Ian Gilfillan: Australian Democrats in the SA Parliament

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 1 May 2001

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2001 Autumn Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney- General a question regarding the provision of legal services to state government authorities.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Last year the Law Society of South Australia conducted a survey in South Australia of medium to large private law firms during the period 1997 to 2000. Of the 14 law firms that responded, a total of 114 staff members had been lost. These South Australians left our state to take up positions interstate or overseas. Of these, over half had been practising for only three years or less. The predominant reasons given for staff moving were significantly higher salaries-and I inform members, if they do not already know, that the Solicitor General in 1999 said that the rates charged in Adelaide law firms are the lowest in mainland Australia-career prospects and more exciting legal work.

For some time now, legal firms in the eastern states have been very active in targeting and recruiting talent in South Australia. The Law Society of South Australia has been quite active in attempting to stem this tide. In June 1999 the society released a report entitled `Turning the Tide'. The report investigated ways in which corporate legal work could be returned to the legal profession in South Australia. The state government utilises private sector law firms and, to its credit, I understand it has a policy at least of giving preference to South Australian law firms. It allocates maximum hourly rates for the provision of various legal services from South Australian law firms. My questions to the Attorney are:

1. What are the current maximum hourly rates that the government will pay to the private legal sector for the provision of legal services to public sector agencies?

2. How much advice has the state government sought from interstate or overseas law firms during the past three years?

3. What has been the average hourly rate paid for legal advice from these sources?

4. How do the rates paid to these sources, interstate or overseas, compare to the maximum rates paid to South Australian law firms?

5. Why, in those circumstances, were South Australian firms not used in those cases?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): There is no doubt that there are younger legal practitioners who are attracted to both the higher salaries and the diversity of work which might be available interstate or even overseas. My experience is that many young practitioners want to get that additional experience and at the same time enjoy a different environment in other parts of Australia or overseas. Many get the wanderlust and it is ideal if they can combine their wanderlust with working in different environments and gaining different experiences.

There is no doubt that working in a law firm in London will give a different experience from working in a law firm in Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide, particularly in the commercial arena because London is one of the major financial and business centres of the world. There is no doubt that, for a while at least, some young practitioners prefer to go to either Melbourne or Sydney. Sydney, particularly, is a financial centre and has a diversity of work not necessarily available in South Australia.

I should say that I encourage businesses to take legal advice in Adelaide for a couple of reasons: in most instances, if not all, it is as equally competent as the advice that is given by the big firms interstate; there is not the cost involved, and it is certainly at a much lower cost than the advice can be obtained in New South Wales or Victoria; and there is the speed of delivery of that advice as well as the convenience factor.

If one gets advice from Sydney firms it invariably means getting on a plane, sitting in a legal office waiting room in Sydney, getting in for half an hour, being charged a fortune, getting on a plane and coming back to Adelaide when in fact that advice could have been obtained from one of the legal firms in South Australia.

As far as the government's practices are concerned, our priority is to give local firms legal work if work is to be briefed out to the private profession. However, in a number of our outsourcing and sale arrangements, because of the complexity of the issues as well as the international experience which in many instances has to be obtained, whilst we have endeavoured to insist that as much legal work as possible be done in South Australia by South Australian lawyers, it has been inevitable that we have had to get some legal advice from interstate and overseas legal firms.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: My understanding is that that is all tendered for, and in some instances certainly a higher rate is paid. I do not have that detail at my fingertips. In fact, I doubt whether centrally that information would be available. When I became Attorney-General some consternation was expressed by the legal profession that it was not getting a very large share of the legal work cake from government. We did undertake a research program through the then Crown Solicitor, Brad Selway, to try to ascertain what legal work was being done by the private profession.

I think we got the results in about 1994-95 which indicated that a very substantial amount of legal work was in fact being done by the private sector. But there was also criticism that the total amount of legal fees being paid by government, which from my recollection was well over $10 million at that stage, had in some way or another to be pruned. We therefore introduced a panel system where we set a rate for different levels of work-commercial litigation and so on- and those agencies which had a manager of legal work would go out to the private profession identified on those panels at those maximum rates and manage their own legal representation. Other agencies that did not have those expertise had to work through the Crown Solicitor and in some instances were given the authority to brief out.

A substantial amount of legal work across government is now done by the private legal profession in South Australia. Also the Director of Public Prosecutions briefs out a number of prosecution cases, the Crown Solicitor retains private legal counsel in relation to a number of civil disputes, and in other agencies of government private practitioners are involved in representing the state government-and I think WorkCover is one of those and also the Motor Accident Commission, to name just two. I do not have at my fingertips the maximum hourly rates that currently are payable by the government. We now have a system where they are reviewed on an annual basis and are increased by an indexation factor.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not know whether or not they are the lowest in Australia. They are certainly not as high as in Sydney or Melbourne. I cannot answer for what might be paid in Tasmania, the Northern Territory, Queensland or Western Australia. I will bring back for the honourable member details of the current maximum hourly rates that may be payable. I will endeavour to ascertain how much might be paid to interstate and overseas legal firms, but I doubt whether that information is kept by the Crown Solicitor, because there is no obligation to maintain a central register for that purpose. I think that addresses most of the issues raised by the honourable member. I will take the questions on notice and check-

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will bring back some replies and, if I have overlooked particular issues, I will ensure that they are addressed as best I can. The Hon. Mr Gilfillan asked by interjection why interstate and overseas firms are used. I thought I answered that at the beginning, when I said that certainly, for very complex matters, we may have to seek interstate or overseas legal advice-just as we seek accounting and consulting advice.

The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: I am looking for the specifics-in cases where firms from interstate or overseas have been engaged, the reasons why they were engaged.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Can I take that issue on notice? I am not sure that I can provide that information, because we do not keep it centrally. The Crown Solicitor is not required to sign off on every occasion, particularly if it is part of a sale or outsourcing process. I will take those questions on notice, and I will do the best I can to bring back information to the honourable member.