HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 15 November 2022.)

Clause 6.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not have the Hansard in front of me, but I think the minister was on his way to taking the question on notice about whether or not we are going to have a two-stage process in terms of the vesting of the project site in the minister. The minister I think said, 'Hang on. Wait, wait, wait, I think I might have an answer,' and then came back and started to address that point before, sadly, we were cut short. I am happy to repeat the question. That is my recollection.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Perhaps for the Chair's benefit, you might repeat the question.

Mr TEAGUE: We have this reference in 6(1) to 'the whole', and the words I was directing it to are 'or any part of the project site'. That is in the context of the definition of the project site being either, in paragraph (a), the whole of the land area described in the mud map—and I do not mean that in a critical way—or (b) if the minister has determined in (a) that if not all of the mud map land is required, then it is whatever smaller area the minister determines. That is the project site, then. The question is: what work does 'or any part' have to do in 6(1)? As I say, I think the minister might have been on his way to answering that. In case there is anything further that the minister could provide to the committee, then I am sure we will all be interested.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My recollection is failing me, but I think I had just enough time before we broke to answer. Effectively, the project site is defined in clause 5 of the bill, but in clause 6 there could be a staging in relation to the ownership:

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, vest the whole or any part of the project site in the Minister in an estate in fee simple.

The rationale, why that was determined as opposed to just the whole thing happening immediately, was that it could happen in stages. One consideration is obviously in terms of the transition of SAPOL. Obviously, there are some elements of the project site that are not currently in the possession of SAPOL, and there are no issues in that regard. There are others where SAPOL is in active operational concerns, and then there could be a staging of their exit from the site that could enable that to happen in a number of stages, not necessarily all at the same time.

Mrs HURN: In relation to the footprint size, given we are talking about 'any part of the project', I am interested in clarification. I recall that when we were last discussing this clause the entire site was 56,000 square metres. I am hoping for clarification from the minister as to what percentage of that 56,000 square metres is actually the footprint of the actual building. Could you outline that?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think we did answer this in a previous clause. As was said, there is a broader site. The footprint of the hospital at this point in time is expected to be in the order of some 20,000 square metres, but there is still obviously more design work that needs to happen in that regard. There is also other work that needs to happen on the site, clearly, in terms of the car park, which will be significant—to fit over 1,300 car parks in it—plant and equipment, which may well be established separately, perhaps adjacent to the car park. There are obviously roadways, and Gaol Road will be realigned as part of the project. There will also be roadways into the emergency department.

There will also be significant open space that will be developed as part of the development at the front of the hospital, towards Port Road. That is necessary to enable traffic access in and out; if the hospital were too close to Port Road, then that would cause traffic complications. Also, there would be open space to the back of the hospital, opening up to the Parklands. That is where we seek to have additional sites available in relation to the playground, which will be an important element as well. It does give us a lot of flexibility. There will be a bigger floor plate for the hospital, but also car park and other amenities will all be able to be located on that much bigger site.

Mrs HURN: Minister, we are having a bit of a conference on this side of the chamber in relation to a couple of the figures and the sizes that have been thrown around. When we are talking about the entire project size being 56,000 square metres, can you advise what the square metreage is for the actual building size from a percentage perspective of the entire project site that is listed as per schedule 1 in the bill? What is the actual breakdown in the percentage of the bricks-and-mortar building for the new women's and kids?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think I did just answer that exact same question. There is the hospital, there is the car park, there is potentially plant and equipment, there are roadways, there is open space that will all be developed within that project site. While obviously planning work is still underway in relation to the hospital, as we have said I think yesterday, that is likely to be in the order of a footprint of some 20,000 square metres.

Obviously, there is the car park, which is a significantly sized car park; there is obviously plant and equipment; and then there are various roadways and other interactions, as well as the open space playground elements that will be part of the development.

As I mentioned in the parliament yesterday, we have in fact in our previous briefings to the opposition provided what is the current planning in terms of the master plan for the site to be able to put that bigger hospital on this location and the likely orientation of the hospital on that site which does have to be set back somewhat from Port Road to allow the traffic configurations in and out of the hospital.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr TELFER: This clause covers the support zones. I have similar questions to those I asked around the project site. Obviously the level of detail, which is referred to in schedule 1, which we will come to later in this debate, does not really give me an insight as a practical man on the actual square metreage of what the support zones would encompass. They are obviously the support zones that traverse either side of Port Road, and that I would envision, minister, would be the areas you have spoken about where there might be the need for additional lanes put into the Port Road area.

The support zones appearing on schedule 1 skirt around the edge of the project site on the north and the east, and there is also seemingly a support zone that meanders its way along. I am guessing that area altogether is all support zone. Do you know what the square metreage of that support zone might be? Could you try to give me an insight into what is envisioned these support zone areas will be used for, or is it purely around potential for any additional space that may be needed outside the prescribed project site?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: In relation to the exact square metreage, I will certainly take that on notice. If I can provide that before the end of the debate, whenever that shall conclude, I will certainly provide it; if not, I will provide it outside the debate field.

In relation to the use of the support zone, as is very clearly articulated in the proposed legislation, subclause (2) outlines the things they could be used for, but very specifically subclause (4) states that it is not to be used for buildings that would remain after the completion of the construction of the hospital.

We have been very clear that this support zone is not for the Women's and Children's Hospital building, but that this is enabling the construction and other associated amenities, such as roads, paths, stormwater works, bridges, playgrounds, parks, utilities, services, etc., to be constructed.

Mrs HURN: Obviously there has been some public discussion about an air bridge that was going to connect the two hospitals. I am providing some context before I get to my question, Chair. It was then ultimately determined—after everyone got their magnifying glass out—that it would be an open-air bridge along Port Road that allowed patients and all the hardworking clinicians to walk across the railway track. Could the minister confirm whether this bridge is actually part of the support zone? That would be helpful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There certainly was not any confusion on my part in relation to that. We were always clear. Before the announcement of the new site, certainly we did look at and asked whether there could be, as the member says, some sort of air bridge constructed. However, it is a very difficult process, as I have outlined previously, to construct an air bridge of that length and across the topography, so that was ruled out as an available option. Obviously work was done subsequently in relation to establishing the women's four-bed ICU unit that will be part of the hospital development as well.

It was very clear from my perspective that there was always that bridge that would be part of the construction works. I will seek some advice from my learned colleague, but that bridge could be part of the support zone. You can see in relation to the schedule 1 map that there is a wider area around Port Road crossing the rail lines which is part of the support zone and which could occur there. That would be one of the early works that would be constructed.

In relation to the somewhat jokey comments from the member for Schubert about magnifying glasses, etc., I think it is only in the context of what a big hospital the bridge is in, but it is actually quite a significant bridge in itself. The bridge itself will be five metres wide and, I believe, 60 metres long, to cross that railway crossing. It is quite a decent construction task in itself to build that bridge across the railway crossing, and that is certainly factored into the support zone.

Mrs HURN: In relation to the bridge that is in the support zone, thank you very much for confirming that. It was a serious question because there was a lot of confusion publicly about what this bridge was and what its purpose was. Of course, we have clarified that it is going to be a walkway, presumably, for patients and/or clinicians to be able to get from one hospital to the other. Can the minister advise whether this will be accessible to the public of South Australia once it is completed or, when it is eventually complete, whether it will be available for the single use of patients and clinicians?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think this is a repeat of a question I have already answered in question time. Certainly, it will be available publicly.

Mrs HURN: Speaking about flippant comments and flippant answers—

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I did not say flippant, I said jokey.

Mrs HURN: Jokey. It is jokey. There are lots of technicalities in the health portfolio. This jokey reference, you had a jokey answer to the question in question time, in particular to my jibe across the chamber as to whether it would be dual lane or not. If it is five metres wide, in all seriousness is the option for golf buggies a viable one, and will the bridge be wide enough to be able to plan ahead for that eventuality?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As was mentioned, it is certainly a very wide bridge that will enable a significant amount of traffic in relation to pedestrians, cyclists, etc. crossing that bridge. I note that there has been some discussion about the potential to use buggies. That has not been confirmed at this point, and I am sure we will consider that between now and the hospital opening. It is certainly a bridge that is wide enough for a significant number of uses—but not for standard passenger vehicles, obviously, which would still use Port Road. We are confident that it would be a bridge wide enough for future possible uses on that site.

Mr TELFER: Just following on from that, minister, and looking at the support zones in particular, the facility you are speaking of to connect the two, is this going to be the only method for transportation between the two sites? Are there going to be other alternatives, or is that going to be the main foot traffic route between the two?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, as you said, this will be the main foot traffic route between the various sites and the rest of the biomedical precinct.

Mr TEAGUE: I am just finding the bill again. Here it is. I had needed to get out my magnifying glass, and then I found it. We are dealing here with the definition of 'support zones' and we have yet again another couple of references to the mysterious as yet unidentified minister who is going to have these powers with respect to the area so defined. Like so many of these definitions in the bill, we are referred to schedule 1, which is what I have been describing as the mud map.

In passing, the minister made reference along the way to two previous acts, the 1913 act, that might be cited as the Adelaide Park Lands Alteration Act 1913, and the subsequent act in 1917, whose short title is the Adelaide Park Lands Alteration Act 1917, which is really an extension of the 1913 act, so they hold together.

It really is quite extraordinary that, in response to a charge that this is an unprecedented handing over of power and an unprecedented destruction of heritage, the minister might cite the very legislation that provided for the creation of the heritage buildings themselves more than 100 years ago and that these acts might be expected to be reprinted and displayed as part of that heritage in any museum that might be erected in honour of the destroyed buildings.

The point about bringing those to the fore at the moment is that in the 1913 act we see a rather elegantly drawn diagram that sets out the names of various roads and places. It depicts the area relative to Adelaide. More particularly, it sets out approximate land areas and also a reference to one or two places, including the Gaol. We do not see that on the mud map, so we had to backfill that through the course of the committee and we managed to identify some of those more particular land areas as a result.

One thing to be clear about is that, as we look at the project site that abuts the support zone, the project site is defined within a line in bold. It is the highest degree of bolding on the mud map and that is delineating the maximum area of the project site. It is important to observe, perhaps by reference to the recent Riverbank Precinct Code Amendment that I made in December last year, that that code amendment identified certain subzones that were set aside for the purposes of health.

This bill would now include in the project site Kate Cocks Park, which adjoins the health zone and is part of the Parklands, so if the minister were to determine that the whole of the project site was required for the purposes of this bill, so just an ordinary clause 5(a) determination followed by an ordinary whole vesting in 6(1), then we would see the elimination of Kate Cocks Park and the removal therefore of that relatively substantial part of the Parklands in addition to the rest of the use of the land with the heritage buildings on it.

So that we are clear, we have that part of the project site on which the heritage buildings are located, and then we have the part of the site that is Kate Cocks Park and part of the Parklands. But that is all before we get to the support zones. It might be noted that, insofar as there is a proviso in clause 7(3) in relation to the exercise of powers, the minister is there required to have regard to the statutory principles set out in the Adelaide Park Lands Act, but only for the purposes of this section.

So that we are clear about that, the principles are briefly stated and easily set out in section 4(1) of the Adelaide Park Lands Act. They are in seven paragraphs but, unsurprisingly, they require accordance with the principles that the use of the land that comprises the Adelaide Parklands so far as reasonably appropriate correspond to the general intentions of Colonel William Light in establishing the first plan of Adelaide in 1837. It provides:

(b) the Adelaide Park Lands should be held for the public benefit of the people of South Australia, and should be generally available to them for their use and enjoyment (recognising that certain uses of the Park Lands may restrict or prevent access to particular parts of the Park Lands);

(c) the Adelaide Park Lands reflect and support a diverse range of environmental, cultural, recreational and social values and activities that should be protected and enhanced;

(d) the Adelaide Park Lands provide a defining feature to the City of Adelaide and contribute to the economic and social well-being of the City in a manner that should be recognised and enhanced;

(e) the contribution that the Adelaide Park Lands make to the natural heritage of the Adelaide Plains should be recognised and consideration given to the extent to which initiatives involving the Park Lands can improve the biodiversity and sustainability of the Adelaide Plains;

(f) the State Government, State agencies and authorities, and the Adelaide City Council should actively seek to cooperate and collaborate with each other in order to protect—

and that gets back to that point about collaboration raised earlier, in light of the results of the Adelaide City Council elections on the weekend—

and enhance the Adelaide Park Lands;

The final expressed stated principle is:

(g) the interests of the South Australian community in ensuring the preservation of the Adelaide Park Lands are to be recognised, and activities that may affect the Park Lands should be consistent with maintaining or enhancing the environmental, cultural, recreational and social heritage status of the Park Lands for the benefit of the State.

Subsection (2) provides:

(2) A person or body—

(a) involved in the administration of this Act; or

(b) performing a function under this Act; or

(c) responsible for the care, control or management of any part of the Adelaide Park Lands—

must have regard to those principles. We see that there stated, and it appears that it is necessary to include this particular provision requiring the minister to have regard to those principles for the purposes of this clause because the rest of the bill rides roughshod over all of them, as far as I can see, and specifically provides in clause 4 for the minister to act contrary to those principles.

Getting back to our reckoner that is set out in the schedule, the part of Kate Cocks Park that is contained within the project site is not within a support zone. To the extent that Parkland area is contained within a support zone, why is it necessary to limit the provision that the minister have regard to those principles only in respect of the support zones, and what kind of interpretation are we to have about the application of those principles to the project site?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you for the member's statement and question. As the member points out, in clause 7 we do have reference to how the minister must have regard to the principle specified in section 4 of the Park Lands Act.

The reason why we wanted to put that in there—and I guess we did not need to put that in there—was to make sure that when it comes to the support zones, which are obviously a broader area of land around the hospital, there be consideration of those principles in regard to the Parklands. It is also covered in relation to the make-good provisions elsewhere in the section that we have to make sure that after works in those areas have been done the public amenity of the support zones is restored—for example, landscaping, revegetating areas or constructing parks, playgrounds or recreational areas.

I think the two go hand in hand in relation to the support zone, and it is about making clear the government's intention in relation to those zones, which is to make good and to make sure that the outcome overall for the Parklands in terms of accessibility at the end of this process is much better than what is there at the moment.

