Legal Practitioners

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:15): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General about privacy breaches of legal practitioners.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: On 29 November 2023, the Attorney-General in this place and the Deputy Premier, Dr Susan Close, in the other place, tabled the annual report of the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal on its proceedings to the year ended 30 June 2023. It appears that nobody in the Attorney-General's office nor the Deputy Premier's read the document or knew of its damaging contents.

It is a normal practice that the document includes a confidential memorandum to the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice and the LPDT. The normal practice is that it contains a schedule A on concluded matters, which included the publication of names of legal practitioners. Schedule B lists current matters, but no names are published for privacy reasons or where privacy and confidentiality orders would apply. In an egregious error, the 2023 report included names and details of legal practitioners whose matters had not been concluded and where privacy orders would have applied—among them, Mr Enzo Belperio, who is facing allegations before the LPDT of sexual harassment.

In his judgement, the Chief Justice relied upon the published contents under parliamentary privilege to support the conclusion that Mr Belperio's name was already in the public domain and so denied Mr Belperio a suppression order on the allegations until the matter was finalised, but it seems by this blunder that Mr Belperio was denied due process. Other practitioners named may also have grievances at the publication of their names before the matters were heard or finalised.

The then president of the South Australian Bar Association, Marie Shaw KC, was so concerned at this breach and the implications of the information being disseminated widely in the community that she contacted the chair of the Professional Responsibility Committee, Andrew Tokley KC, and then in August 2024 she wrote to the presiding member of the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal, Maurine Pyke KC, seeking an explanation.

Ms Pyke responded on 19 August 2024 admitting there had been an error, that the confidential memorandum had been tabled and that she would request that it be uplifted (whatever that means), and long after the horse had bolted, and also requested an inquiry as to whether confidential memoranda has been tabled previously and, if so, that they be uplifted (whatever that entails). I now seek leave to table the affidavit of Marie Shaw KC, made on 30 August 2024, which includes the correspondence with Ms Pyke.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: My question to the Attorney-General—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, ask your questions, please.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you. The question:

1. Can he explain how this serious error occurred? Why didn't he or his bureaucrats read the report and pick up the egregious mistake before it was tabled in both houses?

2. Can he ask: when was the Chief Justice first made aware of the report and its damaging contents?

3. Has he had contact with Ms Pyke about this error?

4. What is he doing about it, including the uplifting—if he can explain what that means?

5. Is he acting on her request for an inquiry?

6. When can parliament expect to see the findings?

7. On how many other occasions has this occurred with these LPDT reports?

8. Has the Law Society lodged a complaint or raised concerns with him about the breaches of confidentiality through the tabling of the 2023 report or others?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, that was not a brief explanation at all. It may well have been something that you could have prosecuted through Matters of Interest. That was possibly the longest explanation and question that I have heard in this place in my time.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:20): In relation to the report that dates back to last year, I am happy to take it on notice and bring back a reply.