Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Heffernan, Mr T. Heffernan, Mr T. The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council Heffernan, Mr T. The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:36): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney-General a question about sexual harassment in our judicial system. Leave granted. The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Former District Court Judge Timothy Heffernan resigned in disgrace last month amid a top level investigation into allegations of sexual harassment by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Michael Boylan KC. Mr Heffernan, who was appointed to the District Court bench in 2021, was directed away from the workplace by Chief Judge Michael Evans when the commissioner's inquiry was launched. Details of the allegations being investigated are subject to the secrecy provisions of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act. However, because he has now resigned from the bench, the case against Mr Heffernan is closed as the commissioner has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter further. In a statement, Chief Judge Evans said that, as Mr Heffernan was no longer a judicial officer, the commissioner was bound to terminate the investigation without making any findings. Chief Justice Chris Kourakis said he would make no comment on the investigation itself, which has now terminated without any findings being made. In November last year, former Adelaide magistrate Simon Milazzo was fired after a panel concluded he engaged in inappropriate and sexual misconduct toward four female subordinates while in office and showed no genuine remorse for his actions. This follows a scathing report by the Equal Opportunity Commission in April 2021 that found sexual harassment in the state's top legal circles was rife. My question to the Attorney is: 1.	Do you think it's appropriate the investigation of serious allegations against Mr Heffernan is closed merely because he chose to resign from the bench? 2.	Why isn't the same treatment afforded to other public servants in lesser roles than a member of the judiciary? 3.	Has he considered passing the investigation over to SAPOL and request they complete the investigation and if evidence of sexual harassment is proven Mr Heffernan be duly charged? If not, why not? 4.	What has become of Mr Heffernan's outstanding matters and is he still eligible to collect his judicial pension? The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Attorney-General Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:39): I thank the honourable member for his questions. I might start at the end, while they are fresh in my mind. In relation to a judicial pension, my understanding is that the judge in question had not served the time required to be entitled to a pension. I will double-check that, but that's my recollection—that there is no judicial pension that's taken into account here. In relation to the broader question—and I'm not going to comment on the specific matter because, as the honourable member has correctly pointed out, under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015 people are restricted in commenting on matters that have been the subject of investigation—the honourable member asked whether I would be passing any matters on to the police. It wasn't my investigation, and I don't have the information that would be required to be passed on to the police. As a matter of course, when there are victim survivors of sexual harassment I think the appropriate course is to allow that victim to decide and be in control of the action they take, not to have others decide what the action and appropriate course is for them. In relation to I think the first question, the fact that upon retirement the matter ceases to be investigated, it is a good question and it is one I have asked questions about and held discussions about—the fact that you can possibly escape further investigation and findings being made and sanctions being imposed by resigning, that that then finishes the investigation. There are, it is fair to say, differing views on that. If it was the case that investigations continued post-retirement, there would be absolutely no incentive whatsoever for someone who may have, speaking generally, committed things that would fall foul of things that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner would investigate, and there would be a very, very strong incentive for everyone who was subject to investigations to just stick it out and to fight as hard and as viciously as they could against any allegations being made. That would be a perverse outcome for some victim survivors who have made complaints—that we may have inadvertently created the situation incentive that someone wouldn't retire. That in itself is in effect a sanction against someone who has been investigated. So it is a question I have asked myself as well: is there something in between doing that that wouldn't create that perverse incentive for everyone just to stay there as long as they could and fight as much as possible allegations? But it's something I certainly haven't resolved, and there are a wide range of views on the topic itself.