HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 October 2022.)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:33): The Greens welcomed the announcement of a new Women's and Children's Hospital last month. Indeed, the need for a replacement for the tired Women's and Children's Hospital has been apparent for many years and, in 2021, we saw the Marshall Liberal government announce plans for a new hospital next to the Royal Adelaide.

I do not want to engage in a debate about which proposal is better or which side of politics got it right and the differences between the Liberal and Labor proposals, but we do believe that a new hospital is desperately needed for South Australian women and children. However, it is important to note that the bill we have before us today is not about whether or not we have a hospital. Instead, it is about the location of that hospital and, in particular, the implications of that for heritage and our Parklands.

This bill vests specific power in the hands of the minister. It removes the state heritage protection value of the old police barracks, and it is our responsibility as legislators to consider the implications of this. South Australians should not have to choose between a new hospital or our iconic Parklands and heritage buildings.

On 27 September this year, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, the Premier, was quoted in InDaily as saying, 'This is going to be a binary choice'—a choice between heritage on the one hand and health on the other. Well, we in the Greens reject that argument. It is not a binary choice. We can have both; it just takes imagination from government. The people of Adelaide and the people of our state do not have to choose between heritage and hospitals or parklands and hospitals; indeed, there are many cities around the world that preserve their heritage buildings and preserve their green space and still have world-class hospital facilities.

The problem here is that successive governments, both Labor and Liberal, have viewed the Parklands as free land. They view the Parklands as a land bank, and there are any number of meritorious proposals that could be advanced by governments of the day with respect to our public green space: hospitals, schools, universities and housing.

As the world's first public planned park, the Adelaide Parklands are an integral part of the design of the City of Adelaide. They are unique and they are enjoyed by all South Australians, but over time we have seen their inherent value being degraded—again, by both sides of politics. I am not simply criticising the Labor government here; I note, of course, that the Marshall Liberal government, despite promises made, had an abysmal record in that regard.

In the initial statements made about the hospital, Minister Picton has made it clear that there will be a net zero loss of Parklands. At least, that is the undertaking that the government has given, but the numbers do not appear to add up. In a statement released by Minister Picton on 19 October, he states that 30,000 square metres of inaccessible Parklands will be restored, yet meanwhile the hospital site and the blueprint that has been tabled demonstrate that there will be a footprint of 40,000 square metres. The car park would add another 13,000 square metres of loss. To make up that shortfall, we would need to see a commitment of another 23,000 square metres of Parklands to achieve the government's goal of a net zero loss of Parklands.

Labor's refusal to add the Adelaide Parklands to the State Heritage Register just two weeks ago is proof that they are wavering in their commitment, at best. Their statements around the future expansion of the hospital are further proof of this weak support for our public green space. Again, the Premier was quoted as saying at the time, 'By choosing to build on the barracks site, we leave room for future RAH expansion and we leave room for future Women's and Children's expansion.'

I note that the former Labor minister and Lord Mayoral candidate Jane Lomax-Smith has referred repeatedly to bracket creep; that is, governments taking over a portion of Parklands and then expanding their reach over time. I agree with the former Labor minister in that regard: it is concerning when we see governments expand their reach into our public green space. We do not want to set a precedent here that our Parklands can be swallowed up and seized every time there is a project of public merit—and there are lots of important projects that are worthy of support.

We also need to consider the implications of this bill for our heritage and the value of heritage listings. The whole purpose of heritage protection is that it is not meant to be held hostage by the government of the day. I have heard the Premier make comments in the media, where he has said, 'Oh, well, the old police barracks aren't exactly attractive. No-one goes there. It's not like it's a building on North Terrace.' That is beside the point.

It is not for members of parliament to make their assessments on what constitutes heritage values. We have an independent, peer-reviewed process. The power to do that is vested in the hands of the Heritage Council, and they are the body that should make those decisions, not the Premier, not individual members of parliament. The Department for Environment's own website describes a heritage place as follows:

A heritage place can be inspiring and intriguing and discovering the history of a place, especially if you're connected to it, will enrich your life. It's not just 'old' buildings that are heritage-listed, a place may be of value for reasons of history, social and cultural importance, design merit or rarity…it actually has to be a place that we want to keep because it tells our story and displays our uniqueness.

The criteria there is not, 'Oh, well, this is aesthetically pleasing,' or, 'The Premier thinks that this particular building is attractive.' That is not part of the criteria that the Heritage Council takes into consideration. Heritage protection provides benefits to our community. It tells our stories. It improves our tourism, and it gives our places meaning. Heritage is not about protecting pretty places. Heritage is about our history. The Thebarton Police Barracks are part of our history, and they have stood there for over 100 years.

I highlight for your benefit, Mr President, that Labor made commitments prior to the recent state election to add further protections to heritage laws through extensive public consultation. In their policy document announced during the election, they stated that a Malinauskas Labor government will legislate to require proposed demolition of state heritage sites are subject to full public consultation and a public report from the SA Heritage Council. This is not the standard that they have applied to this bill. This is a case of Labor doing one thing before the election and now doing something very different when they find themselves on the government benches. Where is the public consultation?

The policy goes on to condemn the previous Liberal government for its actions on the Parklands, saying that the Marshall Liberal government showed its disrespect for Adelaide's heritage when it decided to rezone large parts of the Parklands. I agree with that, of course. But as I have said previously in this place, talk is cheap. It is easy to be critical of what the government is doing, but it is another thing entirely to actually put your money where your mouth is when you are in a position to make change. It is disappointing that the Labor Party have chosen not to take Parklands protection seriously now that they are in government.

The government is setting up a false choice here between heritage and a hospital. I want to make it very clear and to restate comments I have made previously that the Greens are not opposed to a new hospital, but we do have some concerns with elements of this bill. That is why we believe that the parliament should be given an opportunity to fully consider the implications of this bill through a parliamentary committee. I gave notice earlier of my intention to move for us to do that, to ensure that there is a select committee that could inquire into the implications of this bill for heritage protection and for our Parklands.

I also want to put on the public record correspondence from the Lord Mayor, Sandy Verschoor, that I received today. In the correspondence from the Lord Mayor, which was sent on behalf of the City of Adelaide, of which members will be aware I used to be a member, it stated that 'we respectfully request that final consideration of the Bill be delayed until such time as the impacts of the legislation are fully considered, tested and understood'.

Full consideration, I submit to you, Mr President, is vital if we are to ensure that we are not eroding heritage and our Parklands without considering the implications. To that end, I was concerned to note in the letter from the Lord Mayor that the advice of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority has not been sought in relation to this proposal.

It is very concerning that the authority has not been asked to have its say on the implications of this proposal. That is very concerning. I am also concerned about the speed with which this legislation is being advanced. I am concerned that it was only introduced into this place two weeks ago, or not even, and we now find ourselves in a position where significant reform with implications for heritage and Parklands is going to be advanced.

