MINISTERIAL CODE OF CONDUCT

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): I will ask the question again, leaving out those words, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister resign for using public servants to prepare material for the minister's use in the election campaign during the caretaker period?

The SPEAKER: Again, that is a question of supposition. However, minister, do you choose to answer it?

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (14:25): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I hope I will be given some latitude in answering the question given the very political nature—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Unley, or you will leave!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam Speaker, the opposition is making certain allegations about behaviour by me during the election period, and the allegations are based—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The allegations are based on three emails, and I think it would be of interest to the house if I told members what was in those emails because it might appear to those who have not read them that there is something greater than was being suggested. This is the smoking gun that the opposition thinks it has.

There was an email sent on 24 February from one of my staff to somebody in the department, and it says:

Is therefore correct to say that the Liberal party release reveals that their redevelopment proposal is 35% smaller than DoH had assumed in the costings it provided, and, again contrary to DoH assumptions, does not include carparking?

That was the first one. The second one was sent on 1 March 2010, this time from my chief of staff to the department. It names the person and says:

thanks for your help yesterday

can I pls check this again—

Our $1.42 billion figure includes the cost of the 1500 underground car parks.

But the 84,000sq/m does not include the car parking—that would take another 43,200sq/m below ground.

is that correct?

many thanks.

Then the third one, which was sent on the same day, once again from my chief of staff to—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —once again from my chief of staff to somebody in the department says:

re the car parks could they underground them underneath the two towers, hence adding the 42,500 on to the 84,000sq/m?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, order! Minister.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is a serious matter: I am trying to give it serious attention. Those three emails were sent by my officers to the department seeking clarification of a briefing that had been given back in, I think, November the year before, which had an analysis of the costings; and they were seeking information in terms of clarification.

When we get to the Ministerial Code of Conduct which was raised yesterday, it is relevant to providing guidance to a minister's action in the exercise of our positions of trust—which we do, I assure members, take very seriously. The code of conduct applies to a minister's actions at all times and I dispute—I dispute, Madam Speaker—any allegation that I breached the code. What was requested from the department, as I have just demonstrated, was clarification of an earlier request for information regarding—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —providing costings of a Liberal Party's proposal to rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital on its current site. As that proposal changed and was expanded upon in various press releases, my staff sought clarification on information previously provided. At no time was the department asked to provide any political opinion on the nature of the information being sought by the Minister for Health's office. Section 8 of the code of conduct deals with ministers' relations with the Public Service generally. This section is followed by the section entitled Caretaker Conventions, which simply states all ministers are required to accept—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —certain caretaker conventions during the period leading up to an election. It then notes in parenthesis that separate guidelines on the caretaker convention are available from the Premier. According to the well-established legal principle of generalia specialibus non derogant (a rule of statutory interpretation which, translated, means universal things do not detract from specific things), the caretaker conventions provide more specific guidance on the matter dealing with caretaker periods.

I reassert what I said yesterday, that the provision of factual information from my department did not impact on the partisanship of the agency. It did not seek support in any way for the Labor Party policies; no opinions were sought on matters of a party-political nature; there was no breach of the caretaker conventions.

As I said yesterday, what they object to is not the questions, what they object to is the answers because the answers showed that what they were trying to sell to the public was a turkey. Governments in caretaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —can ask for costings of the policy of the alternative government. Without this principle—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —the costings of the opposition could not be verified, and that will only lead to less transparency and a worse result for the citizens of our state.