Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 May 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:17): I rise as lead speaker on behalf of the opposition on this bill to indicate that the opposition cannot and will not support this bill in its current form. There are a number of clauses in this bill that are non-controversial and which the opposition do support. Clauses 3, 5 to 19, 20 to 30 and 33 to 51 amend the Courts Administration Act 1993, the District Court Act 1991, the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993, the Judicial Administration (Auxiliary Appointments and Powers) Act 1988, the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, the Magistrates Act 1983 and the Supreme Court Act 1935 to remove references to 'Master' of the District and Supreme courts and replace them with 'Associate Judge of the District Court' and 'Associate Judge of the Supreme Court', as appropriate.

Clause 4 provides for a deeming provision in the District Court Act to ensure that all references to 'Master' in any other act or legislative instrument will be taken to be a reference to an 'Associate Judge'. As I have stated previously, these amendments are uncontroversial and ones that the Liberal opposition support.

What we do not support is this government's bid to end the appointment of counsel as KC or QC by removing reference to Queen's Counsel in part 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act. What we also do not support is the government's move to substitute the existing section 92 with a new section 92 that would abrogate the Crown's right of appointment.

We are not the only ones who do not support these changes. In fact, most of the legal profession do not support these changes. I would like to point to correspondence that the opposition has received on this bill from both the Law Society of South Australia and the South Australian Bar Association. The South Australian Bar Association have written that:

The profession in South Australia, as represented by its constituent bodies, is opposed to the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General in the bill so as to abolish the Office of King's Counsel.

They go on to state that:

Historically, the postnominal Senior Counsel was only introduced because of the Rann Government's interference in the process of appointment that had occurred at that time. Under the current legislation, there is no possibility of Government interference in the process of appointment, nor is the role of the Justices of the Supreme Court in the appointment process in any way usurped.

They have also stated that:

There is no impetus for such a change from members of the profession. The South Australian Bar Association opposes the proposed amendments to this aspect of the Proposed Bill and respectfully request they be removed from the Proposed Bill.

The Law Society of South Australia stands by its remarks to the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, in 2019, that the reintroduction of the title is supported by the majority of its membership and remains of the opinion that it should be an option available to those appointed by the court.

Many senior barristers have spoken out publicly against the move. Parole Board chairwoman, Frances Nelson KC, one of the most experienced members of the legal profession in this state, was quoted in The Advertiser recently, stating:

I don't believe that politics should enter the administration of justice. This is creating disturbances in the legal profession over an issue of ideology.

David Edwardson KC is an incredibly experienced criminal barrister and is noted in a separate Advertiser article on 7 May stating this entire ideological debate is, and I quote, an 'unnecessary and gratuitous distraction from much more important issues to the SA public'. Mr President, whilst I am not necessarily suggesting that an Advertiser poll should be a sole measure of popular opinion—

The PRESIDENT: Good.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: —it is interesting to note that out of over two and a half thousand online votes, 70 per cent of those people do not think the title of King's Counsel should be abolished. So other than Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Kourakis and the Attorney himself, it would seem that most other individuals, certainly in the profession, believe this piece of legislation is flawed, and is flawed for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the postnominal SC is apt to mislead and many individuals outside the profession do not really know what it means. It is also well known that larger firms designate their in-house counsel as SC, standing for special counsel. This is misleading also. So, too, does the Courts Administration Authority, which the Chief Justice heads, by allowing the Coroners Court counsel assisting to be designated Senior Counsel Assisting the Coroner if they have been promoted to that employment rank by the authority.

I do want to make some comments that what is also unfortunate is the assertion made by Chief Justice Kourakis suggesting that those who have adopted the QC or KC postnominal have done it to exploit for their own gain. Whilst I am not a member of the legal profession, I have no doubt that these comments are quite hurtful and unfair to those in the profession. Many barristers who I know have centred their practices on long, legally aided trials, and many silks do much pro bono work. In any case, the Chief Justice should not be commenting on bills yet to be passed by the parliament. He is the head of the judicial branch of government, and we do have the doctrine of separation of powers in this parliament and in this state.

I think it is important to note that in 2020 the Marshall Liberal government reinstated the appointment of Queen's Counsel, now King's Counsel, by way of the Legal Practitioners (Senior and Queen's Counsel) Amendment Bill 2020. This followed the cessation of appointment of QCs by the then Rann government back in 2008 at the request of Chief Justice Doyle.

It is also very poignant to note that the then Labor opposition supported the Liberal government's amendment bill in 2020. I would like to refresh the chamber's memory with some of the quotes of the then shadow attorney-general, the Hon. Kyam Maher, who is now pushing through this piece of legislation as Attorney-General of this state. The Attorney-General said at that time:

It is our contention that, given the things that we have to deal with at the moment, this issue is not of that great an importance.

He was suggesting that rather than spending time on postnominals, the then government should have been legislating for other more meaningful reform around protections of our community. Might I suggest that the Attorney-General and his government might want to heed his own advice on this issue and focus on other more pressing matters, such as community safety, the cost of living and doing business in this state, and fixing the ramping crisis that his government promised to fix, rather than focusing on pushing republicanism ideology.

The Attorney-General stated in his correspondence with the sector, that being a letter to the Law Society of South Australia President, Mr Alex Lazarevich, dated 2 May 2024:

These amendments would align our state with New South Wales.

He also said that they would:

Return(s) South Australia to the status quo that existed from 2008 until the previous Government's legislative amendments in 2020.

