Ministerial Responsibility

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:37): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing regarding misleading parliament.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Throughout commonwealth parliaments, there have been numerous instances of ministers who have resigned as a result of misleading parliament. In 1992, New South Wales minister Ted Pickering resigned when evidence before a select committee indicated that he had misled parliament when he claimed that the police service did not inform him about some particular information. Minister Pickering said at the time:

Although my incorrect statement to the House was unintentional, I believe it is my duty to resign my Ministry.

In 1998, South Australian minister Graham Ingerson resigned after he was found by a privileges committee to have misled parliament regarding a call to a Liberal Party figure about the future of the chief executive of the SA Thoroughbred Racing Authority. There are many, many other instances of ministers resigning for misleading parliament, including former premier of this state, John Olsen; Tasmanian deputy premier, Steve Kons; New South Wales minister, Carl Scully; Queensland ministers, Gordon Nuttall and Damian Green; and Queensland committee member, Anna Leahy. The ministerial code of conduct says:

Ministers must ensure they do not deliberately mislead the public or the Parliament on any matter of significance arising from their functions.

Given the fact that ministers in the past have believed it is their intention and their duty to resign, even for unintentionally misleading the parliament, why shouldn't this minister resign?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:39): I will continue to strive to provide the council with accurate information. My misstatements were not deliberate and I did not misrepresent advice received. I would argue that, on the other hand, Labor tried to misrepresent the action as an attempt to reduce visibility of ambulance ramping when the issue of privacy was paramount, and it was raised before the election. The ambulance bay can be readily viewed, yet the privacy of patients has been protected.