House of Assembly: Tuesday, 24 May 2005
KAPUNDA ROAD ROYAL COMMISSION\TOC\2\KAPUNDA ROAD ROYAL COMMISSION

\IND\Speech:nn:The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the submissions of the Solicitor-General Chris Kourakis QC to the Kapunda Road Royal Commission. The leader said:

Why did legal counsel representing the Attorney-General in the royal commission invite the Commissioner to make a suppression order when publishing his report on Kapunda Road?

The Solicitor-General made a submission to the Kapunda Road Royal Commission, as follows:

Protection of the interest of particular persons may also move Your Honour to provide a separate confidential report on certain matters, particularly if publication would otherwise impede further inquiries or actions.

I will repeat that: `if publication would impede further inquiries or actions’. The Solicitor-General continued:

If Your Honour is so moved, the government invites you to do so.

The Solicitor-General then went on to draw the commission’s attention to the legal provisions that would govern confiden­tiality of any such report. The submission went on to draw the Commissioner’s attention to the reasons why a separate confidential report might be provided where publication would impede further inquiries or actions, including prosecu­tions, or where someone’s reputation might be damaged on the basis of a mere recommendation that there be further investigations. Plainly, it is not in the public interest that any further investigation or prosecution that might be recom­mended by the Commissioner be compromised by the premature release of any such information.

The Solicitor-General made the submissions that he did because the Commissioner had earlier sought assistance on the legal basis on which a separate confidential report could be provided, if it became necessary to do so. The Commis­sioner sought submissions on that topic because of his concern to ensure fairness to all involved. The Solicitor-General did not submit that there should be a separate confidential report and made no such submission on behalf of the government in favour of providing one. The matter was left, as it should be, at the discretion of the Commissioner. It would appear that the leader’s question was based on a mistaken understanding of the Solicitor-General’s submis­sions.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport is out of order.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUESTION TIME\TOC\1\QUESTION TIME

ATTORNEY‑GENERAL’S REMARKS\TOC\2\ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S REMARKS

\IND\Question:nn:The Hon. R.G. KERIN The Hon. R.G. KERIN (Leader of the Opposition): When the Attorney-General (complete with helmet and clips) spoke to the assembled cyclists protesting about the sentence handed down to Eugene McGee, outside Parliament House on 14 May 2005, and said `I apologise for the outcome of our justice system,’ for which part of the system was he actually apologising?

\IND\Answer:nn:The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): I was pleased to be at the gathering on my bicycle, together with the member for Norwood. It was a surprise to me that the Leader of the Opposition was not there: obviously, he had something better to do that Saturday morning. What I can say is—

##5 The SPEAKER: Order! the Attorney needs to answer the question. He is now starting to debate it.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is quite true that I apologised to Ian Humphrey’s widow, Di Gilchrist, and the Humphrey family for the outcome of this case. I did so because I think the outcome in its totality is unjust, and that is why the government has called a royal commission to inquire into the case. The royal commission is focusing on the police investigation and it is focusing on the prosecution of the case.