It seems that the Attorney-General has forgotten that industry is best communicated with when that communication is two way. Reform works best when you bring the sector with you and do not, as it has unfolded over the past two weeks, split the sector into two uneven factions. While New South Wales may have removed the title, Queensland and Victoria reversed their prior decisions and have instead moved to reinstate the postnominal. Western Australia has never ceased the practice.

Labor governments have quite the historical record of aggravating the legal profession in South Australia. In 2006, Premier Rann repeatedly aggravated the sector by initially intervening in a QC appointment and was said by The Advertiser at the time to be submitting the legal profession to a 'sustained attack from Rann over the past five years'. Skip forward and it seems that the current Attorney-General is content to repeat this ongoing row. As my Liberal Party colleagues have already gone on record to state, the inclusion of these two clauses amongst the other 49 changes is a half-baked display of ideology.

'Modernising language' does not improve outcomes in this case. It is so far from being in any way effective, and it is just another attack on cultural heritage in this state. The current Attorney-General seems to have a particular enthusiasm for fighting culture wars. We saw this on display with the public holidays amendment bill when he attempted, succeeded and then had to withdraw attempts to remove the names of ANZAC Day, Australia Day and even Christmas Day. Once again, we can see that although this Malinauskas Labor government might throw a decent party with a bit of sport and rec, when it comes to the day-to-day running of the state and making important industry decisions that affect people's livelihoods, they get it wrong time and time again.

As noted prior, the opposition will be opposing clauses 32 and 33 to reverse this nonsense and noise. The Attorney-General has no business meddling with this, just like his predecessor Premier Rann had no business meddling in this. Marie Shaw KC, President of the South Australian Bar Association, notes in her correspondence that I referred to earlier:

It is regrettable that the Government proposes to promulgate this aspect of the Bill just four years after the Act was amended following extensive consultation and debate.

Ms Shaw demonstrates here that the extensive consultation and debate did indeed find that there was a relevant and valid place for the title of King's Counsel in the sector in this modern era, and it should be kept this way. So it beggars belief that here we are again discussing such matters and, I note, without proper consultation with the profession, when, to the Attorney's own point, we could be and should be focusing parliament's time on more pressing matters.

I think we can all see that this legislative move at the hands of the Premier and the Attorney-General is all about the republican cause, and I have no doubt that it will be something they will continue to push right up to and possibly including their appointment and their enthusiastic acceptance of vice-regal office in the years to come—such hypocrites that they are.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (16:30): I rise today to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill 2024. The Hon. Nicola Centofanti MLC is the lead speaker for the opposition and has already clearly articulated our position on this legislation.

Given the interest in this issue within the legal profession, I take this opportunity to briefly address this bill as well. The bill seeks to replace and update references to the title of Master of the Supreme Court or District Court to Associate Justice and Associate Judge respectively, and also seeks to abolish the appointment of King's Counsel in South Australia, and expressly to extinguish the prerogative power of the Crown to make such appointments.

It is my understanding that the proposed amendments concerning the titles of the relevant judicial officers was made at the request of the Chief Justice and Chief Judge, following a resolution by the judges of the Supreme Court and District Court to discontinue the use of the title of Master in their respective jurisdictions. It is my understanding that these changes are not seen to be controversial, nor do they cause substantive changes to judicial functions.

I cannot, however, say the same for the amendment proposing to abolish the appointment of King's Counsel, formerly described as Queen's Counsel prior to the death of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Despite being, quite frankly, an incredibly discrete issue, this proposed change has attracted much attention since its announcement a few weeks ago. According to the South Australian Bar Association, the only group of people directly affected by this proposal:

The profession in South Australia, as represented by its constituent bodies, is opposed to the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General in the Bill so as to abolish the Office of King's Counsel.

It is my understanding that there has been no request by either the South Australian Bar Association or the Law Society of South Australia seeking the proposed amendments to be promulgated. One must wonder why the Labor government is so intent on seeking to make these changes, noting that this is just four years after the act was amended by the Marshall Liberal government to allow for KCs and QCs to be appointed. Those amendments, which gave us the framework in existence today, were made following extensive consultation with the legal profession. I query what, if any, genuine consultation has been conducted in the proposal for this bill, given the unambiguous lack of support by the constituent bodies of the legal profession.

I note that the Attorney-General set out in his second reading speech the recent history of King's and Queen's Counsel in South Australia during his contribution, noting that in 2008 the then Rann Labor government, at the request of the then Chief Justice, the Hon. John Doyle, ceased the appointment of Queen's Counsel. In 2019, the former Liberal government determined to reinstate the appointment of Queen's Counsel in South Australia.

In 2020, the former Liberal government enacted the Legal Practitioners (Senior and Queen's Counsel) Amendment Act 2020, which inserted a new legislative process into the Legal Practitioners Act for the appointment of Senior Counsel and Queen's Counsel. These changes came into effect on 26 November 2020.

In a letter addressed to the Attorney-General, the Law Society has stated that the society does not see the need to revisit what was an otherwise recently settled issue that involved considerable debate, and that the KC postnominal is available in Queensland, Victoria and at commonwealth level, and that over the past 30 years each of these jurisdictions had changed to SC before ultimately reverting to the original approach of allowing the KC postnominal.

This letter further says that it is the Law Society's understanding that the vast majority of the profession appointed SC since the 2020 change have chosen to obtain letters patent and become KC. The society considers that this demonstrates the preference of the legal profession for an individual-appointed silk to have a choice in the matter and, for this reason, queries the impetus for the government to intervene, particularly noting that the views of the society and the South Australian Bar Association were voiced and settled so recently.

According to correspondence from the Bar Association, at their AGM on 1 August 2018, a motion was put that the association support the reinstatement of the appointment of Queen's Counsel in South Australia, and requested the government to effect the reinstatement. At that AGM, 98 per cent of members were in favour of the association resolving to seek that Queen's Counsel be reinstated in South Australia, adopting the model and processes in place in Victoria.

In accordance with that motion, SABA's then President, Mark Hoffmann KC, wrote to the Hon. Steven Marshall, the then Premier, and Vickie Chapman, the then Deputy Premier and former Attorney-General, requesting the government to effect that reinstatement in accordance with the model set out in the motion. A survey was also conducted by the Law Society of South Australia of its members in relation to the reinstatement of Queen's Counsel in South Australia. Members voted 70 to 30 in favour of the reinstatement.

Rightly, concerns have been raised as to whether this proposed change by the Labor government is in reality an attempt to push a republicanism ideology. The Advertiser has reported that government officials believe the monarchist title must go so, in reality, that causes one to wonder whether this bill really is just posing as a wolf in sheep's clothing, whether this is a half-hearted attempt to disguise a hidden republican agenda from this Malinauskas Labor government—a minister of the Crown going after the Crown.

As recently as the weekend, long-serving and respected Parole Board chairwoman, Frances Nelson KC, said that she does not believe that politics should enter the administration of justice. She also said that this is creating disturbances in the legal profession over an issue of ideology and:

I think the situation that was agreed not so long ago, where barristers could make a choice was…fair because we're still a constitutional monarchy.

On that note, perhaps it is worth reminding members on the government benches that we are still in fact a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps it is worth reminding members on the government benches that there has not been a successful referendum put to the people of Australia to make our nation a republic.

Then again, we know that under the Malinauskas Labor government, and more particularly the Attorney-General, the result of a referendum does not appear to matter in the slightest. They have shown us that they do not care about what the majority of Australians think, when they did not wait for the results of the recent federal Voice referendum before pushing ahead with legislating for a State Voice, and then again when they pushed ahead with the inaugural First Nations Voice elections despite 64 per cent of South Australians voting with a resounding no.

If we want to talk about resounding noes, perhaps we should look at the resounding results of the Law Society of South Australia's consultation back when the royal title for a silk was brought back to legislation: 70 per cent of Law Society members who voted in 2020 supported the reinstatement of what was then Queen's Counsel, and for barristers who were appointed silks to have a choice. Ninety-eight per cent of the South Australian Bar Association, the only people who have a right to these postnominals, if they are esteemed enough to obtain them, supported the reinstatement of what was then Queen's Counsel.

As I have said, those changes were the subject of extensive consultation. But, despite the Attorney-General's constituent body giving him a resounding no, he pushes ahead today without regard for his representative role as the first law officer of this state. This Attorney-General's conduct, in pursuing this change, is in complete disregard of the profession he is supposed to represent. It is shameful at best, it is a tin-eared approach to an issue which was resolved some years ago and which, for whatever reason, has made it to the government's priority agenda today.

Rather than listening to those he represents, this Attorney-General is embarking on another quest of telling everyone that he knows best. While we are in a cost-of-living crisis, where people are struggling to put food on the table and keep their lights on, with people struggling to pay for the fuel to get to work, what does this government choose to spend their time on? Whether a small minority of lawyers can use the title of King's Counsel. While we are in a child protection crisis where, under this government, we have seen review after review without result, what does this government choose to spend their time on? Whether a small minority of lawyers can use the title of King's Counsel.

While the government ignores the opposition's calls for a standalone child protection minister, instead appointing an assistant minister for junior sport participation in his latest reshuffle—instead of listening to these calls—what does this government choose to spend their time on? Whether a small minority of lawyers can use the title of King's Counsel. While last Monday alone, around 47 per cent of matters on the District Court list related to people who had been charged with child sexual abuse or exploitation-related matters, what does this government choose to spend their time on? Whether a small minority of lawyers can use the title of King's Counsel.

While we are in a housing crisis inflicting untold misery on people both young and old in our state, what does this government choose to spend their time on? Whether a small minority of lawyers can use the title of King's Counsel. While the ramping crisis gets worse and worse under the Malinauskas and Kyam Maher-led Labor government, what does this government choose to spend their time on?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I am glad that those opposite find this so funny. What does this government choose to spend their time on? Whether a small minority of lawyers can use the title of King's Counsel. While we continue to see more and more deaths due to family and domestic violence in this nation, this government chooses to spend their time today on whether a small minority of lawyers can use the title of King's Counsel. There are just so many issues that this government could be focusing their time on today, but instead they choose to occupy the time of this parliament with its hidden republican agenda pursuing change for change's sake without the support of those affected. Why this issue is at the top of their list, I do not know.

In closing, I have to agree with David Edwardson KC, who criticised this bill as the unnecessary and gratuitous distraction from much more important issues to the SA public and that it is really quite difficult to understand why the government is making this move. This bread-and-circuses government has the wrong priorities and, boy oh boy, is it on display today.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:41): It will be no surprise to members of this place that the Greens are supportive of this bill. I must confess I am a republican. I know that will shock some members; I can see the looks of distress on their faces. The secret Green agenda for Australia to become a republic is on display here today.

I am a republican, but might I say this is actually also about modernising our legal profession. These are terms that have been used since the 1500s. Surely, 700 years later, rather than creating terms that hark back to a time when the responsibility of legal counsel was to serve the monarch, we should actually move towards titles that represent the role of these professionals to serve their clients. I really do not think the people who are seeking justice in our state care whether or not these people are referred to as KC or SC; they want to ensure they are getting the best support possible. But I think it does send the wrong message when we have these anachronistic titles from a bygone era.

