DESALINATION PLANTS

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): My question is to the Premier. Why did he falsely claim, at a press conference yesterday, that only Labor—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. You can deal with some comment but 'falsely claim' is just beyond the pale.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, listen to the explanation.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. To say 'falsely' is debate or comment, and the leader needs to rephrase it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am happy to rephrase it, sir. I would not want to upset members opposite. Why did the Premier claim, at a press conference yesterday, that only Labor, and not the state Liberals, supported a desalination plant? The official record—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —of parliamentary debates and boundless media reports and official records attest that every journalist, every commentator, every observer of public affairs in this state knows that the state Liberals were the first to propose a desal plant, that the state Liberals championed the cause, and that the Premier and the state Labor Party resisted—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —the idea, but later conceded and agreed to construct this piece of water infrastructure proposed by us. Every commentator or observer who can read or listen knows that the state Liberals continue to call for the project to be fast-tracked as a matter of urgency—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —so water can flow before 2011.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That means you have to sit down. The Leader of the Opposition was not given leave to make a speech.

The SPEAKER: I think the leader has concluded. The Premier.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has concluded, but I remind members about lengthy explanations that become speeches. I remind members that I will give greater scope to ministers in answering questions, taking into account the length of the explanation and what it contains. The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:24): I am delighted to answer this question because there could not be a clearer difference between the priorities of this government and the alternative government, if that is what it believes it is. His vision statement was, of course, highlighted with great fanfare by The Advertiser because his vision happened to reflect The Advertiser's belief that a stadium should be built in anticipation of possibly winning two games in a world cup to be held in 2018 or 2022 which will not be decided in 2011. So, people—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Do you want to listen?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will come to order.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: In addition to a giant stadium—uncosted but with no business case—the Leader of the Opposition, as I understand it, announced his vision for underground powerlines in South Australia. We did the costings: $33 billion worth of work. I guess the point is that you cannot have it both ways. Here he is, saying what he is going to do. We are committed to a desalination plant, because that is part of our vision for water security in this state. We are also committed to building a state-of-the-art new hospital in the centre of our city. We are also spending about $330 million, I am told, out at the Lyell McEwin Hospital; about $150 million at Flinders Medical Centre; $120 million, I am told, at the QEH; and further amounts on a range of other hospitals. But at the centrepiece of our health strategy is a brand new state-of-the-art hospital.

The media is here and I know that they will want to know exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has said. He pretends that he is a man of action and not words, so here we go. This is the Leader of the Opposition's six or seven flip-flops on the new hospital. On Friday 8 June 2007, his first position was that the opposition would not oppose the new hospital. Here is the quote: 'Look, we won't oppose the hospital being built.' That was Martin Hamilton-Smith on Stateline on the state budget debate. His second position: the Liberals would not build a new hospital but patch up the ageing RAH. The quote was as follows:

Building the new state-of-the-art RAH at its current site North Terrace, saving between $300 million and $700 million on the current proposal to shift the RAH to the other end of town.

That was Martin Hamilton-Smith on 19 June. His third position was a backflip to support the building of the hospital if the contracts were signed. He says:

If you have signed something before an election, it is locked in concrete and they have started work, we are going to get the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital; there is no doubt about that.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition told the budget estimates committee on 28 June. Then there was the fourth position: building a new hospital on a completely different site at Bowden. I think it is the Clipsal site down there. I quote as follows:

Both Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith and Adelaide city councillor Ann Moran have told The Advertiser the Bowden land should be considered for the proposed new Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital.

So, it is no longer on the RAH site, and he is no longer staying with his commitment to carry on with where the new hospital would be built in the centre of the city. Now, it is over in Bowden, so it has moved a bit. Here we go; this is Martin Hamilton-Smith in The Advertiser on Wednesday, 18 June:

It is a prime piece of real estate which the government should put careful consideration into.

It gets much worse than this. Just wait for the seventh position. On the fifth position: a new hospital but not at Bowden any more, back to the RAH site. He says:

We want a new hospital but we want it at the RAH site. We think there is a better vision for City West, and I think the government has made a major mistake. The public don't want it there.

That is what he said in The Advertiser on Friday, 20 July. These constant backflips and changes are over just a few weeks. The sixth position is bread and circuses. Here we go—there is one more to go, and I want the media and the parliament to hear. The sixth position:

...use that City West area...for far more exciting purposes. We can extend the Convention Centre, we can have our own Federation Square, we can have a new museum there...we can have a Southbank, a Sidney Myer bowl...there is the possibility of sporting facilities there...

But I am afraid that yesterday, after a challenge from me, there is today a seventh position. It is interesting because before there was going to be a new stadium, a billion dollar stadium, to cater for the World Cup just in case we happen to win those two games—although we will not know that until 2011 and we are up against Peking—Beijing, because I do not speak Mandarin quite as well as Kevin Rudd—and we are also up against London.

He said he was a man of action, not words. Here we go. The question was from Matt Abraham: 'What happens to Footy Park and Adelaide Oval if you have a new stadium?' He said, 'I don't think we can sustain three.' Wait for it! He said:

I think this is a decision we probably need to make, not now, but probably in five to six years' time, possibly even further away...I don't think we can have three...if the AFL ultimately decides it wants to stay at West Lakes, then the decision might really become between Adelaide Oval and West Lakes.

The cricket association will be interested in that!

...people who might want to look at our master plan, it's on my website martin2010.com.au. Clearly spells out we are not locked in at all to the City West.

It was at the RAH. Then it was where the Marj is going to be. Then it was down at Bowden. Then it is back to the RAH and now, of course, it is 'We are not locked in at all to the City West.' But it gets worse, because he is a man of action. Here is the eighth position, but it is on timing. He said:

Mike Rann has no plan to do that ever and I just think sometime over the next 20 years we need to bite the bullet and decide which pathway we are gonna follow.

Action Man, if elected, is going to wait until he is 75 in order to decide where the new stadium is going to be.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Morialta.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: And that's your leader! Follow him!

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!