HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-05-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Repatriation General Hospital

Ms COOK (Fisher) (14:35): My question is for the Minister for Health. Can the minister inform the house about the process that led to the selection of the RSL as the preferred bidder for the Repat site?

The SPEAKER: The minister seems bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:36): I am, sir, and what a good question it is from the member for Fisher. She does always ask excellent questions. When the state government sought expressions of interest for the Repatriation General Hospital site, it couldn't have been more clear about what was and wasn't acceptable for its future use. We welcome rehabilitation services, we welcome respite care, we welcome retirement services, we welcome primary health services, and we welcome teaching and academic use, but we specifically ruled out commercial residential development or retail or office accommodation.

These things are worth repeating because some opponents of these plans chose to try to misinform the public. We heard that we were trying to get the best financial outcome, that our plans for the site were 'to carve it up like a roast'. Neither of those things were true, and we said so when the process began. In assessing the expressions of interest, we applied several criteria. Handing it over to the highest bidder was never—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is on his last warning.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Handing it over to the highest bidder was never one of them, and I can confirm that we didn't choose the highest bidder. We wanted the site's future to be consistent with existing uses. Far from carving it up, we made it clear that our preferred solution was to sell the site as a whole.

We are pleased to accept the proposal brought to us by the RSL. It's a plan that means that South Australia will have more health facilities, more community facilities, more primary health, more residential aged care, more retirement living, and more affordable housing. As well as having those services delivered by the RSL, existing services at the Repat will be available at other sites.

It's obvious that some people either haven't understood this or, bizarrely, have some problem with the RSL investing $125 million into the Repat site for services we should all welcome. Just yesterday, I heard, 'This has all the hallmarks of a fire sale to get rid of a political issue, rather than a well-considered process to get the best value for the people of South Australia.' This person also said, 'I've got real concerns, particularly when the minister says there was more money on the table from other proponents.'

It's not surprising that some in the public might think that we were motivated by the proceeds of the sale while others thought we would accept anything to offload the site, but what is surprising is that these two contradictory views have both been advanced by the opposition. It was the Liberals who said we would carve it up like a roast, through their media Twitter account, and it was the opposition spokesman who, on the other hand, talked about getting the best health outcome, not just the best financial outcome, but yesterday was worried about other bidders putting more money on the table.

This is why you can't take the opposition's position seriously—even they can't work out what it is. That is what happens when you don't have policies: it's opposition for opposition's sake.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the Minister for Health to order for violating the standing orders in his answer, and I warn for the first time the members for Hartley and Finniss.

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