We will be moving a series of amendments at the committee stage to address some of the concerns that I have raised. Fundamental to the amendments that we are moving is a belief that we do not have to choose between heritage and a hospital, that we can do both. Indeed, the Greens amendments would allow us to do both. Some of our amendments relate to removing the sections of the bill that give the government the power to move police horses to other parts of the Parklands where they see fit, including their stables and infrastructure. We want to remove that part from the bill.

We want to maintain the heritage listing of the buildings that are implicated, which would ensure that the government would need to follow the standard heritage process. We are also wanting to ensure that there are no permanent fencings or barriers being built to close off the public green space, and we are also moving to ensure that the Parklands are not further impacted or, rather, we do not see the loss of the olive grove by having the car park being contained within the build of the hospital.

We believe that these are very sensible amendments. They would allow us to progress with building a hospital while also being sensitive to our Parklands and our heritage. With that, I conclude my second reading remarks, but I will obviously have more to say in the additional stages of the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:46): I rise to speak on behalf of SA-Best on the New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill 2022. The bill is drafted broadly. It seeks to empower the relevant minister with powers—as has been highlighted—to delete those heritage items from the state register, relocate the police Mounted Operations Unit to another area of Parklands, and do all things necessary to facilitate the construction of a new Women's and Children's Hospital on the site of the current Thebarton Police Barracks.

Despite the opposing views on this bill, there is consensus that the current Women's and Children's Hospital is outdated, dilapidated and in desperate need of replacement. As Chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Health Services, I for one—and I am sure other members can do the same—can categorically confirm that the evidence provided shows that this hospital is in dire need of replacement.

A mountain of work has been done in terms of the hospital build in South Australia, and that mountain of work—and evidence has been provided from nurses, from former consultants, from SASMOA, not to mention many, many concerned and upset parents of sick kids who have had harrowing experiences at the current Women's and Children's Hospital, both in relation to that hospital and in response to, with respect, the former government's proposal for a replacement hospital. That proposal squandered four years and $53 million of taxpayers' money leaving us with what those experts described as a much less than satisfactory plan—and that is putting it nicely.

The location did not work, it was too small, it was not fit for purpose, and the design was a logistical nightmare. That is why we welcome the proposal behind this bill, and I will say for the record that the government did put us on notice about the time frame of this bill, and we have worked tirelessly to get this done, and to consult with the advocates that we have been working with for the new hospital, and not the government.

The many medical experts we have spoken to concur that this is the most ideal outcome. We put great weight on the opinions of healthcare experts. It is the opinion that I will put before politicians, the loud voices of those groups, every single day of the week. They know what is needed for a hospital to work well because they have committed their professional lives to working in hospitals and looking after our sick and injured. They have worked in one which does not and which has not for a very long time now worked well.

They are acutely aware of how important design is. They are acutely aware that efficiencies save lives, state-of-the-art equipment saves lives, proper resourcing saves lives. They are also acutely aware that our hospitals need to be an attractive place for medical professionals to work if we are to entice some of the world's brightest medical specialists to come to Adelaide to work and play once again.

When the competing interests of health and heritage became apparent, following the release of this proposal—and I think I referred to it as the elephant in the room when we last debated this issue—we knew exactly who we needed to consult with to help put things into clear and defined perspective for us. I will say Emeritus Professor Warren Jones AO proudly wears two hats with distinction, as many of us would know. He is the convenor of the Protect Our Heritage Alliance and co-founder of the Women and Children's Alliance, and is a tireless advocate for both heritage and health in this state. So when the government first announced the new site, Professor Jones summed up the debate simply and succinctly as this, and I quote:

There is a medical imperative to relocate the services of the Women's and Children's Hospital as close as possible to a major general hospital, the RAH.

There was no way that the previous Government's plan to try to utilise a very restricted triangular site was ever going to work.

Specialist clinicians have been warning about the gross inadequacies of this plan for over five years.

Despite this the Liberal Government proceeded with futile time and money-wasting plans for four years at a cost of $53 million.

Considering all the options, there is no other adequate footprint for a new, enlarged hospital for the future other than the site on the north side of the railway line and extending into the Thebarton Barracks.

Arguments for building a freestanding WCH away from the RAH precinct are spurious, ignorant of the medical issues and contrary to modern standards of hospital care.

And so, the barracks have to go; end of story.

It is sad to have to sacrifice a State Heritage complex, but health and saving lives must trump heritage every time.

In more recent days, after more reflection and consideration, he offered this, and I quote:

The problems experienced at the Women's and Children's Hospital make it clear that a new hospital for the future of our women and children is an urgent need and should be the highest priority in resourcing and timely construction.

The present hospital, dating from 1879, is outmoded, and has increasing difficulty in delivering efficient and comprehensive health services.

As a freestanding hospital, isolated from the essential, acute and specialised services of a major general hospital, it is an anachronism in modern and safe hospital planning. Its replacement must, therefore, be located in the Royal Adelaide Hospital precinct on the site designated by the government.

Notwithstanding the unfortunate loss of the Thebarton Barracks, the chosen site is the only safe, workable and financially responsible option.

Although the new hospital will be largely self-contained, it needs proximity to the specialist staff and resources at the RAH.

It cannot be built on more distant sites proposed by some commentators.

The current WCH may not last the distance if the new build is not progressed with urgency and dedication.

As far as we are concerned, I think Emeritus Professor Jones has summed up the views of many in those comments. I remind members that if you can build a hotel at an oval, if you can tear down 16 Moreton Bay fig trees without the blink of an eyelid for an oval upgrade, if you can approve upgrades at Botanic High School on the Parklands without anyone batting an eyelid, then you can certainly look at improving the current amenities at Thebarton, creating more open public space and investing in our kids' wellbeing for decades to come.

I want to reflect on some of the views about the previous hospital and the political football that has become the new Women's and Children's Hospital build. I challenge anyone to suggest that it is anything other than—or has become anything other than a political football between the two major parties. Whose hospital is better?

We have heard evidence from many parties expressing apprehension about the new development that was the Liberal development and the ongoing impact on the existing Women's and Children's Hospital. As I said before, those concerns ranged from the actual location, the building site and footprint being too small, the layout of treatment areas and spaces and the lack of genuine consultation and engagement with medical staff.

I note some senior consultants at the Women's and Children's Hospital who have said things like, 'The evidence is clear,' that they do not know of one doctor who does not believe that the new site proposed by the former Liberal government was too small. In the current PICU at that hospital, there are 13 beds: the plan for the new build is for only 12. Paradoxically, Perth Children's Hospital went from 10 to 20 in their new build, yet there is a decrease in the future hospital that will need to serve the state's families and children for 20 to 30 years.

Another commentator suggested that the former government's process appeared to be nothing more than a sham process when it came to consulting with doctors, and another clinician labelled it as a box-ticking exercise. Another again thought that it was tokenistic in terms of the genuine consultation that was being undertaken with those experts in the know about what is needed in a new hospital design. Another noted the many errors that were made with the new hospital activity modelling. The new hospital again would be too small. The ED, paediatric and neonatal intensive care, theatres, medical day unit and inpatient beds would be inadequate. Departments were choosing not to sign off on their functional design briefs because of these reasons.

