House of Assembly: Wednesday, 1 June 2005
KAPUNDA ROAD ROYAL COMMISSION\TOC\2\KAPUNDA ROAD ROYAL COMMISSION

\IND\Question:nn:Ms CHAPMAN Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg): My question is to the Attorney-General. Why did the Attorney-General not act on the advice of the then director of public prosecutions, Paul Rofe QC, and introduce legislation to prevent the calling of witnesses without notice to the prosecution? On Monday 30 May the Kapunda Road Royal Commission heard from University of Adelaide Professor of Psychiatry, Robert Goldney. His evidence was in direct contrast to that of psychiatrist, Professor Alexander McFarlane, during the McGee trial. Evidence was given that the prosecution did not have the time to find an expert to challenge.

\IND\Answer:nn:The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): The first thing I say is that it would have been good if the member for Bragg had kept abreast of the royal commission because, today, the prosecutor, Peter Barnett, indicated broadly that, had the proposed provision been in place, he would not have taken advantage of it. That is very broadly speaking. The second point to make is that it is interesting that the member for Bragg hones in on this fragment of the rule of evidence. She does not talk about the other rules of evidence or the procedures involved in a criminal trial that make up the Martin report.

##8 I referred all those rules of evidence and procedures of the criminal trial to what I think can genuinely be described as a high-powered committee chaired by Justice Duggan of the Supreme Court, and including Justice Sulan, Judge Rice of the District Court, that perennial favourite of the member for Bragg, Wendy Abraham QC, plus Gordon Barrett for the defence bar, who has now been elevated to the District Court. That committee went about its work patiently and methodi­cally, and I saw Justice Duggan at the installation of Gordon Barrett to the District Court on Friday and he told me that its report would be coming to the government soon.

Ms Chapman: Soon?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, in the next 10 days, I understood. What will happen is that we will have compre­hensive recommendations workshopped by a representative committee so that we can get consensus in introducing changes to the rules of evidence and the procedure at criminal trials. I would have thought that is a good outcome. If the member for Bragg was so concerned about that fragment of the task, namely defence disclosure, I am wondering why she has not before raised it in the parliament nor introduced a private member’s bill to make the change.

Mr BRINDAL: I rise on a point of order. When replying to questions, a minister is supposed to address the substance on the question not to speculate on the motivation of the questioner.

The SPEAKER: The Attorney-General should not debate the question; he should answer it.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: There has been a range of views about defence disclosure and prosecution disclosure during the time that I have been Attorney-General. Paul Rofe had one view. Wendy Abraham had a similar view. The Solicitor-General, Chris Kourakis, had a quite different view. They were workshopped through an expert and representative committee and they are going to come up with a total solution.