I do think it is interesting, though, hearing some of the remarks from the Liberals in this chamber. They talk about this not being a priority, yet I note, looking at the Notice Paper, that there are more Liberal speakers on this matter than there are on any of the other important issues that the parliament is dealing with today. Indeed, there are more speakers on this matter than there are on the bill that we dealt with earlier relating to recruiting children to crime. There are more Liberal speakers on this bill than there are on the bail bill that we dealt with earlier.

When we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, what does the opposition spend their time on? When we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the opposition chooses to spend their time in this place on this matter and give it significant focus—I should acknowledge mouse traps as well. But really, this is not the number one issue for the people in the broader community, despite the fact that the Liberals have given it such prominence. It is anachronistic, and it is time to change.

It is our understanding that the current process requires the minister to approve the nomination of a Senior Counsel to King's Counsel before it is sent to the Governor. Indeed, this was the model that was implemented when QCs and KCs were reinstated after 2019, after being abolished for 10 years. I note the submission of the Law Society and I respect the views of many people in our legal profession but they are wrong on this.

The Liberals have talked a lot about the need to protect our heritage. If they are serious about that, I urge them to in the future support the Greens' calls to protect our iconic heritage buildings rather than folding like a cheap suit when the Property Council comes out swinging, as we saw in this chamber just a few weeks ago. That would be the kind of meaningful support for our heritage buildings that the people of South Australia are looking for, not the sort of nonsense that the Liberals are latching onto in their quest for relevance.

There is one other thing I will say before concluding. I urge members—there was a point made about the separation of powers and I think it is important to note that the Chief Justice is removed from politics, and I think it is important that members of parliament and the broader profession respect that delineation. I think it is appropriate, of course, to criticise government policy, to engage in that debate, but I think we also need to respect the distinct role that the Chief Justice plays in our system. It is very important for the confidence of the broader community that that role be outside of politics, in my opinion. With that, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:46): I rise briefly to indicate I will not be supporting the bill. It is ideologically driven and not supported by the legal profession. Amid the state government's mounting law and order failures, this is a distraction that the judiciary does not need. When changes were introduced a few years ago to give counsel a choice of whether their skill elevation should be by way of King's Counsel or Senior Counsel, the South Australian Bar Association and the Law Society supported a choice being available. Both remain supportive of the status quo. There has been no basis put forward by the government to reverse the position and deny counsel who are appointed the choice of taking the postnominals of Senior Counsel or King's Counsel.

There is nothing to suggest it is not working. Many of us still believe in a constitutional monarchy as the optimum form of government rather than a republic, and our entire legal system is based on the English common law system. There is no suggestion that this proposed change has been initiated by the legal profession in respect of whom it is to apply. The reality is quite the opposite. Both the South Australian Bar and the Law Society remain united in opposing the proposed legislation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:47): I rise to vehemently oppose both parts of this bill, particularly that to abolish the appointment of King's Counsel, a move spearheaded by the Attorney-General at the behest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who I may add is a known socialist. This legislation not only disregards tradition but also demonstrates a concerning lack of transparency, accountability and observance to the opposition of both the legal profession and the broader public.

First and foremost let me address the elephant in the room: whose interests does this bill serve? It certainly is not the public or the majority of the legal industry, as evidenced by the overwhelming dissent voiced by constituents and legal professionals alike. Clearly, the Attorney-General has not actually looked at the public view of this bill, so let me read out just some of the comments made by the public in media articles relating to this bill. As one constituent aptly puts it, and I quote:

Hey Kyam, how about you do something that's actually useful to us South Australians whom pay your wages, like going to Ceduna and helping a community under siege.

Another constituent expressed frustration, stating, quote:

Can someone please tell me one useful thing that Kyam Maher has done since being in power. Professional politician! Give us something Kyam!

The next quote:

KM if you are not prepared to do the job we are paying you to do as AG you need to resign from the role ASAP.

I could go on all day. The comments regarding this bill paint a vivid picture of public disillusionment with the Attorney-General's priorities. At a time when our communities are grappling with pressing issues, such as cost of living, affordable housing, domestic violence, crime, ramping, inequality and access to justice, it is perplexing that the government would choose to focus its efforts on such a trivial matter that amounts to a culture war salvo. We have heard the Attorney-General, in response to this question, state:

While the Liberals may struggle to focus on more than one area at a time, we are more than capable of tackling the serious issues, whilst dealing with routine business.

Here is the public's response to the Attorney-General, and I quote:

Are you though? Let's see…Cost of living (fail), ramping (fail), museum funding (fail), crime (fail), building a hospital (fail), Building South Road (fail), Rail to Mount Barker (fail)…Gather Round (yes), LIV Golf (tick).

Just one more for good measure:

Shouldn't the Attorney-General be focusing on more important matters that actually protect the South Australian public?

That is a pretty good question, particularly when a violent, paroled, high-risk paedophile offender, Allan Hopkins, was on the loose, whose supervision order the government allowed to lapse a month ago. Police in three states were looking for him on allegations that he was responsible for another sexual assault, and he was only apprehended at the weekend.

I actually have deja vu from the last time this bill came before parliament, in 2020, because these public reactions are the exact argument the now Attorney-General tabled in opposition. Let me give you some snippets of the way the Attorney-General argued his opposition last time. I quote from Hansard on 24 September 2020:

My question to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney-General in this place, is: in allowing for the appointment of Queen's Counsels, as this bill proposes, how many dangerous child sex offenders will spend longer in prison as a result of this bill passing?

Another quote:

Can the Treasurer outline how many further recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody will be implemented as a result…of this bill?

And another quote:

Can the Treasurer explain in any way how our criminal justice system or our justice system will be better for South Australians as a result of the passage of this bill?

