HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Premier. How many positions has his government now had on the re-use of a bulldozed Royal Adelaide Hospital site and what is his latest preferred position? On 7 June—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: On 7 June 2007, when announcing the Marjorie-Jackson Nelson hospital, the Minister for Health told South Australians that the bulldozed Royal Adelaide site would be returned to parklands or botanical gardens. On the same day, the minister said:

It's parklands, it can't be sold. We won't sell it. We don't want to commercialise it.

Later, the Minister for Health said that heritage buildings on the site would be sold to universities. Then on 14 March—

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: We've got the transcript. Then on 14 March 2009, the same—

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The Leader of the Opposition has told an untruth to the house. I have never said those buildings would be sold.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Allegations about the truthfulness or otherwise of comments made by members must be moved by substantive motion, so there is no point of order. However, I think the leader's explanation has gone beyond what is necessary for the purpose of explaining the question.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I will listen to what you are saying, but I may withdraw leave.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: On 14 March, the minister said that some buildings would then be handed over to arts and cultural groups. The minister then said that the government would build a federation square on the land, and, in a new development this morning, the Minister for Health said publicly that the site would become a boutique hotel.

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:14): The Liberals have had more positions on this hospital than are found in the Kama Sutra. Let me go through this, because I think it needs to be explained because a number of things have been said today that are simply untrue.

By building on a new site, this government will deliver a hospital with more beds (800 beds compared to 680 now), including 60 ICU beds (40 per cent more than now), 40 operating theatres and procedure rooms (more than the 35 now). They will all be 65 square metres (bigger than any across Australia now). There will be a 25 per cent increase in the emergency department capacity. We will dramatically increase the number of single beds, improving infection control. The Liberals' plans will leave South Australians in doubt about what they are getting until after the next election.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is nothing to do with the question. On the question of relevance, it is what the position of the government is on the—

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I explained it.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, on the bulldozed Royal Adelaide Hospital site. It is nothing to do with the new hospital.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, sir. The Liberals' plans, as I say, will leave South Australians in doubt about what they are getting until after the next election—because they do not have the gumption, the decency or the integrity to tell us what their position is. The Liberals' plan will cause massive disruption for patients. It will not increase the size or number of operating theatres or intensive care beds. It is completely vague on the number of beds. And here is the nub of it: the Liberals' plan—the Martin Hamilton-Smith plan—will leave patients in six-bed rooms. It will leave over 35 patients to three toilets on wards. It will not fix the water, sewerage, steam pipe heating, electricity and gas systems, all of which are past their use by date. The Liberals' plan will probably mean a reduction of beds. Their plan is—

Mr WILLIAMS: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The member for MacKillop.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! What is the member for MacKillop's point of order?

Mr WILLIAMS: The point of order is relevance, sir. I believe it is standing order 98. I believe it stipulates that a minister in answering a question should address the substance of the question. I have been listening to the Premier for several minutes now. The question was about the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site. It is not about the new hospital. It is about the future use of the site.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: You cannot handle the truth!

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I have already moved on the member for MacKillop's point of order. Does he have something else to say?

Mr WILLIAMS: I am seeking clarification, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: Is your ruling that the answer the Premier is giving about the new hospital the government is proposing to build is relevant to the question?

The SPEAKER: For the purposes of the standing order at this point, as far as I am aware, the Premier is answering the substance of the question. That is my ruling. The member for MacKillop will take his seat. The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The Liberals' plan probably means a reduction of beds. Their plan is not clear on how many beds they will have.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not know whether the Premier offends standing order 98, and I appreciate your ruling. He has now gone on to the Liberals' plan in relation to this, and under standing order 128, on irrelevance and repetition, we have heard all this dribble before.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, sir, and I guess that is the nub of the point. They do not want their plan being placed under scrutiny, because it does not bear scrutiny. You talk about its being irrelevant? You are dead right!

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Their plan will cause huge problems for the emergency department, as its entrance becomes a building site for years.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The Liberals' plan removes the radiotherapy department, with no concept of where that should go. It should be—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop is warned. The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: There are school students in this building who do not need the abuse of members of the opposition. Lift your standards. Raise the standard. The Liberals' plan removes the radiotherapy department, with no concept on where that should go—it should be in a stand-alone building and is not even mentioned in their plan—and the Liberals' plan does not remove the asbestos nor does it make the hospital earthquake prepared. Apparently, they did not care about that even with their stadium. There are some other issues here because it is about comparing and contrasting—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —and that is what public policy and politics is all about—comparing and contrasting. As to timelines, there is no way that these buildings could be completed by 2016; it would take until at least 2025 to do so. We look forward to expanding on this in coming weeks. Remember the song about 2525? I think that is about what we are seeing with this.

As to costings, we contacted the cost consultants the Liberals say they used, and I am told that they said they had not been conducting consulting for the Liberals. The Liberals admit that they may not stick to these costings. I repeat that: the Liberals admit that they may not stick to these costings. Remember they said that on the stadium they had a consultant's report on the costings, then they refused to mention who the consultants were. Surely, if you have a good case, you want to back it up with evidence. The opposition leader said yesterday—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —and I want to quote him: 'These cost estimates would need to be confirmed and tested through a tender process.' So, even the Liberals admit that they are not complete costings.

I will talk about our position, but let's talk about their position. These latest three positions come after a string of positions by the Liberals and Martin Hamilton-Smith on the hospital. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition came out and supported building the new hospital on the site that we have chosen, then they wanted to rebuild the hospital on the existing site, then they wanted to build it on the Clipsal site, then they wanted to build it out at Keswick, and then they promised to build a brand new hospital on the new site. I do not know what happened to the patients and staff in the meantime—perhaps they would be in a tent city in Botanic Park.

Then they flirted with having maternity services in the new hospital and now they are not going to build a new hospital but build two or three new buildings, and they would not even tell the truth in their drawings about the scale of the thing. It was doctored—a bit like what was going on in Rob Lucas's office a few weeks ago in terms of their IT smear campaigns.

Now they don't have one position but three simultaneously. So, three positions on seven sites—no wonder people do not believe you. This was not a hospital. You have a hospital on wheels; it is a mobile ambulance.

Of course, the Liberals say they need to have proper consultation. Despite their promises, the Liberals have not consulted with the doctors or nurses. The peak doctors and nurses groups, the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Nursing Federation, have apparently confirmed that they were not consulted about the Liberals' plans.

We have seen what they stand for, which is nothing. What I would like to see is a world-class hospital here in the centre of the city. What I would like to see built over the railway yards is the best hospital in Australia because we put patients first, which is the difference between us and you. Since we have been in office, we saw what you did. You had one plan which was to cut beds and privatise when you were around the cabinet table—the plan to privatise the QEH. It took this government the guts to wind back the clock and bring the Modbury Hospital back into the public hospital system after you had privatised it.

So it goes on—an extra 900 doctors in the system, an extra 2,800 nurses in the system. That is the difference—a commitment to a public hospital system that is world class, rather than what you want which is to have all those people with the use of three toilets. You want to have multiple beds in the wards. We are offering the best public hospital in the country, and, if you want to make the election about that, then so be it.

What we also want to do is remove some of those buildings that are currently eyesores and return them to botanic gardens, so that it is a beautiful part of the North Terrace boulevard. There are heritage listed buildings there that can be used. What we want to do is to free up North Terrace to have a stunning cultural boulevard, rather than wreck it with a building that would not only disrupt the patients but disrupt the staff, and also be unavailable for the emergency helicopter service—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —costing lives and time. At the same time, you were so confident in your design that you doctored the design so that it did not look like the eyesore that it would be.

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