Women's and Children's Hospital

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (14:38): My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier inform the house of the reaction of key stakeholders to the government's site choice, design and related aspects of the new Women's and Children's Hospital?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Florey! The member for Florey is warned. The member for Morialta.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, the exact same standing order just raised by the leader of the house.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully. Is the objection to the question?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, the question had been asked, and the answer hadn't begun, so consequently the objection is standing order 97 to the question. It contained argument or, as I could state it, exactly the same standing order you just upheld from the leader of the house.

The SPEAKER: Well, I am not sure necessarily I made a ruling. I am going to allow the question, but it may be—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, please be seated. I will hear the point of order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: A point of clarification: the clear intention of the points that you made, as understood by the opposition when the Leader of the Opposition asked a question, was that he was required to rephrase, and I seek clarification as to the difference between the two points of order.

The SPEAKER: Rather than arguing the point, it is your question time and I am keen for you to have as much time to ask questions as is reasonably practicable. I am going to ask the member for Davenport to rephrase and then we will turn to the answer.

Ms THOMPSON: Can the Premier inform the house of the reaction of the various key stakeholders to the government's site choice, design and related aspects of the new hospital?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Florey!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:39): Can I thank the member for Davenport for her question because I know the member for Davenport cares about what experts think on such an important investment. When you are going to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, you want to make sure you are making an investment that actually serves the purposes of the build in the first instance, and the support that we are getting from clinicians around the state, former and current, is overwhelming, including—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Did you tell them what the on-costs were?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —senior clinicians who have a substantial history in terms of their contribution to the sector but also a history in terms of advocating loudly against Labor governments in the past. For instance, I refer to none other than Warren Jones, who has been a powerful advocate on both heritage—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —and hospital reform. He is a passionate South Australian. He was quoted as saying that the previous plan 'is too complex, structurally unworkable and prohibitively expensive'. Similarly, to take—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Morialta!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —for instance, the comments of Professor John Svigos, a great South Australian obstetrician and gynaecologist, who said that the plan is, and I quote, 'an excellent compromise which will work'. Then of course there are current clinicians, such as Dr Laura Willington, who has said that it is a very exciting proposition: 'This has been a long time coming.' She is the Medical Head of the Unit of Women's Anaesthesia at the hospital. Then, of course, we have the Women's and Children's Hospital Divisional Nursing Director of Surgical Services, Sina Amabili, who said:

To know that our women and their babies who are the sickest are going to be close together…is a significant win for us.

Dr Steve Keeley, former Women's and Children's Hospital Paediatric Intensive Care Consultant, said:

I applaud the…government…People really have to be held accountable for choosing that ridiculous triangle of a site.

Bernadette Mulholland, SASMOA Chief Industrial Officer, said:

There's a possibility we'll have a really top notch hospital with top notch doctors and nurses, which is fantastic.

Every possible source of advocacy across the state, industrial leaders in the medical sector, clinicians themselves, former clinicians, many of whom have a proven track record of willing to advocate against a Labor government decision, have backed this plan in.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Hartley!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: It's actually not a surprise because, if they are given a choice between a hospital that is too constrained, too small, structurally unsound in terms of what we are trying to do—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Morialta!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —or given the choice of a bigger hospital that will actually meet the needs of the future, allow for clinical services to be delivered in a way that is best interest with patient outcomes, it is hardly a surprise which plan they are backing. What is a surprise—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Morialta!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —is that given all the clinical information that is now coming to the fore, now on the public record, given everything that we now know about that little triangle of a site that was the former proposition, given everything we know, what is a surprise is that the alternate—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I have read the updated hourly review which came to the government, which gave—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, please be seated. Member for Morialta, your interjections are spirited; however, they also contradict the standing orders. Please depart under 137A for the remainder of question time.

The honourable member for Morialta having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: The Premier has the call.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: What is a surprise is that the alternate government of the state, having lost an election where health was an essential question at the election, is now persisting in what appears to be a defence of a flawed policy that would be a clinical failure, let alone too small in the long term. That's the surprise.