House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Royal Adelaide Hospital Royal Adelaide Hospital Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Royal Adelaide Hospital Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is to the Minister for Health. Considering that the hearing to determine the jurisdiction of the independent expert reviewing claims of defects at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will now not be held until mid-October, what is the government strategy beyond that to resolve the substantive defect issues that remain outstanding on the project? The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly Playford Minister for Health Minister for the Arts Minister for Health Industries Royal Adelaide Hospital The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:09): It's important to point out to the house that while this matter is before the courts work continues— Ms Chapman House of Assembly Ms Chapman: What? After two ministerial statements, that's incredible. That's a contempt of this parliament. The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I don't even know what you are talking about. That is the most bizarre interjection I have ever heard in my 20 years in this place. As I was about to say before the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was screeching, while the matter is before the courts it is important to point out to the house that work still continues on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital process, and our normal processes continue, and the defects continue to be rectified. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Minister, you are not withholding anything from the house under the sub judice rule? The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Not at the moment because I think the question was essentially: what is happening with regard to rectification of defects? So, what is practically happening is how I interpreted the question, but if the question is asked about the court proceedings, then of course I won't be able to say anymore than what is in the ministerial statement. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is called to order and the deputy leader is warned for her outburst. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: given your indicative defence, I suppose, for the minister, which he has now adopted as being sub judice, is it going to be your ruling that any further statement by the government on the Supreme Court proceedings in relation to SAHP and the government is not going to be received in this parliament? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Actually, quite the opposite: I wasn't seeking to give the minister a defence for not sharing information with the house. I take the view, and it's on the record, that in a civil case the sub judice rule doesn't really apply because there is no threat of prejudice from what is said in parliament to the deliberations of a judge. It would be a different matter if it were a jury. Ms Chapman House of Assembly Ms Chapman: Thank you, sir. So, how about answering a few questions, Jack? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is warned a second and final time.