Bills

New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 3 November 2022.)

Clause 2.

Mr TEAGUE: I have a question in the context of where we find ourselves. As we recommence the committee, we remind ourselves that where we left the debate earlier this month—or, in fact, the end of last month—we were exhorted to pick up our shovels and run out to the project site, such was the urgency that the passage of the bill and the process towards the project were characterised by the government and in terms of the process of debate of the passage through this house overseen by the Minister for Health.

We have now come to the middle of November and, in the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves, we have just concluded council elections for the term ahead. In the circumstances of the results of those council elections, particularly in respect of the Adelaide City Council being announced over the weekend, it appears what we have learned is that there is a change of a number of councillors, but more particularly a change of Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide.

The newly elected Lord Mayor is on record, pretty much over the course of the last generation, the bulk of the last 25 years—including during the time of her service previously as Lord Mayor and subsequently as a minister in previous Labor governments—about the importance of both heritage and Parklands retention, but perhaps more particularly Parklands retention.

In the circumstances of a change of Lord Mayor, but in the more particular circumstances of the well-known and leading interest in this subject matter of the Lord Mayor-Elect, is the government proposing and picking up on what no doubt has been a deliberate indication in clause 2 that the commencement will occur at proclamation to consult, negotiate, take on board or otherwise allow an opportunity for the new Lord Mayor in particular, and the newly elected council more broadly, to engage with the draft bill with a view to contemplating any informed feedback that might arise from that process?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There has been no change in the government's position in regard to this legislation.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps then, in picking up on that, which might come as news to the newly elected Adelaide City Council—and certainly I can indicate that it is news to me; I hope it is not news to the Lord Mayor, but if it is, there we are on the record—what, if any, involvement therefore, assuming that I understand the minister's answer correctly, will the Lord Mayor and the Adelaide City Council have in relation to the application of the machinery of this bill post proclamation?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I fail to see the relevance in regard to clause 2—Commencement, that the act comes into operation on a day fixed by the proclamation. In relation to the Adelaide City Council, once again, there has been no change in the government's position that that we will continue to engage with the Adelaide City Council. However, this is an act of parliament for which we are seeking parliament's approval for this project to go ahead.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TEAGUE: First of all, the first definition in clause 3 is that of 'development'. Can the minister indicate the minister with responsibility for the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Obviously, that is available on the public record through the SA government legislation site in which all ministers have been allocated via administrative arrangements for various acts of parliament. I believe it is the planning minister who is allocated from the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act.

Mr TEAGUE: It is good to have that on the public record. Perhaps, just referring to the minister's answer, in case my question had been unduly clumsy, I might have phrased it in terms of whether or not there was any plan for the government to change or to diversify the responsibility in light of the Minister for Health having carriage of this bill, but I thank the minister for being clear about that in all the circumstances.

Regarding the definition of 'project', the project is defined to mean 'the new Women's and Children's Hospital to be developed in accordance with this Act'. It seems to me that the definition does not have much work, if any, to do in the rest of the act, but can the minister perhaps indicate whether or not there is any more light that might be shed on the Women's and Children's Hospital and how that might be relevant to the rest of the machinery of the act and obviously in circumstances where the act is directed far more to the question of the project site and the development?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for Heysen. I am not entirely sure I understand the question. The project is defined as the new Women's and Children's Hospital. Obviously, that will involve building a new Women's and Children's Hospital. I think we have been relatively clear in terms of what the project scope of that will entail. I think an interpretation of that would reasonably include all the things that a hospital would involve in its various many forms of the development of a hospital. Obviously, we have a good example in the current Women's and Children's Hospital in the various elements of what would define a hospital in regard to that project.

Mr TEAGUE: For the purposes of this bill, we have seen—and we will come to it at some stage, but it is at the back of this bill—schedule 1, titled 'Project site and support zones'. It is an aerial view of the geographical area with some areas designated by heading, including the project site. I make the observation for the moment, and we will get to schedule 1 eventually, that nowhere on the—

The Hon. C.J. Picton: Eventually.

Mr TEAGUE: We are kind of there in a way now. In light of the minister's answer, nowhere on the mud map do we see the word 'project' or, as far as I can see, do we see any further work for that definition to do. Jumping ahead, we have a definition of 'project site' and that tells us to see how that might be further elucidated. The point really is that what we are clear about here is that this is really about dealing with the planning matters that are associated with the project site and the allocation to a minister or ministers about what you do with the land area and related matters, including those of heritage, that are brought in when preparing the land area for the proposed use.

While we have the schedule 1 mud map, we do not have included in the bill—again, we might, and that might go some further way to explaining why the Minister for Health is involved in this bill—a schedule 2, for example, that includes some of the pictures of a hospital that we have seen circulated in advertising in the days leading up to the announcement of the choice of site, for example. They seem to have been prepared and there seems to have been some considerable amount of work done to provide a kind of flyover or other material that assists in the promotion of the Women's and Children's Hospital, defined as 'project' in this bill, but we do not even see that finding its way into the bill.

All we have—and I think schedule 1 captures it quite well in terms of characterising what this bill is about—is an aerial view of a land area and we have the provisions in the bill for decisions to be made about that land area and then, because of what we know about the proposed destruction of the heritage buildings on the project site, we see powers in relation to the preparation of the project site.

There is a lot more that is to do with those things that are to be destroyed and the preparation of the site and really an absence of anything to do with the hospital itself. In those circumstances, again, so we are clear, we have a planning and heritage bill here. We know that the minister has carriage of the process of the bill through the house. Perhaps can the minister give an indication in terms of time lines.

If we are not seeing that here, is there some plan for there to be some further elucidation about the project, seeing as it is defined in this bill? Will that need to be the subject of some separate bill, or are we stuck for the moment with an advertorial campaign on the project and meanwhile the parliament is being, as it were, limited to something that has been characterised as needing to be run through very quickly and urgently but confined entirely to, really, the project site and then consequences of the need to deal with what is on the site already?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: To the extent that I understand it, the question asked was: is there going to be another piece of legislation? That is certainly not the government's intention. This is legislation that will enable the processes to be approved for this hospital to be developed on this site, as you have said in relation to the project site, and the project is the Women's and Children's Hospital.

We have been clear that there is work that needs to happen in terms of the detailed planning of the hospital, so I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage to annex detailed plans in relation to the hospital. As we will get to later in the bill, there will still be a process where that will go before development processes, but it will be deemed approved as it goes through those processes. This is an opportunity for the parliament to say that it approves the development of the hospital on this project site and the other related elements of this legislation, which will enable us to bypass what would be quite a lengthy process in terms of other avenues we would potentially have to go down were it not for this legislation.

