Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Oakden Inquiry

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (14:50): Supplementary to the Minister for Mental Health: minister, can you please confirm that the government will be providing funding for your own legal representation in respect to the ICAC's Oakden maladministration investigation?

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) (14:51): Again, the view that the government has taken about this is that there is a longstanding position in respect of public sector employees or, in this case, statutory officeholders, or any other identity for that matter, in the event of their position being the subject of a process which is potentially capable of reflecting adversely on that individual. If it is not within the likely scope of any grounds that the Crown itself, by representing the state in its own right, can safely represent, then again there is a process by which such a person makes an application through the Crown Solicitor's Office to request the opportunity of separate representation.

I am not going to be predicting how many people might feel themselves to be in that position, nor am I going to be giving a commentary on who they are, but can I give an example that would be hopefully well known to some people here. It is quite common, Mr Speaker, as you would know, for the Coroner to conduct inquiries into a whole range of matters, and very often those matters involve state government employees. It is often the case—and when I say 'often' I mean probably more often than not the case—that there is the potential for there to be a conflict between one or more Crown employees in their recollections of events.

Bear in mind, before the Coroner nobody is on trial. The Coroner does not find guilt or innocence. The Coroner simply inquires into facts. But it is a longstanding matter that in one of those inquiries it may well be that the state is represented, but it may be that state employees, because there's a perception or a possibility of their interpretation of the circumstances being different in a material way from the Crown's position, have the opportunity to be separately represented. The same principles would apply here because the view would be that obviously the government isn't going to try to leave anybody who has a legitimate interest in getting some advice in circumstances where they have none.

That said, there is a process. It is a well-known process that has been gone through for years, certainly for all of my time on this role and I suspect for all of your time before me, where, if there is a conflict in these circumstances, actual or potential, there is separate representation available. So, that is the case. But to come back to the question before from the member for Davenport, I do not appreciate there being any risk whatsoever that members of the families of the individuals will find themselves in that position.

The SPEAKER: I remember visiting the Berri court as Attorney to see the newly opened rebuilt court and noticing the member practising there in the Coroner's jurisdiction.