IRIS SYSTEMS

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:53): I thank the minister for that information confirming the third/third/third arrangement. Will the minister explain then why 14 members of the IMVS team, who developed the IRIS 2 software, were not consulted about the sale of the software or the assignment from IMVS to John William Mann for $1 on 12 September 2006? When the IMVS first sold the licence for the IRIS 2 software system in 2000, the 17-member team who delivered the program were entitled to a share of 30 per cent of the profit. Indeed, on 3 January 2002, they each received a cheque for $548.79. Subsequent proceeds of sale of the IRIS 2 software were paid to the partnership.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order. You cannot give an explanation that leave has not been sought for. We should follow the rules slightly.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I was going to remind the deputy leader at the end of the question, that the appropriate form of words is to seek the leave of the house to explain.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that, sir.

Leave granted.

Ms CHAPMAN: Subsequent proceeds of sale of the IRIS 2 software were paid to the partnership—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: He has nodded.

The SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

Ms CHAPMAN: Wakey, wakey, Kevin. Keep alert. Subsequent proceeds of sale of the IRIS 2 software were paid to a partnership comprising the wives and partners of three of the original team and, by deed of assignment on 12 September 2006, the IMVS transferred to Mr Mann, as I have indicated. IRIS Systems International was then registered on 8 September 2006 and thereafter the commercial benefit—notwithstanding the minister's previous answer—for the benefit of that product to others.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (14:55): The matters that the member refers to are, of course, subject to the investigation which I myself referred to earlier today in answer to another question and, indeed, in answer to questions put to me a couple of weeks ago by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not wish to go through the details of the allegations because it is a matter that is subject to an investigation as to whether or not there have been any actions which might be criminal or illegal in some way.

Of course, it is a matter of contention and we should not make judgments in here about that. It is subject to the proper processes and, as I said before, it has been subject to investigation by the Government Investigations Unit and the police, it has been referred to the Auditor-General, and I understand the DPP is currently considering whether or not further action should be taken.

The broader issue is: how should government manage the IMVS? I brought legislation to this parliament—and I am pleased to say that this parliament passed the legislation towards the end of the last financial year—which gives the government of the day and the CE of Health much greater and more direct control over the operations of the IMVS. We have established a new service, SA Pathology, which has its own chief executive and which is within the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service and under the management of that CE who then reports through to the CE of Health and through to me. That is a more direct form of governance than used to be the case—it had its own board. As I said when I introduced this legislation to the parliament, this would produce a much better form of accountability.

The deputy leader and the opposition opposed that every single inch of the way. The deputy leader defended the arrangements that were in place and accused me of outrageous behaviour in trying to get direct control of this service. She said that it would undermine the service and bring the service down in some way. She defended the organisation as it was. I had concerns about the way that organisation was being run and I went through the process of having it reformed. We now have more direct control and we are going through and having a very close look at what happened in that organisation before we had that direct control.

That has been the problem and I have to say that, generally within health, we have had so many boards running so many different parts of the organisation that it has been very difficult for government or for the administration of health system to really truly know what is going on. That applies to country health organisations, and I could give a whole range of examples chapter and verse of where things have not happened there properly and right across the health service—and the IMVS is within that category.

I am having proper process put in place to investigate all the matters raised by the deputy leader, and once those matters have been properly resolved, I will fully account to the parliament as to what happened, why it happened, to whom it happened, what should have happened and who got it wrong, but I do not want to interfere in the process of proper investigation by the proper authorities at this stage.