Another commented that they felt that it was a done deal and again that the former government was doing nothing other than paying lip service to the input of the medical profession. 'They know it is insufficient, and they have debated that now for six months,' is the comment of another medical professional, who said that the gross inadequacy of the grant is an indication of how little respect was given to those consultants during that process when it came to involving those medical professionals in the new hospital design.

They are the sorts of things that doctors at the Women's and Children's Hospital were saying about the former government's plan for a hospital. We know, of course, that both major parties went to the election with yet another commitment for another hospital design in this state. SA-Best thinks that the new Women's and Children's Hospital design that is currently before us does make a lot of sense, and that is because we are guided by those very experts I have just quoted, people who have been working on this for years and people who have watched $53 million of taxpayer funds being spent on a hospital design in this state to date.

There is no question that it will have a greater capacity to meet the needs of our state, with the capacity to grow as our population does. It will, according to the government plans and what we have seen, lead to the rejuvenation of a forgotten area of Parklands, which will open up public access and improve spaces that are currently closed off to them.

We appreciate the sentiment of the Greens and particularly the Hon. Robert Simms, who has spoken, and the push for a select committee of inquiry on this issue. I acknowledge that, on some issues on this front, the Hon. Robert Simms and I are never going to see eye to eye. This is certainly one of them, and I say that respectfully to the member. I will say that the committee that I referred to earlier has done a mountain of work on the Women's and Children's Hospital. It has heard from countless witnesses on the Women's and Children's Hospital design, and they are frustrated at the processes and barriers that have been put in place in terms of getting on with the job.

I will also say that there is nothing preventing that existing committee, which has done extraordinary work in terms of raising issues that both the former government and this government have been forced to address and bringing them into the public light, from continuing to do precisely the same in relation to this hospital build.

Of course there are other committees—the Public Works Committee, the ERD Committee, the Budget and Finance Committee—but I make the point that there is a health committee, which this parliament voted in, and we know that that committee has had a very huge focus on this. A huge part of its interim report was based on the Women's and Children's Hospital and the new Women's and Children's Hospital. So it is my view that there is no need to reinvent the wheel, not on this, and that those issues can be dealt with appropriately by that committee and we can look at those issues forensically.

It is my firm view also, and my colleagues' firm view, that it is time to take the politics out of this important and emotive subject. Let's not forget the past two elections—2018 and 2022, $53 million later—had both major parties politicking and pontificating about the new Women's and Children's Hospital. A lot of 'my hospital is better than your hospital', 'co-located hospitals, unco-located hospitals'. I do not know if that is correct grammatically, but I apologise—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The Hon. Ms Lensink interjects about starting a hospital, but I did not see them do that. What I did see was a lot of criticism—a lot of criticism, which I have just outlined today—of what the former government proposed, and that is precisely the point. This is politicking between the two major parties about whose hospital is better. For our part this hospital is better, with respect to the honourable member.

The future hospital, as I said, was a major election issue for two elections for both major parties. I am pretty sure in terms of an inquiry into the hospital build, I do not recall a similar inquiry being initiated or proposed in relation to the former government's proposal for a hospital, despite us spending $53 million of taxpayer funds over four years to get nowhere, to get absolutely nowhere with the hospital build.

As I said earlier, $53 million has already been spent to get us to this point, and still a sod is yet to be turned. This should not be about political pointscoring between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party; it needs to be about building a world-class hospital of which the entire state can be proud. Consultation on our part has been most thorough, it has gone on way longer than this bill has been before the parliament, and we have no intention of standing in the way of progress now that a workable proposal has been proposed.

I think the wait has been long enough; years and millions of dollars have already been wasted. There are a number of advocates who, on behalf of medicos, families and kids in SA, have worked tirelessly, advocating for a new hospital in this state. Emeritus Professor Jones, who I spoke of earlier, and Associate Professor John Svigos, who are exceptional medical specialists—and gentlemen to boot, I might add—with more knowledge and experience than anyone I know, have managed to get the former government and this government to commit to a number of critical issues when it comes to the Women's and Children's Hospital, which would not have been possible without their campaigning.

Every step of the way their priority, unlike the major parties, has been on the best interests of both patients and medical professionals. That has been at the heart of the work they have done. The same can also be said of SASMOA, which has brought many of the issues of the Women's and Children's Hospital build to the fore. The same can be said of the mums and dads who have been willing to stick their necks out when presented with suboptimal plans.

The women and children of our state deserve a state-of-the-art, world-class hospital, a hospital that will help our once world-renowned Women's and Children's Hospital regain its mantle as one of the finest hospitals of its kind in the world. It is my sincere hope that this will become a reality, and we will be watching very closely every step of the way to ensure that this government remains committed to its undertakings.

As I just said, we will not be buying into the political pointscoring of the two major parties. You can call this the exception to the rule if you like, but we have been urged by the stakeholders, whom we have worked with now for over four years, to support this proposal for a new hospital and that is precisely what we intend to do.

It is absolutely my intention to keep the government to its word in terms of continuing to consult with those experts I have referred to in the medical profession as the project gets underway with respect to functional design issues and build issues—not something that usually happens with a new hospital—and keeping its commitments in relation to cardiac treatment and surgeries at the hospital.

I am going to finish today by quoting one of my, and our, constituents, who relies on the Women's and Children's Hospital for the care of her child and whose views reflect what many parents and families of kids in SA feel about the hospital:

It is my hope that by updating the built environment and the facilities, it might help to attract new talent and reframe and refurbish the mindset of some of the existing management at the Women's and Children's Hospital whose opinions and mindsets belong firmly in the same era as the current building.

With those words, I look forward to the next stages of the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:06): The health and care of South Australian children is the most important consideration in this matter. I acknowledge that the spend has increased immensely and that there are heritage implications for the new plan. However, there are benefits to moving to a bigger site with better logistics access, increased onsite facilities and improved critical care service capabilities, which have convinced me that the extra spend is worthwhile for the future of our women and children.

I have been advised that the encroachment on undeveloped or green space Parklands footprint will be minimal to what already exists and, according to the maps provided by the planners, much will be improved compared to the gravel car parks currently in place. I have been assured that pedestrian and cycling access will be improved for city commuters and Adelaide High School students through the north-west corridor once the project is complete, and I understand South Australia Police have been guaranteed a new location for their mounted division within five kilometres of the CBD for continued quick response.

I would like to see this resolved swiftly by the chamber. South Australia must get on with building a new Women's and Children's Hospital, one that is of the highest standards, with ample capacity for projected growth. Clinicians consulted prefer this project. There are improved sterilisation facilities, improved catering facilities, improved pathology capabilities, improved pharmacological facilities, improved access for services and logistics, and the ability to contain all critical care services on one floor. These all add up to a better hospital experience and health outcomes for South Australians.

