HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

Mr TELFER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Telfer–1]—

Page 2, line 4—After 'Hospital' insert 'Development'

This is the first clause, and it is the title itself. As has already been aired in this place in some of the discussion, it is quite clear that this is a development bill; it is not a health bill. We think, to more appropriately reflect that, the insertion of the word 'Development' after the word 'Hospital' would be a better indication of the intent and content of this bill.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The government does not support this amendment as it would add no material benefit whatsoever.

Mr TEAGUE: I rise to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister. I might say, I am somewhat surprised by the government's aversion to accepting, at the very least, an amendment to the title that would provide some indication of what the bill is really about. I would hate to let down George Orwell by descending into cliché, which is the subject of some of his more important writing, but it is Orwellian. The title is something that might lead the reader to expect that they will find not a mud map of a broad area in which they are to find a demolition site and the acquisition of Parklands—

The Hon. C.J. Picton: And a hospital.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and a hospital. That is at the back, the mud map. The reader, based on the title, will pick it up, look at the title and say, 'The New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill 2022—bit thin,' but on the back, 'Oh, here's a mud map. It doesn't look like a hospital. It's a bit hard to tell what it looks like. It looks like an aerial view of a site, and it looks like it might have some sort of planning and heritage consequences and might involve development. But if we look inside, well, this is going to tell us all about a hospital, and it's going to tell us maybe something about, if not the colours of the walls and the types of drapes and the wonderful machinery that's going to be found in the facility, the appropriation involved or the size of the structure, or the nature of the services that are going to be applied, or the powers of a health minister to do things that are related to health in it.'

That is as it is presently titled, but if it was amended even and only as much as what has been proposed to indicate that it is really about development—and I defer to the shadow minister in this regard—it would be tempting, and I am sure South Australians would be tempted, to provide some further words more properly to characterise what we are dealing with here, such as 'heritage', such as 'Parklands', such as 'police horses', and other words that might more accurately characterise what it is that South Australians are faced with.

But, no, the government opposes that. The government says, 'No, we're sticking with a bill that's titled New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill 2022, and we're sticking with an approach in the House of Assembly debate that is characterised by the Minister for Health having carriage of that bill.' So a nod to parochialism. The Minister for Health is here, and the Minister for Health is carrying the debate, so the Minister for Health wants to hang onto the title, but a most invidious a position it does indeed place the deputy—

Mrs Hurn interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: As the member for Schubert rightly points out, it is certainly the member for Adelaide. There will be much for the member for Adelaide to reflect upon, and I hope that the member for Adelaide might share a view in this regard in the course of the committee debate. The member for Adelaide had the opportunity in the second reading debate, and we have not heard from the member for Adelaide.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Point of order, sir.

The CHAIR: A point of order has been called.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think the member has strayed from the relevance of the amendments being discussed here.

The CHAIR: And I think that the member is actually reflecting on another member by mentioning that, so—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Excuse me. I know that members on the left think that they adjudicate this chamber, but they do not, not at this point. You may have to wait a while to do that, so I would ask the member—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The CHAIR: The former Premier joins us. It's nice to see you, sir.

Mr TEAGUE: Talk about reflecting on people's presence!

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: Do you know how inappropriate that is?

Mr TEAGUE: Talk about reflecting on presence!

The CHAIR: Sorry?

Mr TEAGUE: How outrageous!

The CHAIR: You are not in your chair, so I should not recognise you at all.

Mr TEAGUE: We are in committee; we are in all sorts of chairs. How outrageous!

The CHAIR: Oh, please.

Mr TEAGUE: That is outrageous, Chair, with great respect.

The CHAIR: With great respect—

Mr TEAGUE: I will address the point of order.

The CHAIR: What is your point of order?

Mr TEAGUE: I will address the point of order raised by the member.

The CHAIR: The minister's point of order was whether you were going way beyond what was required. I agree with him. I am upholding the point of order.

Mr TEAGUE: On the point of order, Chair—

Mrs Hurn: You should apologise. That's disgraceful

The CHAIR: The member for Schubert will apologise to me immediately or leave the chamber. You will apologise or leave the chamber for showing disrespect to the Chair.

