<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2021-02-03" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="2529" />
  <endPage num="2583" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Medical Facilities</name>
      <page num="2541" />
      <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000207">
        <heading>Medical Facilities</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="4697" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2021-02-03">
            <name>Medical Facilities</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2021-02-03T15:10:53" />
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000208">
          <timeStamp time="2021-02-03T15:10:53" />
          <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:10):</by>  I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Health and Wellbeing regarding medical facilities.</text>
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000209">Leave granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4697" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000210">
          <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  In November last year, InDaily reported statements from the Premier regarding the use of the old Wakefield Hospital as a dedicated facility for those with COVID-19. The article reported the Premier as saying that the government wanted to immediately relocate positive coronavirus into the new facility—to immediately relocate. The article went on to say, and I quote the Premier from the article:</text>
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000211">
          <inserted>At that old Wakefield Hospital there is a large capacity there, which can be flexed up to deal with surges…</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000212">My questions to the minister are:</text>
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000213">1.&amp;#x9;Was it based purely on health advice that the Wakefield Hospital was not selected, as initially suggested, as a dedicated facility?</text>
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000214">2.&amp;#x9;How much taxpayer money was spent on matters related to the old Wakefield Hospital as a dedicated quarantine facility before those plans were scrapped?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3164" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Health and Wellbeing</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <startTime time="2021-02-03T15:12:01" />
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000215">
          <timeStamp time="2021-02-03T15:12:01" />
          <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:12):</by>  I would make three points in relation to this. The old Wakefield Hospital was not secured as a possible COVID-positive facility in November last year. My understanding is that it was really quite early, I suspect it was March or April, that the old Wakefield Hospital was secured and it is still under contract, available to the South Australian government.</text>
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000216">The second element is in relation to the point I have already made in response to a previous answer. The Premier said late last year that the government would immediately establish a dedicated facility for COVID-positive people. That is exactly what happened. There's a dedicated facility to this day at the Pullman hotel.</text>
        <text id="202102036526544386cd4829a0000217">In terms of the question that I think the honourable member asked: was the decision not to use the old Wakefield based on health advice? Yes, it was. What I can say is that the Wakefield Hospital was one of the sites assessed. My recollection is that the team involved in the assessment of what facility would be appropriate as a COVID-positive dedicated standalone facility assessed over 100 facilities, obviously some at a deeper level than others, but a very thorough scan was made in Adelaide. It is hardly surprising that a number of facilities were not seen as appropriate and old Wakefield was one of them.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>