ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL

114 Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (17 July 2012). With respect to 2012-13 Budget Paper 4, vol. 3, p. 29—

1. What has been the breakup of expenditure on the $244.7 million site works at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and how does this figure compare with original estimates of remediation costs?

2. Has the Government received advice from environment and remediation consultants that it might be necessary to build an asphalt and plastic membrane beneath the entire site at the new RAH along with air vents to clear poisonous gasses and what action did it take on that advice and have such devices been built into the project?

3. Why did the original independent environmental auditor Mr Don McCarthy quit in May 2011 and did he express any concerns about the way remediation and environmental concerns at the site were being managed and was that a factor in his departure?

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts): I am advised:

1. The $244.7 million State Works budget is to fund activities to be undertaken by the State for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project, such as provision of electrical and gas supplies to the site, procurement of medical equipment, etc.

No costs for remediation were budgeted for in the $244.7 million State Works budget as remediation is an activity to be undertaken by SA Health Partnership (SAHP).

2. The Environmental Site Auditor issued interim audit advice (that confirms the site would be suitable for use as a hospital once the remedial works as described in the SAHP Remediation Management Plan (RMP) were completed) on 17 March 2011 as part of the Development Assessment process.

The RMP, dated 17 March 2011, described the activities to be undertaken on site to ensure the site is appropriately remediated. It also contemplated a vapour barrier (a membrane beneath the building to clear gasses).

SAHP have undertaken additional site testing since Financial Close in June 2011 and have now determined a vapour barrier is no longer required under the building. This solution has been endorsed in principle by the Environmental Site Auditor, subject to one final set of testing by SAHP in August 2012. A final recommendation will be made to the Environmental Site Auditor amending the RMP to remove the requirement for a vapour barrier.

3. Mr McCarthy chose to leave the firm Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) for personal reasons. In doing so he withdrew as an Auditor registered with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

SA Health has a contract with SKM for the provision of Environmental Audit Services, not an individual. SA Health varied the SKM contract pending Mr McCarthy's resignation and appointed Mr Richard Wolfe to the role. Mr Wolfe is a registered Site Auditor with the EPA.

Mr McCarthy did not express any concerns about the way remediation and environmental concerns at the site were being managed.

Mr McCarthy issued interim audit advice (that confirms the site would be suitable for use as a hospital once the remedial works as described in the RMP were completed). This advice was received by the EPA on 17 March 2011 as part of the Development Assessment process.

No works by SAHP had occurred on site prior to Mr McCarthy resigning in May 2011.