<!--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="2019-04-30" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>1</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="5467" />
  <endPage num="5539" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Ministerial Statement</name>
      <text id="20190430e52ab7dcef524ae680000556">
        <heading>Ministerial Statement</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="5381" kind="question">
        <name>Mr TEAGUE</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Heysen</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2019-04-30">
            <name>Ministerial Statement</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2019-04-30T14:57:37" />
        <text id="20190430e52ab7dcef524ae680000557">
          <timeStamp time="2019-04-30T14:57:37" />
          <by role="member" id="5381">Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (14:57):</by>  My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney explain why she tabled the document she tabled earlier today?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Bragg</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Attorney-General</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2019-04-30">
            <name>Ministerial Statement</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2019-04-30T14:57:45" />
        <text id="20190430e52ab7dcef524ae680000558">
          <timeStamp time="2019-04-30T14:57:45" />
          <by role="member" id="1804">The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:57):</by>  I thank the member for Heysen for this question. Earlier, I tabled a report which has been the subject of a freedom of information application. The matter of Attorney-General SA v the Seven Network (Operations) Limited arises out of legal questions referred by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court in a review by SACAT of a Freedom of Information Act 1991 decision of the Ombudsman.</text>
        <page num="5503" />
        <text id="20190430e52ab7dcef524ae680000559">The Ombudsman's decision was that the Seven Network should have access to a copy of legal advice prepared for the former government in 2006 by the Chief Justice when he was the solicitor-general for South Australia. The advice concerned a third petition for mercy made on behalf of Mr Henry Keogh. Judgement was delivered on Friday 12 April 2019.</text>
        <text id="20190430e52ab7dcef524ae680000560">The Full Court answered all of the questions in a manner which has the indirect result of upholding the determination of the Ombudsman that the advice should be provided to Channel 7 on the basis that legal professional privilege in that advice was waived by reason of public disclosures concerning the content of the advice made by then acting attorney-general Foley.</text>
        <text id="20190430e52ab7dcef524ae680000561">Following this judgement, the chief executive of my department, to whom I have delegated the power to make decisions about this matter, has determined to release the legal advice to Channel 7 through its representatives. As the indirect effect of the Full Court's decision is that legal professional privilege is no longer attached to that advice, I tabled the report in anticipation of other parties making applications under the FOI Act for access to it.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>