House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-07-04 Daily Xml

Contents

Keogh Case

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:07): My question is to the Attorney-General. Why didn't the Attorney-General recuse herself from the decision-making process in relation to Mr Henry Keogh, given her previous remarks on the Keogh case in parliament?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:08): The simple answer to that is that there are no grounds upon which I would withdraw from representation in respect of making decisions on behalf of the new government in relation to that aspect. Upon being appointed Attorney-General, I did actually take advice from senior legal advisers as to any matters in which there would be a conflict of interest, or perceived conflict of interest, in relation to outstanding matters that I had participated in prior to the election of the new government.

There were a number of matters, including in respect of an application by a media outlet for a freedom of information application relating to the substantive case that has been referred to and a number of other freedom of information applications. In that regard, I received advice that it would be appropriate and, indeed, prudent to delegate authority in relation to those matters to, in this case, the chief executive of the department, which I did.

However, in relation to the substantive matter, there was no identified conflict of interest, and if the member is referring to any commentary made in 2005, which is asserted to be in the media arena some indication of support by me as to the guilt or innocence of Mr Keogh, then I suggest he reread that transcript. If he finds a question in relation to the then government's application of its own time to one of the many petitions of Mr Keogh via his counsel for consideration and the timeliness of that being dealt with as some indication of intent, then he is sadly mistaken.