HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARJORIE JACKSON-NELSON HOSPITAL

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): Will the Minister for Health table the report for consultants of the proposed Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital? The Budget and Finance Committee has heard that the government is spending $17 million on 13 separate consultants, including a flight path adviser, for its proposed hospital.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (15:13): I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked this question because it allows us to correct the error that was put out by the shadow minister without portfolio, the Hon. Rob Lucas in another place—a backbencher without portfolio. He put out the figure of about $130 million as being the government's consultancy budget for the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital. In fact, we have budgeted $17 million (as the deputy leader has just acknowledged) which is about 1 per cent of the total budget for the construction of that hospital. Why are we spending $17 million, or 1 per cent, to get advice? We are getting advice from engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, flight engineers—all the kinds of experts who will tell us what shape the hospital ought to be.

We will go through that process so when we go into a public-private partnership arrangement we will know what it is we want and we can tell the market what it is we are looking for. We can then assess the quality of the bids that the market provides against the best advice we have. Will we be putting out that information? Of course, we will not. We need that information to be confidential to us so we can judge properly which of the bidders will give us the best price. If we gave out all the information which we paid for, then they would not be put into a position where they themselves have to think through those problems

Clearly, it is a ridiculous question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but it is part of the ongoing campaign of the opposition in relation to the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital. Let me say to the house why building the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital is preferred to the upgrading of the RAH. Let me say what will happen during the next election campaign in 2010. This side of the house will be arguing for a new hospital to be built on a greenfields site. The Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order. This is clearly debate. The alternative proposals that are being put between the government and the opposition is clearly debate.

The SPEAKER: I have listened to what the Minister for Health has said and I do not think it is debate. The Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: What I was doing was drawing a comparison between the position put by this side of the house and that by the other. In 2010, we on this side of the house will be able to say—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: That is the exactly the point that is being made, that he is wanting to debate the alternative proposals of the government and the opposition in relation to new hospitals. It is nothing to do with the question about whether he will disclose these reports, which he has refused to do.

The SPEAKER: Order! No, that is not debate. What the deputy leader is saying is debate. The Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I was drawing to the attention of the house the benefits of the $17 million investment that we are making, because we will be able to go to the people of this state, in the year 2010, and say, 'We will build a new hospital on this site. It will cost about $1.7 billion. It will be completed by 2016 and we won't have to pay any extra money until 2016 because that's when, under the PPP arrangements, we will start paying for it. So there will be six years before we have to pay anything.'

The opposition, on the other hand, will be saying, 'We will upgrade the RAH on this site,' and they will have to start paying money from 2010. They will have to put into their calculations for the next election the hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the RAH starting from 2010. And, do you know what, they will not be able to complete that upgrade until 2025 because the upgrade of the RAH will take 15 years. In addition to that, during the entire time—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —in the entire time of the upgrade of the RAH, if they were able to get their hands on the Treasury bench, up to 30 per cent of the capacity of that hospital would have to be closed down, because you cannot run a hospital at 680 beds while you are also developing it. So where are you going to put the patients in the 30 per cent of the beds which are closed down during that 15-year period when that hospital is being rebuilt? Clearly, the opposition has not thought this through.

In addition, of course, the cost to rebuild that hospital on that site, starting in 2010 going through to 2025, would be $2.2 billion—$500 million more than our proposition—and, of course, the savings of $50 million a year, which we will get from 2016, will not occur. What the opposition is suggesting is never going to happen because it is based on a fallacy. If they happen to get into government they would work it out and then they would change their minds.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT