HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARJORIE JACKSON-NELSON HOSPITAL

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (14:06): I seek leave to make another ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Today I can announce another step towards construction of the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital for all South Australians. Work has started on a rigorous clean-up operation on the site for the new hospital, the first major activity on the site. Extensive drilling has now been undertaken on the site, which will be analysed to determine the exact parameters of the diesel plume and work out how best to extract the contaminated groundwater. Next year, construction will also start on the site.

There are very compelling reasons to build a new hospital, as I am sure most members would now know. We need to create more capacity for the growing health needs of our ageing population, and this cannot be done at the existing RAH site. I repeat that. We need more capacity, and that capacity cannot be found at the RAH site. But the overwhelming reason is very clear. This is all about providing patients with the very best environment for their health care in a central hospital that will work for all South Australians. Patients tell me all the time how terrific they think the doctors and nurses are at the RAH, but they say to me that we need to improve conditions at the RAH. I have been told—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I have been told of two wards, one of six men and the other of six women, sharing one toilet. I have also been told that lifts and public toilets are not equitably accessible by a person using a wheelchair, and that is to be expected of a hospital of the age that it is. Doctors have also made it clear to me that we need to increase the capacity within our health system. In fact—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The deputy leader is telling untruths once again. She continues to make stuff-ups. She thinks that if she says untruths on a continuing basis people will believe her. Well, I tell you what, Mr Speaker: people see through her.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Doctors have made it clear to me that we need to increase the capacity within our health system. The AMA has said regularly that we need more beds. In fact, Dr Ford, the State President of the AMA, said in a recent media release that ultimately we will need more hospital capacity and more beds. Doctors have also told us of the disruption that would be caused by rebuilding on-site. Dr Fenwick, an anaesthetist, has previously written to The Advertiser. He said:

Over the years I had to cancel operations on critically ill patients during times of renovation. This was because of the overwhelming noise made at the time, which filled the operating theatre, precluding the safe monitoring of ill patients during a difficult time. The worst offenders were jackhammers, resulting in noise from many floors away. Renovating the RAH over 15 years would disrupt work, compromise patient safety and make health-care providers jobs more difficult.

Health planners within South Australian Health have been working for more than four years on developing a strategy for the future health needs of our population. The plan has found:

a rebuild of the Royal Adelaide Hospital would take twice as long as building a new hospital on a new site because of the constraints of the site; and

a rebuild of the RAH would turn into a construction zone for 15 years, intensely disrupting patients, staff and visitors.

Health planners now advise that the cost of rebuilding the Royal Adelaide Hospital from 2010 could be as high as $2.2 billion, and it would take 15 years to complete without providing very much additional capacity. So, it would cost more money and it would not provide very much extra space. In fact, up to 170 hospital beds would have to be relocated during the redevelopment. That is the equivalent of closing down a hospital the size of Modbury Hospital. By contrast the new hospital will include:

mostly single rooms with ensuites for patients, providing greater comfort, privacy and safety;

an expanded emergency department with ability to treat an extra 24,000 patients every year (that is an increase of almost 25 per cent);

120 more beds than the RAH, including more intensive care beds (almost doubling the number of intensive care beds);

increase in-patient and day treatment capacity by 22 per cent; and

five more operating theatres than at the RAH; and all the operating theatres will be the same size as the biggest operating theatre at the RAH (and there is only one of that size at the RAH).

It has been recently suggested that a new in-patient wing could be built at the RAH for as little as $300 million. I have asked the health department and health planners to advise me on that. They have previously studied the cost of such a redevelopment. The $300 million which has been quoted does not get close to providing a new in-patient building on the RAH site. The $300 million is misleading. In fact, such a sum would barely cover the required cost for upgrade of the ailing engineering services which support the RAH and which need attention.

Four years ago developing a new in-patient wing would have cost in those dollars a total of $560 million, but with escalation costs the revised costing in 2010 would be closer to $1 billion. That is—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the deputy leader for a second time. She is on her last warning.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I will not respond to her interjections. The $1 billion is just for a new in-patient wing, not for any other works at the RAH, and with no extra capacity for the growing future demands. Further, it does not include the cost of relocating 170 beds during the redevelopment. It would not provide a modern, brand new, purpose-built facility designed to accommodate modern medical practice into the future.

It would not improve patient flow or improve the operation of the hospital. It would not provide single patient rooms but retain its wards. The new hospital is by far the stand-out option. It could be completed at least eight years earlier, cost less and provide the best facilities for patients and staff. I say to members, too, that, given the current economic circumstances, building the new hospital starting next year will create over 20,000 jobs in South Australia—10,000 jobs directly and over 12,000 jobs indirectly.

Apart from giving us a new hospital, redeveloping that end of town will create jobs at a time when our economy will need it. From every point of view this is good news. The government will not accept a second best option for South Australians, that is why we are building a brand new hospital. Unlike the Liberals, we are offering more than a lick of paint and a promise. I challenge the Liberal Party: come clean; tell us exactly what you are planning to do, how much money you are planning to spend and what you expect to build with the money you are committing. Tell the public of South Australia about your plans. It is all right to criticise, nark, yell out and make inane comments and mislead, but tell us what your policy is.

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