House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Adelaide Park Lands Bill ADELAIDE PARK LANDS BILL Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:29): Today, I bring to the attention of the house correspondence to the Speaker of the House of Assembly (Hon. Jack Snelling MP) from the Adelaide Parklands Preservation Association which has come to my attention. The letter was sent subsequent to debate on the Adelaide Park Lands Bill. I refer to it because it raises a very concerning issue and, as the government is proposing to build the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital, where processes will need to be undertaken to satisfy legislation, both in the preparation of reports and the receiving and tabling of reports in this parliament, I think it is important that we understand that the minister who has the lead in relation to this matter (the Minister for Health) is the subject of this correspondence. He was also responsible for the jurisdiction covering the Adelaide Park Lands Bill 2005. The author of the correspondence wrote to the Speaker of this House claiming, as follows: ...statements made by The Hon. John Hill, M.P., during the second reading debate of the Adelaide Park Lands Bill on Tuesday 29 November 2005 do not reflect the facts of the matter. In my opinion the statements by the Minister are so contrary to the facts that I believe them to be misleading to the Parliament. The letter goes on to detail the claimed part of Hansard that records the statement by the minister (the Minister for Health). Hansard records: The city council supports it, the government supports it, the opposition supports it and the Parklands Preservation Association supports it. The letter goes on to confirm that as a member of the Adelaide Parklands Preservation Association the author was present at the meeting of the association held on 17 April 2005, in which the following resolution was passed, 'That APPA oppose the Adelaide Parklands Bill 2005.' The author of the letter goes on to claim that the minutes record that and, in fact, what the minutes record (which is quite extraordinary) is that the minister himself was present at the meeting and, indeed, spoke in opposition of the motion. The letter goes on to state that the motion stood and 'it has not since been rescinded'. The letter also brings to the attention of the Speaker: Furthermore, when Hon. John Hill MP made the categorisation which is recorded in the House of Assembly Hansard on 29 November 2005, that whilst there were 'unbalanced people who have different views' and that 'the majority of sensible people supports the legislation', the minister failed to disclose to the house his knowledge of the fact that the report of the Adelaide Parklands Management Review evidences the majority opposed to the joint government ACC management model. And the letter goes on. It also details the launching of the report, and the author claims to have been present at Rymill Park, in the presence of the minister, when this report was launched, in fact, by the minister. The contents of this letter are very concerning. I am informed by the constituent that the Speaker, quite properly, responded to advise that it was a matter which he did not have jurisdiction to take up, but that it should be taken up with the minister. Well, of course, that is like asking Caesar to review Caesar on these things. That is, 'Dear minister, why did you mislead the parliament? Why did you tell them this when you were present at the meeting which recorded the motion to which you spoke to oppose and which recorded, in fact, that it was quite inconsistent with what you said in the parliament?' It is interesting to note—and it is probably why the minister was able to attend—that he was a member of the APPA at the time. Why is this so important? It is so important because this is the same minister who is in charge of the process of ensuring that Parklands obligations under our legislation are complied with in the process of developing the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital. Time expired.