Mrs HURN: Minister, in relation to clause 3(2)(a), where it makes reference to 'the opening of a road extends to the widening of a road', could you take the committee through which roads will be widened as a result of this bill passing?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We have been very clear that obviously Gaol Road will have an impact, as it was going to have an impact in relation to the previous proposals for the Women's and Children's Hospital on the alternative, much smaller site. Obviously, as we have outlined, there will be works in relation to the widening of Port Road, which will enable the hospital to be developed. That will be one of the first things that happens out of this project. I am advised that it is really those two roads to which that section refers.

Mrs HURN: Following on from that information and making reference to Port Road, obviously this is a main arterial route right through the city. Could you take the committee through what the impacts may or may not be for traffic as a result of the widening of Port Road, and can you also rule out that Port Road will be closed throughout this development?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As we discussed in the briefing we had, a significant driver of the work that was done in relation to the site review under Jim Hallion was looking at Port Road. There were a number of alternatives for the hospital that were considered that would have had a very significant impact upon Port Road, that would have involved its closure for quite significant periods of time. That obviously would have been very impactful for the residents of Greater Adelaide, particularly the western suburbs, and that is one of the reasons why they were not the preferred options to proceed down that path.

Clearly, in relation to Port Road, there will have to be works, but they will be minimised as much as possible. I am advised that there will not need to be a full closure of Port Road. There may be lane restrictions from time to time as we are in that process of widening Port Road and installing the new intersection for the new hospital development, but that is work that will be progressed to ensure as little disruption as possible as part of those works because we understand what an important arterial road Port Road is.

Mrs HURN: I potentially could have misheard this, so I will have to go back and have a look, but, minister, did you just indicate that other options were considered as a result for the Women's and Children's Hospital site that were not chosen because of the impacts on Port Road and that those impacts would be more significant than this current site, or is that a reflection of the fact that, by choosing this site, the impact is less?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: You just have to read the site review to see that there were a number of different considerations. One raised quite often, which I think is worth putting on the record, is that people say, 'Why can't you build over the rail lines?' The issue, which was something that the site review spent some time investigating, was: could we bring the rail lines under and extend the hospital footprint across?

Unfortunately, there are a number of issues with that. The freight line would mean that we would have to build structure support for the hospital to withstand a freight train hitting it. I am sure no-one would want to be in a situation where a freight train brought down a women's and children's hospital. To put such structures in place, they would need to be of such a width that they would not be able to fit between the rail lines that are currently there, so the rail lines would have to be spread out more than they are at the moment, which would involve significant disruption to the rail corridor.

It would also mean that the Port Road bridge is not wide enough for that rail corridor to proceed under it, so there would have to be a rebuilding of the Port Road bridge if we were to do that, which would obviously lead to very significant cost and disruption as part of doing that. Out of all that pain and drama, I think the advice was that we would only receive about 80 to 100 metres of land that we would be able to build across the rail lines even after doing all that. It was certainly an option that was ruled out.

It is an option that you hear about and you think, 'Oh, well, that makes sense. Why don't we do that?' but the detailed work that was done made sure we understood the complexities and difficulties of that. The site that has been selected, I reiterate again, was the site that received the highest overall score and also the highest clinical score out of that site review process.

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert, you have exhausted your three questions.

Mrs HURN: Supplementary, sir—and it is a very quick supplementary.

The CHAIR: I will allow it on this occasion.

Mrs HURN: Thank you very much, Chair. Minister, as a supplementary following on from that answer and in relation to the narrowing of Port Road, or indeed needing to close some lanes, at what point over the next decade do you think that we will start to see the closure or the narrowing of Port Road?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We are actually widening Port Road; we are not narrowing it.

Mrs HURN: I may not have been clear to the minister, because it does also say that the closure of a road extends to narrowing it and that the opening of the road extends to widening it. I suppose on that basis I ask for your indulgence, minister, to provide further clarification. You are reducing the lanes that are available for motorists. At what point will you be reducing the lanes available for motorists?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am happy to answer the member's fifth question on this clause. The advice I have is that when we are talking about closing the road, that is largely in relation to Gaol Road, which will have to be closed for some period during the construction of the hospital. In relation to Port Road, we are widening the road. During that process, there may well have to be some lane closures; that will be minimised as much as possible to allow traffic to flow, but it was definitely not of the issues we would have seen under other various proposals that were considered as far as the project goes. Ultimately, it will result in a wider road there.

As has previously been discussed, we will be also building a shared-use pedestrian bicycle path and separating that from Port Road, which will enable that widening to occur and enable those intersection works to be constructed, but at all times the project will be making sure that the impact on motorists is minimised as much as possible.

Mr TELFER: For clarification—I obviously listened closely to that explanation from the minister and Port Road being such an important feeder road into our city in particular that is used by a lot of motorists and a lot of commuters—and for the record, you speak about the closure of lanes, but are you talking about a temporary closure of lanes on Port Road? If so, do you have any sort of insight into what length of time these temporary lane closures would need to be in place?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice I have is that this is, as we have mentioned, one of the areas where we will be seeking to have works underway late next year. This is for the process of widening Port Road, for constructing the shared-use path. I am advised that, for the majority, if not the entirety, of any closures that would have to happen, it would involve one lane. It is ultimately about making sure that we can widen Port Road in the process of doing that and that we will be working to make sure that the impact upon motorists is minimised as much as possible as part of that process.

Mr TELFER: I am not trying to be cute about this, in the words the Premier might use. Some more clarification for me: are these lane closures going to be temporary and, as I asked in a previous question, for what period of time would you envision them being closed? Are we talking about one lane of Port Road or two lanes? Can you give a little bit more insight into what that planning part of it is so that it is on record for the commuters who use that road?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, definitely temporary, as part of the process of expanding the lanes on Port Road and also making sure that the intersection for the hospital can be constructed. I do not have the exact dates. It is a balance, because we want to ensure that the works happen with the least disruption possible, but we also want to make sure that they go forward as quickly as possible.

Obviously, the quickest way of constructing anything would be to close everything down and do it. We do not want to have that happen in relation to this project because we want to make sure that we continue the traffic flow on Port Road, so we will be balancing those issues. We will be making sure that we minimise the disruption but also attempting to make sure that it happens as quickly as possible.

Mr TELFER: As quickly as possible is obviously in the eye of the beholder. I am trying to get an insight into whether it is envisioned that this would be a lane closure for a period of days, weeks, months or longer. Is it envisioned that it would be a considerable length of that section of Port Road, or are we talking about only small sections for commuters? I still do not really have clear in my mind exactly what a closure process of lanes, even temporary, might look like for people who are using this road, especially if it is for an extended period of time.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: In relation to the works—as I said, temporary works—to enable that lane widening process and widening of the road to occur and the construction of the shared-use paths to occur, like any road project it will go through a process where either the government or, in this case, the managing contractor in place in Lendlease will go to the market and seek responses. They will put forward a detailed plan in relation to that, and so of course we do not have the exact timings that the member is seeking at this stage. From a policy perspective, I can answer that we are seeking to have that work balanced in terms of trying to minimise disruption when it is constructed but also having it done as quickly as possible.

The CHAIR: That was your third question, member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: Sorry, I thought that was my second, a supplementary for clarity.

The CHAIR: No.

Mr TELFER: Sorry.

The CHAIR: That is okay. You do not have to apologise. Member for Heysen, you have asked three already on this one. I have been very meticulous in keeping records and I have crossed out when I have made mistakes. The member for Schubert has actually asked two supplementaries on this one too—exhausted. You need to resume your seat, member for Heysen.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps just by way of preface and to where we have got to now, it ought to be abundantly clear that there are a whole range of fairly fundamental questions that South Australians will reasonably be interested in having answers to. I would perhaps make that overriding observation about the debate that we are kind of forced to be having in a committee context and we are participating in to the best that that possibility affords us.

I refer back to observations at the outset some weeks ago that not just us here on the opposition side, who want nothing more than to see the completion of a new Women's and Children's Hospital as soon as possible and with a maximum efficiency both as to time and to cost, but there are a range of very important and, in many respects, deeply held views and values associated with the process towards that.

It is for that reason that we have sincerely maintained the view that we have about the merits of having had the opportunity for a committee process, albeit brief, to explore these matters in somewhat less prescribed way. I think it would assist the committee greatly in case the minister might at least take that on board in considering the scope and extent of answers that are given to what are really fundamental questions about how we are to proceed from here, but of course that is a matter for the minister.

In relation to the effect of this act on other legislation, the subject of clause 4, we will come back to responsibility for the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. These are questions that, yes, one might expect there is a straightforward answer in relation to ministerial responsibility, but the reasonable question might be asked in circumstances where the minister has just opined at length about matters to do with the addition or subtraction of lanes of a road, the closure, widening or narrowing of the road over a period of time as yet unspecified, matters that again—and I had forgotten about him for a little while—the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport might be more reasonably expected to be across in detail.

So we can add a third minister who might be expected to be playing a leading role, if not having carriage of this bill in all the circumstances. The minister has done his best to traverse that territory and the question remains extant, I think—I stand to be corrected—about whether or not all these references to 'minister' throughout the bill are indeed going to be devolved to the Minister for Health. Hopefully, we can be clear about that as we come to it subsequently.

I think it is clear enough, the overriding effect of subclause (1), but what can the minister say more particularly about the effect of subclause (2)?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you; there was a surprise twist at the end there with that question that I did not see coming. Subclause (2), as it says, 'applies to land notwithstanding the provisions of the Real Property Act 1886', which is a very longstanding piece of legislation in South Australia. That piece of legislation, as I am sure the member is aware, has a number of processes in relation to transactions and transfers in relation to real property and we are making clear that in relation to this act those provisions to deal with those land transfers do not apply in the sections of this act that make clear how those transfers are to occur but would apply in relation to the land for this project.

Mr TEAGUE: I am going to resist the urge to give some sort of running commentary on that answer, but I think it speaks for itself. I will perhaps just indicate that it would be of assistance, I am sure, to those who would seek to understand the operation of this act to know at some stage what more particularly is the purpose of overriding or curtailing or otherwise making the Real Property Act subject to the operation of this act. That is not to say that those things are necessarily offensive, but it would be of assistance to have that more particularly on the record, in my view at least. I ask the minister in a similar way for any particular reason for the inclusion of subclause (3) as well.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It is a similar answer. Clearly the Land Acquisition Act, as people will be aware, has a number of processes in which land is acquired. In relation to this land, there are clauses of this bill that we will get to at some stage that involve various pieces of land being acquired, and that would not run through the standard process through the Land Acquisition Act but through the processes and sections that parliament is considering in relation to this legislation.

Having this clause 4(3) makes clear that it is this act of parliament that will determine the process in relation to those pieces of land and not the processes that are set forth in the Land Acquisition Act.

Mr TEAGUE: So we understand it, it sounds as though, at least on the face of that answer—this bill has already been described as unprecedented. We have a flagged departure (and I hear the minister indicating that that is spelled out in the subject of this bill), and that is fine and we can come to it, and perhaps that is appropriate. But while we are at it, and seeing it most succinctly expressed, what are the particular processes the minister refers to which are the subject of the Land Acquisition Act 1969, which are said not to apply to any vesting of land under this act?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As I said, none of those provisions in the Land Acquisition Act would apply. The acquisition, the transfer of the land, is outlined in this bill, and those are the provisions that would apply in relation to that. While I have the floor, the member alleged that this bill was unprecedented, and I can provide the parliament with some information on that front.

We have done some research in relation to a bill that was assented to on 18 December 1913; funnily enough, it was to cover a similar parcel of land to establish the police barracks to begin with. The act may be cited as the Adelaide Park Lands Alteration Act 1913, and it included a map outlining where that was to occur.

There was a change to that act in 1917—the Adelaide Park Lands Alteration Act 1917—when at some stage there must have been a decision to increase the land available to the police barracks for that purpose. So there are two precedents in relation to the legislation that we are discussing today.

Mr TEAGUE: I just ask that you table those documents.

The CHAIR: They are on the public record, are they not? He will give them to you.

Mr TEAGUE: I note that with appreciation.

Mr TELFER: We are talking about clause 4, the effect of the act, and there has been a lot of discussion publicly in the media and the like around exactly what precedents this bill does set when it comes to interactions with other pieces of legislation. I think there is a real concern that there might be a modern precedent, notwithstanding pre World War I precedents that have been cited recently in this place.

An honourable member: One was during World War I.

Mr TELFER: Indeed. I do note that there are those concerns within the community. When looking at clause 4—Effect of Act, and when reflecting on the words the minister used when we were last looking at the discussion around this when he used the words 'health trumps heritage', there are concerns that this might well be a precedent in the effect of this piece of legislation, in the effect of this act, that there might be other pieces of legislation which indeed may trump heritage or there may be other decisions that the government uses to trump other pieces of legislation.

I have real concerns when it comes to proper lawmaking around bills that may be in opposition to other established pieces of legislation. In light of that, and in light of the minister's comments around health trumping heritage, I ask the minister whether there are any other pieces of legislation or any other plans the government has to put in place things which would trump heritage in our state?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think in relation to heritage I have been very clear, and the Premier has been very clear, and I think when we eventually get to the section in this bill relating to heritage that it is specifically in relation to this site. There is no change being made to the overall heritage legislation. This is specifically about building a new Women's and Children's Hospital on the police barracks site.

Mrs HURN: In a similar vein to the member for Flinders' question, on clause 4(1), 'This Act has effect despite any other Act or law of the State', could you elaborate or outline which pieces of legislation this act has effect on, despite any others?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think we have specifically identified in subclauses (2) and (3) areas where we know there is an issue and hence we have made very clear that this act—and the provisions related to that real property transfer and the land acquisition—the provisions of this act, would apply.

I believe that this is a clause often used in various pieces of legislation, where there is a concern that there may be other pieces of legislation that could come into conflict, to make clear that the provisions we are debating in this parliament for this bill for this project site would apply in relation to this bill if there were identified any other conflicts. We are not aware of another conflict, but I think that that has been drafted to make sure that, if one was identified, what we are debating here and the provisions that we are considering would make sure that they hold the day, so to speak.

Mrs HURN: To be crystal clear, what you are effectively saying is that there may well be other laws which this trumps but you are just not aware of any at this current stage.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The only other one where this could be considered is in relation to the planning and development legislation as well, but broader than that there is not an awareness of other provisions that may apply to.

Mrs HURN: In that vein, if it is outlined by the minister that it would have impact on the planning and development act, why is that not listed under clause 4, whereas the Real Property Act is listed and the Land Acquisition Act is listed?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It is a good question. It was a question that I was considering as well. The answer is in relation to subclause (2)—that apparently the Real Property Act has a provision in it that says that, if another act was to conflict with it, it specifically must mention that in the other act. The Land Acquisition Act was listed for clarity, to make very clear that process, and that is why those two were specifically brought out.

Another one that has just been raised with me by our advisers is in relation to the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act, which is an area we have already traversed in our discussions; it may well be another one and hence subclause (1) provides clarity that the provisions that we are debating would supersede those provisions.

The CHAIR: The member for Schubert—

Mrs HURN: This might be my last one; is it?

The CHAIR: Is it a supplementary?

Mrs HURN: It is. I want to be very crystal clear. You have spoken about wanting to provide clarity, which is why the Real Property Act and the Land Acquisition Act have been identified under clause 4. I suppose my question is: why, out of an abundance of caution, was the planning and development act not included as another subclause? I fully appreciate that that is in essence why there is clause 1, but it seems like it was a very prompt answer that the PDI Act was one that would be impacted.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The answer is in relation to the drafting. Clause 8 was reasonably clear in relation to the interaction with the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. It was thought that that provided some level of clarity and hence it was not specifically drawn out as a separate subclause in clause 4.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, you have exhausted your questions.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a question—

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, no, sorry. If the member for Flinders or the member for Finniss would like to ask some questions, they are most welcome. I have also given supplementaries, so I have been really generous.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and—

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, no.

Mr TEAGUE: Not to ask a question—

The CHAIR: In that case, what is it? Do you have a point of order?

Mr TEAGUE: We can call it that—and I hesitate, as I do not want to be overly, as it were, combative or resorting to rules in that sense. I will raise a point of order, if it is strictly necessary in the Chair's view, but I wanted to indicate that the question I had might be of assistance to the committee. It relates to the note and might give the minister the opportunity to address the exclusion neatly at this point. If it is necessary for me to raise it subsequently, then I can see where that might be relevant to do so, so I just flag that. I do not know whether there is a separate standing order I can—

The CHAIR: I think the member for Flinders would be more than capable of asking that question.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, sure. Sorry, I was labouring under the misapprehension that the member for—

The CHAIR: No—

Mr TEAGUE: We have all been doing our best to take our—

The Hon. C.J. Picton: Delay it.

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry?

The CHAIR: No, the member for Flinders has an opportunity to speak; he has not on this clause.

Mr TELFER: In looking at clause 4, there is an aspect down the bottom there—I do not know if it has been brought to the attention of the minister or not—called Note. It says:

Nothing in this Act affects the operation of any Commonwealth law or authorises the Minister to affect any right, title or interest held by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth.

The question is: is this an aspect, a noting, that is consistent with other pieces of legislation, or is there a specific area of commonwealth law that there might be some uncertainty on whether this might be at odds with—any concerns or any conflict?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: One day I will understand the peculiarities of parliamentary drafting, because when I have tried to include notes before in bills I have been told, no, you should not put notes in there. I took notes, but here we have a provision that is just making very clear that there is no attempt whatsoever to cover the area of commonwealth law—not that we would even have the ability to do so if we wanted to.

One area, for instance, that may be considered is in relation to issues of railways, etc. To be honest, I do not think it would make a significant difference whether or not we had this note in there, because sadly we do not have the constitutional power to override commonwealth legislation anyway.

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, sir. Seeing as you are counting, I will use my third. In light of that note in particular, is there any risk of this project being disallowed or superseded by pieces of commonwealth legislation that would mean that this would then be not able to be delivered as this legislation is put out?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Not to my knowledge.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr TEAGUE: The purpose of clause 5 we see previewed in clause 3—and we have already dealt with it to some extent, that the definition of 'project site' is clause 5 itself, so it is perhaps relevant when we are here commencing to consider clause 5 that both the definition of 'project site'—which in turn, as we have adverted to in the process so far, refers to schedule 1.

It is no reflection on parliamentary counsel—if indeed parliamentary counsel was involved in the drawing of the mud map, but I would extend that to indicating no reflection on the authors of the diagram at all—but in making the observation, and from this distance, the legislation that the minister referred to earlier—I think the 1913 act, a bit over a century ago, and the 1907—

Mr Telfer: 1917.

Mr TEAGUE: 1917, so pre and during the Great War—appeared to display a certain amount more detail insofar as they were setting out site locations and so on. This is just to say that in contemplating the project site we have it very broadly defined, indeed, for the purposes of this act. It is sufficient for planning purposes, I presume, or is deemed to have been presumed by others, but clearly it is not intended to serve any more technical purpose than that. To the extent that the 1913 act or the 1917 act were used as precedents, there is no attempt to outdo even them.

We are here concerned with, in a very broad brush, a planned area of land that is, I think, to be identified by the minister by notice in the Gazette. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am presuming that it is to be identified by the minister in the Gazette upon the passing of the bill, as opposed to any other indication that might have been given by the minister. Perhaps the answer to that, or the clue to that even, is in the fact that we have not had said already, in so many words by the government, who the minister for the purposes of subclauses (a) and (b) of the definition is.

Seeing as it is the first opportunity to zero in on that, can the minister, because we are talking about up to four or at least four ministers—five perhaps, I forgot about the Minister for Police for a minute. The Minister for Police, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the minister for heritage—I think her title is Minister for Environment but with responsibility for heritage—and, of course, let's not forget the Minister for Planning, are all more usually involved in executive responsibility for this space.

I think the minister has answered quite succinctly in response to my question, and I think I indicated or apologised for any clumsiness in asking the question about what would appear obvious on the face of the record about the definition of development and the application and the administration of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Bearing in mind there are—and I do not hear anyone demurring on this point—at least that number of ministers who have a direct and relevant, one might say arguably more relevant, role to play in each and every aspect of this bill, that there are plenty of precedents to it.

You certainly have a Minister for Education who has an interest in the construction of infrastructure on school sites, but it will be the Department for Infrastructure to the extent that government is involved directly in relation to that. This is really a lot further down the line, though, since it does not even purport to address what has been defined as the project—the subject of the bill, the Women and Children's Hospital itself—so that the Minister for Health's interest on the face of it appears to be tenuous at best.

Against that background, and in the context of all that, is the government able to indicate, and can the minister indicate now, who the minister is for the purposes of those references in (a) and (b)?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As I think we traversed either perhaps in the chamber already or certainly in our briefings that we have given the opposition, my understanding is that most legislation, if not all, is drafted in relation to the minister and then, after, legislation is considered by the parliament. There is an administrative process by which acts are assented to. They are given to the responsibility of different ministers. I presume that it may well be that the Premier decides that the health minister should take responsibility for this, but it would be far from me to prejudge a decision of the Premier in that regard. So this is a standard form of parliamentary drafting in this regard.

I also want to make a correction in relation to the 1913 and 1917 acts. I am now becoming an expert in the government of Archibald Peake and his various times in the Premier's role. I apologise that I have not yet given you the acts to digest, so you are at a loss. When I held up the 1913 act, even though I should not do that in the chamber, you might have seen a whole variety of different shapes; however, that was because there were two separate projects being considered at the same time. There was not only the area of land in relation to what is now known as the barracks site but also what became the rail yards and then later became the Royal Adelaide Hospital was considered in the same legislation in 1913.

Later, Archibald Peake, as I understand, lost the election and then was returned to government. In relation to the 1917 act, there was a change to the boundaries of the barracks site. So there is not a significant difference; in fact, I think there is much more specificity in terms of provisions that we have put in relation to the support zone element. However, I just correct the issue that we have used this as a precedent. We have not used this as a precedent.

After the matter of whether this was unprecedented or not was raised by you and others, we went through the archives, dusted them off and found that the exact same area that we are talking about was subject to previous debate in this parliament under the Peake government, which, as I am sure you would be familiar with, was a good conservative government back in its day.

I understand that the Peake government also brought in the 6 o'clock swill. Apparently Archibald Peake was Presbyterian. There is lots more to learn. I will bring in some more facts and we can debate it as this goes on.

Mr TEAGUE: I mean no particular criticism about this, but we are in unusual circumstances and unusual circumstances might reasonably call for the more proactive response. The question has been out there. Indeed, the proposition has been out there. I will leave it for South Australians to consider whether or not reference to those turn of the last century pieces of legislation ought more to be regarded as contributors to the wealth of heritage value associated with the area at this stage when we come to consider it in late 2022.

Whether, indeed, they in some way answer the characterisation of this proposed legislation as unprecedented, I tend to the view that if we are going to be reflecting on the legacy of the Peake administration, and those still relatively early times of development in our state, reference to them in the context of this debate, I suggest, really rather raises the question of what this bill would purport to facilitate the destruction of, as opposed to any working manual for conduct going forward. In that sense, I maintain the observation that, for relevant purposes, these things have to be dealt with temporally.

One might have said, in 1918 or 1919, about some minor change perhaps to enhance the new barracks or to make adjustment to a development at that time, that it might be a reasonable retort to say, 'This is not unprecedented; it continues a course of practice.' Of course, the very acquisition of heritage status that followed is the result of the passing of the more than 100 years that have followed that time. So one could turn around and say, 'Well, it's not unprecedented because we actually built the heritage buildings at some stage, and therefore their destruction now by the application of specific powers that are the subject of this short piece of legislation in 2022 is okay.' It is a kind of reverse logic to say that, because you once built the heritage buildings by virtue of a piece of legislation that permitted them, it is equally the subject of precedent to go ahead and knock them down.

If that is the beginning and end of the story—the beginning and end of the result of the researches that have been done with all the powers the government has at its disposal to debunk this notion that it is a bit extraordinary to be contemplating knocking these buildings over—then we have set a very low bar indeed for the consideration of the destruction of heritage sites. I will therefore make sure that that is clearly understood, and I would welcome any reassurance that might be given in particular response to the committee, now or subsequently, in the course of the consideration of the bill.

That as an aside, I hear the minister therefore saying, 'It's normal for legislation to be drafted in such a way as to identify the minister'—yes, okay, that is understood—and for it to be a matter within the government's capacity and appropriately controlled to subsequently go ahead and determine who that minister might be. But again these are particular, and I would say unusual, circumstances in which the Minister for Health is carrying this bill in the House of Assembly, in circumstances where I think it is fair to say there has been widespread public interest about the subject matter and the various interests that it is going to affect, and there have been observations about the role of various ministers ordinarily.

We did not hear the Minister for Health saying anything to me in response to my question about the definition of development, for example. No, it is a straightforward matter: the Minister for Planning is responsible for the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. There is no indication that that is to be departed from for the purposes of the facilitation of this act. It strikes me that it is in all our interests, and particularly the interests of all South Australians, that there be a bit more of an effort to provide some indication, if not reassurance, about who it is that South Australians, let alone those who are on this side of the house, ought to be engaging with by knowing who it is that is going to have the executive responsibility for these extraordinary powers that are the subject of the bill.

I ask the minister to give the best indication that is possible of the government's consideration to this date of just how exactly that is going to pan out.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Chair, I refer the member to my previous answer on the same question.

