clear.

We all remember—and so does the public—his attacks upon the Deputy Chief Magistrate, Dr Cannon, which cost the South Australian taxpayer dearly. We remember his attacks on the former head of his own department, Kate Lennon, and his explanations concerning the Crown Solicitor's Trust Account. We remember his attacks upon the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Pallaras; his attack upon the pathologist Professor Tony Thomas; and his bungled appointment of Don Farrell's sister, Leonie Farrell, to the bench of the industrial court.

This is the Attorney-General who reads the racing form guide during a formal conference with the Chief Justice. It is the person who promised that the very first act of a Rann Labor government would be the re-opening of Barton Terrace. The number of occasions in which the Attorney-General has been caught short are legend. It is a matter of regret that he continues to hold the office of first law officer in this state.