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 The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens Keogh Case The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:55): My question is to the Attorney-General. Why did the Attorney-General tell the house and the public that the legal opinion that the Attorney-General relied upon to compensate Henry Keogh with the sum of $2.75 million was the Wells and Doyle opinion provided to the former government, when the Auditor-General, in his annual report, tells the house the Attorney-General relied on a second piece of advice commissioned in May 2018? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Again, that question has several elements. I will expect a broad answer from the Attorney-General. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:56): I am happy to answer what I think the member for West Torrens is getting at. Let me be clear, at all times the government relied on the submissions presented by correspondence representing Mr Keogh, the Wells and Doyle opinion, which has been referred to, which was actually dated in yesterday's Auditor-General's Report, together with further opinion that was obtained after the change of government. We have made that position very clear. If the member for West Torrens has a look at, I think, page 18 in the Auditor-General's Report—and I am happy to check that—it is referred to in both the Executive Summary and in Part B. He refers to the date in May of the second set of opinion which, for the first time that I know of, has actually been identified as the date, but we have at all times said, 'Further legal opinion obtained after the change of government and after the election.'