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) (15:01): Will the Attorney-General now table in the parliament all legal opinions relating to the Keogh case? 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) (15:01): Perhaps the member hasn't availed himself of the opportunity to read the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court. The Hon. A. Koutsantonis House of Assembly The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I did. He should be charged with murder, but you paid him $2.5 million. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens! The member for West Torrens can leave for 15 minutes under 137A. The honourable member for West Torrens having withdrawn from the chamber: The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member has interjected to the extent of asserting that the Full Court— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right, or you will be following. The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, be quiet! The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —of the Supreme Court in some way made some determination in relation to a murder case. That's completely erroneous and is a very distasteful reflection on the Full Court. If the member had read the Full Court decision, which is a public document and he is able to read the same, he would know that the question of law before them was whether the legal opinion given by the then solicitor-general to the government was a document that was within the confines of legal professional privilege, whether it should be produced pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act consistent with what the Ombudsman had already determined and, furthermore, how the conduct of Mr Foley in particular, as the acting attorney-general, in the issuing of a press release about this matter might affect it. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Quite clearly, in respect of that document, in respect of that application by Channel 7 for the freedom of information application production of it, the answer was clearly that, yes, the legal professional privilege was interfered with and that indeed the Ombudsman's position would then stand. There were two choices for the chief executive, who has been delegated this matter for the last three years; one was to relist the matter before SACAT, advise them formally of the decision of the Full Court and then allow that position to be answered in direct consequence of the Ombudsman's decision standing. The second alternative was that she acknowledge, as a model litigant on behalf of the Crown, that the Full Court decision had been made, not as an appeal but as a question of law stated to them. They made a decision. In the absence of there being any decision to appeal against that, she made the decision that it was appropriate to release the document to Channel 7. That was done last Wednesday as the applicant. It only relates to that document. It only relates to that legal opinion. It only relates to facts surrounding the conduct of Mr Foley in relation to that document. I don't know how many others he might have mucked up but, anyway, that's the only one we know of. That was the only one subject to the FOI application 'questions of law determined by the Full Court' and so the answer is no.