Mrs HURN: I will apologise if you could elaborate what I am apologising for.

The CHAIR: For showing disrespect to the Chair. There is a formal way if you wish to dissent from my rulings and my comments. I am more than happy for you to do that. You chose not do it the proper way. You either apologise for the interjection or you will leave the chamber.

Mrs HURN: I apologise.

The CHAIR: Thank you. I accept it.

Mrs Hurn: Disgraceful.

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert, do you wish to repeat what you just said?

Mrs HURN: I am commenting to colleagues.

The CHAIR: Member for Dunstan, you wish to be heard?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I do. I would like you to reflect, sir, on your comments to this chamber only a few moments ago, and maybe elaborate as to why you made them—or maybe choose to withdraw them.

The CHAIR: It was quite simply that it was good to see you in the chamber. There was no—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I am sorry, if you want to misinterpret what I said, that is fine. You are entitled to. If there is some reason you think I should convey more to that than I had intended—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Hold on, let me finish.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Well, sir, I would, because is it normal for you to recognise everybody and say it is good for everybody to be in the chamber? What were you specifically heading towards? You have to uphold the way that this chamber should be administered, and clearly that has not occurred.

The CHAIR: I have explained my view, member.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Can I raise a point of order, sir, which is—

Mr TEAGUE: I am on my feet on the point of order that the minister has already raised.

The CHAIR: I have made a ruling on that, member for Heysen. I made it very clear. You disagreed with the ruling, I understand that.

Mr TEAGUE: No, I did not indicate—

The CHAIR: In fact, your colleagues disagreed with the ruling too; that is fine.

Mr TEAGUE: I did not have a chance to indicate what my view on it was, because I sought to address the point of order.

The CHAIR: Once I have actually made a ruling, you then move a formal motion of dissent or you accept my ruling. Anything else is disrespectful to the Chair. Those are the rules of the chamber. Now, what do you wish to do?

Mr TEAGUE: Well, I had the call last time I looked.

The CHAIR: Okay, you have the call. I suggest you continue your remarks.

Mr TEAGUE: Does the minister wish to raise a fresh point of order?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am happy for us to move on, I think, but my point of order was in relation to the member for Dunstan, who was interjecting out of his seat, and I thought it was therefore appropriate that it be noted that is a breach of the standard orders.

Mr TEAGUE: On the point of order, Mr Chair—

The CHAIR: Yes? You do not even know what I want to say about the point of order.

Mr TEAGUE: No, that is why I am addressing the point of order, as I am entitled to do—

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: —to give the Chair the opportunity to hear from members on the point of order. It would be futile to address the point of order if you had already ruled on it.

The CHAIR: Actually, I was not going to uphold it anyway, but I am happy for you to—

Mr TEAGUE: Well, thanks for the preview. The point, as has been raised, is that, first of all, we are in committee. Members are addressing the Chair from all parts of the chamber, as is the relatively informal custom in relation to the committee time. What I take objection to, and what it should be distinguished from, is references that I made—and will continue to make, relevantly—in relation to the member for Adelaide's participation or otherwise in this debate are completely distinct from observations about an individual member's presence or otherwise in the chamber in the course of debate. They are completely different things. It is for the Chair to uphold the standing orders in that regard.

The CHAIR: I have just been advised there is actually no debate on points of order. The person raising the point of order has an opportunity to put their case before a ruling is made. I understand that is the procedure. The member for Dunstan asked me to explain and I explained it. He can choose to accept that or not. That is his wish. I am not sure how I rule on a point of order that is made against me. That is an interesting one. I suggest we just move on. Member for Heysen, would you like to get back to the topic before us?

Mr TEAGUE: As I was beginning to say, we have before us a bill that starts with a misnomer. The least that the government might do at the outset is to acknowledge that this is a bill that is about development, it is about planning, it is about heritage and, to a miscellaneous extent in part 5, it is about the relocation of certain SA Police facilities—apparently unbeknown to everybody, including SA Police, until we saw it printed at the back end of this 10-page document. I am very much in favour of the amendment.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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