Can the Attorney-General explain today, in any way, how this change and the passage of this bill will benefit South Australians in addressing the shocking rate of domestic violence, child sex abuse, the spike in youth crime, murders and other vicious assaults on persons, and drug dealing, all in a wobbly and overloaded criminal justice system? We have government legislation tabled that supports victims of crime and supports workers returning to work following injury, and we have legislation that improves the lives of those in the community with a disability, but apparently they are not nearly as important as the Attorney-General and Chief Justice's opinion on the title that barristers can call themselves. It sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Given that 70 per cent of the public, in a poll completed by The Advertiser last week, think that King's Counsel should remain, can the Attorney-General make one cogent argument as to why this should be supported? Do not say, 'Because the majority of jurisdictions have.' That is just a deceptive use of statistics, a furphy, when the facts show that there are more barristers in the three King's Counsel states of Queensland, Victoria and South Australia than the remaining majority.

Can the Attorney-General show us any statistics identifying public support or the profession's support? Does he have anything beyond symbolism and a desperate attempt to push the state away from the monarch? From all public accounts, it is the following that can be heard:

Labor only cares about symbolism and never about real issues concerning people.

Another quote:

Maher is deaf and blind to what he doesn't want to hear or see and has his own agendas, doesn't care what anyone else wants.

The Attorney-General's zeal to abolish titles with monarchical connotations poses the questions: what is next on the chopping block? Will the esteemed title 'the Honourable' for members of parliament and Supreme Court judges be deemed obsolete next? It is a whimsical thought—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: 'Yes', he is saying yes. There you go. It is a whimsical thought, but given the Attorney-General's apparent aversion to such titles one cannot help but wonder if he will cleanse himself of it. In the spirit of jest one might even speculate whether the Attorney-General harbours plans to somehow abolish South Australia's recognition of the Victoria Cross, named after Queen Victoria, or perhaps the Order of Australia, which owes its existence to the prerogative of His Majesty as sovereign head.

If he is so principled about monarchist titles is he going to join us from the Legislative Council and break bread with our popular Governor, Frances Adamson, the King's representative, at a dinner in Government House shortly? After all, we are a constitutional monarchy. Has he considered the confusion this creates with the postnominal for the Star of Courage, held by some 183 courageous individuals, including none other than our Lieutenant-Governor and former joint Australian of the Year Dr Richard Harris SC OAM? I am sure Dr Harris is excited to know he will now be recognised as a doctor and a senior barrister rather than a Star of Courage recipient.

It seems that in the pursuit of so-called progress the Attorney-General is willing to discard tradition without batting an eyelash, saying it is all about the language of the court. What in the hell does that nonsense mean? He is flailing to find a logical reason. But where does it end? Should we obliterate all vestiges of our historical ties to the monarchy, or should we recognise the value of tradition and the contributions of those who have earned such honours? Will he ask that Queen Victoria's statue in Victoria Square be moved elsewhere and replaced by one of his choosing? Presumably the square will need to be renamed as well.

What muddies the water further is the Chief Justice. The most senior judicial officer in the state has masqueraded his well-known strong personal opposition to the monarchist term 'King's Counsel' as a view of the judiciary. Do not be fooled, though: it did not stop him from putting in his application to be appointed Queen's Counsel back in 1997 or from holding on to the postnominal for some 10 years before renouncing the title once the appellation of Senior Counsel was introduced to the state. I am sure he did not alter his bills, either.

Whilst it is his choice to hold such a view, it is in clear conflict with most of the legal community. This includes both the Law Society and the Bar Association, which are up in arms about this. There is a reason the Chief Justice has declined to publicly comment on any concerns raised by his fellow judges. As someone who said he will not engage in political activism, he sure has used his position to show support for the partisan woke Attorney-General and to politicise the debate in media and radio interviews.

This is in stark contrast to the Chief Justice declining to appear before a sham Budget and Finance Committee inquiry instigated by the Attorney-General when he was in opposition in 2019. The shadow attorney saw an opportunity to fling some mud at then Attorney-General Vickie Chapman after she had awarded a $2.5 million ex gratia payment to Henry Keogh following the quashing of his conviction for the murder of Anna-Jane Cheney, thus avoiding a costly claim.

The Labor Party never wavered. Mr Kourakis had advised the government at the time that Mr Keogh's third petition for mercy had no prospect of success. Mr Keogh had to spend 20 years in jail for a murder he said he did not commit, and this was confirmed in a report of an independent forensic expert, Professor Barrie Vernon-Roberts, which was commissioned by Mr Kourakis when he was Solicitor-General.

That report found the forensic evidence tendered against Mr Keogh was so flawed, and it stated concisely that in his expert opinion no murder had been committed, concurring with the views of other eminent experts who later gave evidence in Mr Keogh's appeal. Professor Vernon-Roberts recommended that Mr Kourakis undertake a specific test on tissue samples, which would back up his findings. Not only was this test not carried out, but the report itself did not see the light of day for seven years while a presumed innocent man was left to rot in prison.

In 2012, when Mr Kourakis was a judge on the Supreme Court bench, he was interviewed by the ABC's Richard Fidler on his Conversations program where he was very insistent that Mr Keogh was guilty of murder on circumstantial grounds. Yet he made no mention of that vital report or the inadmissible forensic evidence presented by a disgraced and unqualified witness, Dr Colin Manock. The report's eventual discovery and disclosure at his appeal in 2014 led to the conviction being quashed unanimously, and a retrial ordered; however, the DPP chose to enter a nolle prosequi.