The part that has me cautious is the Malinauskas government's track record of blown-out budgets and blown-out time lines, and I can assure South Australian voters that I will be monitoring the progress of the new Women's and Children's Hospital closely, holding the government accountable for inaction or overspend. Children's wellbeing will always be my top priority. I want the best public health outcome for our constituents. Build the hospital and prove you can deliver it.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Simms, R.A.
Wade, S.G.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Hood, D.G.E. Wortley, R.P. Centofanti, N.J.
Pangallo, F.

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:12): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this piece of legislation—which, I think it is fair to say, is unprecedented in the history of our parliament. In terms of the division we have just had, Labor's intention clearly is to jam this legislation through to silence community voices.

This legislation has been drafted very quickly, and we have some significant concerns, particularly in relation to the lack of transparency in some clauses. I have filed amendments that will certainly improve the processes, including to match those which are expected of other bodies. The government should at least be the model developer in any space, as it should be the model litigant, the model landlord, etc.

Firstly, remarks do need to be made about the history of the Women's and Children's Hospital. I note the comments of the Hon. Ms Bonaros, who said that it is 'one party playing football with another'. I think she does a disservice to my colleague the Hon. Mr Wade, the former Minister for Health, who is one of the most sincere people this parliament has seen. In his consultation as the then Minister for Health—and bearing in mind that we dealt with a pandemic for over two years—I do not think anyone can doubt that he undertook a deep and genuine consultation to try to rectify the fact that we continue not to have a rebuilt Women's and Children's Hospital, which we all support. I think that is a no-brainer.

Labor will continue to try to frame this as a binary debate about heritage versus a new Women's and Children's Hospital, and hope that in that process people forget about some of the details that are also important. There is no-one standing in the way of the redevelopment of the Women's and Children's Hospital, except for the fact that the Labor Party has chosen to kick this project down the road. As my leader, the Hon. David Spiers, has described it today, 'Toddlers will be teenagers before this hospital is built.'

Just to recap on history, because it is important to place these facts on the record, building a new Women's and Children's Hospital was one of the top-priority infrastructure projects for the Marshall Liberal government.

Labor's record on the Women's and Children's Hospital is a litany of delays, cost blowouts, botched plans, false dawns and the like. Labor announced a new Women's and Children's Hospital in October 2013, which is now nine years ago, and they said it would open in 2023. They did nothing in those four years before abandoning the project in June 2017, which is five years ago. So they got the headline, did no work and had to abandon it in the lead-up to the 2018 election. They downgraded the project to a women's hospital only, leaving the children's hospital stranded indefinitely at the site in North Adelaide. The former Labor government wanted to split the hospital in two.

It was the Marshall Liberal team at the 2018 election that saved the hospital and the state from Labor's muddleheaded plan. Under the former Liberal government, construction was scheduled to start later in 2022—so, for those who are interested in having a hospital sooner rather than later, that was the plan—with a completion date of 2026-27 and a $1.95 billion price tag. So we would be seeing shovels in the ground already. Our project went to Infrastructure SA, and thousands of hours of clinical engagement were conducted as part of the plan, so to say that nothing happened is just untrue.

However, as we know, Labor was elected this year, promising to deliver the hospital co-located with the Royal Adelaide but on the western Royal Adelaide site, the site that they announced nine years ago. The month after the election, Labor admitted that they did not have a plan by announcing a review led by a former senior public servant. After another six months of delay, Labor announced a further delay in the project and a cost blowout of more than $1 billion. They have now scrapped that plan and gone back to the drawing board, announcing a $3.2 billion hospital proposal that would only be delivered in 2032, at best—not this decade. This represents a delay of five years and a cost blowout of $1.2 billion.

So far, Labor is yet to outline its sustainment plan for the current Women's and Children's Hospital in North Adelaide, which is hugely concerning because we cannot allow that to go to rack and ruin in the meantime. For those who lament the state of the current Women's and Children's Hospital, this should be a front-of-mind concern. The former government had invested $80 million in sustainment works, based on moving to a new hospital in 2026-27. While we are supportive of a new Women's and Children's Hospital, we have serious concerns about the cost blowout, completion delay and Labor's ability to deliver this project. Not only that, there are significant concerns about how the new hospital will work.

It was Labor who oversaw the delivery of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital as well as the disastrous Transforming Health program. Since they have returned to government, ambulance ramping is at record levels. Put simply, Labor cannot be trusted on health.

The $53 million that the honourable member referred to specifically relates to site remediation. We know that those works can be very expensive, so that explains the particular figure that she has been using.

We have been advised that the works for this current plan that Labor has are likely to commence in the second half of 2023, and we are not expecting the completion until at least 2032—and don't hold your breath. As I said, there are potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that will need to be expended on the current site in the meantime.

This legislation has been badged as a new Women's and Children's Hospital bill. It is actually a piece of planning legislation: there is not a single clause in there that actually relates to any health act. There are some clauses that obviously relate to the heritage places, to effectively cease the heritage listing of the Thebarton Police Barracks buildings, which will enable them to be demolished.

There have been well-ventilated concerns about the demolition of the Thebarton Police Barracks and its heritage listing. We also have concerns relating to the ministerial powers, which are quite unprecedented and open-ended, and therefore we have drafted some amendments to redress those.

One of the government's key arguments for this legislation was that it would enable the process of building the new Women's and Children's Hospital to commence as soon as possible, thereby defraying the cost of potential future increases in cost of builds, but it has not provided any evidence to justify that. The former plans under the Marshall Liberal government would have seen a rebuild by 2026.

I have had a fair bit to do with Parklands and Parklands issues over the years, and I note the guidance of our forefathers when it comes to the Parklands: to build with care. One of the concepts that are often referred to are what is described as 'alienated parklands', so I do take the point that the barracks being a closed site can be seen as alienated and not available to the public.

We will ultimately be supporting this legislation, but we are very disappointed at the process under which this government has chosen to undertake this process, as I said, jamming this legislation through the parliament to try to avoid having to listen to those pesky community voices.

There are some fairly heavy-handed elements in this bill. Clause 10 is the clause relating to the relocation of the Mounted Operations Unit, known colloquially as the Police Greys. We think in particular that open-ended nature that the government is providing for this particular aspect needs to have greater transparency.

Clause 13 enables any changes to the Planning and Design Code and removes the barracks precincts from the Heritage Register. Clause 15 is very open-ended in enabling a regulation made under the act—or currently the bill—to modify, exclude any clause of any other act. In the briefing today, we were advised that the government would hope never to use that particular clause. I hope they are sincere in what they are saying.

In relation to the issue that we had with the Waite Gatehouse under the former Marshall Liberal government, we undertook to rebuild that beloved heritage asset and allocated funding to that. We are also seeking to include consultation with the state Heritage Council, which I think have been blindsided by this particular piece of legislation and the government's decision to do this. I note that they actually wrote to the Minister for the Environment. As my colleague the Hon. Rob Simms has outlined, the Hon. Dr Susan Close said one thing before the election and has said another thing after the election.

