Keogh Case

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:44): My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General agree with former solicitor-general Chris Kourakis in his conclusions that the defence theory promoted by Dr Moles that Anna-Jane Cheney died of an allergic reaction to Naprosyn found at the home at the time of death was without any basis and that forensic tests found no traces of the drug in Anna-Jane's body?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order, I believe. It is about introducing facts. If the member for West Torrens had asked whether the Attorney had agreed with the conclusion, that might be okay, but he then continued to elaborate on that extensively, which does arguably breach standing order 97: that a member may not offer any facts except by leave of the house. I have allowed the member some scope here. I ask him either to amend the question or I will switch to the other side and come back to him. This would, of course, go away if leave was allowed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Indeed, sir. My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General agree with the former solicitor-general's advice that a proposition promoted by Henry Keogh that he must be acquitted if Anna-Jane Cheney did not drown, as described by Manock, was silly?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In continuing to characterise what the advice is without quoting, the member is in breach of the standing order continually.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order, and I ask members to consider whether they might consider allowing leave if it was in fact asked for in the future. I will switch to my right and come back to the member. The member for Narungga.