In relation to the project zone, we have been very clear that we need to build a hospital on that zone and obviously there is a different set of considerations that go in relation to that. The vast majority of that project site is currently being used as a police barracks, following the 1913 and 1917 legislation, and is no longer parks and gardens but concrete and car parking and other associated police facilities. We are making clear our intention is to transform that into the new Women's and Children's Hospital.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps without being too blunt about the point, that seemed to me to be a concession that insofar as the project site is concerned you can forget about the principles of Parkland—and I think I am paraphrasing the minister accurately—because we have to build a hospital on that, and that is the project site.

I think I understood the response insofar as the minister talked about the support zones. Whether or not we can find it in the bill, the minister raised the bar to say, so far as support zones are traversing Parkland, they will be accorded the consideration of the principles insofar as they will be restored to what they were before, and the minister has indicated that they will be much better than they were before. If so, that is all very interesting.

I think I am understanding the minister's answer correctly to say that, as far as Kate Cocks Park is within the project site as defined, you can forget about Kate Cocks Park, that is just gone, and without any reference to the principles. That appears to be what is on the face of the bill and from the answers the minister has already given—and I give the minister any further opportunity that he might wish to disabuse me of that interpretation if that is wrong in any way—otherwise, those who might have thought that retention of Kate Cocks Park was a good idea or that reductions in the Parklands area beyond the health subzone was not a desirable idea, well, they can think again because that looks like it has gone.

The point that the minister observed just now in relation to the project site was that that is going to depart from what one might recognise as Parklands because we are going to build a hospital on it, which comes back to the question that I think continues to vex the committee. We were having a conference about it here before, and we have various information that is not in the bill that has been released by the government in recent weeks that talks about the project site, the land area, and then we have the comparative building area to make it clear.

The question remains, I think, for the committee: what part of the project site is going to be constituted by the footprint of the building and what land area would the footprint of the building occupy? Then again that is an understanding that the proposed building has a marginal floor space, about the same as the floor space of the building that was going to be built by the previous government, slightly more floor space, but the footprint of the building surely is a different thing from the land area that is specified as the project site.

In terms of clause 7(3), why not apply those principles I have just recited, to which the minister is required to have regard, to the balance of the project site, for example, as well as to the support zones?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There are a few issues there. I will try to deal with them in turn. There was some commentary in relation to Kate Cocks Park. I can clarify in relation to Kate Cocks Park which, as I understand it, is in two parts: there is a part to the east of Gaol Road and there is the part to the north of the proposed hospital site. The part east of Gaol Road is the site that the previous government and this government jointly are going to build the hospital car park on. I think we can address the concern around that in that way, and that was whether we kept it on the RAH west site, did not bring in this legislation, etc., and that was proceeding along that area of land.

In relation to the other element of Kate Cocks Park, we have been very clear in terms of our desire for the new hospital to open up into Kate Cocks Park to the north of the hospital and to make sure there is increased accessibility to the Parklands. At the moment, that area is used as a recreation area, I guess for lack of a better term, for the police horses and is not accessible for the public to—

Mr Telfer: Grazing.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Grazing. I do not know if there is a lot of grass there to graze. 'Agistment' is the official term. That will be opened up into the Parklands. I think we have been clear that we want to build a significant playground to the north of the hospital on the project site that will help open up into the Parklands to the north.

In relation to the second part of the question, which was why we would not apply the section to clauses 5 or 6 in relation to the project site, I think we were seeking to be abundantly clear in relation to all this land, as I said previously in my answer, which are the support zones. Obviously, the member is open to move any amendments he may wish, but the decision we have made is that this is an appropriate additional safeguard we are adding in as well as subclause (4) in relation to the make-good provisions we made on those support zones around the hospital site, which are, as has previously been discussed, not for construction of hospital buildings but for all those enabling factors outlined in subclause (2) and only for those purposes.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Heysen, you have one minute to ask a question.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure about that.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): You have had 14 minutes on this.

Mr TEAGUE: No, that is not the way it works.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Go ahead anyway.

Mr TEAGUE: Let's have a look at standing order 364. From memory, standing order 364—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Go ahead and ask your question, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not debating it. I do not propose to occupy the full 15 minutes on this particular occasion. I am conscious of the constraints on which the committee is operating in line with standing order 364, the result of the government adopting the path that it has in this regard. While this committee process has afforded the opportunity to elucidate in a number of different ways a better understanding of the operation of the bill, it remains the view of this side of the house more broadly and certainly as part of the process of the committee's work that this really ought to have been and could have been done, and with the benefit of the input of others, in an efficient committee process by a committee set up for the purpose—but here we are.

The minister provides an assurance—and that is good enough in a way—on the record about the improvement of those parts of the Parklands that are within the support zones following whatever interference there is temporarily to those areas as a result. The Parklands might be refreshed and enhanced as part of the make-good work subsequent to the support zones, is how I understand that response. The minister then indicated that, without saying where the footprint of the building is going to be within what is described as the project site in schedule 1, to the extent—

The Hon. C.J. Picton interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: I certainly would be grateful for that answer; I am sure we all would. In addressing that, identifying the footprint, the minister has then said—and, with respect, helpfully—that the objective is to provide the people of South Australia with a greater level of enhanced access, as it were, between the new building and Kate Cocks Park and the rest of the Parklands for that matter, and has invited amendment to the bill in order to more particularly ensure that occurs in respect of the project site.

I note that, for example, the support services and facilities that are defined in clause 7(2) contemplate a range of different works that include perhaps the sorts of things that might be fully rehabilitated, like utilities and services required for connection, electricity, communications, and so on, and then it goes on to talk about 'roads, paths, bridges, tramways'—in other words, works that are more of a permanent disruptive sort of nature that you would not think would be consistent with Parklands as such.

Most particularly, clause 7(2)(f) talks about the construction of parks and playgrounds. The minister will correct me if I have incorrectly recalled the debate, including the previous debate. My understanding was that, in terms of that enhanced access between the hospital and the Parklands, the playgrounds and so on might be associated with that interaction between the hospital and the Parklands, as has been foreshadowed.

I am interested to know whether it is the case that, quite apart from the footprint of the building itself, it might be anticipated that parts of the open space, including Kate Cocks Park, might have rather permanent structures applied to them. Is that intended, therefore, to be consistent with the principles or, as it were, a permanent departure from the principles in those particular places where those permanent structures might be built?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: In relation to one of the earlier comments that the member made in relation to the hospital footprint, I can again reiterate that planning work is still being done in relation to that. For the benefit of the opposition, we provided a few different documents in a couple of different briefings. The shadow minister for health was at one of those briefings where we provided a detailed map that overlaid these zones with a satellite view of the area as well, which helped in understanding the interactions between particular areas.

We have previously provided the current master plan in relation to the project site as well. I do not think it is appropriate to put those documents in the legislation. This is the advice we have received in terms of what should be in the legislation, but that has obviously been transparently made available to make clear the government's intention in that regard.

Secondly, if I am articulating the question correctly, in relation to whether having regard to the principles is consistent with all those elements in relation to subclause (2), and particularly singled out was paragraph (f) underneath that, my advice is that it would be consistent with the Parklands principles under the act in relation to what we are seeking to accomplish as part of those support zones.

Mr TELFER: To provide greater clarity, you envision that within the support zones any permanent construction is going to be ancillary in nature, I guess you would describe it, rather than being a significant, permanent construction. Obviously, there is commentary within this clause around some of the construction which may need to be in place temporarily, but you would envision that within the support zones themselves—and obviously this includes the area traversing the project site as well as the more significant area of support zone on the south-eastern corner of the project site—there will not be any significant, permanent construction?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think it falls on the language and the word 'construction'. Clearly there will be permanent roads, bridges, tramways and the like, but we are being clear that there will not be permanent buildings, that is, places with doors, windows and the like—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: —that's right, except for a playground version of a building. We will get to that clause later; I am sure you will have some questions there.

We have been very clear in relation to what we are seeking to do, and obviously it is limiting us in relation to those six clauses of the types of things that can happen in those zones. Then some of those, that is, the bridges, tramways, road, etc., would be permanent structures, but there will be other temporary amenities, such as workers' accommodation or other construction activity which would need to occur in relation to the building of the hospital and which would not be able to be permanently located after the completion of the project.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Are there any other questions or statements? Is there a question, member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: Well, sure.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): You have had your three.

Mr TEAGUE: That is why I am checking.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): If it is the opposition's last question and you are going to be quick, then, sure, one more question on clause 7.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, I appreciate it. Just for the sake of the record, and again I apologise if I was not picking up on it because we have had reference to a bunch of different documents. I agree with the minister that it is not appropriate to spell out every last detail in the bill. But just so we understand it really clearly, has the building footprint been defined—even in broad terms—beyond just the project site, which we know is going to be larger than the actual building, and perhaps whereabouts within the project site we are going to find the footprint of the building? Maybe just for the committee's—

Mrs Hurn interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, a percentage of that 56,000, or so, square metre area. Again, to be really straightforward, the 119,000 square metres that we hear talked about is my understanding of a floor space figure that is multilevel and therefore many dimensions of building.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Let's skip to the question, shall we?

Mr TEAGUE: There is the question. It has been asked and I think the minister has given an indication that he was willing to answer it, but we do not find it on the face of the bill for good reason. I wonder whether that might be stated for the benefit of the committee.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think I have been asked this three or four times now. I am happy again to outline that the hospital building site in terms of its floor plate will be of the order of, we estimate at the moment, approximately 20,000 square metres. There is still more planning work to happen in that regard.

In addition to that, there will be substantial car parking that will be built as part of the hospital. In addition to that, there is likely to be additional plant and equipment that will be constructed. In addition to that, there will be a whole range of treatments and roadways, etc., built as entrances and exits from the site in terms of traffic movements. In addition to that, there will be public space and amenity on the project site.

We have provided the draft of the master plan that is being considered as to how the project is likely to look at this stage, but, again, it is not finalised at this stage and there is more planning work being done.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): There is an amendment on file in the name of the member for Flinders. Do you wish to speak to your amendment or do you have a question to ask?

Mr TELFER: I will speak to my amendment. I will put it first before we progress to questions because it may well change, if this amendment was to pass, what questions I might ask. I move:

Amendment No 2 [Telfer–1]—

Page 6, line 11 [clause 8(2)]—Delete 'All' and substitute:

If, following a public consultation process conducted in a manner determined by the State Planning Commission, the State Planning Commission determines that the project is consistent with the relevant principles of good planning set out in section 14 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, all…

This amendment is one to provide a bit more certainty. It provides a precondition prior to approval from the State Planning Commission which is, I believe, more consistent with the principles of good planning, enabling greater transparency, but obviously in no way does it prevent the project.

We have discussed within this place the interesting dynamic of this being labelled as a hospital bill but very much looking like a planning bill in its substance and entirety. Looking at the amendment I have moved to clause 8(2), it provides some more description, and I will read it out for the sake of all of those in the house who may not have had the opportunity. It will delete 'All', which is the first word there in clause 8(2), and instead substitute:

If, following a public consultation process conducted in a manner determined by the State Planning Commission, the State Planning Commission determines that the project is consistent with the relevant principles of good planning set out in section 14 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, all…

and then follow on with what is in place.

As I said, there has been discussion and I respect the hard work that the minister has been doing as Minister for Health on this planning document and the capable way in which he has been answering a lot of the development and planning-type questions that obviously have been asked on this bill, which is, as I said, predominantly a planning bill.

We on this side believe that there really should be a mind to being consistent with the principles of good planning process, and transparency and certainty are real key components of that. This amendment really does put that sentiment from this side into the legislation. I repeat: obviously, it does not prevent the project in any way; it provides a greater opportunity for transparency and consistency.

Mr TEAGUE: I just want to speak in support of the amendment. The amendment moved by the member for Flinders, representing the shadow minister for planning in this place—and again, highlighting the kind of constraints that the government has decided to keep this process to at the moment. We are here, struggling on. We can only do so much in a committee in this house in this process, as the government is well aware. We have the able contribution, of course, of the member for Flinders and the shadow minister for health, but that is quite coincidental compared with the more thoroughgoing process that could have occurred in a committee process determined for the purpose.

Moreover, in the most perfectly ordinary way the amendment proposed by the member for Flinders simply inserts a modicum of due process in relation to the consideration of the development itself. This is one of those clauses in this bill where you are again left wondering where the Minister for Planning is at in relation to the matter.

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

Mr TEAGUE: It is not about presence in the chamber.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): The minister.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The member for Heysen has gone on and on about how you cannot reference members in the chamber and then he does exactly that. I ask you to pull him into line.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Minister, I think the member was actually referring to this particular issue, not the minister's presence in or absence from the chamber, so I will allow the member to continue.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Acting Chair. It was certainly my intent and, as can be the case in the course of the debate, I am the first to apologise if I am clumsy in my description. It was certainly clearly my intent to indicate the participation and the relevant or lack of.

The capacity of the Minister for Planning is not in issue for these purposes. It is the relevant portfolio responsibility within the executive arm of the government if members of the South Australian community are looking at a process of quite significant planning. I know firsthand what the community expected of the Minister for Planning from really quite recent experience directly. I could not possibly imagine that as Minister for Planning I might have somehow absented myself from the consideration of the most ordinary aspects of executive oversight of the planning process.

It is on the record. I have said it at an earlier stage of this debate. The fact that the Minister for Planning on 28 September decided—and I say that advisedly because it was in response to a government question—to reflect at length in the course of question time, mischaracterising the planning decision that had been made in December in so doing, highlights the subsequent absence from the debate of the Minister for Planning.

So far, the contribution from the Minister for Planning has been to misrepresent the facts, and quite fundamentally, about a very recent planning decision that affected this very area. We have then not heard a single word from the Minister for Planning in circumstances where we do not know whether or not it is a mystery minister or ministers. The Minister for Health told us that we are likely to be seeing a single minister being tagged for all these ministerial responsibilities for the purpose of the bill, but it has not been ruled out. It certainly has not been identified.

Given that there remains a possibility that it is the Minister for Planning who might be the one who needs to be responsible for carrying out the project pursuant to clause 8 for related decisions, it would seem to me to be appropriate that this motion to amend clause 8(2) ought to be expected, notwithstanding cabinet solidarity and all the rest of it, to come from the Minister for Planning, knowing what the Minister for Planning ought to know about the important role of the commission. But, no, we do not hear it from the Minister for Planning speaking up for a process; we hear it from this side of the chamber and in this very meritorious proposal by the member for Flinders, representing, as he does, the shadow minister for planning in this place.