The South Australian Heritage Council wrote to the Hon. Dr Close on 13 October in relation to the Thebarton Police Barracks. They have provided the following—I will not read it in full, but they did refer to the commentary which exists in the South Australian Heritage Places Database:

Historically, the South Australian Police Force has been associated with the Thebarton Police Barracks since the barracks were constructed in 1917 to accommodate the South Australia Mounted Police, who moved from their premises located behind the South Australian Museum. The South Australian Mounted Police Cadre, established in 1838, is the oldest of its type in Australia, and with the possible exception of the Royal Irish Mounted Constabulary created by Robert Peel, is the oldest in the world. The changing use of the buildings on site illustrates the transition to motorised patrols, while retaining a patrol of Police Greys that supplement foot patrols and participate as honour guards at ceremonial functions.

The letter goes on to say:

There is a recent report prepared for the new Women's and Children's Hospital project which reviews the heritage values of the Thebarton Police Barracks and confirms its importance and status as a state heritage place. It is not a publicly available document, but it may be sourced from the Department of Health.

We have asked for that particular document in our briefing, and I believe the government has agreed to provide that. I think it is important that that is provided. One of our amendments is to relocate those buildings. Now we do not know what the heritage value is of each of those buildings, but if the government would seek to amend that particular amendment that I have filed on behalf of the Liberal Party, because they know better than we do—they have this report, which I am hoping they will make public—to advise which of those buildings has the capacity to be rebuilt. I think that is the least that the government can do to make a genuine attempt to try to preserve some of the heritage from this site, which in its unprecedented way it has decided will make way for the hospital.

The Hon. Mr Simms referred to a letter from the Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor in which Adelaide City Council has expressed a range of concerns very eloquently. I think one might be accused of being cynical, but I think it is fair given that we are in the middle of caretaker mode for all of our councils, it is certainly interesting timing that the government has chosen to bring this bill on at this particular time when the council finds itself in a position where it is quite limited in what it is able to engage in.

We have also received correspondence from Community Alliance South Australia who have written on behalf of 35 member groups not to vote for the upcoming bill because of their concern about the heritage issues. I think it is fair to say that whoever is in government can find some of these groups challenging to deal with, but we respect that they have a right to express their views in the public domain, and they should be allowed to fully participate in these discussions, and for those reasons we are going to be supporting the motion of the Hon. Mr Simms to refer this matter to a committee.

In relation to consultation and those sorts of matters, I think it is important to outline what the State Planning Commission requires of any development or changes to codes or the like. We have had through the changes to the Planning Act, which is now known as the Planning Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 or the PDI Act, a community engagement charter. This document is quite a thorough document, and it provides obligations on anybody who engages in changing zoning and the like within our planning system. It says that the following principles must be taken into account in relation to the preparation:

(a) members of the community should have reasonable, timely, meaningful and ongoing opportunities to gain access to information about proposals to introduce or change planning policies and to participate in relevant planning processes;

(b) community engagement should be weighted towards engagement at an early stage and scaled back when dealing with settled or advanced policy;

(c) information about planning issues should be in plain language, readily accessible and in a form that facilitates community participation;

(d) participation methods should seek to foster and encourage constructive dialogue, discussion and debate in relation to the development of relevant policies and strategies;

(e) participation methods should be appropriate having regard to the significance and likely impact of relevant policies and strategies; and

(f) insofar as is reasonable, communities should be provided with reasons for decisions associated with the development of planning policy (including how community views have been taken into account). That is the standard that is set for every development in South Australia.

The way this legislation has been constructed does not meet that test, and therefore we have amendments that will seek to do that in a number of ways. I sincerely hope that we will receive support for those because they do not slow the process down at all. They provide for transparency, they add a process not a roadblock, and they will make the process much more consistent with all principles of good planning, and not provide the government with a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

With those remarks, I indicate that we will ultimately support this legislation, but this is an unprecedented piece of legislation that gives the government broad powers in many instances to do whatever it likes without any reference back to the community.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:30): I thank honourable members for their contribution to what is an important bill which has generated significant community interest, and look forward to debate on clauses as they progress in the committee stage, and also addressing amendments that have been filed by both the Hon. Robert Simms and the Hon. Michelle Lensink.

Bill read a second time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:31): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the new Women's and Children's Hospital Bill to be referred to a select committee.

The PRESIDENT: I have to put the question and there needs to be an absolute majority.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I understood I could speak at this point. Am I incorrect in that?

The PRESIDENT: There needs to be an absolute majority present. We have 11 and we need 12.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The PRESIDENT: The motion has been seconded. There being an absolute majority, I will put the question.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I actually have not had an opportunity to outline the rationale behind the proposal, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Okay. Speak to it, please.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just very briefly, this is not an intention to prevent the bill from progressing; rather, it is an intention to ensure that the heritage and the Parklands implications of this proposal are properly considered. This is a bill that has been dealt with quite hastily thus far, and I believe that the community would expect, when one is dealing with vitally important legislation such as this, that there is parliamentary oversight, and that is precisely what we are proposing in terms of the establishment of a select committee.

I note the earlier comments of the Hon. Connie Bonaros with respect to this proposal. I am disappointed to hear the honourable member state that she will not support an inquiry. I noted earlier that former Senator Rex Patrick, who was affiliated, I think, with the SA-Best party or the Centre Alliance party, has said that this is a departure from the parliamentary principles of Nick Xenophon. I worked with Nick Xenophon in the federal parliament, and I certainly would say that he would always support oversight and consideration of matters such as this. It is disappointing to see that there may not be support for a committee to examine these issues, but I will certainly test the proposal.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)
Wade, S.G.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Hood, D.G.E. Wortley, R.P. Centofanti, N.J.
Pangallo, F.

Motion thus negatived.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I have some questions for the Attorney-General. In my second reading remarks I referenced correspondence from the honourable Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, Sandy Verschoor, regarding the failure of the government to consult with the Adelaide Park Lands Authority. Can the minister explain why the government has not sought the advice of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority in relation to this legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that the government decided on the course of action that is contained in this bill rather than any other course of action that would necessitate consultation.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Did the government ask the Park Lands Authority about the potential implications of the legislation they are proposing?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised they did not.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the minister provide a list of any organisation or body that has made representations on this legislation or this matter?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that we do not have a list of who has made representations, I would think, to either the department or the minister or the government more generally. People would have put in and represented their views and the views of their organisations, as often happens, but I do not have any consolidated list.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the minister advise whether the National Trust made any sort of submission?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that we are not aware of any submissions made at this point.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the minister advise on the views of the Heritage Council on this matter?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the Heritage Council's view is that they do not support the loss of heritage over the building subject in the area of the project.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Does the minister have any knowledge of proposed sites that have been considered for the new Mounted Operations Unit?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there are no proposed sites at this stage.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the minister explain then why the bill proposes such a large scope in terms of potential sites that can be acquired for use on the Parklands? Have other alternatives outside of the Parklands been considered?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that other alternatives outside the Parklands will be investigated and considered.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Which agency within government has been the lead agency for the development of this legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the Department for Health and Wellbeing.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: What role has DEW played in relation to heritage and, secondly, what role has planning played?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that they have both been consulted and involved in the development of the legislation.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the minister advise when Health finalised its plans for submission to cabinet?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the honourable member would well know, the internal cabinet workings and decisions are not matters that are publicly agitated.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is not what I asked. I asked: when did Health finalise its plans?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the honourable member would well know, having sat around a cabinet table, the internal workings, deliberations and time frames of cabinet are not something that is publicly agitated.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In my briefing, which I do thank the government for, I have been able to view the South Australian Heritage Council correspondence of 13 October on this matter. Will the government seek to make that correspondence public?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it is not the usual practice for every bit of advice on every bill to be made public, but certainly I am happy to go away and find out if this one can be made public or if there is any reason for it not to be.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Then reading from it, I note that the 13 October correspondence from the Chair of the South Australian Heritage Council, Mr Keith Conlon, states on page 2:

Demolition of State Heritage Places has been extremely rare. No Government, as far as we are aware, has demolished a confirmed State Heritage Place in its entirety before, let alone a whole precinct. Heritage protection law has been upheld for more than four decades in this State.

Council is extremely concerned about the precedent this Government's decision sets for the future.

The new hospital site will also impact on the heritage values of the nationally heritage listed Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout and may lead to referral under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

What preparations has the state government made for such a referral?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There will be the commencing of discussions with the commonwealth in the coming weeks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What previous state heritage places have been demolished in their entirety before in South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that heritage places have been demolished previously to make way for health infrastructure. I am advised such a building as the Repat is one example of that.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: One of the arguments that I think the Premier has used publicly in relation to rushing this legislation through is about inflation of future costs. Can the minister outline what the Premier was talking about?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that roughly every three months of delay costs the state $25 million for this project.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the minister advise whether similar legislation was required for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My initial advice is that legislation very similar to this was not required, but I can double-check that in due course and come back with a reply if that is not the case.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I just want to refer to two matters I raised during the second reading. They were around the input of clinicians in terms of consultation and also in relation to the cardiac treatment at the new Women's and Children's Hospital. Firstly, in relation to the cardiac treatment, the government's proposal includes futureproofing cardiac surgery. Can the Attorney confirm for the record that it is committed to a dedicated paediatric cardiac unit at the new Women's and Children's Hospital, with a view to surgeries in the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the design for the Women's and Children's Hospital as it stands provides the facilities that would enable a cardiac unit, should a government choose to establish that in the future.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to consultation that I referred to earlier, can the Attorney confirm for the record that it is its intention to continue consultation with clinicians from the Women's and Children's Hospital in relation to the New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is: absolutely.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What is the earliest that Heart Kids no longer have to travel interstate for cardiac surgery?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is as outlined in the previous answer, that it will depend on the possibility for a future government to do that in the facilities provided there.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the year 2036 will children still have to travel interstate, if they are Heart Kids, to access their much-needed cardiac surgery?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have previously said, that will depend on future decisions of the government. I am advised that this creates the facilities for the establishment of such a cardiac unit at this facility for a future government to make that decision.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lensink–1]—

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

This amendment adds the word 'development' to the title of the bill. As I stated in my second reading speech, the government has clearly tried to frame this debate as you are either for or against the new Women's and Children's Hospital. That is just bunkum: everybody supports a new Women's and Children's Hospital. It is a complete no-brainer.

The point does need to be made that the government is trying to avoid the issue that this is an unprecedented piece of legislation, and we think that adding the word 'development' more accurately reflects what this legislation is.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate that the government does not support this amendment. We do not think it adds any material value to the bill at all.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens support the amendment. We believe it makes the intention of the bill clearer.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In terms of the count of numbers, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Simms, R.A.
Wade, S.G.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Hood, D.G.E. Wortley, R.P. Centofanti, N.J.
Pangallo, F.


Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 22 [clause 5(a)]—After 'provision)' insert 'but not including the excised area'

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, after line 26—Insert:

(2) In this section—

excised area means the land east of the eastern boundary of Gaol Road (being land shown on the plan in Schedule 1 as being part of the project site).

The amendments that I am moving would require the car park to be built within the footprint of the new hospital, rather than on the olive grove. We think that is an appropriate thing to do in terms of reducing the impact on the Parklands.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment would excise a significant portion of land from the project site as defined in the bill. If the geographic boundaries of the project site were amended it would cause trouble for the project having its best chance of success. I am advised that the boundaries have been very carefully considered, so we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We will not be supporting this amendment. The footprint is not such a concern in this particular legislation. Our biggest concerns are in relation to not having adequate provision for heritage reuse, for want of a better word, and also about some of the extraordinary powers that are in some of the clauses in this bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I want to answer a question the Hon. Tammy Franks asked on the last amendment in relation to the South Australian heritage committee submission. I have been advised that that submission is on the website of the South Australian heritage committee, so it is publicly available through the writer's website.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have just a supplementary on that: is the health work that was done that is referred to in the South Australian Heritage Council's submission and response also made public?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is not public at this stage, but I am advised that there has been a commitment and an undertaking given to provide that report.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can that report please be made available to the public today?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will certainly take advice on that. If that is possible, I will endeavour to see that that is done so.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 2

Noes 15

Majority 13

AYES

Franks, T.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Curran, L.A.
Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T.
Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Wade, S.G.

Amendments thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I note at subclause (3) the clause states that under this section—sorry, I probably need to read the whole subclause otherwise you cannot get the context:

(3) Land that vests in the Minister under this section vests free from all dedications, encumbrances, estates and interests other than those indicated by the Minister in the plan or plans deposited under subsection (2).

Can the minister explain what this particular clause does and why it is necessary?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I think it was in particular subclause (3) that the member was asking about. My advice is the reason it is needed free from encumbrances is to do with when plans are lodged with the general registry office to allow the project to go ahead as planned.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: What if, for want of a better word, things may be extinguished by this particular clause?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised an example of this might be a gas main under old Gaol Road that is lodged as an encumbrance on the title. That would then be extinguished and rerouted and relodged as a new encumbrance on the title. That is the sort of thing I am advised is an example.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is this a fairly standard clause?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that this is standard practice in these types of developments.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 5, line 2 [clause 7(4)(a)]—After 'building' insert ', fencing or barrier'

This amendment would ensure that there are no permanent fencing or barriers erected on the support zones, that is, areas where there are no permanent buildings. This is consistent with the principles that the Greens have advocated over many years, and that is that we should not have closed or fenced off areas in our Parklands. These areas should be publicly accessible.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the government does not support this amendment. This amendment would have the effect, as we understand it, of prohibiting any fences to remain in place after the completion of the project. My advice is that could cause some safety concerns, for example, if there were fencing or barriers that may be required in the completion of works on Port Road and the building of new shared user path bridges. If this amendment were supported the government would hold concerns over safety measures that could be impacted.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party is not going to be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Lensink–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 relates to the matters that I broadly described as improving transparency. We have no desire to slow this process down, but we believe it is important that there is a level of consultation that is conducted in a manner which the community would expect. This particular amendment, rather than the government's model, which will mean that the development goes through potentially as a rubber stamp—and I note that while in our consultation the government did say that they intended to consult, that is not enshrined in legislation and yet for any major development or any other matter, as I outlined with the model principles, everybody else is expected to go by those rules.

