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 Site Redevelopment Royal Adelaide Hospital Site Redevelopment Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Royal Adelaide Hospital Site Redevelopment Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): My question is again to the Premier. When the Premier stated on 30 October 2016 that the old Royal Adelaide Hospital redevelopment proposal 'met all of the expectations of the community', did he believe it was a value for money proposal and, if so, why has the government now withdrawn its support for this proposal? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Reform Minister for Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister for Child Protection Reform Minister for the Public Sector Minister for Consumer and Business Services Minister for the City of Adelaide Royal Adelaide Hospital Site Redevelopment The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:44): Let's go through a little bit of history here. This process began, as I understand it, in around June 2015, whereby the government released an expression of interest process that was predicated on a master plan the government had already determined for the site. Indeed, the master planning for the site in part had been informed by the design competition that had occurred previously. That had established the notion of there being a need for north and south axes for the site, it had established the need for the site to be opened up to the Parklands and the botanical gardens and it had opened up the need for an east-west axis as well on the site, so there were fundamental propositions that were contained there. Of course, another aspect of that, as I recall, was the heritage buildings. The fabric of the heritage buildings had to be retained. That went through a process, and then ultimately we get to October 2016 when a particular joint venture proposal became the preferred proponent. 'Preferred proponent' doesn't mean we have signed an agreement with you. It means that we have selected you out of the number of other people who have come forward to have further conversations with because we think the conversation with you appears at this point to be the most likely of all of them to go somewhere. It doesn't mean that it is going anywhere, but it means that it's worth talking some more. The original proposal, in terms of dollars, that was being put forward by the consortium to the government was at substantial variance to the ultimate proposition that the consortium put to the government in terms of dollars. That obviously was a matter that was important and weighed in the balance amongst other considerations as to whether or not the public were getting good value for money. By any definition, this site is a site that the public would expect the government to treat with absolute care and the best possible attention. The position is that whatever might have been the proponent's initial bargaining position with the government in 2016 changed, and that position changed to the point where it was necessary and appropriate for the government to consider whether it continued to be something the government wished to entertain. As we all know, the government resolved that in the circumstances we would be best placed in the interests of the community to do that ourselves.