It is a modest proposal that augers towards a greater level of confidence, and the people of South Australia are in this project as it is embarked upon. It ought to be embraced by the government. It ought to be embraced more particularly by the Minister for Planning. In that respect, it is doing work that, as I have indicated already, the Minister for Planning ought be defending himself. I certainly commend this amendment to the committee.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment and is concerned that this would negate the purpose of the legislation in ensuring the speedy fast-tracking of this new hospital for women and children in South Australia.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 12

Noes 23

Majority 11

AYES

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

NOES

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

PAIRS

Pisoni, D.G. Close, S.E. Pederick, A.S.
Brock, G.G. Marshall, S.S. Clancy, N.P.
Patterson, S.J.R. Malinauskas, P.B.

Amendment thus negatived.

Mr TELFER: Looking at clause 8, obviously there is a fair bit for us to take into consideration when it comes to the 'Development assessment, etc.' as the heading articulates. I have already spoken on my perspective on the importance of transparency when it comes to the development assessment process and the interactions with the Planning and Design Code for the purposes of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act.

In the development assessment process, minister, is there an aspect where the approvals are going to be needed to be gained under any aspect of the federal aviation policy? I have had it articulated to me that there are concerns amongst some regarding the impact some of the federal legislation might have around thoroughfares of aviation and the footprint needed, especially with what I am calculating to be probably a six-storey building in that passageway. Can the minister advise me of any discussions or interactions that there may have been within the department around that aspect in particular?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There will be work done to ensure adherence with federal aviation guidelines as part of the construction. Obviously this project has been considered nine years previously on the rail west site and there was a lot of work done in terms of consideration of the flight path guidelines, etc. With the likely proposed height on the likely location that is being considered, the advice I have is that there are not anticipated to be any issues in terms of adhering to those aviation guidelines.

Mrs HURN: In relation to subclause (4)(b), given the new Women's and Children's Hospital is not going to be built this decade—in fact, we know that the earliest this hospital will be delivered is 2032—can you please walk us through why it is the government felt it necessary that as a part of this bill it specifically says that no consultation, notification or other procedural step was required.

Certainly on this side of the chamber we would have thought that, as part of regular due process of being a good government, you would want to engage with the community and have them involved in the consultation and in this entire process of a new Women's and Children's Hospital, particularly in the seat of Adelaide where we know that Parklands, heritage and all those matters are particularly important.

Could the minister outline why it is the government felt so particularly passionate about not having consultation, about not having the need for any notification and about not having need for any other procedural step.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you to the shadow minister for the question. As she knows, the clause is about what is required as law and hence it is not to say that it is a requirement that there would not be consultation. In fact, there is going to be absolutely significant consultation done in terms of planning the hospital, particularly in terms of clinicians who work at the Women's and Children's Hospital and also broadly with consumer groups, etc., as part of the planning.

Of course, those elements in terms of those consultation processes are not legally required—that is not a legal requirement. This is in relation to legal requirements for consultation that may well fit under various pieces of legislation. As has been discussed, this is a piece of legislation where we are seeking to make sure that the hospital goes through approval processes for construction as speedily as possible and hence that provision has been included in the legislation.

I do have to correct what the shadow minister said in terms of the likely construction time. She mentioned 2032. I think we said, and I will correct myself if I am wrong, that 2030 or 2031 were the years in relation to the construction time, and obviously we are seeking to have that brought forward as much as possible. The advice we had was that if we went through other pathways for the construction of this hospital, other than bringing legislation to the parliament, then it could be significantly later than that.

Mrs HURN: In relation to the minister's answer, where we are talking about legally there being no need for consultation, I am trying to wrap my head around why the government are so eager to outline that they are consulting with clinicians, that there will be consultation with community, and that over the next decade we will be eagerly awaiting delivery of this hospital. On what basis is that advice, and is there a comparison with another bill that specifically has a similar clause that no consultation, no notification and no other procedural step are required under law?

It seems to me to be a very ham-fisted way to go about what the government claims as being this generational facility for the future. We are not satisfied with the answer to the previous question. Could you flesh out what other advice you have from a legal perspective, from Crown law, about why this specific clause was required, which, frankly, very deliberately blocks out the people of South Australia from being involved in this process.

If you are wanting to consult, then why have the legal clause in here? It defies logic that on one hand you are waxing lyrical about this involvement with the community, involvement with clinicians, but not legally: 'We don't want there to be any ramifications about the legalities around consultation.' If you could outline what advice you have had from a Crown law perspective and maybe even compare and contrast it with other bills that may or may not have previously come through the state parliament and what this actually means for consultation more broadly.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Of course, it pains me that my previous answer was not satisfactory for the member for Schubert—

Mrs Hurn interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: —that was, yes—but I reiterate my previous answer. Imagine how jokey it will be if we are still here at midnight or something. I reiterate my previous answer to the question in relation to the rationale and also the commitments around consultation. I think the member knows full well that we would not be in a position to release publicly any advice we received from Crown law, etc. in relation to any element of the drafting of legislation or any other element of Crown law advice. In relation to whether there is a precedent for this particular wording in this subclause, that is something on which I will have to seek advice. I will come back to the member as soon as we are able to find some information one way or the other.

Mrs HURN: Thank you to the minister for taking that on notice and coming back to us with a compare and contrast. Given he has so many other facts and figures at his disposal and this is such a critical element that is outward facing for the community, I am surprised he does not know what other bills have been put forward that deliberately block out community consultation. You may be able to enlighten me as to whether this also extends to the lack of consultation and notification around the relocation of the horses onto the Parklands and why it is that there was this seemingly strong desire to have this clause in.

Specifically, we know that the relocation of the horses is essential as part of the government's plan to be able to start this project sometime next year, for delivery, as the minister said, around 2031. Is it that, in terms of the relocation of the horses, there will not be any community consultation and, if not, why not?

This is not an indication that I endorse the inclusion of this clause—in fact, I do not, but I think it is blatantly disregarding the public's views, frankly—but, in relation to the construction of a new Women's and Children's Hospital, I understand that you are wanting to steamroll ahead so that you can get shovels in the ground by the end of next year for the delivery in 2031. Why is it that you need to steamroll ahead or remove any form of public consultation when it comes to the relocation of the horses on the Parklands? The cynical part of me thinks that you do not really want to know what the community thinks about the relocation of the horses onto the Parklands. Of course, we heard that the playground will be built for the use—

Mr Telfer: Time will tell.

Mrs HURN: Time will tell who uses the playgrounds. If the minister could confirm that clause 8(4)(b) also extends the relocation of the horses, that would be most helpful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Subclause (4) does apply to the act as a whole but, as I have said previously, it does not mean that we would not undertake consultation. Obviously, I do not want to pre-empt our discussion when it comes to clause 10, but—

Mrs Hurn: Don't get ahead of yourself.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will not get ahead of myself. Certainly, if there was to be and there is not necessarily going to be a relocation of the horses onto other parts of the Parklands, then I think that is certainly something the government would consider a consultation period about, but there would not be a legal requirement in relation to subclause (4) in the way it is drafted.

Mr TEAGUE: This clause really is the kicker, is it not? Excuse the pun—it was really unintended—and we will get to clause 10 at some stage.

Mrs Hurn interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: We do, but for the moment we are in clause 8 and this really is where the rubber hits the road, to depart from the equine analogies for a minute. I want to understand the extent to which this clause really lays bare the railroading that is going on and what seems to me to be extraordinary, unnecessary behaviour on the part of the government.

I hear the minister say that the bill just provides for the legal obligations, in this case, of the developer that is going to take this really transformative step of destroying all the heritage buildings in a particular protected part of the city, that is going to have regard to the principles of Parklands retention only in the most minimal of regards insofar as the laying of underground cables through the Parklands or that sort of make-good rectification type aspect, and then is otherwise going to go ahead and build what by then will be an extraordinary long-awaited new hospital sometime in the next decade in that context.

It is an extraordinary departure from more than a century of preservation, heritage, maintenance, enhancement and appreciation of Parklands that are protected in all sorts of ways by multiple pieces of legislation of longstanding. Not only that, but it is in circumstances where that very area, or a decent chunk of it at least, has been the subject itself of a code amendment that followed through the steps of consultation, received widespread public engagement—and was improved, I might say, as the result of that process—and again, if I might say so myself, led to a better outcome that was ultimately embraced by local government, by community and by those who have a particular keen interest in all heritage, the Parklands and the health and wellbeing of the city and the Riverbank Precinct in particular.

They were all the subject of a relatively recently completed round of very substantial reform in this space, and I cannot think of a better example of circumstances in which a new government that says that it has taken new advice and wants to impart a new approach to the building of a new Women's and Children's Hospital within approximately the same part of town but radically departing from the values and principles associated with that very recently adopted code amendment.

Railroad it through this place perhaps. Allow the media to be given a message that is repeated that somehow it has already passed the parliament and it has only been rubberstamped through the House of Assembly now that the grand negotiations have occurred in another place. Do all of that, but why would the government want to further what I think would be reasonable criticism by the community more broadly about the absence of the legislated maintenance of ordinary consultation?

A passing reference to the consultation process that occurred in recent months highlights the benefit of what can result from it. In that case, the number of participants ran to the many hundreds. There were sincere and thoroughly expressed views that were made clear in all sorts of ways over the course of that process, and it led to a better result. It led to the result that we saw in December.

We have made it clear at every turn through the course of this process that those of us on this side of the house want to see nothing more than the efficient completion of the new Women's and Children's Hospital and that we want the government to get there. We want the government to succeed in this endeavour. It is a very important project for South Australia, and we are concerned about how long that is now going to take.

We are very concerned about how much that is now going to cost, and there are reasonable concerns that are expressed in the course of this committee process. Some of them, like the Heritage Council, for example, in its 13 October letter to the Minister for Environment, have been set out and articulated in a particularised way because there are bodies that have that capacity outside the formal consultation process. But this is important.

For the minister to indicate that, 'Well, we don't rule out consultation,' does not sit very well in the minister's mouth in the circumstances of the bill he is proposing here in clause 8(4), which is going out of its way expressly to exclude such steps; moreover, it is provides in a completely blanket format in subclause (2):

(2) All development proposed to be undertaken under this Act on the project site or the support zones will be taken to be classified by the Planning and Design Code as deemed to satisfy development for the purposes of—

the act. Far from this being a way which is absolutely necessary, the government will be permitted to depart from normal consultation processes. It is expressly there to do exactly that—to exclude them. To illustrate those normal steps, you would ordinarily expect to draw upon the advice of the State Planning Commission. The State Planning Commission here is taken to be the relevant authority, but it is otherwise sidelined along with the consultation. I do not know about advice being sought from the State Planning Commission.

Secondly, we would normally expect the issues to be investigated and the necessary proposal being prepared. We would then normally expect to see a thoroughgoing engagement in accordance with the Community Engagement Charter, an opportunity for the submissions in response to be considered and for amendments to be made accordingly, for a report to be published, for the minister to then make a decision and for the outcome to be published.

In the context of what has been described, to some degree we are required to take on trust that this is the most meritorious of proposals according to advice the government has obtained. In those circumstances, it appears wholly and thoroughly reasonable that the clause 8 process is that moment for the government to demonstrate its good faith and solidarity with the people of South Australia.

Put it this way: there is no way in which the government can say somehow that it has a mandate for this particular railroading. We went along to an election campaign process, we saw plenty of corflutes saying, 'We will fix the ramping crisis,' and we have heard lots of references to the government having made lots of election commitments that run into the billions and that they are going to meet all of them—

Mrs Hurn interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: Well, at sometime maybe. We certainly did not see any depiction of schedule 1. We certainly did not see any depiction of that. This is not something the minister does not already know. I am not saying anything controversial. We did not see that depiction because that work had not been done by the new government prior to the election for the obvious reasons. The previous government was committed to developing a Women's and Children's Hospital on a site and in accord with a process that it had developed, having taken the proposal to the previous election.

The bottom line is: why not in an orderly way? Why not draft clause 8 in such a way that makes up for the undue haste and, I will maintain, the unprecedented nature of the granting to the minister of powers pursuant to this bill for the purposes of having the new Women's and Children's Hospital built.

Is it not enough to say to the people of South Australia, and the government has depicted it this way, 'We want to define this in a binary term. We want to talk about health versus heritage. We're going to side with health and that's how we're going to go.' But having made that proposition, surely it is the opportunity for the government to then say, 'Well, now you know where we're planning to head, now you know the machinery to achieve that, we're now going to go ahead and provide in clause 8 of this bill for a process that includes at least a thoroughgoing process of consultation.' I am not reflecting on a previous vote of the house in that regard because the opportunity is there in the whole of the clause.

If there is a little ray of sunshine that perhaps is retained in clause 8, we see it perhaps in subclause (4), so I ask the minister to give an indication as to why and in what way the government might deploy that capacity in subclause (4) to prescribe regulations in this regard. There is certainly some hope in what is otherwise a negative provision.

The CHAIR: Sorry, member for Heysen, your 15-minute contribution is now complete. What was the question you were asking? If you ask a question, this will be your third contribution.

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry?

The CHAIR: If you speak now, it will be your third contribution because you have used up your—

Mr TEAGUE: I think it is the first.

The CHAIR: No, you have spoken on this matter already.

Mr TEAGUE: I spoke in support of the amendment. I do not know if that counts.

The CHAIR: No, that does not count. You are quite right, that does not count. It must be your first then.

Mr TEAGUE: I think it is my first. The question is: what regulations are anticipated, the subject of clause 8(4), and might they include provision for a more orderly process of consideration of the development assessment?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you for the brief remarks from the member for Heysen. This is something that will be considered by the government, subject to the passage of the legislation. One area of note that we are considering—and we have been very clear that this bill does not negate the legislative provisions—is in relation to Aboriginal heritage, so there may well be a regulation in that regard, and there may well be other considerations made. In other respects of the member for Heysen's remarks, I refer to my previous comments.

Mr TELFER: As I have already said, I certainly respect that the health minister is not the planning minister and does not necessarily have detailed working knowledge of this, but I am happy to help wander through where my thinking is at with it. These different subclauses of this clause highlight the process that is envisioned to be followed. I have already spoken on the challenges that I have with the undermining of what a planning process would ordinarily look like.