We think that the government should consult in a model manner in relation to its own developments, particularly given that it is rushing this legislation through. This amendment just provides a bit of peace of mind to any affected parties, or anybody who has an interest in this, that the government should abide by its own principles of good planning, so this amendment will assist the government. We are trying to be helpful and save it from its own legislation.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens support the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting the amendment. The government intends, and in fact it will be necessary to engage in a level of consultation, particularly with clinicians, but this amendment would frustrate the very purpose of the act, namely, to consolidate the planning application process.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Simms, R.A.
Wade, S.G.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Hood, D.G.E. Wortley, R.P. Centofanti, N.J.
Pangallo, F.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 6, line 14 [clause 8(2)]—After 'Act 2016' insert:

provided that the following conditions are complied with:

(a) all buildings on the project site that form part of the State Heritage Place (under the Heritage Places Act 1993) known as the Thebarton Police Barracks Complex must be maintained within the development;

(b) the development must not involve alterations to the buildings that could materially affect their heritage value (as determined by the State Planning Commission)

This amendment would ensure that the barracks heritage buildings would have to be preserved in any new build. In effect, it would ensure that the usual principles that apply in relation to heritage buildings are complied with. To outline my rationale, one of the main concerns that we have in the Greens about this proposal—and as I say, we are supportive, of course, of having this new Women's and Children's Hospital—is the precedent that this potentially sets for the destruction of our heritage buildings.

What we are suggesting is that the usual protections should apply. This would require the government to incorporate the building into their design. I know that the government will say that is not possible, but when one is spending over $3 billion on a project such as this, then it seems appropriate that a building like this be incorporated. After all, this is not sending a man to the moon: it is preserving a heritage building. I would have thought that the government would have the resources to be able to make that happen, hence the purpose of this amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not disappoint the member; the government does say that this is not possible. The advice is that the effect of this amendment would be so heavily to restrict work on the project site that the new hospital as anticipated could not proceed on that site. I do acknowledge the sincerity with which the honourable member puts forward the amendment and his views on the heritage buildings on this project site; however, it is the government's view that this would so restrict what could possibly be done that what is proposed just could not go ahead.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a question on a further clause that is very much along the same lines. Between lines 10 and 15, at clause 10(5):

No compensation is payable by the Minister, the relevant Minister or the Crown in connection with the operation of this section.

What entities would be able to require compensation if this clause were not passed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that in this clause, and where it appears elsewhere in the act, the identified body that may be entitled to compensation would likely be Adelaide City Council, particularly for utilising land to support the development.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In my briefing I asked a question about this and a clause yet to come, and now you are saying they are very much the same case. I was informed that there was some amount of 35ȼ per square metre per day that would come into question that would be payable to the council. Can you give me the basis of that charge of 35ȼ per square metre per day? Where does it sit, what does it apply to and why has it not simply been specific about that provision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that is a rate set by the Corporation of the City of Adelaide and, as the honourable member has outlined, a charge of 35ȼ per square metre per day would not be payable if this act passed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Where is this amount set by the Corporation of Adelaide? Could you refer the council to the specific documents that you are requiring, and how is it 35ȼ? For how long has it been 35ȼ—where does this come from?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her questions. I do not have the specifics of what gives rise to the specifics of this amount per day, whether it is some sort of regulation that the council itself passes or whether it has legislative force, but I will find that out for the honourable member. But, my advice is that that is correct as the honourable member has outlined that amount. The basis for which that is possibly charged or someone is liable for I will find out for the honourable member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So at 5, no compensation is payable by the minister, the relevant minister of the crown, in connection with the operation of this section here applies to the relocation of certain SA Police facilities? Why is it not then more precise about that amount of the 35ȼ per square metre per day and referring specifically and more directly to that provision, which seems to be what this is addressing?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that this is what this provision is aimed at. I do not have any advice that there are other things that this provision seeks to capture, but it is drafted in that manner because that was recommended, I assume, by parliamentary counsel to be drafted that way.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will put the Hon. Mr Simms out of his misery and advise that we will not support his amendments. It is not very often that I agree with the Hon. Kyam Maher, but on this occasion we do, so that is the reason we will not be supporting his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the minister outline what consultation there will be? We were advised quite clearly in the briefing that there is no legislative requirement for the government to consult on this bill whatsoever, which is of great concern, but I think the government ought to, for the record, outline its intention to consult, and I will be looking for some more fulsome response than some of the responses we have had to date.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there will be extensive consultation with clinicians about the design. My advice is that there is intended to be a consultation with the Office for Design and Architecture prior to lodgement with the State Planning Commission, and my advice is also that there is an intention to set up a community reference group to undertake community consultation about the design.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is the minister able to indicate what level of consultation, particularly in relation to the community reference group, it would be comparable to? Was there this level of consultation on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital or Adelaide Botanic High or other projects of this scale?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice to the honourable member is yes, the intention is it would be comparable to the consultation that took place for projects of this sort of significance, such as the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the minister for that answer. From what range of stakeholders will the community reference group be drawn?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that that is still to be developed and decided. It certainly will include consumers of health as well as other community groups and representatives to be involved, but that process is still underway.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Given the concern of a number of stakeholders that we have referred to in the debates this afternoon, can the minister advise what level of consultation any of those groups, such as the Adelaide Park Lands Association, Community Voice, the National Trust and the Adelaide City Council, will be engaged in?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that all the groups that were outlined will be consulted and consultation is underway with Adelaide City Council, but the groups that were specifically mentioned will be consulted in this process, I am advised.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Which agency will be the lead agency undertaking consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised the Department for Health and Wellbeing.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: So therefore, what is the role of the State Planning Commission in this process? I think, if I remember rightly from the briefing this morning, the State Planning Commission also has some sort of role in terms of consultation. Will there be parallel processes between the State Planning Commission and SA Health? Are they done conjunctively? Are they done sequentially? Can the minister outline how this will transpire?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the groups the member outlined, and other groups, will be consulted prior to the development being lodged with the State Planning Commission.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Who by? SA Health or the State Planning Commission or both?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the Department for Health and Wellbeing will be consulting with those groups prior to the plan being lodged with the State Planning Commission.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Does the State Planning Commission therefore have a role in consultation, or does it just receive the referral from SA Health?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the State Planning Commission does not have a role in the consultation but has the role of receiving and assessing the plan that is lodged.

