House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Keogh Case Keogh Case Mr RAU House of Assembly Enfield Keogh Case Mr RAU (Enfield) (14:21): A supplementary: my question is to the Attorney-General. Why did the government agree to the payment of $2.5 million in the absence of a formulated claim? I think the Attorney knows what that means. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General Keogh Case The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:22): I thank the member for his question. I am very pleased that he has come into this debate because I think he knows what a formulated claim is, and I think I've got a pretty good idea after 30 years of being a legal practitioner, but I'm not sure that the member for Torrens understands— Mr Koutsantonis House of Assembly Mr Koutsantonis: West Torrens. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —West Torrens understands it. Nevertheless, I think he is irrelevant for the purpose of this question. What is relevant in relation to the matter, which I think is well known to the member for Enfield, is that it is quite reasonable to consider what the risks are to the people of South Australia in relation to any financial claim against the state and, from time to time, ex gratia payments are made. In fact, one of the things that I have viewed since I have come into office were the very extensive lists of ex gratia payments made and authorised by the member for Enfield when he was attorney-general, which had been executed in the absence of any formulated claim.