HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-05-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Keogh Case

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): My question is to the Premier. Why haven't you read such a crucial report, considering you paid $2.57 million of taxpayers' money to Henry Keogh?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:06): And this is a matter which has been the subject of other questions, except this: the document in question has been tabled in this parliament because it is a document that is now the subject of a Full Court order of the Supreme Court that no longer has legal professional privilege, waived as a result of the conduct of Mr Foley, and which the previous government had fought for years to keep secret. The Full Court determination changed—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the parameters and, accordingly, that document has been made public. However, it ought to be remembered by members that the document itself is an historical document. It is a document which, whilst the—

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe is called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —opposition fought hard to keep secret—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left and right!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier and the Leader of the Opposition are called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —upon coming into office, as the new government and the delegation of responsibility in relation to that matter to the chief executive, ultimately there was a determination of referral by SACAT to the Full Court of the Supreme Court—which may not immediately come to the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, but perhaps he needs to reflect on this—and that is that the case stated of questions of law were referred to the Supreme Court.

Not unreasonably, some time was taken by the court to make a determination that, in all of the circumstances, and in particular that the author of the said report is now the Chief Justice, arrangements were then made for the appointment of three Victorian Supreme Court judges. I was not instructing on that matter nor privy to those arrangements. They were a matter under the delegation for that purpose.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Questions of law have been determined.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Questions of law have been answered. That is a freedom of information application issue, and it needed to be resolved and it has been made public. The fact, though, as to its relevance in relation to the whole sad, tawdry Keogh saga, is one which is almost irrelevant, and the reason for that is this: there is a second Full Court decision on 19 December 2014 of—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the Supreme Court, which heard all of the evidence, quashed the sentence—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —recommended that the matter be referred for consideration of further trial and, in fact, the DPP, whilst it issued those proceedings, withdrew them.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I don't know all of the particulars surrounding that. We weren't in government. That whole mess was during the time—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —of the former government, so I can't answer for them as to what had been handed over.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! We have the question, leader.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What I do know is that subsequent to that 2014 decision of the Full Court—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —applications were made. The former attorney-general sought legal advice and, to paraphrase the extensive answers I have answered on this matter, opinions were sought and further information was obtained. It was negotiated by two senior Queen's Counsel on behalf of the government, a settlement was reached and the matter was resolved. I just remind members that the two Full Court decisions should not be confused. The one relating to the now historical document published today was a—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —decision in relation to whether a legal opinion—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —provided to the former government—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Education!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —should be made public, given the conduct of Mr Foley. They answered those questions, and they determined in answer to those questions that the legal professional privilege was waived, and the document has been produced.

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