I put several pertinent questions about this matter on notice to the former Attorney-General Vickie Chapman, only to get inadequate answers. I also asked the Budget and Finance Committee to request the Chief Justice appear before the Keogh inquiry to answer the many questions I had about the hidden report, including that as a legal practitioner he was duty-bound to disclose this exculpatory evidence as a model litigant.

The Chief Justice declined to appear because he did not want to 'politicise' the issue. The Presiding Member—the now Attorney-General—was also reluctant to issue a summons from the Legislative Council to compel him to appear. Ironically, I do not think that sham committee ever reported on that inquiry and Mr Kourakis has never addressed why he held on to that report. We may never know. Was it to appease the Labor government, which always insisted Mr Keogh was guilty, and would not get out of jail before his time? Justice is not blind. It is biased and wielded by those in powerful positions.

By the way, Marie Shaw KC worked pro bono on Mr Keogh's case for two years and was instrumental in his freedom bid. The Attorney-General has taken no notice of the Law Society's views despite seeking them. I just want to read some portions of their letter in which they expressly state that they are opposed. Here is what they have to say:

The Society resolved to adopt that majority view, and on 5 February…

This is in relation to a letter that is referred to in their letter to the Attorney-General that the society had decided to adopt the majority view to support the move in 2019 to keep Queen's Counsel, and they sent the enclosed letter to the former Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman. I have that letter here, and let me just read from it. This is what it said in relation to that:

SA Bar Association's Proposal for reinstatement of Queens Counsel

I refer to a letter of 5 December 2018 sent to you by my predecessor, Mr Tim Mellor. Mr Mellor advised a preliminary resolution of the Society's Council in the context of its consideration of the proposal of the SA Bar Association that those appointed Senior Counsel be able to seek the grant of letters patent for the title of Queen's Counsel, if they wish; and that the Council would respond further after a survey to ascertain the views of its Members had been conducted.

The results of a survey were considered by the Council at its meeting on 4 February 2019. Accordingly, the Council resolved

That the Society, in light of the view expressed by the strong majority of respondents to its survey, advise the Attorney-General, Chief Justice and the SA Bar Association that the Society takes the view that

1. the appointment of silk is a matter solely for the Court (noting the Court undertakes a process of extensive consultation) and it is inappropriate for the Attorney-General or any party to participate in any way that may undermine the authority of the court [as previously resolved by the council]; and

2. Individuals who have been appointed Senior Counsel should be able to choose to seek a grant of Letters Patent for the title of Queen's Counsel and be able to use the post-nominal QC.

It is the Society's understanding that Letters Patent would be granted as a matter of course to an applicant who had been appointed Senior Counsel by the Court.

In other words, it is a matter of choice. That is all it is. That is all we are talking about: a matter of choice and nothing else—not ideology. Then there is the letter that was sent to the Attorney by the society. They point out that:

13. The Society does not see the need to revisit what was an otherwise recently settled issue that involved considerable debate.

14. The KC post-nominal is available in Queensland, Victoria and at the Commonwealth level and, over the past 30 years, each of these jurisdictions had changed to SC before ultimately reverting to the original approach of allowing the KC post-nominal.

15. The Society understands the vast majority of the profession appointed SC since 2020 change have chosen to obtain Letters Patent and become KC. The Society considers that this demonstrates the preference of the legal profession for individual appointed silk to have a choice in the matter and for this reason queries the impetus for the Government to intervene, particularly noting the views of the Society and the South Australian Bar Association were voiced and settled so recently.

16. There is a further important commercial aspect to the ability to take up KC as a post-nominal in that it provides a clear distinction between those who might otherwise be designated as Senior Counsel, and those who work in the many firms that have the position named 'Special Counsel'. Retaining the KC post-nominal will assist in ensuring members of the public are aware of this important distinction.

17. The Society notes that the South Australian Bar Association opposes the proposed change.

18. The current approach, by which legal practitioners are appointed as SC by virtue of section 92 of the Act and have the option to seek letters patent to use the KC title leaves the discretion with practitioners, strikes an appropriate balance and, in the Society's view, should remain unchanged.

I have been contacted by many senior practitioners and silks in the legal community who are utterly outraged by the Chief Justice's defamatory comments that having the KC title enables them to 'exploit clients so they can charge more'.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Point of order, sir.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, I have to listen to the Hon. Mr Hunter's point of order. Sit down.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Point of order 193: honourable members should not reflect on members of the court in a negative way. The comments that Mr Pangallo has just made are negative and I ask that you instruct him to withdraw.

The Hon. F. Pangallo: Which comments?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: 'Defamatory'.

The Hon. F. Pangallo interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, I am sorry, I am asking the President to reflect on order 193.

The PRESIDENT: Withdraw, please, the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will withdraw the 'defamatory' from it, so I will read it again. I have been contacted by many senior practitioners and silks in the legal community who are utterly outraged by the Chief Justice's comments that having the KC title enables them to 'exploit clients so they can charge more'. How ridiculous. Has he seen the prices his beloved SCs are charging in New South Wales? Has he looked in the mirror at his $560,000-plus perk salary that equates to more than $2,100 a day?

It is an insult to some of our most senior silks like Frances Nelson, Marie Shaw, Michael Abbott, William Boucaut, Dick Whitington and David Edwardson, who hold multiple Legal Aid or pro bono files at any one time. They do it for the love of their profession. The profession is so outraged by the chief's comments that I am reliably informed by my sources that a group of them are still considering lodging a no-confidence motion to have the Chief Justice removed. That would be unprecedented, but we all hope cool heads can calm things down. My sources also indicate that members of the bench are unhappy, too.

The preservation of the King's Counsel postnominal is not only a matter of tradition but also a symbol of respect for the contributions of senior barristers to the legal profession. The public and the profession are entitled to know who holds this title and what they have done to reach that standard. I will conclude with a statement aptly made by a member of the community:

It's part of a tradition that should carry on. Obviously this could be revisited in the situation of Australia becoming a Republic and it should wait until then. I'm concerned that we are almost seeing State legislation the equivalent of a separate sovereign identity and that is ridiculous. I do not consider my nationality to be simply a South Australian but a proud Aussie forever.

If or when Australia votes for independence from the monarch, that is when this and another huge amount of legislation should be tabled. This does not seem to be anytime soon, so I am strongly opposed to this bill on the understanding that my voice is indeed a voice in the wilderness of the current Legislative Council. Shame on you, Attorney-General, and the Chief Justice for igniting an unnecessary powder keg among the legal profession. Both of you failed to have a meaningful engagement with them.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, please do not refer to the Chief Justice in that manner.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will finish with this, Mr President. The Attorney-General has failed to have a meaningful engagement with the legal profession. It was just the cold presentation of the draft. That is not consultation: it is sheer hubristic arrogance.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:11): I thank many members for their lengthy and impassioned speeches on what they described as a matter that ought not occupy too much of our time. It is probably the ultimate in irony in this chamber to say that and then spend a large amount of time on this. I note the Hon. Nicola Centofanti spoke for less than 4½ minutes on the other two bills we had in this place, one about terror suspects and one about making sure adults do not recruit children to crime, but she spoke in excess of 12½ minutes almost exclusively on the second part of the bill.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Whether it is irony or hypocrisy I will leave to others to work out. I thank the Hon. Robert Simms for his brief but thoughtful contribution in support of the bill, and I thank the Hon. Sarah Game for her brief but thoughtful contribution that was not in support of this bill. I thank the Hon. Laura Henderson for her impassioned speech on this bill. I would have marked it high if it were a high school debate. It was very good. There were many good points.

I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo. It was not, as he describes most things as he stands up, a brief contribution; this was a brief Frank contribution, I guess, in comparison. I also thank Frank for, as he pointed out, some of his deliberate exaggerations and comedy styling during the course of his debate. But in all seriousness, I know the Hon. Ian Hunter moved a point of order. The Hon. Frank Pangallo has talked about respect for our institutions only in the last week or so, and I would ask him to reflect on some of the way he conducted his speech today and how that promotes respect for our institutions in South Australia.

I know the Hon. Frank Pangallo implored us not to use pesky things like statistics or evidence as a basis for putting forward arguments about why we do things in legislation, but the simple fact of the matter is that this legislation has two elements. It modernises language used in the legal profession. The first one is about the title of Master being applied in the Supreme Court and District Court, and the second is about the title of KCs, formerly QCs, used in the legal profession.

As has been pointed out, those titles have a historical context that refers to those who do work exclusively for a government. That is not the case today. KCs certainly do not, as they have in centuries gone by, need permission of the Crown to act for criminal defendants. I know the Hon. Frank Pangallo will rally against the fact that the vast majority of our states and territories do not have the appointment of KCs or QCs. The biggest legal jurisdiction in the country, for I think some 30 years since 1993, has not had that appointment.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo talked about the economic disadvantage of not using those titles, yet offered no evidence to suggest any of that. As I have said, the New South Wales legal profession has not used those titles for many years. The Hon. Frank Pangallo referred to comments from The Advertiser. I have not looked but I am not sure what the comments from The Advertiser on Frank Pangallo's last story about the height of urinals in Parliament House said, but I do not think they would form a basis for us to take action.

This is not something that is the most important thing we will do, it is not even the most important thing we will do today. In fact, in the scheme of what we have achieved legislatively today—passing laws to make sure that adults do not recruit children to commit crimes, passing laws to make sure that there is a presumption against bail of people accused of state terrorism offences—those are important things. This is, as we do from time to time, updating of language. We regularly have bits of legislation that update language, the differences between births, deaths and marriages and the Burial and Cremation Act, these are run-of-the-mill things that we do regularly.

