Ambulance Ramping

Mrs HURN (Schubert) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing. Is the health minister aware of any correspondence sent to emergency physician Dr Megan Brooks from the Attorney-General and, if so, did he support it being sent? With your leave, sir, and that of the House, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mrs HURN: Dr Megan Brooks told the health services committee last week:

It is a matter of public knowledge that I had correspondence from the Attorney-General which was horrible as a clinician to receive and to be talking about my motivations for doing this. It was deeply upsetting to have my motivations questioned and to say that I somehow had an agenda to embarrass the state or something similar to that.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:32): I thank the member for her question. I understand the Attorney General had questions in relation to this matter yesterday or the day before in the other place—and I refer the member to the Hansard in relation to his answer that he gave.

Having said that, I also refer the member to the previous statements that I and the Attorney-General have made in relation to this matter, which was that the issue in question was in relation to the certificate that had been issued by the Coroners Court. The desire from the government was to seek clarity in terms of the use of that. It was a new mechanism in the Coroners Act that had not been used before and Dr Brooks, in fact, has given that testimony to the Coroners Court and certainly that has now resulted in her being able to provide that evidence. The government's question in terms of the Coroner's certificate that was issued was ultimately upheld by the court, and it was appropriate, I think, for the Attorney-General's Department to seek clarity in terms of the use of that certificate, and that was the key matter in question for the government, rather than whether Dr Brooks gave evidence.