Grievance Debate

IRIS SYSTEMS

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:20): Today we have the revelation from the government that, while a company is under investigation by the anti-corruption unit, it has entered into a contract to the value of some $305,000 with that company as an annual provision for an IT service that was developed in the IMVS.

The government today, via the Minister for Health, has admitted that this is a serious matter, in particular, that the government-owned intellectual property that had been developed in the IMVS was sold to a private company run by public servants, a company that was established as a partnership held in the names of the wives and partners of these public servants, and it then reaped a million dollar benefit in return when it onsold that technology to the Western Australian Health Department.

As if that were not bad enough, subsequent to that, and while a police Anti-Corruption Branch inquiry has continued, the government-owned SA Pathology, the successor to IMVS (which was established in this parliament and presented by the government as being necessary to take control over the provision of pathology services for all public hospitals in this state and to offer a private service), has, as one of its first actions, signed a contract with the very company that is under investigation by the anti-corruption unit. The minister told us this afternoon that he could not remember when he first knew about it. Half an hour later he came into the parliament and told us that the matter was so serious that on 2 February this year (nine months ago)—he remembers the date now—he referred this matter to the Auditor-General.

We have had debates in this parliament dealing with the IMVS. We have abolished that act. That act has been repealed. Through all those debates did the minister make mention at all about this issue, an issue that was so important that it was necessary for him to refer it to the attention of the Auditor-General in February of this year? Did he mention in those debates that this company, established by employees of IMVS, was under police investigation and under investigation by the Attorney-General's Government Investigation Unit? No, not a word. Then he stood here today and pretended that he did not know the detail of this matter, that as it was such an important matter and because a fraud was being investigated he needed to be careful of what he said.

What has been exposed is that his own new SA Pathology—while he knew about it and he reported it to the Auditor-General—has entered into a contract with the company in question, the very company that is under investigation. His own SA Pathology has entered into a contract with that company before the investigation is even finished. What explanation does he give to us? He does not know; he will have to go away and get some advice on that.

Given the knowledge that there is a police anti-corruption inquiry that the minister has known about, on his own admission, for nine months and thought was so serious that he should write to the Auditor-General about it, it is unacceptable that the minister should come into this house and pretend to the people of South Australia that it is satisfactory in some way that SA Pathology should sign a contract with a company under investigation.

It is utterly irresponsible government at best, and it is a cover-up for corruption that has been happening under the minister's watch, which he has known about and which he has failed to disclose to this house. He has failed to do anything about it himself, he failed to tell us about it when we were dealing with IMVS, and he has allowed his own department, SA Pathology, which is completely under his control, to sign up to that contract. That is completely unacceptable behaviour. For two days in a row the minister has come into this house and told us, and told the people of South Australia, that he—

Time expired.