I do note in subclause (3) that the State Planning Commission will be taken to be the relevant authority for all purposes under the PDI Act 2016 in relation to development proposed to be undertaken under this act on the project site or support zones. This planning process is one I am very familiar with and have had insight into, especially around the recent changes in recent years to try to better reflect what the expectation of our community as a whole in South Australia is when it comes to proper process in relation to the planning and development aspect in particular.

I worry that the two different aspects that are in here are actually diametrically opposed because I know that the State Planning Commission processes and purposes under the PDI Act are quite prescriptive. The State Planning Commission, as the relevant authority, and the PDI Act are prescriptive and descriptive of the consultation process that is needed for projects envisioned to be furthered through the processes. Highlighted in subclause (3) is the State Planning Commission being the relevant authority for all purposes, but immediately following that there is the exception under paragraph (b) that no consultation, notification or other procedural step is required.

Does the minister have any insight into whether the planning process as a whole—and it already has been highlighted to the opposition that there is still a planning process to be followed—the planning process that is to be followed, could potentially be undermined by the fact that there is not the consultation step that is prescribed ordinarily? Is the minister concerned that the planning process as a whole could be undermined by the fact that there is not an actual obligation or requirement, despite the assurances on the floor from the minister that there will be a consultation process? There is not an obligation or requirement for the government, and thus the prescription that comes with a consultation process under the PDI Act would not have to be followed in the same way as it would ordinarily, without subclause (4)(b), the removal of that step?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think we have been clear, and the bill is clear in terms of this being the deemed-to-satisfy development for the purpose of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. Am I satisfied with those arrangements and the ability for that to be considered under that deemed-to-satisfy process? Yes, I am.

Mr TEAGUE: I have to add my voice to the observations of the member for Flinders. This really is a particularly disappointing aspect of the structure of this bill. I am really at a loss as to why the government would not be embarking on a process of consultation that is really unusually well defined, as opposed to the process here which is going out of its way to exclude all or nearly all obligations for consideration and assessment that would normally apply.

I say that loud and clear. It might be an opportunity for the government to reflect on this approach. I cannot speak for the legislators in 1913 or, indeed, in 1917 when the works associated with the vesting of that portion of the Parklands in the SA Railways Commissioner occurred. We were not then living in an age with the kind of access to information, the sharing of views and the consultation of the community that we certainly are now.

We all know that in order to obtain the social licence for major project work, in order to build community confidence in major project work and, indeed, in developments far less significant than this one, it has come to be just one of those essential ingredients that one expects.

Short of a really well-defined electoral mandate, to take one example that has been recently leant on by the government—and if there had been such a thing that might be one relevant retort in the circumstances—where it is a proposal of government that is based on advice that is provided to government, not all of which is available for the public to consider, then that is what these processes are there for.

There is the ray of light in subclause (4) in that there is the possibility to prescribe by regulation a process of consultation in particular. I would certainly urge the adoption of such regulations as might occur to the government, perhaps in response to this debate, even if this debate has not given the government pause to consider the structure of the whole of the clause.

What we do see in clause 8(1) is that we at least expect that there be planning consent and building consent required in respect of the development and a requirement for the final development approval to be granted in respect of the development. So are we there to understand, minister, that so far at least as the building is concerned, clause 8 is not carving that out and perhaps it is not carving out aspects of infrastructure that might be completed in the support zones that will be required in association with the building?

Given that this bill is otherwise wholly concerned with the planning process, the delineation of the land and the vesting of the land in the minister and the machinery associated with that, can the minister please give the committee any assurance that he is able as to the work to be done by subclause (1)(a) and (b)?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice that I have is that the building consent would still be required, and this is really focused on the planning process, and it would be deemed to satisfy development for the purposes of that, as has been previously discussed.

The CHAIR: The member for Schubert.

Mrs HURN: Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: I have just been advised that you have actually made three contributions.

Mrs HURN: Have I? Sorry, I misunderstood when you gave me the call.

The CHAIR: Yes, I know. I was trying to be—

Mrs HURN: We will find time at another clause to ask this very basic question. Up to you. I am happy to do it. It is a very simple one.

The CHAIR: It is a supplementary, in effect.

Mrs HURN: It is actually a supplementary.

The CHAIR: Okay, there you go.

Mrs HURN: It is a direct supplementary to the minister where he said that, whilst the hospital does not bypass the planning process, it is still required to have building consent. So I am interested to note that you have this whole build that is at pains to fast-track the construction of the new Women's and Children's Hospital to bypass consultation, to bypass planning, and yet I am just interested to hear from the minister that the provision for a new Women's and Children's Hospital has not yet even got building consent, just on the basis of what he had just indicated.

Will that be a stumbling block for the construction of a new Women's and Children's Hospital? It would seem odd that we are going to spend hours upon hours upon hours going through very intricately—and rightly so—this unprecedented bill. It would seem odd that, despite all of that, there is no building consent. If the minister could just potentially walk us through that and provide us with a very simple answer on what is bang on 6 o'clock.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I have been asked: is this a stumbling block? The answer is no.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

The CHAIR: The member for Flinders has an opportunity to ask a question, if he would like one. He does not have to take up the offer, of course.

Mr TELFER: I am just trying to narrow down in my mind which of the many questions I have on this clause that I should take the opportunity to ask.

The CHAIR: Decisions, decisions.

Mr TELFER: Once again, I respect that, not having the portfolio of planning, the minister has done his best here to understand the process when it comes to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act.

The Hon. C.J. Picton: Faint praise.

The CHAIR: I am not sure it is even faint praise, but anyway—

Mr TELFER: You are doing your best, whatever level that is at, especially in the context, as has already been articulated here around exactly what these steps are going to be when it comes to what decisions the State Planning Commission is going to be making because, from my perspective, clause 8 and the bill as a whole really does supersede any process.

I would be interested in the minister's perspective when, as the relevant authority, the State Planning Commission undertakes any assessments of this process. Is it going to be a rubber stamp, or is there going to be some more comprehensive process than I am seeing here? At the moment, firstly, it is saying this bill in its entirety, considering that the project site or the support zones really do set out these parameters—would the minister explain to me exactly what he envisions the State Planning Commission steps are going to be when any proposal for this project is put forward to them?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I understand in relation to the process as has been outlined previously in relation to the bill that this has been put forward as a deemed-to satisfy development. That will still allow the appropriate assessment under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act as a deemed-to-satisfy development. As part of the process, the government will put forward the entirety of its planning work and, in addition to that, the results of various consultations that will take place prior to that. The commission will have the ability to consider that as part of the deemed-to-satisfy process and will be able to make recommendations or conditions under that process.

Mr TEAGUE: It is just so startingly fresh, what we have just heard from the minister.

The CHAIR: Is that a question?

Mr TEAGUE: It is really brief.

The CHAIR: Hold on. You have spoken three times.

Mr TEAGUE: Have I?

The CHAIR: You have, yes, and the clerks have confirmed that with me. In fact, the member for Schubert had a supplementary as well. You want one too now; is that what you are saying?

Mr TEAGUE: Just a quick one, a supplementary.

The CHAIR: I think I have been more than fair. In fact, if I remember correctly, you used your 15 minutes up in another question too, so you have not been short-changed.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mrs HURN: Throughout the process of the bill, we have been shown some interest in what this bill actually means for the closure and opening of some of our main arterial roads. What is going to happen with Port Road has been spoken about, but I think it is worthwhile fleshing it out some more. In particular, when it comes to clause 9(1)(a), where it says that, by notice in the Gazette, there is the power to temporarily close any road in connection with the development on the project site. I am interested in noting which roads may be temporarily closed. Is it just for the purposes of Port Road and Gaol Road? If the minister could outline those, we would be most grateful.

Also, when it comes to needing to lodge a plan with the Registrar-General to open or close any road, if he could talk through the process of what that may look like it would be particularly helpful. Again, whilst we acknowledge that this is a planning bill to deal with the ultimate, at some point in the next decade we will see a construction of the Women's and Children's Hospital. Who knows whether it will be a Liberal government, a Labor government or otherwise? We are particularly interested in knowing what this is going to mean for road users.

It is going to be an enormous development. We know that it is well over $3 billion worth of construction. Naturally, you can imagine that that type of infrastructure being built in the heart of the city is going to have some widespread ramifications for traffic when it is coming up Port Road. We on this side of the house are concerned about not only what it means for the residents of the state seat of Adelaide but also what it is going to mean for all those commuters coming through the city.

If the minister could confirm that it is just Port Road and Gaol Road that are going to be temporarily closed at some point in time, that would be helpful. If for the benefit of the committee, and indeed the entire parliament, he could walk us through what that looks like and what the process is that would also be helpful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I reiterate what we have already discussed at some previous time in this now increasingly lengthy committee stage, that it is Gaol Road that will need to be closed for the construction works of the project. There will need to be lane restrictions on Port Road at various points in time to enable the widening works to occur and also the intersection works to occur on Port Road.

Mrs HURN: I note that the minister has indicated that this has been canvassed before, but the reality is that we have not yet been through this clause, which is to talk about the specifics of what opportunities there are for gazettal. I think it is an entirely reasonable question to ask: as part of the gazettal process, is it just the roads that are associated with the project site, and indeed the support zone that will be identified as being able to be gazetted, or is it any road in South Australia that is able to be gazetted as part of the construction of the Women's and Children's Hospital?

I am not an engineer and I do not have a broad scope understanding of some of the enormous pieces of equipment and infrastructure that will need to roll through the city to be able to construct this new Women's and Children's Hospital. I know that we have canvassed at some length what the implications, and indeed the ramifications, are going to be when it comes to the closure of Port Road or how many lanes will be closed.

We have heard the minister saying, 'No, we're closing elements of the road so that we can widen the road,' which is an interesting way of looking at things logically. This is really about, in terms of this exact clause, clause 9, whether it is just Gaol Road and Port Road that are able to be closed as a result of the gazettal, or is it all roads in South Australia?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think the words of the clause speak for themselves in relation to it is a broad power, but the specific road that will need to be closed is Gaol Road, and there will need to be lane restrictions on Port Road. I think we have gone through some of the detail in that previously.

Mr TELFER: In clause 9, obviously there is no specificity about exactly what roads they pertain to. I certainly appreciate the explanation that the minister is working his way through at the moment. I am interested, with the schedule 1 project site and support zones that are in place, there is the definition of Port Road and Gaol Road within the plan itself.

Minister, can you tell me if, within the plan for the new Women's and Children's Hospital, there is going to be any formalised public road under the definition of the Local Government Act as specified there, section 4? Is the access road to the Women's and Children's facility itself going to be a public road, and thus the Road Rules apply to it, or is it going to be separate within the footprint of the Women's and Children's Hospital itself? Is there going to be a different road constructed, opened and used, or is it going to be still under the auspices of Gaol Road and Port Road? Will additional public roads be constructed?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: People would be familiar that with hospitals there is generally an entrance to the emergency department for emergencies, ambulances and the like, and other access to the hospital for visitors and staff, etc. The planning is for the latter to be via Gaol Road, and that will be reopened in a slightly revised form as Gaol Road. However, there will be another entrance for emergencies off Port Road for ambulances and other emergencies that need to come into the hospital. Whether that will be a 'lower case' road, or it will be a road that cars drive on, and whether that meets the classification as part of the technical road network or some other classification, will be worked through over coming years.

Mr TEAGUE: It is probably here that I come to an observation about the really wide scope of the bill in the way it has been drafted. We have had the minister's assurance now on several occasions that when this bill talks about 'road' it means Gaol Road, and we have at least that indicated in broad terms on the face of the mud map at schedule 1.

I think that the committee appreciates the explanation from the minister just now about the role Gaol Road will play in the course of the development. It rather tends to indicate that there is a fairly well-formed kind of place and alignment in relation to the hospital that has already been prepared. If so, it begs the question: why have we not seen that more elucidated in this urgent bill?

It has to be said in the context of a legislative committee, as we analyse this clause by clause, that, on the face of the bill—again, it is the mystery minister and if the minister is able to indicate who that might be then well and good, but again one could think of any number of several ministers in whom this power might be vested—it is a very loose provision indeed, in that what South Australians might find in the event that maybe there is further advice, maybe the site alignment might vary. We do not have any indication of how that might stand at the moment.

There is a really very vague and general notion of what roads might be the subject of temporary closure, simply by reference to connection with the development on the project site, so not even something that is more closely defined by geographical area. As the member for Schubert as the shadow minister has indicated, for all we know that could be Highway 1 to permit the transport of particular equipment. It may be that that is intended, but, on the face of it, it could be any road in the state.

As the minister is indicating, if really the purpose of the clause is to provide for the temporary closure of roads that have already been identified, the question is: why can they not be identified? In terms of the provision for a plan being lodged under subclause (1)(b), we see that that plan might specify any road, in which case it will be taken to be established and be a public road. On the face of it, the minister might get a rush of blood to the head or might find that the advice is saying that we are better off entering this hospital from the north, or something like that, and all of a sudden there is this road that we find has been opened in an area and it might be outside.

We have very limited reference in this act, and we traversed it at clause 7. We have very limited reference. In fact, the minister's attention is drawn to the principles specified in the Adelaide Park Lands Act only for the purposes of the support zones and those are specified and they are relatively tiny. So is it not just a question of having some degree of specificity about the scope of the roads that are contemplated to be the subject of temporary closure and, particularly in what is a planning bill, in respect of those roads that might be opened?

It is all very well for us to labour on here in the committee process and maybe draw out from the minister some indication about where those roads might be or what form they might take, but it is really a 'trust me for the next decade' kind of approach to simply have clause 9 with its three subclauses providing a test that rises no higher than anything in connection with the development on this site. It is up to the minister to determine, carte blanche, including the deeming of any area that might be depicted on a plan that will be taken to have established a road.

The minister has afforded the committee some degree of narrative about where this is all heading. The minister seems reasonably assured in terms of what he has in mind, but spare a thought for the people of South Australia: we are all here being asked to be witness to this short bill being railroaded through the parliament that is going to provide for this designated minister—whoever they might be, and we all look forward to watching the news to find out—to have very few, if any, controls on the scope not only of temporary closure but of opening of roads.

