<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2016-12-01" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="8261" />
  <endPage num="8356" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital</name>
      <text id="20161201bfb4bbdfb3f04e5390000537">
        <heading>Royal Adelaide Hospital</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="question">
        <name>Mr MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Dunstan</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-12-01">
            <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-12-01T14:32:19" />
        <text id="20161201bfb4bbdfb3f04e5390000538">
          <timeStamp time="2016-12-01T14:32:19" />
          <by role="member" id="4338">Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32):</by>  Can the minister perhaps provide an explanation to the house about the difference between a default and a defect?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="627" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.J. SNELLING</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Playford</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Health</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for the Arts</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Health Industries</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-12-01">
            <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-12-01T14:32:25" />
        <text id="20161201bfb4bbdfb3f04e5390000539">
          <timeStamp time="2016-12-01T14:32:25" />
          <by role="member" id="627">The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:32):</by>  What is before the Supreme Court, and what the Supreme Court has been hearing over the last few days, is around a jurisdictional question of the roles of the independent certifier and the independent expert. Both of those are pretty technical legal matters, but they do go to the very heart of the protection the contract provides to taxpayers, the importance of getting these things fixed in a timely manner and the protection of the rights of the government under the contract. That's what that is about.</text>
        <text id="20161201bfb4bbdfb3f04e5390000540">Yes, there are some defects that form part of that. The chiller system is not one of them, but of course the result of the court case will then have ramifications for the government's position with regard to all the other defects that need to be fixed. That's why the court case is important. That's why I am not just going to give in the way the opposition would were they to be in government. That's why I am going to stand up for the rights of South Australian taxpayers. </text>
        <page num="8296" />
        <text id="20161201bfb4bbdfb3f04e5390000541">We have a very strong contract. It does protect the rights of taxpayers. If anyone is in any doubt as to why there is so much agitation on the part of SAHP, you just have to realise that it's because this is costing them a bucket of money and they want to try to extract themselves from their problems. They want the taxpayer to bear the cost that should truly be borne by them. Well, I won't have any part of it.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>