HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

Royal Adelaide Hospital

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is to the Minister for Health. Considering that the hearing to determine the jurisdiction of the independent expert reviewing claims of defects at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will now not be held until mid-October, what is the government strategy beyond that to resolve the substantive defect issues that remain outstanding on the project?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:09): It's important to point out to the house that while this matter is before the courts work continues—

Ms Chapman: What? After two ministerial statements, that's incredible. That's a contempt of this parliament.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I don't even know what you are talking about. That is the most bizarre interjection I have ever heard in my 20 years in this place. As I was about to say before the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was screeching, while the matter is before the courts it is important to point out to the house that work still continues on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital process, and our normal processes continue, and the defects continue to be rectified.

The SPEAKER: Minister, you are not withholding anything from the house under the sub judice rule?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Not at the moment because I think the question was essentially: what is happening with regard to rectification of defects? So, what is practically happening is how I interpreted the question, but if the question is asked about the court proceedings, then of course I won't be able to say anymore than what is in the ministerial statement.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is called to order and the deputy leader is warned for her outburst.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: given your indicative defence, I suppose, for the minister, which he has now adopted as being sub judice, is it going to be your ruling that any further statement by the government on the Supreme Court proceedings in relation to SAHP and the government is not going to be received in this parliament?

The SPEAKER: Actually, quite the opposite: I wasn't seeking to give the minister a defence for not sharing information with the house. I take the view, and it's on the record, that in a civil case the sub judice rule doesn't really apply because there is no threat of prejudice from what is said in parliament to the deliberations of a judge. It would be a different matter if it were a jury.

Ms Chapman: Thank you, sir. So, how about answering a few questions, Jack?

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is warned a second and final time.

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