So here is your moment, minister. We certainly invite you to give a thorough and comprehensive explanation to this committee about what exactly this clause is required for and what particulars can be placed on the record in these short moments afforded to us to consider the bill prior to its imminent passage.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you very much. I reiterate my previous comments in relation to the government's intention. I note that the clause itself refers to any road in connection with the development, so I think the straw man argument that a future minister would have a rush of blood to their head—I think was the phrase used—and decide to go closing roads willy-nilly is preposterous. We have indicated what is likely to happen in relation to the site.

I do have one bit of further information in relation to Gaol Road, which I will add to my previous answer. Gaol Road, once relocated at the end of the project, there is a chance—I think unlikely but to put it on the record—it may need to become a private road due to the fact that building structures will fall under the road and i.e. may form part of the structure of the road.

In that event, should that happen, an easement will be granted to ensure continuity of public access for the hospital and also to Adelaide Gaol for all members of the public. I think that is unlikely, I think the likelihood, as I am advised, is that it will become a public road, but I just want to put that on the record.

Mrs HURN: Thank you to the minister for putting that on the record. I think it is very generous of him to do so. This question may come across as somewhat facetious, and I certainly do not intend it to be, but in clause 7 we were making reference to and having a discussion about whether this bridge that was connecting the two hospitals, between the proposed new Women's and Children's Hospital and the current Royal Adelaide Hospital site, was included in the support zone.

I thank the minister for providing some further clarification there. During the course of that conversation we did have clarity that this bridge would be 60 metres long and about five metres wide. It was not ruled out that it would be made available, not for ordinary vehicles or for motorists but potentially, as has been put on the record publicly by Professor Warren Jones, for golf buggies.

I do wonder for the purpose of this bill under clause 9 whether this bridge is classified as a road and, therefore, it can be closed by virtue of Gazette, or is this just a public piece of infrastructure that we know is open to the public? Apparently it is going to be the only connection, as has been drawn out by the member for Flinders, between the proposed new Women's and Children's Hospital site and the Royal Adelaide Hospital site. This is the only, the single only, connection between the two, other than of course if there are patients needing to go via ambulance. Of course we have concerns about that that we do not need to flesh out for the purposes of this bill.

But in terms of whether or not this bridge will be classified as a road, I think that not only would we on this side of the house be interested in that but, for the purposes of the people of South Australia who have been very attuned to this argument, I think certainly on the ABC there were a high number of callers who were interested in this Where's Wally? of the bridge, as it were. So, if the minister could clarify that he does not have discretion under this bill to close what is the only connection between the proposed new Women's and Children's Hospital and the Royal Adelaide Hospital, that would be most appreciated.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The member starts her comments by suggesting that they could be interpreted as facetious. I would never accuse the member for Schubert of being that, but I think that it is clear that the pedestrian and shared-use bridge that she is referring to would not become a road and hence would not be under this section of the act.

Mr TELFER: It is an interesting discussion and dialogue. The question of when is a road a road is an interesting one. Someone such as myself who has come from local government and knows the process for opening and closing and the definitions surrounding a public road would know that but, for the average citizen of South Australia, a lot of the time there is probably a bit of uncertainty. As you have well highlighted there, there are occasions where there are private access roads that may have easement arrangements in place.

In looking at the schedule, which we will get to later on tonight maybe, it is interesting to see the support zone we discussed earlier. I will draw the minister's attention to the northern aspect of it; that is what some members of the public may consider to be already a road and I would suggest it probably is not a formalised road. That is the track that traverses along what this support zone area is to the north of Bonython Park and around the back of the proposed site around Kate Cocks Park.

Thus, the fact that there is not a clear definition—and we are starting to get some explanation from the minister through this process as to what roads in particular will be considered. Are there any plans or thoughts or considerations being put into the area within the support zone being developed in a way or constructed in a way that it may fall under clause 9—Roads, and be formalised into a public road and an access from the other side? If so, would the minister provide a bit of explanation and commentary and, if not, can he rule it out?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for his question. Certainly, there is consideration in relation to a 'lower case' road north of the project site. Certainly one of the key factors that is being considered in relation to that is access to the Gaol site during construction of the hospital to maintain the ability for access to be maintained when Gaol Road is closed. It has not been formally considered to the point of decision-making as to whether that would go down the path of being officially declared an 'upper case' road, for lack of a better term. That is something that is being considered. Certainly, it is the government's intention to maintain access to the Gaol, and that avenue to do so seems to be the best opportunity to do so.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister has just referred to the Gaol. There is no suggestion that the Gaol is going to be demolished in the course of the wideranging demolition works to heritage buildings that have been broadly described as the barracks. By the sounds of it, Gaol Road might be facilitating the development as the subject of temporary closure and then, if I understand the minister correctly, it is likely to be used in its present location as part of facilitating the operations of the hospital.

At this point, it is perhaps germane to take ourselves back to 1913 and the minister's resort to precedent. This remains the best that the government can do—I do not know whether to laugh or cry—in response to the charge of the unprecedented nature of this short bill: to have presented to the committee the 1913 act and a second act as well that serve as a precedent. The two are closely connected. Really, the 1917 act is an expansion of sorts of the substantive provisions of the 1913 act to set aside those lands for the construction of what would become the heritage-listed barracks structures over the course of the last century.

In that regard, it might be observed that at no point in either of these acts so far as I can see did the drafters deem it necessary to include an equivalent of clause 9 in what we have here—not clause 8 either, but certainly not clause 9, in that those bills, analogous as they are, and I concede that—

The Hon. C.J. Picton: There were probably fewer cars in those days.

Mr TEAGUE: I think that is probably right. I think that is probably apposite. The minister observes that there might have been fewer cars at that point.

Mr Telfer: It is still transportation.

Mr TEAGUE: That's right. There is no attempt—there is no deemed necessity, certainly, in those acts—to provide a wideranging executive power attendant upon the setting aside of land for a particular purpose. We have endeavoured to step through it in a measured way insofar as the powers that are vested in a minister and, in turn, the land in fee simple to be vested in a minister for the purposes of the carrying out of the project, the eventual construction of the hospital.

But it really is extending the scope of this short standalone bill in really extraordinary, powerful ways indeed—and one might repeat that notion of unprecedented ways—to be handing to the minister this almost unrestrained power to commandeer the roads of South Australia for the purpose, provided it passed the test.

I suppose the retort might come that the provision, such as it might have been deemed necessary, might have otherwise provided for roads to be specified by regulation, and the charge might have come, 'We are going to pass a bill without any knowledge of what roads or locations or what might be affected from time to time.' But at least in that case there would be an obligation of accountability in some way in advance because the responsible minister would have to put up their hand and say, 'Rightio, I have now received advice at this time that this is going to be required. I am satisfied that it is in connection with the development and that's going to follow, and I am going to regulate accordingly.'

That would not seem to hold up the minister's executive power terribly much. Again, from the point of view of South Australians who want to see that their trust is well placed in government and responsibly deployed, they would see in a closer to temporal fashion that this is what is going to come about. By doing it this way, the government is saying to the people of South Australia, 'Whoever it might be that the government determines these powers might be vested in, just trust us. It will be in connection with development and it will be okay. We will see what transpires.'

All you need to do is change the mud map and you could have a change altogether. We remember that this is all in the context of some working up that has apparently happened post this new government coming to office in this state after the last election. It is a relatively new process. It has been presented to the people of South Australia as this bold and bright new idea about the way to go about things off the back of a very thoroughgoing planning process and a series of commitments and preparations in the previous term, let alone before against that background, we see this kind of provision that really just gives carte blanche.

The question has now been asked in a number of ways. Again, I put on the record my appreciation of the minister's attempts in this committee to provide some kind of indication of what the purpose of the clause might be and also some attempt to give some particulars. I think it is a reasonable observation that it is a reach to legislate in this way in all the circumstances. It is the sort of thing you would expect to see in a practical manual once you know everything about what sits behind it.

If we had even rough specifications for a construction project, if we had indications of the size and shape, let alone the time lines, the detailed particulars, any indication of when this might be occurring and in what shape and size and so on, then you might see that document attached to the back of this short bill and in connection might therefore take on some sort of meaning.

What we have is the mud map—and no disrespect to anybody involved because it has all come out of the blue in recent weeks. That is all we have. I go back to the 1913 act: it is not even as detailed as the 1913 act.

Mr Telfer: Look at the shading on that.

Mr TEAGUE: Look at the shading, modern printing and all the rest of it. Every sympathy to those who have been asked to draw up schedule 1. Imagine if you are a developer in the real world who comes along to any form of authority and says, 'That's what I am planning to do, that's my project site, there's my support zone and, by the way, I'm going to have power to just do anything I want that's in connection with it, including closing any road that's in connection with the project.' To the extent that we are going to get involved in legislative interpretation, it has been described in terms that place it as among the state's most significant projects in its history no less, so I would not be surprised to hear that there are a whole lot of roads that are in connection with this development.

I say again that the minister has given an indication of what is intended. The minister's indication shows us that what is intended is within a very narrow scope indeed. I think the minister rebukes any notion that this might involve road closures beyond about Port Road, North Terrace, Gaol Road, aspects of them. I am not wanting to verbal the minister in that respect, but he has certainly rebuked the notion that it might be Highway 1 or some sort of far-flung thing that is going to apply over some significant period of time.

No-one who reads this in 2022, let alone in 2021-22, when it is cited as being an example of why the act that might come along in a little over 100 years' time from now would not be unprecedented because guess what the Malinauskas Labor government did in 2022? They did this. They provided in such an audacious way for a single minister all of a sudden to have the opportunity to deal with roads in this state in these very broad terms and without limitation.

There is no provision for regulation, and the minister has adverted to some notion of consultation he anticipates might happen as part of a plan. This is anti-consultation so far as clause 8 is concerned. Can the minister give any indication at all here and now, in these brief moments, of any anticipated elucidation on what we might confine the scope of this clause to over the course of the next decade?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Chair, I refer the member to my previous answers.

Mr TELFER: When is a road a road? We have already discussed that. The nuances of this arrangement—and also the nuances that come with roads around our state—are whose role and responsibility is it for the maintenance and upkeep and who is the actual asset owner of the road.

Although I am not the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport—and I respect that the Minister for Health also does not have responsibility for infrastructure and transport, so this road discussion is a bit past his purview—I imagine that Port Road is owned and managed by the state government, and I would suggest we would continue to do so.

I am not as au fait with the arrangements regarding Gaol Road, and I am curious as to whether at the moment it is a state government owned and managed road or whether it is a road under the jurisdiction of the Adelaide City Council. Firstly, is that aspect of what it is currently, and also I am curious as to what the arrangements might be upon an upgrade or a change of Gaol Road or what a future Gaol Road arrangement might look like.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We will take that on notice. I am sure there will be time to reiterate the answer during the debate in relation to whether Gaol Road is a council road or a state road.

Mr TELFER: And what the arrangements might be in the future?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: I might have been remiss in not drawing attention to this aspect more particularly in relation to clause 8 as well, but part 4 of the bill—and clause 9 in particular, but also clause 8—really puts the spotlight on the local area. I think I have described clause 8 as being an anti-consultation clause, and clause 9 I would describe as being a carte blanche kind of clause in terms of power to the minister to take steps.

It has not been indicated in the course of the debate whether or not the government has consulted with the member for Adelaide in relation to these aspects in particular. We are left to speculate at this point, and I invite the minister to inform the committee in due course. Apart from being the member responsible for the area that is the Adelaide Parklands—the subject of the Adelaide Park Lands Act, to which apply the principles that we have adverted to before—the member for Adelaide is also uniquely familiar with and accountable for those aspects of development that are occurring in that part of the city.

I would concede, as I have in the course of other debates in the house—including quite recently in relation to the merits of the ongoing operation of traffic lights that are installed in association with the Buckland Park development—that is a relatively specific matter. It is a subject of interest to the local member, and particularly to members representing areas in which electors and industry and all the rest use that road, that they are particularly informed.

I would have thought it would have been abundantly clear to all members that the member for Adelaide would have particular interest in part 4 of the bill, that part of the bill containing those provisions disassociating the government from most of the normal development assessment processes on the one hand and on the other making it clear that it is going to be a matter of executive fiat to determine what happens on the road.

I wonder whether or not the member for Adelaide has been consulted about any of this. Perhaps the minister might indicate to the house whether or not any other members have been consulted, but I have particular interest in the views of the member for Adelaide on the operation of this clause and, if I am permitted to rewind a touch, the balance of part 4.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It is very unusual, if not inappropriate, for the member to seek to inquire about particular members in relation to particular clauses, but I certainly can confirm in relation to this bill and any other bill that I bring before the house that I consult and seek the approval of members of government caucus before doing so.

Mr TEAGUE: I would seek your guidance, Chair.

The CHAIR: You can seek my guidance. You may not like it, but you can seek it.

Mr TEAGUE: I reflect on what view I might form of it. I think it is necessary for me to seek your guidance if I am seeking the call.

The CHAIR: Sorry, you are not going to get my call because you have actually had your three goes.

Mr TEAGUE: I was not presupposing. I was saying that here I am seeking the call and seeking your guidance in that respect.

The CHAIR: Sorry, in that case, my guidance in your case is that you have to sit down. We are going to put this clause to a vote. I do not think I can be any clearer than that.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

The CHAIR: We have two amendments in clause 10. I understand that one is consequential upon the other, so you can move both together.

Mr TELFER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Telfer–1]—

Page 7, line 3 [clause 10(1)]—Delete 'The' and substitute 'Subject to subsection (1a), the'

Amendment No 4 [Telfer–1]—

Page, 7, after line 4—Insert:

(1a) Land does not vest in the relevant Minister by notice under subsection (1) unless—

(a) the Minister has previously published a notice in the Gazette, and on a website determined by the Minister, specifying the land that is to vest under subsection (1); and

(b) the Minister has conducted public consultation in relation to the proposed use of the specified land by SA Police for the purposes of its Mounted Operations Unit; and

(c) the Minister has caused a report on the outcomes of the public consultation to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

I move amendments Nos 3 and 4 to clause 10 under my name, and in doing so I really rearticulate the discussion that I led at clause 8, which was that there really is an important aspect of good planning and good process and that is that there is transparency, certainty and a proper process that is followed and in no way is this going to open the opportunity to prevent the project. I think this is just a way to provide greater transparency, especially regarding the mounted police operations.

The bill currently allows vesting in the police minister. This clause provides that vesting takes place only after the police minister has consulted, so of the amendments in my name, amendment No. 1 is simply to delete the word 'the' and substitute the words 'subject to subsection (1a), the' and then amendment No. 4 in my name for clause 10, page 7, after line 4, is to insert the following:

(1a) Land does not vest in the relevant Minister by notice under subsection (1) unless—

(a) the Minister has previously published a notice in the Gazette, and on a website determined by the Minister, specifying the land that is to vest under subsection (1); and

(b) the Minister has conducted public consultation in relation to the proposed use of the specified land by SA Police for the purposes of its Mounted Operations Unit; and

(c) the Minister has caused a report on the outcomes of the public consultation to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

These amendments, as I said, aim to provide more transparency, more clarity and more certainty when it comes to this process, but the bill we are debating at the moment in this place really does not, from my perspective, adequately do so. That is why the opposition is trying to be constructive with its amendments and trying to put forward opportunities for greater consultation and transparency without trying to undermine this process. In fact, I believe that it is actually strengthening the process. It is a way for this bill to have greater credibility with its key stakeholders, and greater credibility with the community as a whole.

As an opposition that is keen and passionate to get a long-term solution and a long-term arrangement in place for the health of women and children in South Australia for the long term, it really is proper process for us to have it built on a strong foundation of process in the first place. I really do commend these amendments to clause 10 to the house. I honestly hope that the government does consider this in the light of the words that I have spoken, and it being a constructive process that the opposition has put forward, not looking to thwart any aspects of the bill but, in fact, to try to enhance it.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not want to just barge in once again in offering my fulsome support for the amendments of the member for Flinders, but I do want to take the opportunity to indicate that I endorse fully the member for Flinders' observations about the process of engagement in this debate.

Such as the government has deigned it appropriate to afford us the opportunity to analyse what is a relatively short bill presented to this house under cover of a suspension of standing orders with a view to its more or less immediate passage, and against the background of the government having refused to accommodate the interests of the parliament as a whole—a minority of those of us who find ourselves in a minority in the parliament as a whole—to conduct a committee of inquiry process that could involve more than just these constrained circumstances but would efficiently get to grips with some of the scope of the territory that the bill is covering, what we are left with is this short bill, and we are here doing our best to improve on it.

I will have more to say, of course, in relation to the balance of clause 10 in due course, but I want to put on the record my wholehearted endorsement of the sentiments of the member for Flinders in moving the amendment.

Mrs HURN: I, too, rise in support of these two amendments that have been put forward by the member for Flinders and echo his views that I think this is a really logical amendment that has been made to enhance the bill, particularly when it comes to the insertion of a clause in relation to public consultation.

Of course, the nature of this clause and how it sits at the moment is that the minister basically has enormous power. This clause provides that the vesting takes place only after the police minister has been consulted, which I think is entirely reasonable.

In fact, I am sure the house is picking up on the fact that we are concerned about the significant lack of consultation and that, in fact, this is a deliberate exclusion of the people of South Australia from being involved in what I think is something they want to be a part of. On the one hand, we have a government that has, what I would say, overemphasised their desire to have a consultation process, that they want to consult with the people of South Australia and want to consult with the clinicians, yet none of this is in any way, shape or form actually reflected in the bill that they have put forward.

That is why I, too, implore the minister and the government to take note of these amendments and to put the people of South Australia first when it comes to the consultation. People want to be involved in this process, and I think that is a worthwhile thing to put on the record because, at every single step along the way of this process, we have maintained that those of us on this side of the house support the construction of a new Women's and Children's Hospital. We have been so clear about that.

The minister shakes his head. He shakes his head because apparently we have not been clear, except in every public statement we have made, so he must not have cleaned his ears out at that stage. At every single point along the way, we have been very clear that we support the construction of a new Women's and Children's Hospital. There is no doubt about that. This bill has nothing to do with the new Women's and Children's Hospital and, no doubt, the fantastic care that it is going to provide to the people of South Australia and to the women's and kids who are coming towards it.

What we do lament is that this is a complete bulldozing in more ways than one not only of buildings and history but also of proper process, so this is a practical amendment that we are putting forward to bring the people of South Australia into this process, by not only having them involved in the project overall but by saying, 'We want you to work with us to determine where the horses are going to be established.' We support these amendments and we ask the government to strongly consider it as well.

The CHAIR: There being no further debate on the amendments, the question is that the amendments [Telfer-1] 3 and 4 be agreed to.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 11

Noes 22

Majority 11

AYES

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

NOES

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

PAIRS

Speirs, D.J. Bettison, Z.L. Pisoni, D.G.
Close, S.E. Whetstone, T.J. Brock, G.G.
Marshall, S.S. Clancy, N.P. Patterson, S.J.R.
Malinauskas, P.B.

Amendments thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Are there any further questions, or do we put clause 10?

Mrs HURN: We have not had any.

The CHAIR: We have had the amendments. Sorry, you are quite right. Any questions on clause 10?

Mrs HURN: Yes, lots and lots. I am just going to decide which one of my many questions, noting that I only have three. I am particularly interested in a number of matters when it comes to clause 10, which is the relocation of certain SA Police facilities, and we know of course that means the horses. One of the things I am concerned about is that this section does give the Minister for Police, who is not in the chamber to be able to really outline an answer to this—

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

Mrs HURN: I retract referencing his attendance or otherwise in the chamber. It is specifically in relation to—

The CHAIR: I am glad you all solved it before I had to get involved.

Mrs HURN: It is solved, very much. I quickly noted that comment. Again, this is in relation to the significant lack of consultation we are seeing by this government when it comes to this bill. If they are so confident that this is the plan that is for the future of the Women's and Children's Hospital and that this is the right thing to do for the people of South Australia, then let's park that. But if they are so confident, then why not have a consultation process to really involve the people of South Australia in this process?

We have seen it in separate sections where we have not seen consultation on a number of matters for the project more broadly. That is particularly surprising to us because, publicly, this is a government that have been wanting to overemphasise how they are working with the people of South Australia and bringing the people of South Australia along on this journey, as they reference it. This is a hospital that is for the future, according to those opposite.

If they are so confident and they have done the work, and they have done extensive work with Jim Hallion, as we have heard over and over again, then why not open it up for consultation? Why not say to the people in the state seat of Adelaide, or the people of South Australia more broadly, 'Where would you like to see these horses relocated? Where would you like to see a relocation of certain elements of SA Police facilities?' as it says in clause 10. Why not? That is our question: why not? If they are so confident and certain about their plan, then it should be incumbent upon them to bring the people of South Australia with them.

At the moment, every single step along the way has been a bulldozing of process, a literal bulldozing in some circumstances, and a bulldozing of consultation for a hospital that is not going to be built until the next decade. We have seen a bulldozing of parliamentary process to see this rushed through. Whilst we acknowledge that the minister and his support staff have been really quite fantastic with the time they have given us to ask these questions, it is important because there are serious questions and consequences for passing this bill. It is not just in relation to the delivery of a new hospital; in fact, that is quite separate from what this bill is even about.

When you drill down into the nitty-gritty of what we are even talking about, we are talking about police ministers, we are talking about planning bills, we are talking about the relocation of horses, we are talking about the closure of roads, we are talking about completely getting into the bill, a bulldozing of all consultation processes. That is something that we have concern for on this side of the house.

I think it is important because I am not sure that the minister has full clarity of our position on this side of the house; that is, when it comes to the Women's and Children's Hospital, we support the construction. The former government was forging ahead with its own plan. That is not what this committee stage is about—to compare and contrast those. As has been acknowledged over the past decade, all sides of the political equation have been trying to forge ahead with building a brand-new Women's and Children's Hospital. If this is a government that can get it done, then power to them.

At this stage, we know that it is $3.2 billion, it is not going to be completed this decade, bulldozing parliamentary process, bulldozing buildings, bulldozing all public consultation in relation to the hospital and bulldozing consultation in relation to where these horses are going to go. Minister, why is it that you do not care about where these horses will go?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you for the very open and thoughtful question from the shadow minister. I want to place something on the record that we have heard now from the member for Schubert and also from the member for Heysen in relation to somehow steamrolling this through the parliament, etc., in that we are conducting what at this stage I would describe as a lengthy process through the committee. There has been no move by the government at this stage to consider guillotine motions, etc. There is no abnormal process that has been considered, so I reject the idea that this is being steamrolled through the parliament.

In relation to the Mounted Operations Unit of SA Police, clearly that is a key enabler to enabling the hospital project to be complete. This is an operation that has been on that site for some time. This is the site where we need to build the hospital, so we need to find a solution to where the Mounted Operations Unit will go. A number of sites are being considered, and that could be utilising clause 10 to enable that to be on the Parklands; it may not be. It may be temporarily using this clause before a more long-term solution is adopted. This is important in terms of the issues that the opposition have raised about concern about the time line of when the hospital works will be complete. A key factor in terms of that is making sure we have access to the site.

It is the government's view that we are putting forward to the parliament to consider to allow these powers, to allow an option for use of the Parklands should that be required, to enable the Mounted Operations Unit either temporarily or permanently to have a location there. It may well be that that is not required but, given what a critical juncture that move is in terms of the construction of the hospital, this is fitting with our desire of having this legislation to make sure that the project, which as the shadow minister acknowledges has been talked about and planned for the past nine years without work starting, happens as soon as possible.

Mrs HURN: Just to clarify, it was not part of my comment that I said that no work had started, but I understand that that is the point the minister is putting on the record as his own observation. In terms of the mounted police facilities, I suppose another part of what we are trying to fruitfully understand on this side of the chamber is in terms of the time line for making the decision where this mounted police operation will actually go. We know there is a $2 million business case that is being undertaken, and there has been speculation via the media as to where these facilities may or may not go.

We are going to be sitting until this bill is done tonight, and who knows how long that could be—I know the member for Heysen has a number of questions that he would like to ask. In all seriousness, why is it that we are legislating for a potential option? We are changing the law, or establishing a law I should say, in South Australia, and part of that bill is a clause for 'maybe we may want to for a period of time utilise the Parklands'. Why not bring another bill to parliament if that is what you end up doing? It just seems at odds to usual process.

I have only been in this parliament for a short time, but it does seem odd that we would legislate and pass a law in the South Australian parliament for something that might not even come to fruition with a very specific and narrow bill for the purpose of building a Women's and Children's Hospital. It is particularly interesting. Minister, when will the government make a decision on the mounted police relocation? I am really interested in knowing whether there was any consideration of excluding this clause from the bill, and why is it that again the minister does not want to consult?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I again reiterate my previous comments in relation to what an important factor having the Mounted Operations Unit move off the barracks site is. It is enabling the works to complete. That is why this is being considered as part of this legislation. In terms of the timing of that work, it is happening very expeditiously. It is being overseen by senior public servants across government departments to make sure that this can happen as soon as possible.

In relation to whether there was consideration of not having this clause in here, the consideration was that we needed to have this clause in here to make sure that at this critical juncture we had as many options available to ensure that this could happen, that it would prevent any delays in terms of the hospital starting. In relation to the question around consultation, there may well be consultation. Obviously, there will be consultation with the police as part of this process, and future consultation will be considered. We certainly did not support the amendment that was moved by the member for Flinders that would legally bind specific arrangements in that regard.

Mr TELFER: Can I start my question and comments by stating that I have an incredible amount of respect and admiration for the Mounted Operations Unit. The work they do within our city and across the state is incredible. I am obviously a man from a regional area. I have an affinity with animals great and small, and I am the owner, along with my family, of a number of my equine friends. To see the way the Mounted Operations Unit so professionally train and operate, and also help enforce the law in a really tangible and visible way in our city, is a real testament to that unit in particular.

I am aware of the current arrangements, as the Acting Deputy Chair was presiding earlier in this debate, to provide agistment for the horses that are involved in the Mounted Operations Unit, and also the considerable amount of space that is needed for stables and accompanying infrastructure.

Does the minister have any concept or design as to what acreage or amount of hectares or amount of square metreage—depending on your generation or your perspective—would be necessary for a facility to be appropriately developed and to have enough operational space for the Mounted Operations Unit to continue the good work that I have spoken about within our city? How proactive is the minister in ensuring that there is enough space in the number of different locations that he speaks about there being consideration for?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Certainly, this is something that the government is considering as part of the work that is underway in terms of what the specific space functional requirements are for the Mounted Operations Unit.

I share the member for Flinders' support for the Mounted Operations Unit, a very visible sign of the great South Australian police force. It was only on the weekend at the Christmas Pageant I saw them in full force. It was great to see the worst volunteering jobs in the pageant were the people who were following behind the Mounted Operations Unit and scooping up the remnants that were left by the Mounted Operations Unit through the course of the pageant—which obviously would have been a good outcome for the next float coming down the line.

In relation to the particular requirements, they are still being worked through. Obviously, we know what space there is currently on the SA Police site and also the relevant other land that the police horses utilise in the Parklands, but there is further work being done to consider whether that exact similar amount of land is needed, whether there will be some changes to the specific requirements that are required.

There are also considerations in terms of whether some of the other police land, such as Echunga, could be utilised, even some of the time by some of the horses. All of these things are currently being considered. There is not a specific list of requirements at this stage in terms of the specific space requirements, but obviously the current infrastructure on the barracks site is some guide in terms of the infrastructure that will be needed.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps in a preliminary contribution in relation to this clause, it might be appropriate that I put a number of things on the record. This is the first clause of the bill that really might be described as being the subject of precedent, insofar as the 1913 act at section 3 provided for pretty much the same vesting and provision for the allocation of part of the Parklands for purposes.

I indicate that the terms of section 3 of that act provided for the Commissioner of Public Works in that case to take possession and retain all of that piece of land, being another portion. There was a main portion that was to be taken for the South Australian Railways Commissioners Act 1887 at that point. There is another portion of Adelaide Parklands, delineated in the plan and the schedule to this act, that is the schedule we have observed in favourable terms, in comparison with the schedule 1 mud map to the bill, but hatched in black and marked B. The said commissioner made the owner:

…erect such buildings, and make such other improvements, as he deems suitable for the purposes of barracks for the accommodation of members of the Police Force, and may make such other use thereof for the purposes of the Police Force as he deems proper.

There we have in antiquity the precedent. It is the first clause for which I will readily concede there is direct precedent.

What is important to put on the record here is that here we are, 100 and more years down the track, and the people of South Australia need to understand loud and clear that this part 5, headed Miscellaneous, I might say, at the back of this act and ahead of the mud map that describes the project site, now departs entirely from the project site. This has nothing whatever to do with the building of a hospital, the planning arrangements associated with setting aside land for the purposes of building a hospital or the ancillary support areas that are associated with building and operating a hospital. It has nothing whatever to do with the hospital.

As the member for Schubert appropriately observed, there is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in legislating for these arrangements by way of a standalone piece of legislation. That is what people would ordinarily expect. So, while this affords the occasion to compare what is happening with the provision in Parklands at the turn of the last century for the establishment of the barracks that are now going to be demolished, the subject of this bill, there is no proper place for this clause in this bill.

Let's unpack it for a moment. This is the mystery minister, the minister we are told is going to be the recipient of these various powers. In a unified way, that minister is going to decide on the vesting of a prescribed area within the Adelaide Parklands—any area and entirely within the minister's discretion. For those following along tonight, let alone all South Australians who will follow the record over the years and decades to come, remember this, folks. This is the Malinauskas Labor government deliberately charting a course that says, 'We know all about what's going to happen. It's none of your business and you will hear about it when you read about it in the paper. You will see it in a glossy journal. You might see a nice thing on social media or something like that—

Mr Telfer: An ad on TV.

Mr TEAGUE: —or an ad on TV or something when our lucky minister decides that it is time to vest in one of our other lucky ministers a great big chunk of the Parklands.' It is outrageous. There is no other way to describe it.

But let me put it in some more context because this has all arisen in a matter of weeks. So rapid has been the germination of the seed of this idea over those recent weeks that we have a bereft and forlorn Heritage Council that writes to the Minister for the Environment on 13 October and says, 'You're going to do what? You're going to demolish all these heritage buildings. Right, first we heard of it. We will send you a pretty thoroughgoing letter about the principles you might apply when you are going to demolish all these heritage buildings, but we don't know anything much. We might only get one bite of the cherry. The government has told us that it is all going to happen in a matter of seconds, so we will just give it our best stab in a letter.'

But, more so, the Commissioner of Police had to tell the public of South Australia, 'Well, we've been told that the government has decided that it is going to build a hospital where our current police horses and barracks are located, so we're going to need to search for somewhere else. The government tells us that we are in receipt of $2 million for that purpose, so we'll conduct a search.' I recall the Commissioner of Police saying, 'Alright, what we've done is a geocircle around the CBD because we recognise the important work of the mounted police in the CBD and we all know of their extraordinary work. We all love the mounted police and the work they do in the city.'

They need to be near the city—he said that—and it is complicated, so we are going to have to search for a site that could be somewhere within, I think, a five-kilometre radius. That is a relatively costly endeavour, and it has nothing to do with the building of these new facilities, the acquisition of the site or anything like that. The $2 million has been allocated by the government because they know that there is going to need to be a thoroughgoing search. I want to underscore that even further and go back to those objectionable remarks of the Minister for Planning on 28 September.

He said that I somehow zoned this land in such a way that it was primed for heritage destruction. On the contrary: the land on which the barracks were located was zoned in such a way as to facilitate the sensitive re-use of those barracks buildings. And why? Because we all know that for some time the police have known about a medium-term need, a medium-term plan to exit those buildings and to move to more modern premises. The sensitive re-use of the heritage buildings that constitute the barracks buildings—those 10 buildings on that site—has long been contemplated.

That is all understood, but it was by no means imminent as we approached the last election. It was certainly not in the frame at the time the planning decision was made at the end of last year. That is underscored by the fact that in the course of the last government, and in the context of the planning decision that was made last December, there was no allocation of funding to police for a search to make a move. There was a contemplation of a possible future user of that land, as I recall. There was the generally well-known notion that the police might one day move. Importantly—and one can see it there on the record—the government was not providing for any imminent departure of police from that site.

Now what we see is a change of tack, a new government post election, advice that, 'We are going to move the site. Now it is going to be right smack bang on top of those barracks buildings. They are going to need to be got rid of. Quick, scramble around everybody and work out whether you can rebuild them, move them, work around them.' Ideas are put up and so on but, no, suddenly it is demolition. So the urgent departure of police is precipitated as the result of the anticipated destruction of the buildings. The government says, 'Alright, have $2 million,' and the commissioner says, 'Alright, with the benefit of that $2 million, we are going to go ahead and do the search that we need to do.'

Then we see clause 10 of this bill. South Australians are going to be asking themselves, 'Hang on, why were we told this story by the government about facilitating a broad search by police because it could be anywhere and you never know where it might be?' What was the order in which these things were laid out? Was this just a thought bubble that occurred down the track? My goodness, if this portrays some kind of process by which people are to keep it on the down low but we are going to provide for Parklands for you down the track, that would be outrageous and extraordinarily embarrassing for the commissioner who has talked about a process of general search, and then this pops up in the bill.

I will speak in terms of my own personal reflection for a moment. When I first saw this provision in the bill, I had to read it several times because I thought I must be missing something: why would this possibly be contained within this bill? But here it is. One is left to wonder: what is to be done with the $2 million that has been allocated to police for the general search, given that they have this truly extraordinary acquisition of Adelaide Parklands provided for in clause 10 that just says, 'Well, the minister can carve off an area of the Parklands and hand it over to the relevant minister, who we presume is going to be the police minister, in an estate in fee simple.'

Perhaps I might start by asking, because we do not see it on the face of it: is there any indication the minister can give about the genesis of this idea and when this was first conceived in the context of the $2 million that has been provided to police for the search for new premises?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As I have said previously, this was considered in the drafting of the legislation to enable the broadest possible options that could be considered. This may not be necessarily what happens, but it certainly gives an option in terms of the Mounted Operations Unit and their future premises.

Mr TELFER: Minister, we have discussed the area that is going to be needed for the Mounted Operations Unit, and obviously it is not just area. We are talking about the need for there to be construction infrastructure that is similar to what is already in place.

I am interested in looking at subclause (4) of this clause, particularly because it refers back to clause 8, a clause we have already discussed, on which I have already articulated my concerns with that process in particular. Subclause (4) provides:

If a prescribed area vests in the relevant Minister under this section, section 8 applies 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.

In this clause 10, we are talking about carving off an area of the Adelaide Parklands to be used for the Mounted Operations Unit, not just for agistment or grazing, as has been talked about before, but also for infrastructure that accompanies what is necessary for the Mounted Operations Unit.

Here in subclause (4) where it refers back to clause 8, we can cast our mind back a few minutes to what clause 8 was actually referring to and, in particular, the need that, except as is specified in this section or as may be prescribed by the regulations, no consultation, notification or other procedural step is required under a law of the state in connection with any action taken under this act or the performance of functions under this act.

Putting two and two together, minister, can you confirm that there can be a scenario where the minister who can vest the prescribed area within the Adelaide Parklands—and this is any area within the Adelaide Parklands—to the relevant minister, the relevant minister here being the minister responsible for the administration of the Police Act, any aspect of the Adelaide Parklands to that minister for the purposes of the Mounted Operations Unit; thus, the area of the Adelaide Parklands that has been vested, that has been carved off, could have any accompanying infrastructure that is necessary for it without the need for any consultation, notification or any other procedural step?

That being the case, if there are people with an interest in specific areas of the Parklands—perhaps they live in close proximity, or perhaps they frequent them regularly—we could have a scenario where the government is making a decision carte blanche about infrastructure to be constructed on a piece of the Adelaide Parklands, an existing area the minister may decide to use, and there is no actual process as far as the planning process, consultation, notification or other procedural step when it comes to the construction of that infrastructure.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think the provisions of the proposed legislation speak for themselves. As was mentioned, clause 8(4) would apply in relation to that in terms of the planning process, as we have previously discussed. The member has moved an amendment in relation to it that was unsuccessful. The government is not supporting having a legislated consultation mechanism as part of this.

If this were to be an option down the track, then obviously what level of consultation would be considered; however, it is not the government's desire for the parliament to legislate a particular consultation. Therefore, we are submitting to the parliament that the same provisions under clause 8 would apply in terms of this, the reason being that this is such a critical element in terms of allowing access to the site for the future new Women's and Children's Hospital to be built. Ultimately, there is a direct path there to providing those improved services and amenities for women and children who need health care in South Australia.

Mr TELFER: Supplementary to that, can the minister confirm that under this legislation the minister can carve off any area within the Adelaide Parklands to be the prescribed area, and then, under clause 8, construct any infrastructure they like for the Mounted Operations Unit without going through the previously prescribed development process?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I do not necessarily support the phrasing the member for Flinders used, such as 'whatever they like' and those sorts of things. I think the clause is clear in terms of what the government is suggesting and asking for parliament's support on in allowing those powers for the police Mounted Operations Unit to be moved, potentially, to a Parklands site.

Mrs HURN: I am interested in particular in the relocation of the Mounted Operations Unit for the South Australia Police. They do a fantastic job, as has been very well spoken about in the chamber this evening. The minister made reference earlier to the time line in which they are hopeful for a new site for the police Mounted Operations Unit, and the response is, of course, 'ASAP.' So when I saw a story go up online in The Advertiser on Sunday evening, I think it was, that was headlined something like 'Former West End Brewery site an early favourite for the Thebarton barracks operations', I was genuinely quite surprised.

I was thinking in my mind that I knew we needed to debate this in the committee stage and that there is a very detailed clause that specifically makes reference to the fact that we are legislating for the potential that this is something that could go on the Adelaide Parklands. Why is it that stories are being dropped out to the daily paper in Adelaide that the former West End Brewery site is actually the early frontrunner for the site? I made note that I was going to raise this and there was reference to a project team that was taking the reins, if I dare use that double entendre, regarding the relocation of the mounted police barracks.

Minister, in terms of the project team, who is taking the reins? There was a reference to SA Health being involved in this. Could you advise who that person is from SA Health who is involved in the project team for the relocation. I actually do question why it is that someone from SA Health, in the midst of a ramping crisis that the government is trying to fix and trying to deliver on their promise to fix, is concerning themselves with a project team to relocate the horses?

Is it just me, or does that seem slightly peculiar? There are enough peculiarities around this entire bill in that we have the Minister for Health handling a planning bill and that is interesting in itself. My question is: in terms of the project team, who is it from SA Health that is on it and why are they on a team focused on relocating the horses potentially to the Parklands or otherwise? Why is the government allowing stories to be farmed out to the media about preferred sites not being anything to do with the Adelaide Parklands? In fact, it is in relation to the former West End Brewery site. Who is taking the reins on the establishment and the ultimate determination of the site?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am very happy, and hopefully this will address the concerns of the member for Schubert, to advise that the work in relation to the police Mounted Operations Unit and other operations of SA Police is being managed by SA Police and the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and not by SA Health.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I have three questions marked down here, member for Schubert.

Mrs HURN: I am happy to put it as a supplementary or alternatively—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): As long as you are quick.

Mrs HURN: Alternatively, I can certainly pass around the note.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Let's do it at a fair clip, shall we?

Mrs HURN: Thank you very much. In terms of the time frame for deciding the site, is the project team that is made reference to in The Advertiser related to determining the site of the relocation of the Mounted Operations Unit? I can imagine that maybe something is lost in translation but, just to be doubly sure, there is no-one from SA Health involved in any way, shape or form in the relocation of the Mounted Operations Unit to another location?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The member says in no shape or form. Obviously there are discussions between the SA Health New Women's and Children's Hospital team and the SAPOL and DIT teams. So obviously there is some level of discussion that is occurring, but the work in the vast majority and the project team is being led by SAPOL and the Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Mr TEAGUE: With a focus on the $2 million that I mentioned earlier—and I stand to be corrected; that is my recollection—that is being provided by government to SA Police to conduct a search for the suitable alternative site—not the site itself, not the construction, not even the design or the works associated with setting up the appropriate facilities—but just the search.

The Hon. C.J. Picton: It is much broader than just the search.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, just the search.

The Hon. C.J. Picton: No, it is broader than just the search.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister might take the opportunity to explain just how much broader the provision of that money was. But let's put this proposition: now that somebody has had this thought bubble presumably sometime between that announcement when the commissioner expressed a view in the public about the nature of the five-kilometre radius from the CBD and so on, and as I recall that all happened within a pretty short compass, now that somebody has had this idea, this sounds like a pretty good deal from the point of view of the government, and more particularly SA Police, if—and let's be clear about it—what is on offer is a prescribed area. Really, the sky is the limit.

The Parklands are pretty big, so any amount of acreage in the Parklands vests in the relevant minister. We know that is the police minister because that is the one minister in this bill who is defined, unless you gazette a new minister responsible under the Police Act. So that is clear. The police minister is going to have the possibility of having this area of Parklands vested in the minister by the minister who is empowered to administer this act. An observation has been made about the apparent lack of any connection between Health and the business of SA Police, let alone their responsible minister. That is what is put here. As far as an offer goes, it is a pretty short one as well. Subclause (3) provides:

(3) The relevant Minister must ensure that the land that vests under the section is used by SA Police for the purposes—

there you go, that is a stricture—

of its Mounted Operations Unit.

One might argue that puts some sort of scope around the upper limit, the upper size land area that might be set aside. Subclause (4) provides:

(4) If a prescribed area vests in the relevant Minister under this section, section 8 applies 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.

That means it is rolled gold, carte blanche, do as you will. Moreover, if we were not already clear enough, subclause (5) provides:

(5) No compensation is payable by the Minister—

that is, the one who is handing it over—

the relevant Minister—

that is, the police minister—

or the Crown in connection with the operation of this section.

So that really covers the field. No compensation is payable to anybody. So it is free land, it is free Parklands land, and the only proviso is that the police minister has to ensure that it is used by SAPOL for the purposes of the Mounted Operations Unit.

If I am the Commissioner of Police and I am handed a draft of this bill and I think, 'Hang on, if this goes through this will be pretty good,' that meets the five-kilometre radius test. I can see pretty readily how it is highly likely, in consultation with the minister, that an area of Parklands might be able to be selected, and it all begs the question of what becomes of the $2 million, because that went from being something that the minister is about to describe as being a bit broader than just a search for a location to something that, 'Hey, it's straightforward.'

