HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-12-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SA Health, ICAC Report

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:57): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing about the ICAC report.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I ask the minister, briefly, in relation to some of the comments he has made:

1. What is the point of having a government task force of public servants investigate itself—and, to quote the minister, 'clinicians, not lawyers'—if it does not have the powers of enforcement and compelling witnesses to provide evidence?

2. If not ICAC, why doesn't the minister refer any investigation to the Auditor-General or the Ombudsman?

3. Can he explain what the legal reasons were that he should not have been given the ICAC commissioner's report when it directly affects his portfolio, and why the Attorney-General didn't then appoint the task force?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:58): In relation to the third question, I will just make the point that the Attorney-General is the responsible officer, under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act, to receive reports. In relation to the second question, I would refer the honourable member to the ministerial statement by the Attorney-General in the other place.

I'm grateful for the first question, which is basically—if I could paraphrase, I think the spirit of the question is: it's important to have coercive powers, and if the task force doesn't have them, into whose hands am I going to refer matters? I think it's important to stress, first and foremost, that the independent statutory officers—such as the ICAC Commissioner, the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman—do not wait for the permission of government to initiate action. That is why they are independent statutory officers. It does remind me, though, of the fact that the honourable member is part of a parliamentary group that went to the last election insisting on a royal commission into SA Health. I presume that the particular reason for that was because the party saw value in coercive powers.

I am interested that the issue has come up again this week. The party has reiterated its interest in a royal commission. I was prompted to go back and look at what the AMA said, at the time of the 2018 election, in relation to the royal commission proposal of your party. The state president said:

The proposal of a royal commission is new to the AMA(SA). It's not something we had called for or been consulted on. We will consider the proposal, but at this point it looks expensive and expansive. More detail would be needed. There would need to be a guarantee that this would not be an expensive and time-consuming exercise that would take money away from the provision of front-line health services and delay needed changes. A royal commission which goes back to look at problems is not a substitute for health policy initiatives which we need now to improve the health of South Australians going forward.

That was a statement from the AMA before the last state election. I don't know whether they have had a more recent statement, but I strongly agree with it.

The calls from SA-Best and from other members of the community have been for a very expansive royal commission. Apparently, it would look at issues such as Oakden, the chemotherapy crisis, Transforming Health—16 years of Labor's mismanagement. In that context, it's interesting to hear the deafening silence of the Labor Party on that issue. They seem to be very keen to have somebody have a look at things, as long as it's not a royal commission and as long as it's not into them.

Politically, it would suit me. Politically, it would be convenient for me to have a royal commission into Labor's reign of mismanagement, but I am fundamentally committed to delivering a better health service for South Australians. Delaying real reform for years and spending tens of millions of dollars on a royal commission process, rather than on health services, is not acceptable. Also, to be frank, it wouldn't build the capacity in SA Health to learn to govern itself better. We have never supported a royal commission, and we don't now.

What we are determined to deliver is board governance, because I believe that is fundamental to improving better management of SA Health. I believe that the centralisation of health services under the failed opposition which now bleats on the other side, the centralisation of power, meant that there is a significant disengagement of clinicians and management, which is fertile ground for maladministration and corruption. That's why it's so disappointing to find SA-Best standing up in the parliament and supporting the Labor Party in their attempts to sabotage board governance. It was SA-Best that backed Labor to require a single consumer voice appointed by the CEO of SA Health.

On the one hand, they want all the bureaucrats shot at dawn, and, on the other hand, they want bureaucrats to dominate the consumers they are supposed to serve. We know that Labor opposes board governance—they always have and they always will. They believe that all power should belong to bureaucrats in buildings on Hindmarsh Square. That's not a view that we believe. I do acknowledge that SA-Best supported these matters at the second and third reading stages, but to support Labor on every amendment while they try to sabotage our board governance bill, the very bill that would strengthen the capacity of the health system to resist corruption and maladministration, I think is very disappointing. As I said, SA-Best supported Labor on every amendment on board governance. It actually now seems that the leader of SA-Best is a more reliable vote for Labor than the acting leader of Labor.

The PRESIDENT: A supplementary, the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT