HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Received from the Legislative Council and read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:35): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the bill to pass through all remaining stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority is required; it is not present. Ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority present, I accept the motion.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:37): I will not take long, but I indicate the opposition does not support this motion, and I will explain why. The suspension of standing orders should be available to the parliament to undertake on those occasions when, through exceptional need, importance and particularly urgency of a matter, the possibility of complying with not only the conventions but to suspend standing orders, the standing orders themselves, is not available. Therefore, it behoves the government, if they wish to suspend standing orders, to make a case to do so.

That said, we understand from media commentary and from the comment in question time today from the minister that the government wishes to pass this legislation through the house today or perhaps today and tomorrow. To be clear to the house on what this motion is about, it is not about whether or not this bill could be dealt with this week; it is whether or not this bill can be dealt with today.

The normal course of events would see the bill received from the Legislative Council and then read and the bill laid on the table for a day. The standing orders require that. If the government then wanted to proceed with debate tomorrow, there would be nothing in the standing orders preventing them to do so. There would be a convention preventing them from doing so.

When I was first leader of the house, on our first day we indicated to the Labor Party that we wanted the Supply Bill dealt with in the second week of parliament after the Address in Reply had been dealt with. The leader of the house, then the manager of opposition business, can I say aggressively and robustly put forward a point of view that a supply bill—which, of course, is a very normal bill that everyone in the house will be familiar with; it has only a few lines—has to lie on the table for 10 days to comply with the convention.

The last parliament did on occasion move bills through more quickly not only because of COVID but mostly because of COVID where there were bills that needed to be dealt with with urgency. There were a couple of bills where the government and the opposition were in such robust and hungry and confident agreement on the matter that no concerns were raised about suspension of standing orders. Indeed, in those circumstances standing orders were suspended with the support and concurrence of both parties.

The bill that is being proposed today is one that sees quite significant powers being conveyed to the government and a fairly significant change not just to the community's expectations or indeed the law's expectations but to the Labor Party's expectations of what constitutes heritage protection. We well remember the Deputy Premier's fervent and robust advocacy in relation to heritage matters prior to the election, so there is a significant change in government policy, a significant change in law and a significant change in powers available to a government to be conveyed by this bill.

For those reasons, it is not unusual for the parliament to consider these matters and have them lie on the table for at least a day as the standing orders require and for 10 days as the convention requires, which is good practice for a bill that has complexity to enable it to be considered and for all the matters relating to that bill to be considered in depth.

There are occasions when bills are of such urgency that governments seek to suspend standing orders. There is usually a reason—a time-related reason—why matters must be dealt with quickly. That seems absent in relation to this matter.

We are talking about a proposal that would enable the government to change the building of the Women's and Children's Hospital from the project that was advocated by the previous government, which would have seen works completed by 2026-27 but starting soon, if not already by now, to a new policy that this government proposes that sees no work taking place this week, or this month, or this year, but allegedly early work is starting at some stage next year for the project to be completed sometime next decade.

The key thing missing and why we propose to oppose the suspension of standing orders is that far from failing to make a case as to why this matter has to be dealt with this week, which it can be under standing orders, or today as this motion requires, the government has not yet made a case why this motion needs to be dealt with, or this bill needs to be dealt with this year. Therefore our presumption is that, at the very least, having the opportunity to read the bill, consider it and take feedback from relevant stakeholders and look into the details to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, that is the process of good parliamentary procedure from a government that is confident in its material.

If it is not so confident in its material as that, then so be it, but it seems to me that the only reason the government want to progress this quickly is that they are concerned about political campaigns in the member for Adelaide's electorate. That is not a good enough reason to suspend standing orders, but we recognise that the government has the numbers, and we recognise that they are going to push this through. We recognise that, whatever the merits of the bill, they are going to ask the parliament to deal with it in a very unusually quick time, and therefore that is what is likely to happen. Nevertheless, we do not see why this should be dealt with today and take precedence over other business, and indeed be dealt with not in the usual manner, and therefore I oppose the motion.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:43): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I indicate that the government does regard this as a very urgent piece of legislation. Obviously, this was introduced into the other place a few weeks ago. It has been well ventilated, including publicly. It has been debated in the other place. We therefore want to progress this as urgently as possible because we know this has been a long-delayed project, and we want to make sure that certainty is locked in to have this project now go ahead on the new site.

We indicated early in the day to the opposition that it was our desire to complete the debate of this bill tonight. The opposition indicated their concerns to us in that regard. We then indicated to my shadow minister just before this debate started that our intention was to start some work on the bill and to go to 6 o'clock. Hopefully that gives the opposition some comfort; so this will not be completed today, but we would like to get started on this important debate in the house and continue it tomorrow and, if required, after that as well.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 27

Noes 15

Majority 12

AYES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E.
Champion, N.D. Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E.
Cook, N.F. Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hood, L.P. Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L.
Malinauskas, P.B. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) Pearce, R.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.J.

NOES

Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. (teller) Hurn, A.M. Marshall, S.S.
McBride, P.N. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Pratt, P.K. Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A.
Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J.

Motion thus carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will facilitate the development of the new Women's and Children's Hospital, a world-class facility that will provide quality health care to South Australians for decades to come. The current site of the Women's and Children's Hospital has been serving the state as a hospital for over 140 years; however, the age of the buildings and constraints of the site necessitate a new facility for the future.

This is a project that has been discussed for the past nine years; however, not one sod has been turned on the site. The previous government promised to build the hospital to open in 2024; however, that time frame continued to expand. The reason for the delays under successive governments was that the site that was earmarked, the triangle of land west of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, was too small. Too many compromises would need to be made, too many complexities were involved in the construction and not enough forward planning for the future was possible.

One of the major concerns of clinicians was the suboptimal clinical layout that was anticipated, with hot floor services spread across separate floors. The other major concern was future capacity. The previous hospital design, west of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, would contain just one additional paediatric overnight bed compared with the current hospital. Upon coming to government in March, our government was immediately briefed on the status of the project and was concerned to learn that the cost continued to go up, the time frames were continuing to push out and that the clinical concerns could not be fully addressed on that site.

Even more importantly, the plans as they stood would not allow for either the Women's and Children's Hospital or the Royal Adelaide Hospital to expand in the future. Former State Coordinator-General Jim Hallion was appointed to lead an independent expert group that included the Women's and Children's Health Network board chair, Mr Jim Birch. The review examined sites across the biomedical precinct for the new hospital. The review concluded that the previous site had many drawbacks and that the highest ranking site was the site of the barracks.

Importantly, this was not only the highest ranking score overall but the highest ranking clinical score; therefore, the government had taken the decision to build a new hospital on this new site, a decision taken to secure the long-term future of the hospital for the next century. The previous plans for the hospital only had one additional overnight paediatric bed and only six additional beds overall. The revised plans on the new site allow for 56 additional beds in the hospital and capacity for 20 more.

The previous plans allowed no room for either the Women's and Children's Hospital or the Royal Adelaide Hospital to expand, whereas the revised plan will allow expansions of both hospitals. The previous plans would have disrupted the Royal Adelaide Hospital during construction, whereas this plan does not. The previous plan would have had critical care services across separate floors of the hospital, whereas the new plan will allow for hot floor services to be combined across one floor.

The previous plans would have relied upon the Royal Adelaide Hospital for sterilisation, pathology, catering and helipad services, whereas the new plan will have those services inside the Women's and Children's Hospital. The previous plans would have had the hospital bounded by roads and railways, whereas the new site will open up into the Parklands, with 30,000 square metres of inaccessible Parklands to be rehabilitated as part of the project, including new playgrounds for families to use.

To be clear, our government could have easily committed to the same site as the previous government. It would have been politically expedient and the cost, time frame and functionality problems could have been attributed to the previous government. However, we decided that we needed to think for the long term and prioritise health. For decades to come, South Australians would have paid the price for building on the previous site.

A critical element of the project will be the construction of a four-bed women's intensive care unit inside the new hospital. This means that critically ill women can remain in the same hospital as their newborn baby. Dr Laura Willington, the medical head of Women's Anaesthesia Unit at the Women's and Children's Hospital said about the plans:

It means we will be able to take care of high-risk women in the hospital that we couldn't before because we don't have (adult) intensive care [services].

This legislation is being introduced to ensure that the project can go ahead as expeditiously as possible. The hospital will be constructed on what is detailed in the legislation as the 'project site'. For the project site, the legislation facilitates ownership of the project site, planning consent and development approval and makes a determination with respect to heritage to enable the hospital to be constructed.

In addition to construction of the facility itself, building of the hospital will also require space for staging of equipment during construction, the realignment of Gaol Road, other roadworks and pedestrian and bike paths and augmentation of utility services, such as water, telecommunications, sewerage, stormwater, electricity and gas.

Legislation establishes safeguards and limitations on various components of the site and its surroundings. It defines a project site within which the hospital will be constructed and support zones which may need to be utilised to facilitate construction but with clear limits about what can occur in those zones. From a state heritage perspective, all state heritage places within the project site are taken to have been removed from the South Australian Heritage Register. This does not apply to any sites outside the project site, nor does it amend heritage legislation in any other way.

The intention of the support zones is explicitly for developing the facilities and amenities in connection to the project, and the purposes are defined in the legislation. This will permit access for vehicles and other construction equipment; the construction, realignment or altering of roads, paths, bridges, temporary buildings necessary to serve construction; structures; installation or relocation of utility services; establishment of a temporary construction staging area; and fences or barriers to ensure the safety of members of the public. These are all reasonable, necessary activities to be associated with constructing a facility of this size.

