<!--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="2019-05-01" />
  <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="5541" />
  <endPage num="5629" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Keogh Case</name>
      <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000499">
        <heading>Keogh Case</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="633" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">West Torrens</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2019-05-01">
            <name>Keogh Case</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2019-05-01T14:33:07" />
        <page num="5576" />
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000500">
          <timeStamp time="2019-05-01T14:33:07" />
          <by role="member" id="633">The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:33):</by>  My question is to the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General aware of the former solicitor-general's advice that any possibility that Ms Cheney's death was caused by natural causes is convincingly denied by the incriminating circumstances of Anna-Jane's death?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4343">
        <name>The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000501">
          <by role="member" id="4343">The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER:</by>  Point of order: the member continues to characterise the legal advice in a way without seeking leave and without quoting the relevant passage in full. Either reason makes the question out of order.</text>
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000502">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000503">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  I'm trying to hear the point of order. The point of order is that information is taken and it is being argued in a way. Is that what the point of order is—characterised—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4343">
        <name>The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000504">
          <by role="member" id="4343">The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER:</by>  Characterisation of a piece of legal advice without being quoted is being presented contrary to standing order 97 and without leave.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000505">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  In putting any such question, a member may not offer argument or opinion—</text>
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000506">
          <event kind="interjection">An honourable member interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000507">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  It's on the edge. I'm going to allow that question. I do have the point of order, but I do accept that it's on the edge.</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>
        <startTime time="2019-05-01T14:34:15" />
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000508">
          <timeStamp time="2019-05-01T14:34:15" />
          <by role="member" id="1804">The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:34):</by>  As I have advised the house, I have read the document. I have noted the advice that was given to me of the intention of the chief executive to provide a copy of it to Channel 7 pursuant to freedom of information. Obviously, I have had to receive advice in respect of material in the document which may or may not be able to meet the standards as set in the FOI Act—for example, in relation to personal information about the victim, Ms Cheney, and whether that should be in some way excised. Those are the sorts of things that are in the report.</text>
        <text id="20190501727b15bd786447c7a0000509">But the question of the import of the opinion by the then solicitor-general, as I say, has been succeeded by events which quashed the relevant sentence and on which I and, indeed, the previous government had advice.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>