Unlike the former Attorney-General's bill on this in the last term of parliament, which was the single bill that she deemed worthy to personally brief the opposition on, I do not see it in that light. This is merely modernising language in two aspects of the legal profession.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney inform the chamber whether the proposed amendments in relation to the title of Master of the Supreme and District courts were made at the request of the Chief Justice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My memory and advice is that they were made at the request of the Supreme Court.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney inform the chamber whether the proposed amendments at clauses 31 and 32 were made at the request of the Supreme Court Chief Justice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. They were not made at the request of the Supreme Court but, of course, we consulted with them.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given that it was not something asked for by the Chief Justice, on what basis is the Attorney-General initiating these changes, particularly given that many of the other relevant stakeholders are opposed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member. It was to modernise the language, while we were modernising the language in relation to Masters, and to bring us into line with the vast majority of other Australian jurisdictions.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: How long has the government spent preparing this legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not very long.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney be slightly more specific?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Whenever legislation is prepared it is some hours to prepare, between policy and legal advice and parliamentary counsel advice. My guess is—and I am happy to go and check and let the honourable member know if it is not correct—the part of the legislation that affects the title of Masters in both courts, given the number of pieces of legislation it changes, would have been the vast majority of the work spent on this bill. These sort of amendment portfolio bills are not ones where there is nearly as much time spent as some of the substantive policy bills that make much more substantial changes or impacts.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The Attorney mentioned hours, can he inform the chamber as to how many hours of staff time were devoted to this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that and, if I am to be honest, I do not think it would be easily ascertained. My guess is that it would be, orders of magnitude, less hours on that second part of the bill than was spent by the former government on their changes previously.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney outline the quantum of correspondence between the Attorney and his department and the Chief Justice and their office relating to clauses 31 and 32?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I think the sum total of the correspondence, from my memory, was a letter to the Supreme Court with a draft of the bill, which happens almost every time there are these sorts of bills, and a letter back.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has the Attorney met with members of the legal profession or received correspondence from them in the last two days?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So that would be today or yesterday. I understand there is a letter that a number of barristers have signed. I have received an email that has been printed out in the last half hour, but besides that, no.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the Attorney read that email and table it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his invitation, but I am not sure what the status of the authors of that correspondence have for that, and I do not make a habit of tabling something unless I have express permission.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The 'status of the authors'—are you suggesting that it could have been a dodgy document; you are not sure of that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not suggesting that for one moment. I have been given, since this bill has started, what is a printout of a letter. I am not questioning its authenticity. What I am suggesting is I do not have the permission of those whose names appear on there to table it, and I do not make a habit of tabling things without people's permission.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Whose names appear on that document?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, it is something I have been given in the last half hour, and I do not have permission to table it. I do not make a habit of referring to things that quite often people have an expectation of privacy about.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does the document say 'in confidence', or is it an open letter or email?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Once again, I have briefly scanned the document. If it had been provided to me some time ago, I guess I would have had a chance to have more of an understanding as to what the authors may have intended with it.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Has the Attorney-General had discussions with the president of the Bar Association, Ms Marie Shaw KC, relating to amendments of clauses 31 and 32?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney outline the nature of those discussions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was a meeting I have from time to time with the president of the Bar Association. Once again, I am not in the habit of discussing in a public way the meetings that I have, which often and generally have an expectation of privacy. However, I think the honourable member probably has the benefit of the views of the Bar Association, and I think she might have referred to them already.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is the Attorney-General aware of anyone else in the legal profession other than the Chief Justice who supports these amendments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I think of people who have sought out and contacted me directly about this. Many members of the legal profession have my details of contact. From memory, I have had four barristers directly contact me—two in favour, two against.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney-General outline how many dangerous child sex offenders will spend longer in prison as a result of this bill passing?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can tell you what will happen. Only recently, we passed a bill in this chamber, an Australia-leading first, to make sure serious repeat child sex offenders are indefinitely in jail—indefinitely in jail. This is something those opposite did not do. They did not think of doing that. We are absolutely committed to protecting children.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: How much personal correspondence has the Attorney-General had by way of phone or in person with the Chief Justice since this matter blew up?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Very little.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney-General outline how many South Australian women will be protected from domestic violence as a result of the passage of this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What I can do, if that is in order, is outline the legislation that this parliament has passed very recently in relation to people who are domestic violence offenders who breach intervention orders. Now, if they are granted bail, they are required to be on home detention and electronically monitored. This was only in very recent weeks that we passed this bill in this parliament, so I am very proud that we have passed bills to keep women who are victim survivors of domestic violence safer, and we have passed nation-leading reforms to make sure dangerous repeat child sex offenders are indefinitely detained—indefinitely detained.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hunter, quiet. I will only take questions that relate to this bill.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! You can have an early minute if you keep it up. I have had enough.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Seconded.

The CHAIR: I don't need you to second it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does the Attorney-General believe that having the title KC entitles barristers to charge more against their clients? Does he believe that quote?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, New South Wales have for in excess of 30 years not had the title KC or QC and their legal profession does alright.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That is not exactly what I asked. I asked does he believe that by having the title of KC, that gives them an entitlement to charge more to their clients than SCs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have not seen any studies.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given that there was recent in-depth consideration of this issue with extensive consultation and debate as recent as 2020 when it was decided to reinstate the Queen's Counsel postnominal title by the former government, why does the Attorney-General believe that this was an issue that needed to be addressed so soon?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have explained before, we had a request that we update language in the judiciary that referred to Masters that most of the rest of Australia does not use, and so we used the opportunity while we were updating and modernising language used in the legal profession to do it for this as well.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is the Attorney aware that some of the Masters are not happy with the change?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I know that there is always a range of views from people on anything that we do as policymakers and legislators.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. N.J. Centofanti at clause 2. Can you explain what you are going to do with that, the Hon. N.J. Centofanti?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

That this amendment be postponed and taken into consideration after clause 51.

This is because it is contingent on amendments Nos 2 and 3 [Centofanti-1] being successful, and the substantive clauses being deleted.

The CHAIR: What you are moving is that clause 2 be taken into consideration after clause 51 because of what you have just outlined.

Motion carried; clause postponed.

Clauses 3 to 30 passed.

Clause 31.

The CHAIR: The Hon. N.J. Centofanti has indicated that she will be opposing the clause. Do you want to speak to that?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Only to say that obviously due to the reasons outlined in my second reading speech, I indicate that the opposition will be opposing this clause.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 11

Noes 7

Majority 4

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Clause thus passed.

Clause 32.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 8, lines 1 to 11—This clause will be opposed

Just quickly, whilst I am on my feet, I would like to place on the record that whilst the Attorney-General has commented on my length of speech today, he spoke for a full 13 minutes on this so-called unimportant bill back in 2020.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I am going to put the question that clause 32 stand as printed. If you are supporting the Hon. N.J. Centofanti you will vote no.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 11

Noes 7

Majority 4

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Question thus agreed to; clause passed.

Clauses 33 to 51 passed.

Clause 2—reconsidered.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given my amendment to this clause is consequential, I will not be moving it.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 11

Noes 7

Majority 4

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.