Question Time

Chemotherapy Treatment Error

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): My question is to the Premier. Given the Premier's assertion that the government would always cover legal costs, why did SAICORP suggest to chemotherapy dosing bungle victims on 14 April that they should seek legal representation but gave no indication that there would be any assistance with costs? In an email dated 14 April, Mr Knox is advised by a claims officer from SAICORP:

I strongly suggest that you seek legal representation to assist you with this process and recommend that you call the Law Society of South Australia.

They provide the telephone number. The email continues:

They may be able to assist you in finding a lawyer who would accept your case without any or minimal cost.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:35): That's precisely consistent with the remarks that I made earlier. I refer—

Mr Marshall: You said that the government was always going to pick up the tab.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That's right.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is precisely what I have been advised, that it was the intention—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is warned for the second and final time. There will be no further warnings.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is precisely what I was advised and precisely why I told the house what I told the house yesterday and today. The advice was clear, and that is that a—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If the honourable member thinks he knows the answer, he can supply it himself; otherwise, he might want to listen in silence.

Ms Digance interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Elder is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I've got nothing more to add to the answer I have given. It was always the intention, once a particular claimant had obtained legal advice and had formulated a claim, for the claim to be settled on a basis that would include a claim of legal costs. It's orthodox, just in the same way as the claim would likely set out a claim for disbursements—typically, things like medico-legal reports and different heads of damages. It would also include a sum for legal costs and that they would be paid. So, it is utterly consistent with my earlier responses.