HEALTH, ORACLE CORPORATE SYSTEM

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (14:44): My question is the Minister for Health, affectionately known from now on as 'Crazy John' because of the wonderful mobile phone business he is running out of the health department—but it has to do with financial matters.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Minister for Transport, I think you probably have the same point of order as I have.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, yes. It is disorderly to ask a question that way. Standing order 97 dictates how questions should be asked.

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite has been here long enough to understand that that was a very provocative question and to be very careful.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't know what came over me. Did the minister mislead cabinet when he presented a cabinet submission which stated that the Oracle corporate system would require an investment of $21 million when he knew the full cost would be $33.6 million and which failed to include a business case to justify the spending by cabinet?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order. I would point out that that question contains quite a good deal of argument.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is standing order 97. I really wish you people would read the standing orders. It contains argument and therefore—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think 'when he knew', 'misled the cabinet when he knew' is a substantial amount of argument. It having—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Madam Speaker, can I finish my point of order? It having been said it cannot now be withdrawn and I would ask that the Minister for Health and Ageing be given some leeway given the argument that was contained in the question.

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The Auditor-General describes 'inconsistencies' in the process used by the minister in this matter in his annual report ending 30 June 2011. He notes with concern the following:

The Cabinet approval differed from State Procurement Board approvals of November 2009 and December 2009 which totalled $33.6 million.

Audit considered the minister had failed to include in his cabinet submission the whole-of-life cost for the proposal and that cabinet was therefore misinformed. The Auditor-General describes these failures as 'significant matters'.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (14:46): I appreciate the opportunity to explain this issue to the house because the member, and others, have been making comments about this outside of this place. If I can first go to the comments made at the beginning of the member's statement. He referred to me as 'Crazy John'. I would have thought that for someone who is the shadow minister for mental health to use that kind of language in a derogatory way at a time—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —when this state government is running an anti-destigmatisation campaign focused on trying to improve the way our community deals with people with mental health—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —he should be ashamed.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Bragg!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The second point I would make—

Mrs REDMOND: I rise on a point of order. The minister is impugning an improper motive to the questioner.

The SPEAKER: I think if you reflect back to the way the question was asked—we will not go into that. Minister, could you get back to the substance of the question.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The member opposite raised questions about mobile phones. He has not had the guts to come in here and ask a question about that because the facts on which he was making that claim are totally wrong. The other point I should make is that I cannot possibly comment on matters which are subject to cabinet confidentiality because I have taken pledges, but I can assure the house that I did not mislead cabinet. The advice, and my recollection, is that the actual value of the Oracle contract is $9.6 million, which covers five years only. That was the essence of the contract we signed with Oracle.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am not sure what that means, Madam Speaker. The contract was for a five-year period. It did not cover the whole length of the process because Oracle corporation policy prohibits it from contracting for periods of greater than five years. So, the matters brought before the cabinet were absolutely in keeping with the contract.