Question Time

Public Sector Employees

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (14:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation prior to addressing a question to the Attorney-General regarding government engagement with medical professionals.

Leave granted.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Dr Megan Brooks, a former medical director of the Royal Adelaide Hospital's emergency department, recently gave evidence to a parliamentary committee about her interactions with the Coroner's Court. She stated that she received correspondence from the Crown Solicitor's Office indicating she was being considered for an investigation into maladministration or misconduct as a public sector employee, something she attributed to making herself available to the Coroner regarding patient deaths linked to ambulance ramping.

This letter reportedly questioned her motivations, suggesting that she was acting to embarrass the state. Her immunity to give evidence was later overturned by the government-initiated Supreme Court appeal, though she was ultimately allowed to testify under conditions limiting questioning from her own legal representation. My question to the Attorney-General is: did he personally approve or have prior knowledge of a letter sent to Dr Brooks by the Crown Solicitor's Office and, if not, when did he first become aware of it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (14:31): I thank the honourable member for his question. The provision that the judicial review related to was a brand new provision that was introduced, I think, by the former government in relation to providing immunity in coronial inquests. The judicial review, I am advised, was made and the government's application was upheld by the Supreme Court.

I am advised it is not a particularly unusual state of affairs that new provisions are tested in court to see what the bounds of those provisions are. I am also advised the correspondence was between legal practitioners: between the Crown Solicitor's Office and, I am advised, the concerned individual's legal representatives. As such, I won't go into the correspondence that is between two groups of lawyers.