Mrs HURN: Minister, I refer to clause 5(b), which states:

(b) if the Minister at any time determines that not all of the land referred to in paragraph (a) is required as the project site—

but of course it can go back and be deposited in the GRO. Could the minister advise what the process would be if it is determined that more land is required as part of this site?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The provision, as it says, is about reducing the site potentially if it is not entirely needed for the purposes of building the hospital on the project site Then, if that were to be the case—we are not sure whether it would need to be—we would go to the government registry office and identify the site that we would no longer need.

I think that if the question was 'if there is additional land that would be required'—and there is certainly no intention or desire at this stage that that would need to be considered, and there is no provision in the act that would give us any ability to acquire additional land other than what has been put through here—obviously we could go through standard processes outside the legislation, hypothetically, but that would carry the significant complexity we are seeking to avoid by making clear what our intention is in relation to this legislation.

We believe that the site that has been put forward as part of the legislation—as has been outlined and set forth in schedule A—does give us the ability to provide for the hospital services and also other associated amenities, such as car parking, etc., we will need as part of the project.

Mrs HURN: To be clear, when the minister says that there is no desire at this stage, presumably that indicates that the door is being left open for the potential of expanding the project site, or are you ruling out that there will be no such need to expand the project site? If indeed you are wanting to extend the project site, on what grounds would you like to expand that? What would the profile of the decision-making look like?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I know what the member is trying to do—create an idea that something is afoot. If we had a view that additional provision were required, we would have come to the parliament in relation to that provision. The work that we have done has led us to what we are putting forward in relation to this.

This is far, far, far bigger than what the team had been working on in relation to the previous site. This gives us the ability, as has been outlined, to build the hospital for the future, to be able to make sure that we have additional beds and capacity as part of the hospital, and to make sure that we have the ability for those hot floor services to be connected, which was a key issue raised by clinicians. The site that is being put forward enables us to solve these issues.

There is absolutely no consideration of additional sites that may be required and there is no ability in this legislation for that to occur. We have not put a provision saying, 'By the way, if you want to get something else, here's how you do it.' There is no provision, as you have indicated. The only provision in relation to clause 5(b) is in relation to potentially giving land back that may not be needed at the end of the project.

Mrs HURN: The minister was seemingly trying to infer that I was trying to concoct some big public outrage on what I thought was a very simple question. I have to say that I think the response did highlight some level of distinct sensitivity towards this question, so that is certainly something we will continue to monitor.

I would like to ask a question in relation to clause 5(a), where it talks about the area of land indicated as the project site. If I may, I would like to ask the minister about the Hallion review in relation to the site selection. We know that, of course, there were six sites that were selected across three different locations. My question to the minister is: when it comes to the Hallion review and the site review, who set the parameters for where the Women's and Children's Hospital could be and therefore the site selection?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think we were very clear in relation to discussions with Mr Hallion, and certainly I was when I asked him to take on that role, that we wanted him to consider sites within the biomedical precinct. Clearly, there has been a lot of work that has happened in relation to building up the biomedical precinct, which now includes the Royal Adelaide Hospital, University of South Australia, Adelaide University and SAHMRI and will soon include the Bragg Comprehensive Cancer Centre. I think that a clear desire of clinicians across the community was to make sure that the Women's and Children's Hospital was part of that precinct.

As has been outlined, we received briefings upon coming into government that concerned us in terms of where this project was up to and how difficult it was going to be to be able to construct on the existing site, hence we asked Mr Hallion to look at other sites within the biomedical precinct.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, this is your last question on this clause.

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks for that indication, Chair. Perhaps I will do my best to wrap up what are related observations, picking up on the minister's reference to the Hallion review and perhaps a remark about the significance or substantiality of the scope of that consideration. My understanding is that the Hallion review was limited to six sites and three locations. How was that narrowing of the consideration determined and why was it limited to only three locations? Was there not really much more open possibility for consideration? Who, therefore, had responsibility for narrowing it in that way?

Perhaps, in that context, the minister might take the opportunity to zero in on the intended adequacy of what we see at schedule 1, and this perhaps might foreshadow it. It is described as:

…(being more particularly delineated in a plan or plans to be deposited in the GRO and identified by the Minister by notice in the Gazette for the purposes of this provision)…

I think we have indicated that has not happened yet and that would ordinarily happen subsequently. Can the minister, in addressing that question, indicate whether or not that is sufficient identification of the site and whether or not there is any indication to be given about the area that might necessarily be more particularly described that is depicted in schedule 1? Can he first address the Hallion point?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am not sure if I understood the second question, but I will do the best that I can. In relation to the first question, as I understand there was early work done by the Hallion team and the panel that was assembled. They looked at work that had been done by the original task force that had been appointed under Jim Birch.

Jim Birch was part of the Hallion review as well and looked at sites that had been considered in that process and what sites should be examined in more detail as part of the site review process. They did further work in relation to those sites that were considered the most likely options. There was further work done in relation to some alternative options for those sites as well.

As the report I think makes clear, this site that we are now proceeding with and the configuration of the hospital on the barracks site was not the original look that happened in relation to the barracks site because the original look at that site raised a number of issues. There was more work done and so it was an iterative process by that independent work from Jim Hallion and Jim Birch and the team that were a part of that to look at how we could find the best possible site.

Lots of sites ended up being considered. They were scored for a variety of different purposes and then, ultimately, it was a decision for cabinet and government in terms of whether we wanted to proceed down that path, which we ultimately have, and now we have decided to bring this bill to the parliament to enable it to proceed as quickly as possible.

Mr TELFER: I am a very simple man, minister. I am still trying to get an insight into the process. I know that the Hallion review considered three locations with six sites. Who narrowed it down in the brief to Hallion to look at these three locations in particular? Was that a direction of the minister or the Premier? Who gave that direction?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: From my perspective and I believe the Premier's perspective, we were clear that we wanted sites within the biomedical precinct considered, but we did not sit down and say to Jim Hallion and his team, 'We want you to look there, there, there and there.' We broadly said to them that we wanted sites considered within the biomedical precinct to find the best possible location.

We were very prepared, if this process came back and said that the existing RAH west site was the best option, that we would proceed upon that basis. We thought it was worth going through the process to have a look at the options before we proceeded with such a significant project that had already faced nine years of being discussed and proposed without any sod being turned in terms of its construction and with so many issues being raised about it.

I am very glad we went through that process and very thankful for Jim Hallion, Jim Birch and the team who did that work. Ultimately, they then came to us and said, 'These are the sites that we have examined. These are the issues. These are the benefits. This is the scoring.' We have made all that scoring and information publicly available, and that is the basis upon which we have made this decision.

