Legislative Council: Thursday, October 16, 2025

Contents

Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Matters and Fidelity Fund) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 August 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (11:51): I rise today to speak on the Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Matters and Fidelity Fund ) Amendment Bill 2025, introduced by the Attorney-General on 21 August. This bill proposes a series of reforms of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, with the primary objective of modernising our legal disciplinary framework and strengthening protections for the public.

At its core, the bill makes three key changes. Firstly, it abolishes the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and transfers its jurisdiction to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). This move brings the legal profession into alignment with other regulated professions, placing disciplinary matters within a single independent body. It is intended to improve efficiency, reduce delays and ensure greater consistency in decision-making. Clauses within the bill remove outdated references to the former tribunal and provide SACAT with the jurisdiction and framework necessary to hear and determine complaints against practitioners.

Secondly, the bill enhances the powers of the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. The commissioner will now be able to require practitioners to undergo health assessments where impairment is suspected, and the Supreme Court may order treatment, counselling or other measures where appropriate. Importantly, penalties are strengthened, maximum fines are increased and orders may be made against former practitioners, ensuring accountability does not simply end the moment a practitioner resigns or ceases practice. SACAT will also be empowered to review decisions of the commissioner, providing a further safeguard of fairness and transparency.

Finally, the bill increases the cap on the fidelity fund. The fidelity fund provides vital protection for clients who suffer financial loss due to practitioner misconduct. It also supports key regulatory bodies, including the Legal Services Commission. Raising the cap from $7,500 to $11,500 per practitioner will significantly improve the sustainability of the fund, addressing vulnerabilities exposed during periods of low interest rates and helping to avoid the need for future levies on the profession.

These reforms are, in essence, about integrity and ensuring that the legal profession remains accountable and transparent. Practitioners must be well equipped to uphold the high standards which the South Australian community expects of them. For these reasons, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:54): I rise today to speak in support of the Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Matters and Fidelity Fund) Amendment Bill 2025. This bill follows extensive consultation with the Law Society, the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner and members of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. It seeks to modernise the framework for legal practitioners in South Australia by transferring tribunal functions to SACAT, expanding the commissioner's powers and increasing the statutory cap on the fidelity fund. It strengthens accountability and ensures that the public interest remains at the heart of our legal system. I acknowledge the important work of Ms Maurine Pyke KC and the tribunal members, and I welcome the two-year transitional period to ensure continuity and fairness.

One of the most significant changes introduced is new powers for the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. This change allows for the commissioner to require a health assessment where there is reasonable belief that a practitioner may be experiencing a condition, such as mental illness, substance dependency or psychological impairment, that affects their ability to practise law. These provisions are designed to protect both the integrity of the profession and the wellbeing of practitioners, but they must be exercised with care. The process includes independent medical review, safeguards around disclosure and options for treatment or supervised practise.

While I support the intent behind these reforms, I would like to also point out some concerns around privacy, proportionality and the potential for misuse. Based on these concerns, it would be prudent to monitor how these powers are applied in practise, ensuring that they remain fair, transparent and focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

I have always been a strong advocate for a better and safer community and I am pleased that, in addition to safeguarding professional standards, the bill also addresses client protection. The increase to the fidelity fund cap, from $7,500 to $11,500 per practitioner, responds to economic conditions and ensures that clients who suffer financial loss due to misconduct are better protected. It also supports the sustainability of the fund, which underpins the work of both the commissioner and the Law Society's Ethics and Practice Unit.

While the expanded responsibilities are welcome, I note the concerns raised around SACAT's capacity. SACAT's ability to manage these additional disciplinary functions will depend on appropriate resourcing and the retention of legal expertise within its panels. While I support the transfer of functions, I trust that the government would ensure SACAT is adequately equipped to prevent delays and uphold the high standards of oversight expected by both the legal profession and the public.

