KNIGHT, PROF. J.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Are the taxpayers of South Australia potentially facing a damages claim in excess of $5 million as a result of the health minister mishandling allegations of malpractice against cardiothoracic surgeon Professor John Knight, and will the damages need to be paid from the health budget?

On 27 October 2009, the minister used parliamentary privilege to name Professor John Knight and to announce his approval of a decision to suspend the doctor from employment at the Southern Adelaide Health Service. The minister also announced that day that he had engaged the Crown Solicitor's Office to look at the doctor's conduct.

On 28 March, the Coroner completed an investigation that exonerated Professor Knight and was highly critical of the health department personnel involved in the investigation. Professor Knight has filed proceedings in the Supreme Court alleging breach of contract, defamation, conspiracy and injurious falsehood.

Importantly, I have been advised today that, despite the Coroner having cleared Professor Knight of any wrongdoing, his contract at Flinders Medical Centre has just been terminated with effect on 1 July, despite the doctor's request for reinstatement. I am advised by legal counsel that the way in which the matter has been handled by the minister, including the termination of employment, is likely to inflate the claim for damages beyond $5 million, not including costs.

The SPEAKER: Before the minister answers that, can I just ask you to read the start of that question again, please, member for Waite?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Are the taxpayers of South Australia potentially facing a damages claim in excess of $5 million as a result of the health minister's mishandling of allegations of malpractice?

The SPEAKER: Thank you, I would ask you to sit down. You need to be very careful in the wording of your questions; that is really not appropriate. 'Mishandling' is not the right term, but I would also ask the minister if it is appropriate for you to answer this question and is it before the courts?

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (14:54): Well, Madam Speaker, this would be a private matter initiated by Mr Knight. I am not sure where it is at in the process. I understand that he has written to the department along lines, I think, similar to the ones that the member for Waite has raised. I am not sure which aspect of the question I should really answer. Whether or not the government is liable to damages, of course, is a matter that only the courts can determine. The size of any damages would be a matter for the courts to determine as well.

I just have to draw to the attention of the house and of the member that, despite the attempts to personalise on me everything that happens in the health system, one thing I am absolutely clear about is that I do not employ doctors. I employ one public servant, and that is the CE of my department. Everybody else is employed according to the processes that are worked out through the Health Act and the Public Service Act. Whether or not a person's contract is terminated, extended or arranged in any way is not something that I have any control over, and that is the way the process works. If you are talking about ministerial responsibility, let me assure you that ministers are not responsible for dealing with contracts with individual doctors.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Well, they are not.

Mr Marshall: Why have ministers then?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: 'Why have ministers then?' The member for Norwood expects that ministers spend their time recruiting and appointing individual staff members.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: It's contrary to the act.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: It is contrary to the act, but it would be the only thing I would ever get to do, if that is all I did.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: We employ 37,000 people. Let me just make that point clear: I do not appoint, do not sack and do not have anything to do with the contracts associated with doctors; that is a decision that is made by the local health networks and the CE of the department.

Secondly, I did come into this place and I did give the house factual information in relation to a legal matter, which I thought was my obligation. I did not attack the doctor. I just gave the facts as they were. That is something I thought was my responsibility to do, because I knew if I did not give those facts there would have been a question about it and I would have been accused of hiding something if I had not provided that information to the house, because I know how they operate.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: That's exactly right. That was the second aspect of it. I cannot recall the third aspect, but I think that covers pretty well everything I had to say.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!