In addition to support zones falling within the defined area and only being specific items listed in the legislation, the bill imposes a positive and ongoing obligation for those utilised areas to be made good once their use is complete. This is an important commitment to remediate any Parklands that are impacted during development. This connects with the government's commitment to expand accessible open space Parklands as part of this development.

From a planning perspective, the Planning Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 still applies to the development as modified. A planning application will still have to be made, albeit the development will be taken to be classified by the Planning and Design Code as a deemed-to-satisfy development. Critically, of course, building rules consent and final development approval will still also be required, which will ensure the quality, safety and integrity of the facility that has been constructed.

The legislation will also provide powers in relation to the establishment of another section of Parklands for the use of the South Australian Police Mounted Operations Unit, otherwise known as the police horses. South Australia Police are undertaking a project in relation to determining the best approach to moving operations from the barracks site to new facilities.

While a number of options are being considered in relation to the mounted operations, the bill will allow for a Parklands site to be identified and to be utilised by the police horses and their operations. This will allow this option as an expeditious approach in assisting SAPOL to vacate site and enabling the construction of the hospital to start as quickly as possible.

After listening to clinicians and seriously considering the healthcare needs of future generations, building this new hospital under this legislation will deliver the best health outcomes for South Australian women, children and babies into the future. This is a project which will enable more care for children, more care for women, more expansion capacity for two hospitals, better clinical connection to services and more usable Parklands space connected to the hospital, and this bill will enable those works to occur. I commend the bill to the parliament and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

The short title is the New Women's and Children's Hospital Act 2022.

2—Commencement

The measure will commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

3—Interpretation

Definitions are included for the purposes of the measure.

4—Effect of Act

The measure has effect despite any other Act or law of the State. It applies to land notwithstanding the provisions of the Real Property Act 1886.

Part 2—The project site

5—Project site

The project site is defined in this clause.

6—Vesting of project site

The Minister is authorised to vest (by plan or plans to be deposited in the GRO) the whole or any part of the project site in the Minister in an estate in fee simple (and the land so vested vests free from all dedications, encumbrances, estates and interests other than those indicated by the Minister in the plan or plans).

Part 3—The support zones

7—Support zones

Support zones and support services and facilities are defined.

Specified powers are conferred on the Minister for the purposes of the provision of support services and facilities in support zones in connection with the development on the project site. Provision is also made in relation to the exercise of those powers.

Part 4—Carrying out the project

8—Development assessment etc

Certain requirements under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 apply to a development proposed to be undertaken on the project site or the support zones. Such development is taken to be classified by the Planning and Design Code as deemed to satisfy development and the State Planning Commission is taken to be the relevant authority for all purposes under that Act.

Except as is specified in the provision or as may be prescribed by the regulations, no assessment, decision, consent, approval, authorisation, certificate, licence, permit or permission, or consultation, notification or other procedural step, is required under a law of the State in connection with any action taken under the measure or the performance of functions under the measure.

9—Roads

The Minister is authorised to open or close any roads in connection with the development on the project site (both temporarily and on an ongoing basis).

Part 5—Miscellaneous

10—Relocation of certain SA Police facilities

The Minister is authorised to vest (by notice in the Gazette) a prescribed area (being an area of land delineated in a plan or plans to be deposited in the GRO) within the Adelaide Park Lands in the Minister responsible for the administration of the Police Act 1998 for the purposes of the SA Police Mounted Operations Unit.

Section 8 of the measure is applied in relation to any development proposed to be undertaken on the prescribed area as if it were development proposed to be undertaken on the project site.

No compensation is payable by the Crown (including the relevant Ministers) in connection with the operation of the section.

11—Minister may make provision in relation to land or structures

The Minister is authorised to make provision (by instrument deposited in the GRO) relating to the status, vesting or management of land or structures or the delineation of land as the Minister thinks fit.

12—Duties of Registrar-General

The Registrar-General may be required to take certain steps for or in connection with action taken under the Act.

13—Other actions etc necessary to give effect to Act

The Minister responsible for the administration of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 is authorised to make certain alterations to instruments under that Act at the request of the Minister responsible for the measure. Provision is also made in relation to the removal of State Heritage Places and Areas within the project site from the South Australian Heritage Register.

14—Certain fees etc. not payable

Fees and charges are not payable to the Adelaide City Council in respect of the exercise of functions under the measure.

15—Regulations

A regulation-making power is provided for.

Schedule 1—Project site and support zones

The Schedule sets out a map of the project site and support zones.

Mrs HURN (Schubert) (15:59): I rise to make a contribution in relation to this bill, and I very much would like to put on the table the opposition's strong support when it comes to the new Women's and Children's Hospital. There is simply no equivocating on this side of the chamber that our position is full steam ahead with the establishment of a new women's and kids'. We absolutely believe that is what South Australians deserve. In fact, it was the former Liberal government that had plans to ensure that a new Women's and Children's Hospital would be established, and right now we should be seeing shovels in the ground, ready for the start of construction at the end of the year for the establishment and the ultimate completion of a hospital by 2026-27. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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