These reforms reflect a collaborative approach and a commitment to continuous improvement. I believe this bill is a step forward to ensuring our legal system remains fair, transparent and responsive to the needs of South Australians. Based on the reasons I outlined, I support the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:58): I thank all members for their valuable contributions on this important bill. In summing-up, I want to thank the Law Society in particular for their work and guidance. Much of this has come out of collaboration with the Law Society—the major things this bill does—and I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It seems that this legislation has actually caught many in the legal fraternity by surprise. The question I have for the Attorney, as he mentioned the Law Society, is: why has there been no public policy position or consultation with the membership of the Law Society in relation to this? Why was it all done confidentially?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that this bill has been extensively consulted on with the Law Society in terms of how the Law Society conduct their consultations. I would invite the honourable member to take that up with them.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I made the point that, yes, there has been consultation with the Law Society, but the Law Society tells me that it was a discussion held on a confidential basis. Why has the government not gone to the wider legal fraternity or why has this not happened through the Law Society, where a public policy position has been stated? Normally, in situations like this when we are discussing matters that affect the legal profession, we usually get something from the Law Society regarding a public position. Why has there not been a public position on this?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that this was like any other bill that we have put in. There was consultation and draft bills were sent out to the Law Society, the Legal Services Commission and a whole lot of others that we usually send these out to.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you. But why was it confidential?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the honourable member let me know what he is saying, because the honourable member is representing that he has been told that certain elements were confidential. Can he let me know what he thinks was confidential, please?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I was told in fact this morning by the Law Society, when we contacted the Law Society, and this is what I have received:

The Law Society has had discussions and provided feedback on the Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Matters and Fidelity Fund) Amendment Bill to the Attorney General, on a confidential basis.

The Society supports the amendments.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, I am advised that the bill, as drafted, was consulted on like any other bill and sent to a range of stakeholders for input.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So what you are saying is that the obligation was on the Law Society to inform its membership of this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, this has been done in a way that is very consistent with many other bills in terms of consultation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the Attorney explain: what are the rights of appeal in the SACAT hearings? Are there rights of appeal?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is the ordinary appeal rights under the SACAT Act, which I am advised are the appeal rights to the Supreme Court.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does the Magistrates Court have jurisdiction if a complaint involves the federal jurisdiction? If there is a complaint against a practitioner that might be in a federal area, does the Magistrates Court have jurisdiction in this matter?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I get that what he is talking about is a restraint on administrative bodies dealing with federal jurisdictional matters. My advice is that this is about the practitioner, not the actual jurisdiction. So my advice to you is: regardless of where the practitioner actually practises it is about the practitioner, so it is difficult to see how the Magistrates Court would need to be invoked, with the administrative bodies not dealing with federal matters.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If I am reading it correctly does this also mean that SACAT now has a costs jurisdiction?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is the usual provisions that apply to SACAT. There is nothing new, my advice is, about cost jurisdictions as a result of this that is not already within the purview of SACAT. Further to the honourable member's question, my advice is that we have not altered any costs provisions that have applied previously to legal practitioners' conduct matters.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just going on a letter I have received from a well-respected lawyer, Greg Finlayson, who points out that on his reading of the bill it appears that practitioners only are granted a right to appear by counsel but even then only when a complaint is laid against them and not when conducting or responding to an appeal from a determination of the commissioner. Is that a correct interpretation of SACAT's jurisdiction when it comes to being represented by counsel?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the intent in terms of legal representation that has previously applied for legal practitioners' disciplinary matters is intended to apply, with the jurisdiction being transferred to SACAT.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can the Attorney clarify whether members of the public can lay a complaint of unsatisfactory or unprofessional conduct against a practitioner?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that to make it as effective and efficient as possible, particularly for complainants, members of the public will first bring matters to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner, who will then gather information before it finds its way to SACAT.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So there is no guarantee, as there exists now, when people wish to make a complaint to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner—they pay their $100 fee and fill out the form—that their matter will necessarily be heard or referred? There is no guarantee now that these matters will be heard or referred?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is no more nor less guarantee than there is now with it being heard by SACAT, I am advised.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The bill gives the commissioner power to impose a $100,000 fine on a practitioner without any public hearing, any rules of evidence or any obligation to provide reasons; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, with the consent of the practitioner.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I gather all these hearings will be held in camera?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Are you talking about the SACAT hearings?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, SACAT hearings.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that they are ordinarily a public hearing, unless there is a reason not to be.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Are they secret—are they going to be held in secret or not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the honourable member listened to my answer, these are SACAT hearings and ordinarily these, like other SACAT hearings, are public, unless there is a good reason not to.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 31), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (12:11): I move:

That this bill now be read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.