ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (15:46): There are many great aspects of being a South Australian, but one thing I cannot fathom is our state's resistance to change and its unwillingness to, at times, tread upon the path of progression. In this context, I am talking today about the Royal Adelaide Hospital, although, truth be known, I could be speaking about any number of issues on the government's reform agenda.

I find it so depressing that this government's fantastic work to improve the services in our health system has been overshadowed by the efforts of a vocal minority and a desperate opposition. Let's start with some facts:

1. This government is investing record amounts of money into public health. This year we will spend $1.3 billion more than in 2002.

2. This government has employed an extra 902 doctors and an extra 2,883 nurses in the public health system.

3. According to the latest Productivity Commission Report on Government Services, South Australia has more doctors, more nurses, more beds, more public dentists and more health spending per capita than any other state in this country.

There is no doubt that we have invested a great deal in ensuring that we continue to enjoy a first-class reputation in this area; but, we also need to make the necessary investment in hospital infrastructure, which is why we announced that we would spend $1.7 billion to build a new central hospital to replace the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which is outdated and not equipped to meet current and future needs.

This new hospital will provide an extra 120 beds, the best patient and surgical facilities, and it will be a brand-new state-of-the-art facility that will enhance our health reputation worldwide. I would have thought that South Australia would have cheered; I certainly did.

I would have expected the public to be thrilled about the benefits that this new hospital will offer, the extra services it will provide and the extra space there will be for better equipped and larger patient rooms and operating theatres. Yet, the water cooler conversation, the subject of numerous online polls, the issue of talkback day and night has been the hospital's proposed name.

On speaking to people at functions or on the street, the topic of the hospital arose. The conversation was invariably limited to whether or not they approved of its proposed name. So, many times I was tempted to use the lines of William Shakespeare: 'What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'

While I support the right of everyone to express an opinion, the fact that only the name seemed of consequence, and nothing else, was disappointing, but perhaps it should not have been. It reminded me of my time as a founding board member of the Women's and Children's Hospital, which was to oversee the amalgamation of the Adelaide Children's Hospital with the Queen Victoria Hospital.

Then, as now, much if not all public debate centred on what to call the new hospital, which was originally to have borne the name Adelaide medical centre for women and children, which was a mouthful. Proposed names, ranging from the 'bluebird of happiness' to the 'Princess Diana hospital', 'Vicky and the kids', along with many Aboriginal names, were hotly debated. The Sunday Mail held a competition to find the perfect name, adding further grist to the mill. Again, the benefits of improved services and facilities were almost completely disregarded. I thought that maybe we had moved forward.

I respect the decision of Marjorie Jackson-Nelson, unfortunate as it was, to withdraw her name because she too believed that this controversy was overshadowing the great benefits that the new hospital would provide. The justification for the new hospital, as opposed to the redevelopment, has been outlined on many occasions by the minister.

It would take twice as long as building a new hospital on a new site. The disruption would be enormous, and patients would be severely affected. Temporary accommodation would need to be built during demolition. The infrastructure and design problems currently plaguing the RAH would never be solved, and, perhaps the biggest fact that the opposition does not want to hear is that it would cost more than constructing a brand-new hospital on a new site.

However, what is lost in this debate is that, while a name might have emotional ties for people, what is more important is that a hospital gets recognition for what it does. The reputation of the Women's and Children's Hospital, with all the changes it underwent, including a new name and the amalgamation of two hospitals, has not suffered in any way. It is still renowned worldwide for what it does. It still boasts a world-class team of doctors and researchers, including professors Grant Sutherland, John Hopgood, Geoff Davidson, David David and the cranio-facial unit, and many others whose work continues to bring recognition to the hospital.

Let's start ignoring the political red herrings and focus on the real issue, that being what it is in the best interests of patients, hospital staff and the whole South Australian community.