Chemotherapy Treatment Error

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): My question is to the Premier. Why did the Premier tell the house yesterday that the legal costs of the chemotherapy underdosing victims were always going to be paid for by the government, when the McRae family had to pay their own legal costs incurred during the settlement reached last June?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:25): I explained this yesterday, but we will do it again the long way. For those who aren't familiar with the way in which these matters are dealt with, when the government is dealing with serious matters—so, not small matters, which probably can be resolved without requiring somebody to get legal representation—it is orthodox for the government insurers to invite people to get a lawyer for a couple of reasons: one is to make sure they can properly formulate their claim and, two, so that they can assess whether or not any offer that ultimately is made is appropriate. Legal representation is a right. It is an appropriate right and we encourage people to get that support. When we were talking yesterday about this, it was in response to the allegation that people suggested that these people should 'lawyer up'.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Hartley to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The implication was that we were going to play hardball with them and that they needed to get ready for a battle. It is completely the opposite. What we were actually doing was trying to protect them by making sure that they were aware of their legal rights and they would have the proper advice.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Hartley.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The way in which these matters ordinarily occur is that the lawyer then sends on behalf of the client a letter of claim, and that claim is usually a particular sum of money plus legal costs and other disbursements. And the way matters are routinely resolved is that a negotiation occurs and then a settlement sum is received. More often than not, a settlement sum is given on an all-inclusive basis, so the claim might be X plus costs and—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is on two warnings.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —the matter is resolved on the basis that a total sum is paid, which is inclusive of legal costs, and that has always been the intention of the government in dealing with these matters.

Mr Gardner: Why didn't you say that yesterday?

The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Morialta.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It's just the simple truth about how these matters are dealt with routinely on a day-to-day basis and, with all due respect to my former profession, it is not often they forget to put their legal fees on a bill, so that does tend to be something that is the subject of negotiation—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is warned for the second and final time, as is the member for Finniss.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It usually does loom large in the discussions and usually the client wants to know what they get in their hand, so they want to know what are the costs, what is the offer and what is the net amount. Usually, an all-inclusive amount is done in that fashion. It is also how insurers or governments like to deal with it, so you don't have a further negotiation at the end about legal costs, and I know the deputy leader knows this all too well.

The point about this is that this was not well understood by some of the claimants in this case and that is natural because it wouldn't be something necessarily that is well known, so I can understand why they have suggested that they are not getting their legal costs paid. But to make that absolutely clear, when the minister and I intervened on Monday, we made it clear that any offer that was going to be made should make it clear that there would be legal costs paid discretely on top of that amount and that is what has happened.

All of this agitation is about something that has happened in the past. From Monday, it has been crystal clear to all of the claimants that they are getting a sum of money plus legal costs on top of that money, just so that there is no doubt that people are getting their settlement sum plus their legal costs. I hope that that provides some clarity and I hope the negotiations, to the extent that they have not been resolved yet, are resolved in a speedy fashion. If it is any comfort to those who have been the subject of this, I offer my abject apology on behalf of the South Australian government.