King’s Counsel row deepens further as new political hostility erupts over new KC ban law

The scrapping of a centuries old royal title bestowed on senior South Australian “silk” lawyers has sparked further political hostility.

Chief Justice Chris Kourakis and Attorney-General Kyam Maher, who criticised the Opposition. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Brenton Edwards

The scrapping of a centuries old royal title bestowed on senior South Australian “silk” lawyers has sparked further political hostility.

The state government has been accused of “forcing” controversial “postnominal” changes through parliament last week ahead of key budget measures.

Attorney-General Kyam Maher won his bitter fight to cancel King’s Counsel titles for eminent court-based barristers amid a fierce industry backlash.

But during the final lower house debate on Wednesday night before Labor MPs used their majority to vote it into law, the government “guillotined” – or shutdown - debate much earlier than its approved post-midnight deadline.

Liberal MP, Josh Teague, blamed Labor for the unprecedented legal backlash despite the government insisting Senior Counsel changes were minor and about “modernising language”.

“This fracture, this furore, this dismay, sits squarely at the feet of the government,” he told MPs.

Senior opposition colleague John Gardner added that Labor’s “breach of faith is really very distressing”.

Josh Teague said his record spoke for itself: NCA NewsWire / Brenton Edwards

Member for Morialta John Gardner said the furore was nothing he’d seen in politics. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Morgan Sette

Mr Maher hit back, arguing that if Mr Teague spent more time focusing on “the important matters”, his own electorate members “wouldn’t be questioning” his re-election suitability.

“The irony of (him) accusing anyone of wasting Parliament’s time exposes a staggering lack of self-awareness,” he said.

He said Mr Teague spent almost six hours debating names and titles, during which he “revealed his self-absorbed hope of obtaining the title of KC for himself”.

This compared to six and eight minutes debating child sex offender laws.

“This says everything you need to know about (his) priorities … and the Liberal Party,” he added. Mr Teague said his parliamentary record spoke for itself.

Top lawyers, the judiciary, Bar Association and Law Society vehemently opposed the KC legislation amid a “raging bushfire” of legal outrage.

The Bar has called on the Chief Justice to retract comments that barristers had embarked on “personal exploitation” of the title.

After The Advertiser revealed the KC plans, the Chief Justice told FiveAA Breakfast radio: “The point about this is … removal of the choice of King’s Counsel will focus attention on the important public interest reasons, which is serving South Australians in their litigation, in their legal controversy.

“That’s where the focus should be, not on what a handful of people would like to do in terms of exploiting that public office for their personal interest.”

The Chief Justice, who is away, disputes he meant exploiting clients after telling The Advertiser: “We don’t appoint people Senior Counsel so they can charge more...We don’t appoint them so that they can earn more.

“We appoint them so that the public has an objective idea of who is skilled or not,” Chief Justice said.