MARJORIE JACKSON-NELSON HOSPITAL

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:24): My question is to the Treasurer. From where is the extra funding coming to clean up the railyards to accommodate the proposed new central hospital? In its current transport budget, the government has provided $157 million for moving the railyards and cleaning up the site, but the opposition has been advised that remedial costs for the site at City West would be in the vicinity of $748 million for even a low level clean-up; for a medium level clean-up it would up to $1.1 billion.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (15:25): I am very pleased to answer this question—in fact, I answered a similar question asked by one of the members opposite last night during debate on the site contamination bill, so I am happy to provide that same information again to the house.

The deputy leader does not source the information upon which she is relying, but I take it that she is referring to a television report on Today Tonight which speculated that the cost of remediation of the site was $700 million or more. That is total speculation based on no science whatsoever. I asked my department to have a look at their figures and they could make neither head nor tail of the figures that were provided on that program. I also would point out to the house that the program itself did not ask me for any comment in relation to those figures; but why would they want the facts to get in the way of a good story?

Just in relation to the site, the program said it was the most contaminated site in Adelaide. I think they were actually referring to another site, but it is a highly contaminated site. There is no doubt about that, and it does need to be cleaned up. I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she should be a bit careful about asking these kinds of questions because her leader, the man sitting next to her, has advocated that in fact we should not build a hospital on that site, we should have an entertainment complex on that site. So, if you were going to put an entertainment complex on the site you would still have to remediate the site. The site does need remediating, whether or not we were to build a hospital or anything else. In fact, there is a hydrocarbon plume underneath the site which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

This is the result of 100 years of history of activities on that site which did not comply with contemporary standards of behaviour. So, this is a legacy issue and it is a site which we need to clean up. The Department of Health, in collaboration with the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, is exploring the exact nature of the pollution, where it is and how it can be managed. I would point out to the house that the design of the hospital—the design that we have at the moment—would see at least three storeys being built underground for car parking, and the very construction of that car parking would involve the removal of a considerable amount of the pollution that is already at the site. So, that would, to a large extent, deal with the pollution issue. In addition to that, of course, there are other matters that would need to be addressed.

The government will announce the development of the hospital as part of the 2007-08 budget. As you know, it will replace the RAH. I am sorry, I am being asked to wind up. Let me say to the house that we are confident that in the budget provisions for the development of the hospital there is funding to remediate the site. The advice I have is that it will not come anywhere near the amount that was suggested by the television program.