HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): My question is for the Premier. Prior to the 2010 state election, why didn't the Premier let the South Australian taxpayers know that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital was going to cost taxpayers around $11 billion?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Health.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (14:29): Madam Speaker, this is a hypothetical question in that the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —final costs for the Royal Adelaide Hospital have yet to be determined, and we are going through a contractual arrangement at the moment to do that. What the Leader of the Opposition is doing is making an assertion based on no factual information at all. She is deliberately misleading the place by confining construction—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, I presume.

Mrs REDMOND: The minister just accused me of misleading. It is my understanding that he can't do that without making a substantive motion.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I will uphold that point of order. Minister.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I withdraw the word 'deliberately', but it's okay for her to apparently accuse me of telling falsehoods in here.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. Member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: If I heard the minister correctly, he just said, 'I withdraw the word "deliberately''.'

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No; no member can accuse somebody—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —of misleading the house other than by—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —a substantive motion.

The SPEAKER: Order, sit down! We've sorted this issue out. Minister, continue your answer.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Well, as I was saying, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister accused the leader of misleading the house. That is contrary to standing orders, which clearly state that you can only accuse somebody of misleading the house by substantive motion. I thereby call on the minister to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Minister, do you want to withdraw those words?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I just seek your clarification. I understand the standing order is that I cannot accuse somebody of deliberately misleading the house; somebody could do it accidentally, and it may well be through ignorance, it could be through a whole range of circumstances. I will do what the Leader of the Opposition wouldn't do, Madam Speaker. I will withdraw something that she was offended by, but she is happy to offend me, that's fine—

The SPEAKER: Thank you, minister.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —and make it up afterwards, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam Speaker—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for MacKillop!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I withdrew it. What are you worried about?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I agree with what the minister said.

Mr Williams: As ungraciously as you possibly could.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has withdrawn now—

Mrs REDMOND: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: —so what's your point of order?

Mrs REDMOND: I want a point of clarification, please, Madam Speaker. My understanding of your ruling, your initial ruling—

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: It's nothing to do with being a sook; it's to do with being very clear, so that when we go forward we know what the situation is in the future. My understanding of your original ruling was that you ruled it disorderly to use the term 'misleading', but the minister just withdrew the term 'deliberately'. Your new ruling appears to be that you accept that, and that from now on we are going to be able to accuse someone of misleading as long as we don't use the word 'deliberately'. That's the effect of your ruling as I understand it, and I want clarification on that.

The SPEAKER: My initial ruling was on the word 'deliberately' not 'misleading', because I felt, as the minister explained, that I think you can say 'misleading' in some circumstances, depending on the circumstances and what is happening. However, if this is going to become an issue and people are going to accuse each other across the floor consistently of 'misleading' then I will uphold that we won't be able use the word 'misleading' in future, whatever the context. The minister has withdrawn the words. We will now continue or we will end question time and leave.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. One understands the sensitivities of the opposition. The question was: why didn't the government tell the people about a figure that the Liberal Party invented? Can I put it that way?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: They were the ones who invented it. Iain Evans, the member for Davenport, used that number in a press release about four to six weeks ago, so it was his figure not our figure.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: And I was right! Sorry!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: It would be the first time, Iain. Madam Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, minister, sit down!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order, sit down, minister! We are now 30 minutes into question time and we have had three questions. This is ridiculous. The opposition will be quiet or I will walk out on question time. Minister.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The facts are the government has committed to building a new Royal Adelaide Hospital. We have said all along there will be a construction cost, a finance cost and a running cost. If you bring all of those costs together, you get a bigger figure than the construction cost. You do not have to be a genius to work that out. What that figure will be will be revealed to all when the final figures are known to us. And that will be, we hope, within the next month, and that will be what we will deliver to the public of South Australia. But, let's not forget: what this is about is building a brand new, 21st century hospital for the people of this state so they have the very best health care available. The Liberal Party keeps knocking it. They knock every major project in this state—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Mr PENGILLY: Standing order 98.

The SPEAKER: The minister can choose to answer the question how he wishes, but I think he is coming to a close; he's finished. Thank you. Leader of the Opposition.

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