The Labor government of Mike Rann in South Australia has a long track record of curtailing freedoms and rights, so its plan, now aborted, to force individuals to reveal who they are and where they live when making online comment during the forthcoming election campaign came as no surprise to watchers of what has been happening in this part of Australia for some time.

And it is also a hypocritical government when it comes to issues around secrecy and identity. Michael Atkinson, the state’s long serving Attorney-General and the man who is being forced to eat a big bowl of humble piece today after he announced that his daft plan to censor election comments would be scraped, was at the centre of an effort by South Australian MPs, led by the ALP, to stop an Adelaide lawyer from suing Atkinson for defamation and for Atkinson and another MP to be compelled to give evidence in the matter.

Nicholas Niarchos, a prominent Adelaide lawyer, issued a writ against Atkinson in 2003, which alleged that Atkinson had told a group at a legal dinner that Niarchos was part of a “Gang of 14” lawyers who wanted to get rid of him. The previous year the Adelaide Advertiser reported on November 28, 2002, that a group of lawyers calling themselves the “Group of 14 for justice” were going to campaign against Atkinson and his hard-right law and order policies.

Atkinson didn’t take kindly to this revelation, according to Niarchos. In an affidavit filedwith the South Australian Local Court in 2003, Niarchos said that Atkinson had named him as part of this group of 14 at a legal dinner on March 27 2003. Niarchos said he wasn’t a member of the group and that he was “deeply offended by the untrue statement made by Mr Atkinson, which I consider to be defamatory of me in my personal and professional capacity”.

Niarchos’ lawyers applied to the court to have Atkinson reveal the source of his comment about Niarchos. In other words, put the Attorney-General in the witness box.

However, Atkinson was not the only MP targeted by Niarchos. Labor backbencher Jack Snelling was also pursued by Niarchos’ lawyers. Snelling had written to Niarchos, on behalf of Atkinson, asking him to reveal whether he was part of a plot to remove Atkinson. So Niarchos’ legal team also wanted Snelling to give evidence about the source of his allegation.

But Atkinson and Snelling were not keen on the idea of having to do what ordinary citizens have to do every day of the week, and that is give evidence in courts. They asserted parliamentary privilege to close Niarchos’ legal action down. Just before 10pm on  September 17, 2003, long after the media had gone home for the day, Snelling told the Parliament he would not be complying with a subpoena to attend court in accordance with a ruling made by the speaker earlier that day, and supported by all MPs, that ensured none of them could be compelled to give evidence in court because to do so would amount to an undermining of parliamentary privilege.

It seems, when it comes to secrecy there is one law for MPs in South Australia, and another for the punters.