Royal Adelaide Hospital Construction Site Incidents

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:11): My question then is to the Attorney-General. Given that answer, Attorney, can you explain why it took two years of valuable court time before the prosecution acknowledged that there was no case to answer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (15:11): Well, Mr Speaker—

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the deputy leader for that question, and can I reinforce the remarks made by my colleague the Minister for Health. The suggestion that there can be any connection between the two is appalling.

The answer to the question is this: it is not uncommon in prosecutions for matters to be appraised along the way, and at some points in time advice is received—

Ms Chapman: Come on!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, can I answer the question, please? At some points along the way advice is received by the prosecuting authority from their legal advisers to the effect that, given that the Crown is a model litigant and—

Ms Chapman: That's a joke!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, I'm sorry, they are, and given that the Crown makes decisions about prosecution based on an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which is not vested in the government—that is, in particular, in me but in public officers who have responsibility in relation to these matters—they take advice and they act in good faith and as a model litigant should based on that advice.

One of the things which has been of concern to the government generally and which is something we have been concerned about—and I think it is a matter that probably would have been of concern to you, Mr Speaker, when you were occupying the role of Attorney-General—is that it is an unfortunate fact that, for various reasons, a nolle prosequi, for example, is entered in court proceedings in the District Court or Supreme Court from time to time.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Give me more Latin.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Do you like the Latin?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I do.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. Unfortunately, from time to time this happens, but I make the following point. What would be much worse than a withdrawal of a prosecution in circumstances where it appeared to the prosecuting authority that there was not a reasonable prospect of success in such a matter, what would be much worse and extremely embarrassing—and I could not excuse it—would be for the government or prosecuting authorities to pursue people in circumstances where they had sound advice to the effect that the prosecution was not likely to succeed.

Just think about where that road leads, where government prosecuting authorities are free to proceed against citizens in circumstances where they are of the fair opinion that there is no reasonable prospect of succeeding in that prosecution. Is that the sort of place we would like to be in? All of us on this side are deeply concerned about the fact that a man lost his life in tragic circumstances in the construction of the hospital. All of us are deeply disappointed and upset about that, and obviously we are deeply concerned about his family, but that does not mean prosecutions occur without sound foundation.