HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL

Ms BREUER (Giles) (14:14): Will the Minister for Health explain how a new central hospital is the best solution for the growing demands on our health services, and how does this compare with the recent proposals—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms BREUER: —to rebuild the hospital on the current site?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (14:15): Mr Speaker, I thank—

Mr PISONI: I have a point of order, sir. We heard all this yesterday. It is repetition. I know what he is going to say.

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley will take his seat. I do not appreciate the member for Unley's tone to me when he takes a point of order. There is no point of order.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is interesting, of course, that the opposition makes light of one of the most important decisions that this state has to make. How we provide health care services to our population as it—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Mr Speaker, I would say to members on the other side that, if they have questions to ask me, I am happy to answer them in an orderly fashion. The most important thing facing our state is how we deal with the health needs of our population as it ages. By 2016 we predict that the part of the population over the age of 75 years will be growing at about the rate of 9.5 per cent per annum, so we need to provide additional services to satisfy the needs of that population by that time. So our strategy, which was released in 2007, provides for infrastructure build-up to give us extra beds, extra facilities and extra services for that part of the population.

However, more than just putting extra beds into hospitals, we are also putting extra facilities into communities so there are more places that people can go so they do not have to go to hospital. We do not want everyone going to hospital for all of their services. Nonetheless, we do need to build up the facilities in the hospitals. The central hospital, the Royal Adelaide—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Ask a question, if you like, Leader of the Opposition. The Royal Adelaide Hospital is not sufficient at the moment to satisfy the needs. We need about an extra 250 beds by 2016 and, under our strategy to build on a new site, we will be able to provide 120 additional beds in the central area by 2016. If I compare that with what the opposition proposed yesterday, we would have a new hospital, new extra beds, extra intensive—

Mr PENGILLY: I have a point of order, sir.

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

Mr PENGILLY: The minister is going into debate, in my view, pointing out what we raised yesterday.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: To remind the member for Finniss, the question asked me to compare what we are doing with what the opposition proposes. That is perfectly orderly and absolutely a vital part of the public debate. We should compare and contrast one side's propositions with the other's. It is not surprising that the other side does not want that comparison to occur.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Yesterday, the opposition brought forward a proposition to build 1,000 new beds at the existing RAH site for $700 million. That would be in two high-rise buildings. The opposition also claimed that they would build a third multistorey building on Frome Road at some stage in the future with 800 beds. In other words, they are proposing to put 1,800 beds at the Royal Adelaide Hospital site.

I thought this was quite interesting. On our analysis, looking at what we need into the future, we need about an additional 120 beds on that site. What the opposition is proposing to do is put over 1,000 additional beds on that site. Why would you create 1,000 additional beds on the Royal Adelaide Hospital site? It would be impractical to do it, let us be honest about it; but, even if you could do it, why would you want to put 1,000 additional beds on the Royal Adelaide site?

That would mean 1,000 extra patients every day going to the Royal Adelaide Hospital from wherever they happen to be coming from across the state—and presumably many more from the country and many more from the suburban areas. What the opposition have not calculated is what it would cost to operate a theatre with 1,000 additional beds, because that is the bit they left out of their costings yesterday. They said they could build 1,000 new beds for $700 million, yet, only a month ago, the spokesperson for the opposition on health said—

Mr PENGILLY: I have a point of order, sir. The minister is quite clearly debating the issue and not answering the question.

The SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. The Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am comparing the options put forward by the opposition with that of the government. It is reasonable that the population of South Australia knows what they will get for their money, what propositions are being put forward and how they compare and contrast. Just four weeks ago the Liberals' health spokesman (Duncan McFetridge) told the ABC that the Liberals would commit $1.4 billion to a redevelopment of the hospital. That redevelopment was based on the options put forward by the former leader of the opposition, Martin Hamilton-Smith (the member for Waite).

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Amongst his propositions, which range in cost from $800 million to $1.4 billion, was the $800 million option put forward by Hamilton-Smith. Mr Hamilton-Smith when he was leader of the opposition said—

Mr PISONI: I have a point of order, sir. The minister is not referring to members by their electorate. He is using their name. I believe that is disorderly.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The minister must refer to members by their electorate.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: When the member for Waite was leader of the opposition, he put forward three propositions, one of which was the $800 million proposition; that is, they would build on the RAH site a 300-bed 12-storey building at the front and a new inpatient wing with 500 beds. So for $800 million last year or earlier this year they were going to get 800 beds—$800 million, 800 beds. Now they are building a bigger hospital with 1,000 beds for $700 million. I point out to anyone who was listening that that is completely farcical. You cannot build 1,000 beds for $700 million—it is just pure fantasy.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: They also say that they would be mostly single rooms. Well, these would be single rooms. Mr Speaker, you might recall that the drawing the opposition had of the building at the front of the hospital was truncated, so we described it as a hobbits hospital. These would be bedrooms for hobbits, as well, because they would be very small, indeed, if you were going to put the number of beds they are describing in a space of that size.

What the opposition is doing is making it up as they go. They had three propositions before, ranging in cost from $800 million to $1.4 billion. They now have a fourth proposition which has more rooms and which is cheaper than any of the other three propositions. As was said on radio this morning, there is a $700 million black hole in the opposition's proposition—a $700 million black hole in the opposition's costings. You cannot build a bigger hospital for $700 million. It is totally false and totally misleading to say to the public of South Australia that they could get the same on the existing site as they could get down the road for about half the price. It is totally ridiculous—and the public will see through them.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have a point of order, sir. The minister is not answering the question. The question was asking him to compare their project with our project. The house is still yet to hear about their project.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. In any case the minister has completed his answer.

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