If I am offered a chunk of the Parklands to conduct my residential operations, I do not need $2 million to scope that out. I would say, 'Yes, thank you very much,' and get on with it. In all seriousness, the public of South Australia have been presented with a proposition that says, 'Poor old police have to be moving out earlier than they might have thought, so given the urgency of that we're going to supplement their resources to the tune of $2 million so that they can do that.' Then along comes this, and this looks like a pretty good deal.

Maybe the only thing that I could see standing in the way of this is if there was somehow some popular movement that rose up against this in such a way that it was deemed to just not have a social licence—undesirable, the minister decides, 'No, we won't do it so you are going to need to get on with your $2 million search.' Can the minister indicate, or provide an assurance to this house, that as a consequence of this clause passing there will be some accountability for the $2 million, if not the return of the whole sum?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think that perhaps there has been some misunderstanding on behalf of the member for Heysen in relation to the government's allocation of $2 million. It is not $2 million dollars for just a search; it is $2 million in terms of planning, and it is not just in relation to the Mounted Operations Unit; it is in relation to all the units and elements of SA Police that are currently on the barracks site that will need to move off of that site. There is obviously a significant amount of planning work that is being undertaken, and that is what that $2 million is being used for.

Mr TEAGUE: There will be an occasion—and estimates perhaps might be one—when it would certainly be helpful to have some insight into the extent to which the operation of this clause is a game changer for the search. In some ways, it would be a refreshing, welcome scenario to have it presented sequentially, as though actually it has just occurred to somebody that this is the way to go and it would be a really good use of the Parklands to do this and we will go about the necessary persuasion exercise in due course. But that is going to the cut to the chase, it is going to get the mounted police a new home and it is something that we can all embrace. We can say, 'Well, we did it once in 1913 and we can do it again in 2022.'

If there is that sort of imagining about a sequential process of thinking things through, then well and good. I do not hear that in so many words from the minister, and I have not heard any outright rejection of the notion that this was a bright idea that occurred to someone just at the end of the drafting process, to think, 'Let's put that in as well because the police might think that that's a good way forward.'

The minister has given the answers that the minister has given about that, and we see how that pans out, but it would be edifying to at least have the people of South Australia brought along to the extent that we were brought into the thought process that has occurred to government along the way. If the preparation of this bill has been iterative to that extent, then we would have that greater level of understanding. It is not the way that the bill has been presented to us, but the chronology of events through the month of October and into this month so far would tend to indicate that it is something that has evolved in the course of those weeks.

The minister has given an answer that tends to indicate that there will not be any clawing back of the $2 million. Obviously, there will be interest in due course about accountability in that regard, but can the minister give the committee any indication about the time line according to which this possibility has emerged, and was it something that was on the cards at the outset, at the time that the new site was zeroed in on?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I refer the member to my previous answer to the very similar question.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr TELFER: I am interested in this clause in particular. It probably reflects the way that the rest of this clause goes about opening up the power of the minister—and it may well be the health minister or some other minister that the Premier gives that power to—and the description that is used, with the wording 'as the Minister thinks fit'. I have not seen that in any piece of legislation previously, but I am sure there would be precedents the minister might be able to find, knowing his fastidious nature and looking back over 100 years potentially for other preceding legislation.

The Hon. C.J. Picton: It's 109.

Mr TELFER: Indeed, I can do maths: it is 109. Subclause (1) provides:

The Minister may, in connection with the operation of this Act, by instrument deposited in the GRO, make provision relating to the status, vesting or management of land or structures or the delineation of land as the Minister thinks fit…

Does the minister believe that this is basically a coverall for whatever other decision the minister sees fit to make when it comes to the development of the new Women's and Children's Hospital? We saw the specifications earlier on, and we talked about clause 10, clause 9 and clause 8. We have been through those where there has been seemingly a short circuiting of other due process. Is this basically a coverall for any other decisions the minister makes as the minister thinks fit when it comes to the land or structures or the delineation of land in particular?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: In relation to this clause, this is essentially the end of the project. Dare I say it, it may not be me who is the Minister for Health at that time.

Mr Teague: The member for Schubert.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Well, it may not be her either. We will be at the point where there will be a decision on which pieces of land would be, for example, retained in the Minister for Health's ownership technically. There may well be some other parcels of land we want to return to the City of Adelaide as part of that work, i.e. where the playgrounds or the interface with the Parklands would go, etc. This allows for that finalisation of the ownership and the segments of the land at the completion of the project.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, we have been provided with schedule 1, which I am sure we will have plenty of pertinent questions about if we get to that later on tonight. Does this also include any land as part of the project? We know that under clause 10 the facility for the Mounted Operations Unit is included in this. It is prescribed there that it be included as a development proposed to be undertaken on the project site, so as if it is land that is included in the project site. Does this clause in particular, clause 11, also pertain to land within the area which may or may not—as has been articulated by the minister—be annexed as a prescribed area within the Adelaide Parklands under the process of clause 10?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice I have is that it certainly could. However, the land, as we previously discussed, is being vested in the police minister, so there is unlikely to be any sort of further change in that arrangement following that. Certainly not only would this cover the project site land but it could also cover any land that could be considered in relation to clause 10.

Mr TEAGUE: We are pretty courteous and very much in unison on this side. Thank you for the call, Chair. Once again, I have to make an observation about the approach to drafting at this point. The government has directed that there be a clause 11 in the bill that provides, really in the broadest terms, for the minister to make provision in relation to almost any land or structures as the minister thinks fit.

The only limitation placed on the minister's discretion, the subject of this clause, is again this device of the connection with the operation of this act. We have already seen that this act covers all kinds of territory. Ironically, it is called the New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill, and that is probably one of the few areas that it does not seem to cover, notwithstanding the name of the bill.

If the minister wanted to rely on the statutory interpretation side in order to do something that was affecting the hospital on the grounds that it was in connection with the operation of the act, he might rely on the title. I think he has otherwise agreed with the proposition that, despite the fact that the project is defined in clause 3 of this bill as meaning the new Women's and Children's Hospital to be developed in accordance with the act, there is precious little detail about that; rather, as we have said now once or twice in the course of the committee stage, it is about this planning disposition, the allocation of land.

We have all made observations about the extent to which the schedule 1 mud map specifies with particularity or not the land area, and that is all very well; it can be reasonably well defined. But clause 11 is significantly broader than that. If it were the intent of the government to more particularly prescribe the scope of the minister's power pursuant to clause 11, it would be really easy to do so because we have a schedule 1 mud map, we have a project site defined, we have a project defined, we have various considerations that need to be made in relation to different parts of that area and we could see prescribed there a future-oriented provision that empowers the minister ahead of the event to deal with such structures as may be erected in an area that is defined.

Surely the minister will concede that the stipulation here in clause 11 is so vague as to be difficult to be limited by reference to schedule 1 or any of the definitions, but it really leaves open a high degree of uncertainty about where any limit on the minister's power is pursuant to clause 11. Can the minister in that regard give an indication as to whether any consideration has been given more particularly to confining the minister's power for the purposes of the operation of the clause?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There is not much more that I can add, other than there was a consideration in relation to this clause and this is the form of words that we are presenting to the parliament for its consideration.

Mrs HURN: A question in relation to the provision in relation to the land or structures where it says:

The Minister may, in connection with the operation of this Act, by instrument deposited in the GRO, make provision relating to the status, vesting or management of land or structures or the delineation of land as the Minister thinks fit…

I am very interested to know why it is in this clause in particular that it is such a wide opening. It basically gives the understanding that the minister can act on any single piece of land right across South Australia, where we have seen in other clauses it has been particularly narrowed in scope.

I am interested if the minister can outline an example of that, and I can see he is getting advice, so I am sure that will be helpful for me to understand this clause in particular. If he could provide an example outside of the project scope, or indeed the project site or the support zone, or indeed schedule 1, that would be fantastic.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think the key words that might help address the concerns of the member for Schubert are the words 'in connection with the operation of this act', which do not allow the broad sweep of concern that I think the member for Schubert has. That is the advice that I have received.

Mr TEAGUE: Let's just put the proposition. Just remember we are here legislating, so it is all very well to have some mirth. The government has decided to suspend standing orders to bring this through—

The Hon. C.J. Picton: No, we haven't. Standing orders are not suspended.

Mr TEAGUE: —with dramatic haste. They were.

The Hon. C.J. Picton: Not now.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, we are being kept here. We have been kept here—

The Hon. C.J. Picton: No standing orders have been suspended.

Mr TEAGUE: We are being kept here to this hour.

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

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, please, there is a point of order.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think it is worth, for the benefit of members, that there be a correction in terms of the statement that the member for Heysen made that standing orders are suspended. My understanding, Chair, is that standing orders are not suspended.

The CHAIR: Can I suggest we just move on, given the hour of the night.

The Hon. P.B. Malinauskas: If you want us to suspend standing orders, we can arrange it.

The CHAIR: Premier, that is not assisting, thank you. Member for Heysen, can you just get back to it.

Mr TEAGUE: It is not called for. The Premier is lurking around in the corner of the chamber. He is not in his seat.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen!

Mr TEAGUE: He is threatening to suspend standing orders. He says that can be arranged.

An honourable member: I thought you were inviting it.

Mr TEAGUE: Certainly not. What I am making an observation about, for those who are following the debate, what I am simply observing, is that here we are doing our best in a thoroughgoing way to legislate. If we are going to embark upon that process, we need to be reasonably serious about the operation of the individual provisions of the act.

What clause 11 is doing, without more, is placing no more than an 'in connection with the act' test on the exercise by the minister of control over land that might be—and the member for Schubert has entirely reasonably put the proposition, as I think has the member for Flinders—throughout the area of the state. I can think of examples immediately because we are talking about what has been billed as among the more significant projects that the state has embarked upon in its history. That is all readily understood. It is a significant project.

If we are talking about the schedule 1 area, if we are talking about the project site and the surrounding zone, if we are limiting ourselves to that, then we know what we are talking about. Again, full kudos to the Minister for Health. He has traversed an area that might normally be expected to be dealt with by the Minister for Planning, let alone the minister for heritage, let alone the Minister for Infrastructure. The Minister for Police gets a look-in, as we heard about, in clause 10. The Minister for Health has been going about things in a workmanlike way, but the Minister for Health is presented with this clause 11, which is saying, 'It needs to be in connection with the act. If it is, carte blanche.'

One can imagine, in the circumstances of the building of the new Women's and Children's Hospital, that there will be any number of possibilities in terms of land or structures that may be sufficiently connected, for the purposes of the interpretation of this provision, as to grant the minister the relevant power. That is something we all ought to be interested in. The Minister for Health has already observed, he has already conceded, that it is unlikely to be him. It is unlikely to be this minister who is exercising the powers pursuant to clause 11.

There has been speculation as to who it might be, but that only goes so far as to underscore the importance of understanding that, whoever it might be, they are going to need to determine what the scope of power is and, for this purpose, what the scope of necessary power is pursuant to clause 11. Let's remember this is in the context of a 10-page bill that traverses the allocation in broad terms of a site area, the destruction of the heritage buildings, the acquisition of Parklands area for the Women's and Children's Hospital and, let's not forget, the acquisition of land for the use of SA Police.

Now we come to this clause that says, 'As well as that, let's just make sure the minister has power to do more or less anything with land, provided that there is a connection with this act.' Again, I seek from the minister an indication of the necessity for such a broad provision at this time and some elucidation of the government's consideration of the scope of necessary power for the purposes of clause 11 and, absent sufficient justification, reasons why the clause ought to be included in the bill at this time.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This was certainly on the advice that we received from parliamentary counsel. We certainly do not accept the premise that has been put forward that this is as broad as what is being alleged. Again, I refer to the words in clause 11(1) that this is only in connection with the operation of this act.

Mr TELFER: I cast your attention to clause 11(2), which provides:

If the Minister deposits an instrument in the GRO—

that is, the General Registry Office—

under this section, the Minister must give public notice of that fact within 2 months after the instrument is deposited.

Can the minister give me an insight into whether this two months retrospectively is something that is consistent with other comparable processes and also some insight into what the level of public notice might be. Is this a simple item in a corner of the local state newspaper or what are the actual parameters of public notice, as he understands it? Those two aspects I think are particularly important: the two months after the instrument, so it is that period of time, as well as the retrospective nature of it.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We understand there was a precedent when this clause was originally drafted and if we are able to get that information before the close of the committee stage, we will certainly provide it. The idea behind subclause (2) was to give public transparency in relation to decisions that had been made. Public notice could be a number of things or may be a combination of different elements, whether it be electronic notice or whether it be published in a newspaper or published in a gazette. Obviously, there are a variety of different ways a public notice can be given, but we think it is important that there be public notice of such a change and that is why that provision has been included.

Mr TEAGUE: It might be an appropriate opportunity while the minister is at it to draw a bright line between the operation of clause 10 and the operation of clause 11. I think I heard the minister just now indicate that clause 10 operates quite distinctly and it is the as yet undisclosed but singular lucky minister who is administering the whole act who is vesting that portion of the Parklands in the police minister for the purposes of the Mounted Operations Unit. That all speaks for itself.

Clause 11 sits within part 5 and follows directly on. Apart from sitting together with clause 10 in part 5, there is no doubt that clearly clause 10, although it is covering completely isolated territory that is defined unto itself, is not excluded from the operation of clause 11. So if the minister is able to give a clear indication about the interaction, if any, between clause 10 and clause 11 that would add to what is on the face of the bill. Is it correct to say that the government rules out, at least as a matter of interpretation—because you can think of a whole lot of examples associated with the building of the hospital itself—that there would be no use of clause 11 permissible in order to achieve the purposes otherwise set out in clause 10?

It just may be a way of providing an example of the unintended consequences that might flow from such a broad-ranging provision but it is perhaps one that emerges because those two clauses are there one after the other within part 5.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Clause 11 covers the same terrain as clause 10 and also the project site in that there could be an application through the GRO in connection with the operation of the act, and that would cover both areas. Obviously, the work is being done by clause 10 in relation to SA Police and it would only be if there was a particular change in relation to those matters. We would not anticipate that because they would stay in relation to the Minister for Police.

I do have an answer as well in relation to clause 11(2) in relation to the precedent of that. That comes from section 16(5) of the Adelaide Park Lands Act almost word for word, I believe, in relation to how public notice within two months is given in relation to that. With that, I move that we report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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