Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Question Time Royal Adelaide Hospital ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:23): I seek leave—on, incidentally, 3 May, the International Day of Trust—to make an explanation before asking the minister, and the Leader of the Government, a question regarding misleading information provided to this parliament about the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Leave granted. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In this place, on 7 April I asked the minister representing the Minister for Health about utility and electricity charges at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. I explained that the health minister, the Hon. John Hill, had earlier claimed that the consortium, not the taxpayer, will be 'responsible for the electricity side of the operation'. The health minister further asserted that the consortium would be 'responsible through the contract over the 35 years of the contract for the supply of energy'. So, on 7 April I asked the Hon. Gail Gago, the minister representing the Minister for Health, how the government claim stacked up against the Macquarie Bank documents, which show the cost of utilities such as electricity will be passed on in full to taxpayers. In her response the Hon. Gail Gago replied that it was—and again I quote—an 'outrageous assertion' by the opposition. She told this chamber the opposition had come into this place time and time again with 'incorrect and inaccurate information'. She called the opposition 'sleazy cowards' and said that the premise of my question was nothing short of a disgrace. On 15 April The Australian reported Mr Hill had misled voters about who would pay those power bills. He admitted the state would pick up the power tab during the operation of the 35-year contract, just as the opposition said it would. Mr Hill has been found out and publicly had to admit he has misled the state. My questions are: 1.	Will the minister now acknowledge that she has misled this chamber? 2.	Will the minister apologise for misleading the chamber and will she immediately, and without reservation, withdraw her offensive and inaccurate comments? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Regional Development Minister for Public Sector Management Minister for the Status of Women Minister for Consumer Affairs Minister for Government Enterprises Minister for Gambling The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (14:25): What an outrageous assertion! As usual, the opposition comes into this place with distorted facts and figures, with only half-baked information, and makes all sorts of assertions. They do not bother to check their facts and figures. Time and time again they come into this place with inaccurate information, where they do not check their facts and figures, make all sorts of assertions and malign all sorts of individuals, including public servants. They have no compassion whatsoever. They come into this place and make all sorts of vile assertions, so I will not withdraw any of those comments, because they were made in that general context and that general context still applies. Time and time again they have been found to have provided misleading information to this place and to have failed to check their facts and figures. In fact, the reason I was so scathing on that particular day—and I made no comment about the utility charges because I had no information about that at all and agreed to refer that to the appropriate minister, if I recall correctly, so I made no assertion about the charges—and what I maligned them about was the fact that they came in here and referred to a document that they refused to table. They refused to make that document publicly available and they refused to table it. Cowards: that is what they were, and that is what I had a go at them about on that particular occasion. I say it again: they come into this place and make reference to documents that they are too cowardly to table.