Bills

New Women's and Children's Hospital (Relocation of SA Police Facilities) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 June 2023.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:09): I rise to indicate that the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill, and I will briefly talk a little bit about the history. I am not going to go through the debate we went through 10 months ago, in November last year, when we debated the substantive bill itself and the history of the various projects for the Women's and Children's Hospital.

There was commentary at the time, particularly from the Premier, about the New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill being a binary debate, that you were either for the hospital or against the hospital. In that case, if you were for the hospital you reluctantly had to say goodbye to heritage, so we are already seeing the Thebarton barracks very sadly in the bulldozer's headlights to see this project proceed.

The Liberal Party, I think like all parties, was not going to stand in the way of a new Women's and Children's Hospital, albeit that we believe a different model would be the best way forward. I think heritage has been the big loss in this place, and during that debate we certainly did highlight that the clauses that enable the police greys to be relocated in the Parklands under some extraordinary clauses was something we were very concerned about.

The Liberal Party moved amendments to improve that transparency at the time; those were defeated. The Greens also had amendments to delete clause 10 of the bill, as it was at the time. We did not support them in that, but we do see to support them because of what has taken place since the bill was passed. We will see a $3.2 billion hospital proposal that will be delivered in 2032. We also highlighted that the bill itself was actually a piece of planning legislation rather than a health bill.

It is really in relation to the Parklands that I wish to turn our attention to. There is another bill that the Greens have brought forward, so I will describe this one as case study 1: the Parklands in relation to the Mounted Operations Unit. What we have seen since this bill was passed, and I note that at the time the Park Lands Authority and National Trust had not been consulted, the Heritage Council had provided advice which was overridden. We also noted at the time that there was not similar legislation required for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, and the government has since established a community reference group.

We have seen the initial proposal for an eight-hectare site at Park 21 West, Mirnu Wirra, in the South Parklands as the government's preferred site for the Mounted Police Operations—that after a huge amount of community uproar, thousands of signatures on petitions, protests and the like, particularly because this was a significant native vegetation site that has had a lot of work put into it by community groups including, I understand, Trees For Life. I think that was a very poor decision, which thankfully has now been overturned. There was also outrage from the City Residents Association, members of the Unley Council and members of the Adelaide council.

It is worth remembering that the mounted operations are going to require quite a lot of hard spaces, so our Parklands should be protected from those, particularly those with high biodiversity as there is not actually a great deal of high-level biodiversity in and around the city mile. We also had a level of secrecy in association with where the mounted operations will go. We understand that there are something like 15 proposed sites and the government has not wanted to release those.

We understand that there is also a Parklands site in the west that the government has been looking at and there has just been a complete unwillingness by this government to come clean with South Australians about what its intentions are, so that makes it hard for the community to engage in a positive way when they are sort of drip-fed information by choice by the government or when it is squeezed out of them.

It would also be appreciated, if the government is going to speak to this, if they could advise what sites are under consideration. There is a report that Renewal SA had advised that the West End brewery site in Thebarton would be an ideal place for the new barracks. The public is very much in the dark about this and we do need to ensure that our Parklands are protected as much as possible. Therefore, we are supporting this particular bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (20:16): I rise to speak on the second reading of this bill on behalf of SA-Best. In doing so, I will start by saying that we stood by the decision that we made in relation to the Women's and Children's Hospital when that bill passed and we continue to stand by that decision today. Obviously, this was an amendment that was put during that debate. It is an amendment that we did not support at the time because, overwhelmingly, we supported the Women's and Children's Hospital build.

We understood as part of that proposal that there would be potentially some ramifications including the barracks and potentially some other ramifications which we were not sure would proceed or not in terms of further use of Parklands but, overwhelmingly, our position remained that we supported that proposal and remains that we support that proposal. I have made inquiries as to whether anything in this bill would deviate from that support for that piece of legislation. My understanding is it does not and I am keen to hear from the government to confirm that position as well. If that is the case, then I expect that this bill will be supported through this place in the non-controversial and uncontentious nature that the mover envisages or hopes that it will move.

Just to place on the record our position: the support for the Women's and Children's Hospital—regardless of the fact that this was one of those amendments that the member moved at the time—was overwhelmingly in favour, despite the fact that there were provisions like this in there. If that is no longer contentious then obviously this bill will see its passage through this place. I think well and truly now the one thing that has been established from at least public accounts is that those mounted operations will not be placed where it was initially thought. With those words, I look forward to the remainder of the debate on this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:18): I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Connie Bonaros for their remarks and I thank them for their support of this bill. The arguments have been well ventilated. Just to make clear, this bill does not compromise the hospital in any way. I recognise the position of the respective parties on the hospital. What it does do is ensure that the police minister does not have the power to allocate a slab of the Parklands for a new Mounted Operations Unit. That should be non-controversial because the government has indicated that they do not intend to proceed with plans for the police barracks on the Parklands, but this just makes that really clear.

There has been some conjecture about the future locations of the police barracks. Indeed, there has been talk about SAPOL not wanting the Gepps Cross location and pressure falling on the government again to find alternative locations. Well, the Parklands need to be ruled out. It is my hope that this bill is passed through this chamber and then is expedited in the other place to give people in the South Australian community confidence that the Parklands are not going to be handed over to SAPOL. Once this bill passes this chamber, it is over to the Labor Party in the other place to make this a priority to send that clear message to the people of South Australia.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.