Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No. 3) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO) (NO. 3) BILL Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee (resumed on motion). New clause 9A. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: During the debate this morning, the Hon. Stephen Wade indicated that the opposition sought consultation with the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate before this bill is progressed. The need for further consultation was in relation to the first and second amendments included in the government's first set of amendments. These amendments were filed on 11 September 2013. I am advised that letters enclosing the amendments were sent to the Australian Lawyers Alliance, the Bar Association, the Legal Services Commission, the Law Society, the Chief Justice, the Hon. Mr Wade MLC, and members of the crossbench in this place. Comments were requested by 24 September. I am further advised that the Legal Services Commission had no comments, the Australian Lawyers Alliance indicated by telephone that they would have no comment and the Bar Association did not respond. The Law Society responded and their comments were addressed. Members of this place received an email to this effect on 23 September 2013. Since the debate this morning, the Chief Justice has provided a written response. I am advised that this response has been sent to members of this place. The Chief Magistrate was also contacted, who advised that the amendments were matters for the Chief Justice. It is the government's position that adequate consultation has occurred. The government opposes any further and unnecessary delay and requests that the bill be progressed throughout the rest of the committee stage. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: As is so often the case, the minister fails to give key facts. What the minister did not say was that the government did not provide to the opposition a copy of the Law Society's response to its consultation letter until during Monday, well after the deadline for the Liberal Party's joint party room consideration. The government also provided that day a response to the Law Society's submission, which indicated that the Law Society had made a very good point about a matter that the government had not considered. The Law Society's point, with which the government agrees, had implications for the status of the magistracy. The Law Society's view was that the magistracy is a set of judges that, to paraphrase them, require extra safeguards. The point I made in this morning's debate is that the opposition currently is not in opposition to the Law Society or the government, but what we do want to do is not to consult further about the cost issue—we actually agree with that fundamental goal and we are yet to come to a disagreement in relation to the status of the magistracy—but surely it is appropriate for this parliament to consider the implications of issues that were raised late. The Attorney-General's office has approached the Chief Justice, and it will be interesting to read that letter and unpack it, but we cannot do that on the run. As I indicated this morning, I was not just talking about the Chief Magistrate. If the Attorney-General's office would like to read the Hansard, I talked about other stakeholders. I do not believe that this council should be unnecessarily rushed in the consideration of issues which are late breaking. I acknowledge that the Attorney-General and his office have consulted appropriately and that we were advised in an orderly fashion, but an issue came up late and I believe that it is worthy of our consideration. I actually think there is an even more important point here, and that is government respect for this council doing its task. I believe that the fact that we have two procedural motions in a row, two procedural debates in a row, reflects not on any lack of cooperation from non-government members of this place: it reflects on the government's management. We failed to sit on Tuesday night, we failed to sit on Wednesday night and the minister brought us in here this morning at 11 o'clock and now she is having trouble keeping the program running. The fact of the matter is that this council is being very cooperative. I would remind the Attorney-General's office and the Leader of the Government that we have made substantial progress on the Electoral Act this week, we have made substantial progress on the Legal Practitioners Act—in fact we have passed the legal practitioners legislation—and we have also passed the child sex offenders legislation, all huge pieces of work. Let us be clear on that. The child sex offenders legislation was in preparation for two years; the legal practitioners legislation, one could say, had been in development for seven years—two very substantial pieces of work that were brought to fruition this week—and what am I asking? I am asking that we do not resolve this matter today, that we resolve it on the next sitting day. I would ask the council to remember that there was no suggestion in what the minister said that there was any great urgency. This was a very late amendment to a government bill. One could even say that, considering this is the Attorney-General's portfolio bill No. 3, why could it not wait until the Attorney-General's portfolio bill No. 4? Be that as it may, we are not opposing it. As I said, I am yet to find that I have a point of policy difference with the government, but could we have some courtesy? Could we allow the Legislative Council to do its job. Earlier today this council supported me in doing my job, which is consulting legal stakeholders beyond those with which the government has consulted and what we had was the audacity of the government not to accept that decision by choosing to adjourn it on motion instead of adjourning it to the next day of sitting, as is the convention of this place. I would urge members, even if you did not see fit to support me this morning, on whatever basis, if this council is not going to spend day after day on procedural issues we need to be clear that once having made a decision we are not going to be in the business of making it and re-making it. We do not actually have the time to make the same decision over and over again. The council supported me this morning in allowing me one more sitting day to do consultation that I believe is appropriate in relation to the issues raised. I would ask the council to support me in that. I move: That progress be reported. The committee divided on the motion: AYES (13) Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. (teller) NOES (8) Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Kandelaars, G.A. Maher, K.J. Vincent, K.L. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C. Majority of 5 for the ayes. Progress thus reported; committee to sit again.