Mr TELFER: As well as being a simple man, I am also a practical man. Looking at this piece of legislation, and specifically looking at clause 5—which references schedule 1, which I am sure we will have questions on when we get to that point—it speaks about the area of land indicated as the project site.

Albeit there is a precedent from previous legislation in 1913, which has the same map detail as we have been provided in schedule 1, I am more accustomed in planning processes—and once again, I respect you are not the planning minister, but you are going through this process—to receiving site maps with more detail and more direction than a scale 50-metre long line on the legend, which we will refer to later on, I am sure. Does the minister have an exact number of square metres that the project site actually encompasses, rather than talking in reference to schedule 1?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My advice is it is approximately 40,000 square metres but, given the practical man that he is, the member for Flinders is keen for the exact number. We will certainly take that on notice and provide that to him.

Mr TELFER: Flowing on from that, and I am sure it is somewhere within the information that the minister has, is there a breakdown of that 40,000 square metres into what the project envisions to be car park and other associated areas and what is actually under a building, where the footprint of the building would actually be? The 40,000 square metres of the project site obviously encompasses a lot of different aspects, so I am sure it would be interesting to the public, and certainly to those of us on this side, what the footprint of the building itself would be and how much of that 40,000 square metres would be car park and other associated areas.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Firstly, to correct some advice I was previously given, the 40,000 square metres—and we have put this map out publicly—is in relation to the site where the hospital is being considered. In addition, there is the 13,000 square metres that was previously being considered in relation to the car park when it was going to be on the RAH west site. That 13,000 square metres stays there, and there is the addition of the 40,000 square metres. My advice is that the entire footprint is in the order of 53,000 square metres, but we will get the exact number, as I said, and provide that to you as soon as possible.

In relation to the detailed layout, that is obviously still being worked through, but I think we made it clear in our previous briefing—and, I think, in the first briefing that we made available to the opposition after the announcement was made—what the current planning in relation to the site is. The car park will predominantly stay in a similar location to what had been proposed to the east of Gaol Road, as was being considered for the RAH west site, and then the hospital will fit across the other site in relation to the broader barracks site.

It does need to be set back some distance from Port Road to enable the traffic configuration, both through to the car parking and through to the emergency department, so there will be some green space on that side, and there will be additional green space on the back of the hospital. In addition to that, broadly in the support zones there will be other improvements made to the Parklands areas that are currently inaccessible. It will improve the amenity of those Parklands and make them accessible to the public.

The CHAIR: Are there any other questions on clause 5—in addition to members who have not asked questions already? The member for Heysen has already exhausted his three questions.

Mr TEAGUE: I take that as a technical response as opposed to anything pejorative. Have I exhausted my three questions—

The CHAIR: On this clause, yes. That is what I meant by the three members who have spoken already. That is what I meant by that. The member for Finniss is quite within his liberties to ask a question if he wants to.

Mr TEAGUE: I am sure any member is.

The CHAIR: That is what I meant, but he is at the moment present here.

Mr TEAGUE: Again, we have been here—

The CHAIR: We have been here, but you do not seem to understand that we have been here. I am trying to be helpful. I am trying to give you another chance to ask another question if you wish to.

Mr TEAGUE: I understand that.

The CHAIR: I am trying to give you a lifebuoy, and you just throw it back at me. That is fine.

Mr TEAGUE: I have been pulled up on standing orders in relation to—Chair, I would note that we would do well to continue to observe standing orders in relation to the presence or otherwise of members of the chamber.

The CHAIR: Why is that a point of order? I am just saying the reason I mentioned the member was that he is here and he might want to ask a question. I wanted to make sure you understood that—that is all.

Mr TEAGUE: I am sure it is well understood.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr TELFER: I am trying to get an insight, and it probably follows on a little bit from what my colleague the member for Heysen has been trying to ascertain within the detail of this legislation. This clause in particular refers a number of times to the minister. Looking especially at the end, the note states:

Once the land is vested in the Minister under this section, the Minister will have powers in relation to the land as the holder of the fee simple.

Noting the answer that the minister has given already, in this clause in particular, could the reference to the minister in all these different aspects be referring to different ministers? For instance, in relation to the note that 'the land is vested in the Minister', could that be a different minister from the minister referred to later on in that sentence?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: No, it would be the minister who has carriage of the legislation.

Mrs HURN: Minister, I have a point of clarification. I am referring to some material that has been put out by SA Health and the government, where it refers to the site benefits of the Women's and Children's Hospital. It says the total new Women's and Children's Hospital site size for the RAH west site is 20,000 square metres, and at the barracks site it is 40,000 square metres. Then we move down where it talks about the actual building size. It makes reference to the fact that the RAH west site is 109,000 square metres, and the building size of the barracks site is 117,000 square metres.

I recall comments made by the government in one way, shape or form that the new Women's and Children's Hospital is double the size. Minister, can you clarify that what you are actually referring to is the overall new Women's and Children's Hospital site size, or is that the building size? Can you just clarify that?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, the site size is double the size. That enables us to build a bigger hospital. It enables us to build a hospital that better connects the services that are available. This has been an issue that has been raised time and time again by clinicians: the connection between various intensive care services—operating theatres and the like—and having to move between floors. There was no other way around that, despite a significant amount of work.

I do want to be political about it. Successive governments have tried to make the project work on that site and found that it was impossible to do because the site is too small. Having this much bigger site now enables us to build a bigger hospital, plan for the future and also connect those services that need to be connected.

Mrs HURN: Just to clarify that, the building size which is the actual hospital—that is, the building size—is not actually double. The insinuation that has been provided publicly is that this hospital, the actual bricks-and-mortar hospital, is double the size, when actually it is not. When you are referring to a doubling of the project, what you are actually referring to is a doubling of extra Parklands and those types of things. Regarding the actual whole project site size, not the building size itself, the former government's RAH west site was 109,000 square metres and the new barracks site is 117,000 square metres. So it is not a doubling at all; in fact, it is just a slight increase in building size for a new hospital.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The same question has essentially been asked again.

Mrs HURN: There was not clarity provided in the former—

The CHAIR: I am happy to allow the question. That is fine.

