SA Health

The Hon. C. BONAROS (14:49): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Treasurer a question about SA Health.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the most senior legal representative in the state, recently went public with his concerns about alleged corruption and maladministration within SA Health. In a letter he sent to SA Health CEO Dr Chris McGowan, Commissioner Lander outlined his six areas of concern. They included employment practices of medical officers and whether there are systems in place to ensure they are properly accountable for their time, arrangements relating to the regulation and administration of rights of private practice, conflicts of interest between SA Health employees, questions around sufficient recordkeeping measures, the management of clinicians, and cultural issues across the mammoth department.

Commissioner Lander believes a full anticorruption evaluation of SA Health would save taxpayers millions of dollars, yet the Treasurer has refused to entertain the request for an additional $2 million that the commissioner needs to undertake the task. My questions to the Treasurer are:

1. If your government is genuine in its intent to fix SA Health, why are you so reluctant to provide the necessary funds to allow the commissioner to undertake the evaluation he believes SA Health needs so much?

2. With the tens of millions of dollars that have already been thrown at administrators KordaMentha to keep the doors of the NRAH open, isn't $2 million a small price to pay if the commissioner is indeed correct and his forensic evaluation of SA Health saves taxpayer dollars in this state?

3. Have you or the health minister met with, or do you intend to meet with, the commissioner to discuss his concerns face to face; if not, why not?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:51): I assume I am allowed to answer; I have answered this question the public arena on a number of occasions, but I assume I am allowed to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT: You are allowed to answer. It's a question of whether you're reading from a media release or not.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to answer the question, Mr President. My views are very clear on this issue. The ICAC commissioner is very well funded by the taxpayers of South Australia. He is funded somewhere between $15 million and $16 million a year to primarily root out corruption in South Australia. He also has responsibilities in relation to serious and systemic maladministration.

I understand, and so it has been reported, that he has indicated publicly that he has had, over the last four to five years, up to a thousand allegations of corruption within SA Health. Not unreasonably, I have said, 'That's great, that is his responsibility, he is funded to look at corruption,' and I think it is really for the commissioner to indicate publicly what has happened to those investigations of a thousand instances of alleged corruption.

Of course, many of them automatically get dismissed because complainants say, 'Hey, this is corruption,' and the commissioner would look at it and immediately dismiss it, etc. However, I would imagine that if there had been a thousand allegations of corruption, and if he has a view that there is a serious concern of corruption, there may well have been, or may well be, an instance where one of those cases proceeds to a prosecution, and there may well be a case where one of those cases are successfully prosecuted.

That is ultimately an issue for the commissioner. He is entirely independent of the government. We are not privy to where he is up to in relation to these investigations of a thousand allegations of corruption, but they are not recent. As I understand it he has told the media that it has been over a period of four to five years that these allegations of corruption have been there.

That is his job: to investigate corruption and serious systemic maladministration. In addition to that, last year the taxpayers of South Australia provided an additional $14.5 million over the forward estimates to the commissioner, about half of which related to investigating expenditure and about half of which related to operating expenditure.

It was reported, incorrectly, that the government was insisting that he had to have his own courtroom, and that is why he had to spend so much money on capital works. That was incorrect—I have pointed that out to the journalist—because, when the commissioner said he needed a courtroom, we said, 'There are many existing courtrooms that you could use, and we could reduce the cost to taxpayers of providing your own courtroom.'

The commissioner indicated that, for security reasons and other reasons, he was not prepared to use existing unused courtroom space. He wanted his own courtroom; therefore, the government provided additional capital works expenditure to allow that to occur. It was not the government's wish or intention that he have his own courtroom. We didn't require that of him: that was his request.

The third of four points I will make in relation to expenditure is that the commissioner, last financial year, came to me and said that he had underexpended his operating budget by a six-figure sum but that he had very important work to be done in relation to a particular investigation. I don't know the detail of that. I shouldn't know, and he wouldn't tell me anyway. He asked whether or not I would agree, which is a little unusual, to actually allow him to carry over unspent money for this investigation.

I agreed, on behalf of the taxpayers of South Australia, to allow a six-figure sum to be carried over into this year's budget from last year's budget. So, it is my very strong view that, in relation to allegations of corruption, the commissioner has the dollars and he has the legal authority to investigate any allegation of corruption within SA Health or indeed anywhere.

In relation to his further request, in addition to the $14½ million that we provided, he asked for a further $2 million to do this evaluation of SA Health. I indicated, on behalf of the taxpayers, 'No, we don't have the additional $2 million to give to you.' That was one part of the answer. The other part of the answer was the commissioner said it would take about 12 months. In my experience—this wasn't what he said—these things tend to take a bit longer than first indicated, but he said 'about 12 months' for him to produce the results of that.

I said to the commissioner, 'We can't wait another 12 months or 18 months to take corrective action in relation to SA Health. We know there is a problem of financial mismanagement and maladministration in terms of financial management within SA Health. We have a plan to fix it, correct it and save the millions of dollars. We can't afford to wait for another 12 months for you to tell us what we already know. We know there is a problem. We inherited it after 16 years of financial mismanagement by the former Labor government. We need to make changes and we need to do that straightaway. We don't need to spend another $2 million to tell us what we already know in terms of financial mismanagement.'

The final point I would make is that the ICAC commissioner is an expert on legal issues. He is an expert—and that's what he has been appointed to—in relation to corruption issues. That is his bread and butter. We have other investigative bodies, like the Auditor-General. We have parliamentary committees and others, and you have Treasury and treasurers with responsibility in relation to financial mismanagement and saving the taxpayers' dollars within SA Health.

It is my view that that is not the primary role of the corruption commissioner. We have an Auditor-General, as I said. We have a Treasurer, we have Treasury, we have parliamentary committees. We've got many other vehicles through which financial mismanagement should be corrected and corrective action taken.

So with great respect to Commissioner Lander, I accept his greater expertise in relation to legal issues and corruption. I don't accept the fact that he is the expert, or indeed the pre-eminent expert, in relation to financial management issues. I am sure there are things that he could throw light on in relation to various aspects of corruption and other things like that—that's his responsibility, not ours—but in relation to financial mismanagement, that is a job for the government, for the minister, the new management and indeed the other bodies that exist in South Australia.

Could I say in conclusion that I chuckle a little bit at some members of the Australian Labor Party. The Hon. Ms Bonaros isn't from the Labor Party, but others have expressed the view that we should spend the $2 million. Can I say there are two senior members of the shadow cabinet who, when we gave the commissioner $14½ million extra, came to me in the corridors of Parliament House and said, 'Why on earth are you giving the commissioner an extra $14½ million? He's got more than enough money already.' These are two very, very senior members of the shadow cabinet and yet we have the same people going out into the public arena saying, 'This is terrible. Why didn't the government give the commissioner an extra $2 million?' The hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue is evident to everyone.