Question Time

CARETAKER GOVERNMENT CONVENTIONS

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:15): My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Why is it that the caretaker conventions made it inappropriate for Kevin Foley to obtain information on the government's promise regarding Adelaide Oval during the caretaker period of the 2010 election campaign but allowed minister Hill to obtain information on the opposition's promise regarding the Royal Adelaide Hospital during the same caretaker period? Former treasurer Foley told the house on 22 June 2010, in relation to Adelaide Oval, and I quote:

Given that the government was in caretaker mode during the election campaign period, in my view it would have been inappropriate to receive information regarding cost estimates or discussions about the government's contribution to the project.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Unley, order! Minister.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (14:16): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Firstly, let me say absolutely, completely clearly to the house that I did not breach the conventions. I did not breach the conventions deliberately. I did not breach the conventions knowingly as has been alleged. For the benefit of the house I give this advice. The following parts of the 'Caretaker Conventions and Other Pre-Election Practices—A Guide for South Australian Government Agencies' document, which the leader referred to yesterday, was issued by the Cabinet Office, dated October 2009, and was quoted by the member to support her allegation. She quoted it, and it states:

...the aim is to ensure that agencies can continue to operate at 'arm's length' from political activity...public servants must not be seen to be supporting particular issues or parties during the election campaign.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Just listen, listen:

Officials will not be authorised to...give opinions on matters of a party political nature.

Opinions—that's the point. I move forward. There was no contravention of these requirements at all by me. In seeking factual information from the department there was no impact on the partisanship of the agency. Opinion was not—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam Speaker, they—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Unley!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: They ask questions, Madam Speaker, and all they want to do is hear their own voices. In seeking factual information from the department there was no impact on the partisanship of the agency. Opinion was not sought on matters of a party political nature, nor—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: No, I'm not joking; this is the fact.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam, this is a serious matter. My character is being impugned by those on the other side. I seek to explain, they interject tirelessly, and I would ask you to assist me in getting my points across without this interjection. In seeking factual information from the department there was no impact on the partisanship of the agency. Opinion was not—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, behave!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Opinion was not sought on matters of a party political nature, nor—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: No opinions were sought on matters of a party political nature, nor was the department supporting any particular political position or party in merely providing factual information. The department maintained arm's length from political activity associated with the provision of the information. I then legitimately used that information to enable me to conduct my political activity, not theirs. The conventions permit ministers to continue to request factual information from agencies during the caretaker period, and the purpose to which such material is put is for ministers to determine. Madam Speaker, this is the critical bit I want to draw to the attention of the house. Of significant note is the section entitled 'Access to public servants by members of parliament' within the 'Caretaker Conventions and Other Pre-election Practices—A Guide for South Australian Government Agencies', which specifically permits:

...discussions may include the administrative and technical practicalities and procedures involved in implementing policies proposed by opposition parties.

That is specifically included in the document. That was left out of the attack yesterday.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Therefore, the communication between my office and the department is completely proper. If the department believed that it was improper, they would have said so. What upsets them is not the questions I asked but the answers that were given, because the answers showed that they had a dud policy.

Mrs REDMOND: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the question was directed to the explanation the minister could give as to why, then, Kevin Foley said, 'Given that the government was in caretaker mode during the election—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —campaign period—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —in my view, it would have been inappropriate to receive information regarding cost estimates or discussions about the government's contribution to the project.' What is the difference between that and this minister's attitude?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam Speaker, now that the member has asked it in such an angry fashion, let me say that I am not responsible, nor have I ever been responsible, thank the Lord, for the actions or words of Kevin Foley.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left, order! The member for Ashford.