<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2017-02-14" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="8357" />
  <endPage num="8453" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital Construction Site Incidents</name>
      <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001022">
        <heading>Royal Adelaide Hospital Construction Site Incidents</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="question">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Bragg</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-02-14">
            <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital Construction Site Incidents</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-02-14T15:11:40" />
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001023">
          <timeStamp time="2017-02-14T15:11:40" />
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:11):</by>  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?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Enfield</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Attorney-General</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Justice Reform</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Planning</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Industrial Relations</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Child Protection Reform</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for the Public Sector</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Consumer and Business Services</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for the City of Adelaide</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-02-14">
            <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital Construction Site Incidents</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-02-14T15:11:41" />
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001024">
          <timeStamp time="2017-02-14T15:11:41" />
          <by role="member" id="1810">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):</by>  Well, Mr Speaker—</text>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001025">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="4340">Ms Sanderson interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001026">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The member for Adelaide is warned for the second and final time.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001027">
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU:</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001028">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—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="interjection">
        <name>Ms Chapman</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001029">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms Chapman:</by>  Come on!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001030">
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU:</by>  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—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="interjection">
        <name>Ms Chapman</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001031">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms Chapman:</by>  That's a joke!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="8408" />
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001032">
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU:</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001033">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.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="633" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. A. Koutsantonis</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001034">
          <by role="member" id="633">The Hon. A. Koutsantonis:</by>  Give me more Latin.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001035">
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU:</by>  Do you like the Latin?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="633" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. A. Koutsantonis</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001036">
          <by role="member" id="633">The Hon. A. Koutsantonis:</by>  I do.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001037">
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU:</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="20170214b487e140efee4755a0001038">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.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>