Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Question Time Royal Adelaide Hospital Royal Adelaide Hospital The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition Royal Adelaide Hospital The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing regarding screens at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Leave granted. The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council The Hon. K.J. MAHER: During question time on 5 June, I asked the minister the following questions: 1.	When was the minister or his office first informed of the intention to build the wall at the Royal Adelaide Hospital? 2.	When did the minister or the minister's office first inform the Premier or the Premier's office about the intention to build the secrecy wall at the Royal Adelaide Hospital? 3.	Did the minister ask for the Ambulance Employees Association and the South Australian Salaried Medical Officers Association to be consulted on the secrecy wall? 4.	How long will the secrecy wall remain in place at the Royal Adelaide Hospital? In response to those questions on 5 June, the Minister for Health and Wellbeing responded, and I quote: I thank the member for his question. In terms of when I was first advised, I have already told the media that I was first advised on Thursday afternoon. In terms of when the Premier's office was first advised, I will take that on notice. I have issued no directions in relation to the consultation between the AEA, SASMOA and SA Health in relation to privacy measures at the hospital. On that day, I asked a further supplementary question to the minister: …just so we are very clear, is the minister saying neither he nor anyone in his office had any knowledge of the plans for this wall to be erected before Thursday of last week? To that supplementary the minister responded, and I quote: The question I was asked was when I was first advised. I'm not aware of anybody in my office being advised before I was, but I will take that on notice. This is a critical point: the minister took that question on notice. He took that question back to his office for consideration. Then, on Thursday 3 July 2018, the minister tabled a response to that question on notice. That's almost one full month after the questions were originally asked. The minister's tabled, considered response, one month after the question was answered, was, and I quote: I have been advised: The Premier’s office was made aware of screening to protect patient privacy on the afternoon of Thursday 31 May 2018. Neither my office nor myself were advised of the erection of the screening before Thursday 31 May 2018. That means the minister and his office spent a whole month turning their minds to this question, researching and considering how to answer, checking their documents and looking at what they knew and exactly when they knew. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Don't put inferences into the personal explanation. Stick to the facts. The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council The Hon. K.J. MAHER: One month later, there was a response tabled to the question on notice—one full month later. My questions to the minister are: 1.	What is the process in the minister's office for checking parliamentary answers? How is it possible that when you took a question on notice and a full month later responded, you missed the fact that you had actually been briefed and personally signed correspondence? 2.	On what exact date were you advised about the erection of the screens? In what form was that advice and exactly what did the advice say? The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council Minister for Health and Wellbeing The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:28): In terms of the advice, the opposition already has that document through freedom of information. I signed it on 29 May. In terms of the process, there is a range of statements that relate to this issue and they were handled in accordance with office protocols. The fact of the matter is that the document that's been provided through FOI, signed and dated by me on 29 May, I provided to the opposition through FOI and I have corrected the record today.