Mrs HURN: As a point of clarification, because the minister seemed confused by the difference in the question that I put forward, my previous question was about the broader differences between the site size and the building size. My new question is: can the minister confirm that the building size of the new Women's and Children's Hospital under the Labor government, versus the Women's and Children's Hospital that was proposed under the former government, is not actually a doubling in size? In fact, it is only a very minor increase when it comes to the building size, which is the bricks and mortar of the building.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I can confirm that this will be a bigger hospital on a site that is double the size in relation to the hospital footprint and in addition to the car parking element, which was shared between both sites, as I mentioned earlier. It is worth going through a number of the elements where we will be adding space and services in relation to the hospital.

One is in relation to the women's ICU, which we made clear. Another is in relation to the additional beds that this government has committed on top of what was being provided by the previous government. The third element is in relation to pathology services, which were not going to be part of the previous hospital build. There are a number of those different services that will now be inside the hospital.

In addition to that, part of the planning work that we will be considering is clearly how this hospital could potentially expand within that footprint over time, whereas that obviously was not going to be possible in relation to the previous site. In fact, not only was the previous site not going to allow any expansion of the Women's and Children's Hospital but it would significantly impede expansion of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which I think we are now clear at some stage is going to have to expand, whether that is in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. If we built the Women's and Children's Hospital there, that would significantly curtail the ability for that to happen.

Mr TEAGUE: Reminding ourselves in the process of the committee, it is just that. This is not an occasion for some sort of gloss or making a political point or something of that nature, because we are looking to analyse the facts. I did not hear in the minister's answer just now anything that departed from the details that were indicated by the member for Schubert and the subject of the relevant part of the government's published information in relation to site benefits.

So we are clear, there is a table with a headline indication that the former government's project land area site size was 20,000 square metres, and what has been described as the barracks site is 40,000 square metres. But the building sizes clearly indicated on the existing plan, the previous government's plan, are for a building with a building size of 109,000 square metres, yet the building that is at least foreshadowed by the new government is described as being 117,000 square metres.

How that comes to pass and what the specifications of that are ultimately, and what in fact the Women's and Children's Hospital amounts to that comprises those 117,000 square metres, we have already been told we will not find elucidated in this bill. We can be clear that we are talking about a building of similar size, and the subject matter of this bill is otherwise concerning the treatment of a different land area and a potentially significantly larger land area than was previously the plan.

I bear in mind the minister's observations about what might be the benefits associated with a move and the facilitation of anything that might come into the future, but we are just clear about what the starting point is when considering more particularly clause 6 and how that will operate. This bill is, if not solely then very much predominantly, concerned with the project site and therefore consideration of site size and so on.

The minister has already given an indication of sorts to the member for Flinders, I think it might have been even clearer than that, that the minister for the purposes of all of clause 6 is contemplated to be one and the same minister. We just do not know who that might be, which minister that might be of the, and I am not sure what the collective term is, cohort of ministers who have been identified—it is a relatively large number—who would very reasonably be regarded as candidates for the purposes of clause 6.

I do not know if we are in for a kind of, 'Wait and see; at the end of the committee process we will give you the big reveal.' The indication so far seems to be that the decision has not been made about who that might be. There is no cavelling on this side about the approach to legislation that might be made more generally. In particular, in relation to subclause (1), it would be unusual perhaps for the site, to the extent it is going to be vested in a minister in fee simple in these circumstances, for it to be other than the minister with the responsibility of the operations of the particular activity.

Given that, would the minister at least be able to give some indication that it is likely to be the Minister for Health in whom the project site is vested, or is there some relevant step prior in which it may be necessary for the site to be vested in the Minister for Planning or the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for the purposes of the project, even if it might ultimately be vested in the Minister for Health when the time comes when the building is complete?

I acknowledge that the clause does not contemplate a two-step process, but in terms of endeavouring to explore what might be considered—if it has not already—is there anything in contemplation here beyond a single minister and once and for all vesting, for the purposes of both the project site preparation and its ultimate operation as a hospital, and if that is the case is that a clue as to who the minister might be?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There is not much that I can add to the previous answer, which was related to this. In relation to clause 6(1), it would be the minister who has carriage of the act. I presume, as I said previously, that is likely to be the Minister for Health, but obviously that is a decision that is made administratively from time to time. There are new acts that are moved from time to time and there are new ministries that are created from time to time, and it is not for me as a lowly Minister for Health to decide such things that the Premier may want to consider; however, I think it is likely, as I said previously, that this would be under the carriage of the Minister for Health.

Mr TEAGUE: I make the observation that somebody has at least made the decision that the Minister for Health has carriage of this bill in the House of Assembly, and to the extent that that is a decision of the government procedurally, I guess, all South Australians might be forgiven for treating that as an indication of the government's attitude to the responsibility for the outworking of the relevant parts of the bill. The only extent perhaps to which it has been made clear that there might be a departure from that is at clause 10, and we will come to that in a moment.

As I am understanding the minister—as I think we are understanding the minister—for the purposes of clause 6 at least there is a decision to be made, and it would be unsurprising if it was the Minister for Health who was the minister. The minister has not in his answer given any indication that there might be anything more than a once and for all vesting that is contemplated, although he has not ruled that out, and there is an invitation to do so if necessary.

I suppose it would not be unreasonable in all of those circumstances for anyone who is following the development of this process to think, 'Well, aren't we entitled to some slightly greater than usual prior indication of how this is going to pan out, particularly in relation to clause 6(1)?' We have a bill that is providing for the vesting of the project site in the minister.

There are several ministers who, at least for the time being, have a keen interest or need to in terms of discharging their executive responsibilities and, at least for the time being, all of them might reasonably be expected on one view to be that minister. I take as a starting point that the Minister for Environment might be expected to have perhaps the most direct immediate interest in the project site, perhaps alongside the Minister for Planning, and that interest might then tend to move along down the line in the process.

I just underscore the importance, if not obligation, of the government at this point to give an indication of its intent, beyond having assigned the responsibility for the carriage of the bill to the Minister for Health, as perhaps a sign of good faith for the people of South Australia in circumstances where, in terms of popular discourse—the media and elsewhere—there has been the preloading of the promotion of the end result in media across the state over the last month or more and a characterisation of this all being really a fait accompli that we may as well regard as just being given a rubber stamp through the House of Assembly.

It might, given all those circumstances—if the government wants to have its way in terms of the characterisation of the running of the project—be desirable to similarly front-load an indication about who the responsible minister is in respect of this variety of transfers of responsibility to a minister, perhaps none more so than the vesting of the project site in a minister.

To the extent to which the minister is able to give any greater level of indication about consideration that has been given to how that might pan out—and, if not, when that consideration is going to occur and when we might all hear about it—then I invite the minister to do so.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Unfortunately, there is not much to add to my previous many answers in relation to this topic.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.