Women's and Children's Hospital

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (14:27): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing regarding the Women's and Children's Hospital.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: On 31 July 2018, the minister told this chamber that:

The commitment of the Liberal government is that we will deliver a best practice health service for women and children, developing a fully costed plan, with a view to achieving co-location by 2024.

My question to the minister is: does he stand by that commitment, and is he still committed to delivering the new Women's and Children's Hospital by 2024?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:28): I am really surprised that the Labor Party thought that it was a good idea to ask a question about the Women's and Children's Hospital. This is the failed government that promised in October 2013 that it would deliver a co-located Women's and Children's Hospital on the NRAH site; and the Treasurer would be pleased to know that, not only were they going to deliver that, they were also going to deliver a private hospital on the same site.

We were horrified by the opportunities they wanted to offer private hospitals and private operators on North Terrace. Anyway, in October 2013, going to the 2014 election, they promised a Women's and Children's Hospital co-located on the NRAH site. Then, in about February 2015, they told the people of South Australia that not only were they committed to that but that, under their Transforming Health budget cuts plan, they were going to fast-track it. We weren't just going to get a co-located Women's and Children's Hospital, we were going to get it quicker. Then, about two years later—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —they thought—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —'This isn't going to work. We can't afford this. We will have to put the women's hospital on the North Terrace site, and we will leave the children's in North Adelaide.' Can you imagine that? You have the most vulnerable South Australians—premature babies in their early weeks of life—being located at the North Adelaide site. This is the site that's been patched together over 140 years.

In their capitulation of their promise in October 2013, and their reiteration in February 2015, what did they do? They decided that they were going to relocate the women's hospital, only with no plan for the transfer of children. What would that have meant? That would have meant that for an indeterminate period and an indeterminate cost the children's services for South Australians would continue to be delivered at the North Adelaide site. What does that mean? What is the impact of that on children's care?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. John Dawkins catches my eye—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Point of order, Mr President: I know you give very wide latitude in answering questions, but the minister has not touched on any aspect whatsoever about his plan and, as fond as he is of talking about other people's plans—

The PRESIDENT: Yes. The minister—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I haven't responded to the Leader of the Opposition's point of order, minister. You make a fair point of order, but the minister has latitude to answer the questions, and he is discussing hospitals. Minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The very hospital that was asked about.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The very hospital.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. John Dawkins, by way of interjection by eyes—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. John Dawkins disorderly interjects and says, 'Well, what about the children in the country?' That is a very good question because what Labor's plan would mean is that for decades to come, when children are being retrieved to the Women's and Children's Hospital—what is now the rump of a hospital at North Adelaide—they would have to be medically retrieved to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and transferred by ambulance to the North Adelaide site, significantly increasing the risk. Labor was happy to trash the Women's and Children's Hospital plan—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: I cannot hear the minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —and separate the site with no plan for the redevelopment of the children's hospital. We were faced with that dilemma as we came into government, and so what did we do?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Thank goodness we came into government.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Amen. So the honourable member very kindly highlights the action by the Marshall Liberal government, which is establishing a task force chaired by Jim Birch, which, to be frank, was markedly different to the strategy of the former Labor government. The former Labor government thought, 'Let's build a $2.4 billion hospital and see if we can do it without talking to clinicians. Let's see if we can just have a go.' John Hill—I think Chris Picton was working for him for a while—all the Labor staffers and all the Labor politicians thought, 'Let's see if we can build a hospital without talking to clinicians.' It didn't seem to go that well, so we thought that we would try a different approach: we thought we would talk to the people who are actually going to run the hospital.

So the task force, headed by Jim Birch, had a majority of clinicians, my God—a majority of clinicians—and they have been involved in the last few months in developing a whole series of options, particularly looking at possible locations. What has been really interesting in the conversations that I have had with Jim Birch is that the issues they have been unpacking relate to not just the physical location because, as the Hon. John Dawkins rightly interjected, 'What about the children?' we are concerned about making sure that services are accessible but we also need to make sure that they are efficient. What Jim Birch found—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —is that you shouldn't only look at the capital costs, because the Treasurer will be interested in this even if the members opposite aren't. In broad terms, we would expect the capital cost of the three options—the three most preferred options—to be similar. What is dramatically different is the operating costs. By having the hospital co-located with the Royal Adelaide Hospital you would save significant operating inefficiencies. As one of my staffers asked me: what sort of inefficiencies? Well, let me give you an example—and perhaps it was in the terms that the Hon. John Dawkins gave by an interjection—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: With his eyes again!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With his eyes again. A very good example that John Dawkins was giving me earlier was the case if you had a women's and children's hospital up on Park 25 across the road, which is—

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Point of order: it has been an entertaining latitude that you have extended to the minister but, please, Mr President, we would like to hear an answer to the honourable member's question at some stage. It has been about 19 minutes so far on my count.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, it feels like it. The point of order is obviously relevance. This minister hasn't even approached an answer to the question that was asked of him.

The PRESIDENT: I can't imagine where he learnt the bad habits from, the Hon. Mr Hunter; I can't imagine. Minister, please get to the point of your answer.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Perhaps I can help the honourable member with a simple daisy chain of logic. The logic is that we established a task force with a majority of clinicians who have found that not only is it about how much it costs to build the hospital, it is a matter of how much it is to run the hospital.

What the task force has found is that a significant differentiating factor between the preferred locations is the operating costs of the locations, so a significant issue in the selection of the co-located site with the RAH was the operating costs. I am told that it is probably in the order of 10 to 15 per cent. Labor might not regard that as big—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Point of order: the fact of the matter is, Mr President, you've given ample latitude and the honourable member has been here long to enough to know that answers of over 10 minutes are probably not acceptable, given the simple question was: when is he going to do it?

The PRESIDENT: Minister, you have been on your feet a while. The Leader of the Opposition does have a point. You are in breach of your own leader's informal rules but, given it is an important issue, you have a quick opportunity to come to the point.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I can assure honourable members that we will not only deliver a world-class hospital on the North Terrace site, contrary to the broken promises of Labor, but it will be fully costed and it will be very cost effective.