HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-07-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Keogh Case

Mr RAU (Enfield) (14:21): A supplementary: my question is to the Attorney-General. Why did the government agree to the payment of $2.5 million in the absence of a formulated claim? I think the Attorney knows what that means.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:22): I thank the member for his question. I am very pleased that he has come into this debate because I think he knows what a formulated claim is, and I think I've got a pretty good idea after 30 years of being a legal practitioner, but I'm not sure that the member for Torrens understands—

Mr Koutsantonis: West Torrens.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —West Torrens understands it. Nevertheless, I think he is irrelevant for the purpose of this question. What is relevant in relation to the matter, which I think is well known to the member for Enfield, is that it is quite reasonable to consider what the risks are to the people of South Australia in relation to any financial claim against the state and, from time to time, ex gratia payments are made. In fact, one of the things that I have viewed since I have come into office were the very extensive lists of ex gratia payments made and authorised by the member for Enfield when he was attorney-general, which had been executed in the absence of any formulated claim.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT