Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Suppression Orders Suppression Orders The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council Suppression Orders The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:36): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General about suppression orders. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, after yesterday's 'brief explanation', I am sure this one is going to be brief, isn't it? The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It's a lot briefer than yesterday's. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Excellent. The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In November 2023, the Court of Appeal, which included the Chief Justice, heard two days of argument about the legality of the AN0M app. They reserve their judgement. On 12 January 2024, the Chief Justice convened a hearing, without any prompting from the parties, where he made an order that he recused himself from the matter. No party had asked him to recuse himself. The Chief Justice wrote reasons for recusing himself, but immediately directed that they be sealed. No-one has been able to see these reasons. On the weekend, The Advertiser reported that it had applied for a copy of the Chief Justice's reasons but received no response. Through my office I have also made applications to the registry, only to be told a decision would have to be made by a judge, presumably the Chief Justice. Section 131(1)(f) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) states that the court must, on application by any member of the public, allow the applicant to inspect or obtain a judgement or order given or made by the court. In the case of Enzo Belperio, the Chief Justice himself ruled, on 22 November 2024, that the court has no power to seal documents that are available under section 131. The Chief Justice ruled that this section confers an unconditional right of access to the materials; that a court has no power to abrogate; that the power of the court does not extend to removing a document from the records of the court; and that judges do not have superlegislative power to override rules of court. My questions to the Attorney are: 1.	Why did the Chief Justice seal his reasons for recusing himself? 2.	Why has the Chief Justice not allowed his reasons to be obtained upon request, when in the case of Enzo Belperio he has clearly ruled that the court does not have any power to stop a member of the public accessing this pursuant to section 131? 3.	Will the Attorney-General ask the Chief Justice to now unseal those documents for public scrutiny, as the law upon which the Chief Justice relies on categorically states? 4.	Is he comfortable with what the Chief Justice has done? The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Attorney-General Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector Special Minister of State The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (14:39): These are not measures for me as a member of the executive to determine; these are matters for the courts to determine. I don't propose to interfere in judicial processes. I am sure the honourable member has, as he has indicated, asked the appropriate authority—that is, the courts—for the reasons for the questions he has asked, and I would encourage him to keep liaising with the courts.