House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:33): Mr Speaker, I stand on a question of privilege, and, according to standing order 132, note the interruption of business for you to hear and/or determine the matter of privilege which I now rise to speak on. Today, in question time, the Minister for Health, in response to a question, informed the house in respect of proposed sites at the future site of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the land identified as the site for the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital that, first, in respect of the Royal Adelaide Hospital site, it would be 'restored to the Parklands to become open space' and, secondly, in respect of the site of the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital, that three hectares would be returned to parkland. Yesterday, tabled in this parliament by the Minister for the Environment, pursuant to the requirements of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, the minister tabled two reports. The first was a report pursuant to section 23 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 titled Future Use of the Royal Adelaide Hospital Site. The minister tabled a second report—also pursuant to that section in the Adelaide Park Lands Act—titled 'Land Identified as the Site for the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital'. In respect of the first site, the minister reports to the house. He is obliged, pursuant to that act, to table two reports in this house and in another place when there is a proposal to change the use of any parkland area in South Australia. These two reports were tabled. The first one, in respect of the future use of the Royal Adelaide Hospital site, details the government's proposal to cease health operations there, and I paraphrase that. Importantly, that report states: The South Australian government is currently working through the master planning process in order to determine options for the best use of the space and infrastructure post 2016. The exercise involves consultation with the Adelaide City Council, the universities and a wide range of government agencies. In addition, public consultation on any proposals will occur at an appropriate time. The report further states: At this stage, no specific decision has been made as to which buildings will be demolished to return to public space or parkland and consequently what works and contamination issues need to be addressed in order to achieve this and who the land will be vested in. These matters go on. The second report—not as the Minister for Health said today, but, indeed, in respect of the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson site—does not state that three hectares will be returned. This is an important document (which, by law, must be given to the Adelaide City Council at the same time as being tabled in this house), which states: The Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Master Plan has identified a number of key opportunities and guiding principles relevant to the position within the Adelaide Parklands, and in particular the potential opportunity to return approximately three hectares of the site at the western end to parkland to act as a western garden and/or gateway landscape. I will provide the house with a copy of this document. I will briefly paraphrase it, but the report further states that these investigations have identified both localised and widespread contamination. The report further states: There has been no specific decision made as to which areas of the proposed hospital precinct will be made public space or parkland and consequently what specific works and remediated actions are required to achieve... I ask you, sir, to investigate this matter. One of these ministers is not telling the truth, and we need to know the answer to that. This document is required to be tabled in this house and in another place, and there is the power for it to be referred to the environment committee. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: I will table these and I ask that they be investigated. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! I will have a close look at the remarks made by the deputy leader and report back to the house. I say at the outset to the deputy leader and to the house generally (the Clerk's ears are pricking up because he is worried I will say something wrong) that because there appears to be an inconsistency between something the minister has said in the house and something that is contained in a report tabled by any minister does not make something a matter of privilege. It may be something that the deputy leader may want to question the minister about and require an explanation of the minister as to why there is an apparent inconsistency; however, just the appearance of an inconsistency does not make something a matter of privilege. To be a matter of privilege a member has to be able to demonstrate that there appears to be an attempt on the part of another member, or indeed anyone, to somehow pervert the decision making of the house. That is really the threshold. As I say, in case there is something in the member's comments which I have missed, I will report back properly to the house. On the basis of what the deputy leader has said, in a nutshell, her argument is that there appears to be an inconsistency in a report tabled by the minister and what the minister has said in the house. That in itself does not make something a matter of privilege. However, as I said, I will have a close look in case I have missed something and report back properly to the house.