House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Women's and Children's Hospital, Breast Cancer WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, BREAST CANCER Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, BREAST CANCER Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:12): My question is to the Minister for Health. On whose authority was the information from the investigation into breast cancer incidences at the Women's and Children's Hospital released to the media, an investigation that the minister advised the house in November last year was being undertaken by his Department of Health? Will the minister now table the preliminary review and explain to the house why the victims were not informed of the public release of this information? The Hon. J.D. HILL House of Assembly Kaurna Minister for Health Minister for the Southern Suburbs Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, BREAST CANCER The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (15:13): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. As usual there are a number of assumptions in her question which one needs to go through. If I can recall all of the questions, I will go through them in order. The first question was about on whose authority the public statement was made yesterday. The public statement was made by the acting head of the Children's Youth and Women's Service, Ms Gail Mondy. She would have done that in consultation with the CE of the health department. My office was advised that that was the process that was going to take place. I certainly supported that. The reason the statement was made to the media is because a meeting of 150 staff of the hospital was held yesterday at approximately 2 to 2.30 to give them interim information about the report as I have mentioned in my ministerial statement already. It would have been naive in the extreme to think that a meeting of 150 staff at the Women's and Children's Hospital would not have led to some media speculation about the nature of the report, so it was prudent—and I certainly supported this approach—that a general statement be made to the community about what was in the report. The second question, I think, related to the 'interim report' as the member put it. There is no interim report. The reporter who is undertaking the review for the service, Professor David Roder, had been talking about his work with the committee that had been established for that purpose, so there was as I understand it some discussion in the service about whether or not that interim information ought to be conveyed to the staff. It was believed that it was important to let the staff know what he had found, so that information was passed on. There is no interim report as such; the information was conveyed. I have tabled in the house today three documents, which are the only documents that I have relating to this, and they are the only documents, I think, that are in existence. There was no document from Professor Roder, as I understand; if there was one, I will see if I can get it for the member. But the point is that his report has yet to be completed. It has to be assessed by independent, international epidemiologists to ensure that the process he went through—the questions he asked and the overall scientific nature of the research—was done in accordance with the best science and the best protocols. So, that will happen. How long that takes, I cannot answer, but we thought it was important that staff know the interim arrangements. The implication of the third question was: why weren't the victims told? The point is when one talks about victims that suggests a set of circumstances where one is a victim. I guess one could say in a general sense that anybody who has cancer is a victim and, if it is in that sense that the member is referring to it, I can accept it. But if she is drawing a conclusion that there is some link between what the hospital has done at the building and the cancer, and therefore those staff are victims in that sense, then I think she is drawing a conclusion that, according to the report by Professor Roder, is unlikely to be made. The people who have the cancer are not known to the health service, they are not known to Professor Roder because, quite properly, their rights as individuals to have privacy are protected. In the process of doing his research, Professor Roder used the cancer register in South Australia, which is a very good research document, and 1,000 or so persons who had worked there or had been volunteers there who had their names checked against that cancer register and then the information was found; so, none of the staff of the hospital or the professor have the names of the list of the people who have the cancer. That is not to say that individuals are known to individuals who work in the hospital; of course, that would be the case. But in any event, all of those who have cancer have been offered support and, of course, anybody who has worked in the hospital or has been a volunteer in the hospital who is at all concerned has been offered support as well, but there was no way that the so-called victims, as the member described them, could have been contacted in advance because they were not known to the hospital or any of its employees.