Clause passed.

Clause 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In terms of the way the debate proceeds, I am just wondering if honourable members have any questions as this relates to the Mounted Operations Unit before we proceed to the amendments.

The CHAIR: Are there any contributions at clause 10 before we proceed to the Hon. Ms Lensink's amendment? No. The Hon. Ms Lensink, would you like to move your amendment?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Lensink–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.

Clause 10 has certainly been one of the more curious additions to this particular legislation and has caused a reasonable amount of consternation, because it really does provide open-ended capacity for the government to make decisions about this matter.

There is huge concern in the community about these particular clauses. Our concern, in all this, is not to hold up any of the process but to ensure there is a level of transparency that certainly does not exist in this legislation. I urge my crossbench colleagues to consider their approach to this very, very carefully. I think this is potentially one of the areas that has mystified many people in terms of why it has been included.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens are supportive of this amendment. I note that I have my own amendment in this regard, which is to actually to strike out the clause entirely, but we do support this amendment. In particular, I note the inclusion of consultation, which is a very important safeguard.

Many people in the community have been alarmed by the open-ended nature of the government's proposal here, and the power this vests in them to potentially move the police horses, stables and infrastructure into other areas of the Parklands. It does set a quite dangerous precedent for Parklands protection going forward. We will be supporting the Liberal's amendment, but we will also move our own amendment to take that section out of the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment, nor the foreshadowed opposing of the clause by the Hon. Robert Simms. The relocation of the SA Police Mounted Operations Unit is an important component of this legislation and the project more broadly. As I said earlier on, the relocation of the SA Police Mounted Operations Unit will be actively considering all locations, not just any locations on the Parklands. The purpose of this bill is to be able to have this project being developed and progressed as quickly as possible, and we think that allowing for the relocation of the SA Police Mounted Operations Unit to somewhere else on the Parklands is an important component of that—if that is what is decided.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is it the position of the Police Association that their preference is to relocate to Wayville or some other place?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the advisers from the Department for Health and Wellbeing are not aware of the views of the Police Association, but it may well be that there are preferences that are expressed. As the honourable member said, places like the Wayville showgrounds or other places that are approximate to the city in other areas will be considered and may well be the future base of the SA Police Mounted Operations Unit.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can I ask the minister to be a bit more specific about what kind of infrastructure would need to be built on the Parklands to accommodate these horses?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there are somewhere in the order of 32 horses that form part of it. The primary things that would need to be built would include paddocks and stables.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There are 40 full-time equivalent staff, however. What is the intention for them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the full-time staff would need to be accommodated as they currently are, in the vicinity where the SA Police Mounted Operations Unit horses were accommodated.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the minister explain what footprint the stables would have on the Parklands?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is still a process to be determined about what that might look like in a different location from where it is now.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We did ask this question in the briefing this morning, but I would appreciate it if the minister could repeat it for the record. Where did this clause come from? Who asked for this clause?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it was in the development of the bill, with all the aspects that may be needed in terms of this project getting underway and being developed in a timely manner. My advice is that this clause came about in the development of the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My understanding of the site at Thebarton at the moment is that there are a number of operations that work interchangeably or that need to be co-located. Is there an explanation for why, through this clause, the Mounted Operations Unit is potentially going to be isolated from the rest of those operations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My advice is there are about 10 different functional units that are at the Thebarton barracks, including police dogs, armoury and as a mustering point. None of these need to be co-located with the SA Police Mounted Operations Unit going into the future.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Simms, R.A.
Wade, S.G.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Hood, D.G.E. Wortley, R.P. Centofanti, N.J.
Pangallo, F.

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: The next indicated amendment is in the name of Hon. Ms Lensink, which I believe is consequential.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, Mr Chair, it is consequential.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, you are going to move that clause 10 be struck out.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes.

The CHAIR: You are going to vote against it, but would you like to speak to that?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will move that this clause be opposed.

The CHAIR: You do not need to move it, but you can put your case.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This is what I have been instructed, Mr Chair, so I am going on the advice I have received from the drafters. The reason for doing so is that the Liberals' proposal around consultation has been defeated which does give the government a blank cheque around how they approach this issue, so we would like to see this whole section removed from the bill. I encourage the Liberal opposition to have the strength of their convictions and to support our position on this.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will just indicate we will be voting for the clause in the bill that we put forward in the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I note the comments of the Hon. Mr Simms. We preferred our own amendment, and therefore the instructions from our party room were to vote for our clause, but sadly not for the Hon. Mr Simms'.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, we will be voting for the clause that is already in the bill.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 15

Noes 2

Majority 13

AYES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Curran, L.A.
Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T.
Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Wade, S.G.

NOES

Franks, T.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

Clause thus passed.

Clause 11 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Lensink–1]—

Page 8, after line 18—Insert:

(1a) The State Heritage Council must—

(a) prepare a report making recommendations as to actions that should be taken to ameliorate the effect of the project on any State Heritage Place or State Heritage Area within the project site; and

(b) provide a copy of the report to the Minister.

(1b) The Minister may cause copies of the report prepared under subsection (1a) to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

What this clause does is ensure that the State Heritage Council have a role within this matter, which I think is the least that this parliament can do given that we have this unprecedented situation where we are having state heritage places demolished for a project.

The State Heritage Council has already expressed a view as has been referred to. They produced a report for the month of October in which they lament the loss of the Thebarton Barracks, and they have also written to the Minister for the Environment outlining some ways in which the Thebarton Police Barracks can be continued to be understood into the future.

They are the pre-eminent body in this state which provides advice on heritage, and we think that they should have a formal process in this situation to enable them to ensure that the best capacity of the Thebarton Barracks is retained into the future, and therefore we think their advice should be sought. It does not in any way prevent the government from continuing to do what it wishes to, but it does ensure that the State Heritage Council has a role in terms of advice to government and to the parliament about how the elements of this site—both virtual and the built form—can be preserved into the future.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for bringing this amendment to this chamber, and say that the government understands and appreciates the reasons and motivations behind this amendment, however the government will not be supporting the amendment as in our view it is unnecessary. As the government has already indicated, and I am happy to place on the record here, the government intends to undertake a process with the State Heritage Council to appropriately capture the history of the site.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens are supportive of this amendment. Obviously we welcome the fact that the government is going to undertake such a process, but it is always better to have that set out in legislation in terms of setting a precedent for the future. Indeed, this is one of the elements that has been very concerning about this bill, is the potential precedent that is set in terms of how we deal with heritage listings going into the future.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate for the record that we are satisfied with the response of the government in relation to this and will not be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Simms, R.A.
Wade, S.G.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Hood, D.G.E. Wortley, R.P. Centofanti, N.J.
Pangallo, F.

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: I have an amendment indicated in the name of the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 8, lines 19 to 30 [clause 13(2) and (3)]—Delete subclauses (2) and (3)

The amendment that I am moving—members will be relieved to know, is my final amendment—would have the effect of maintaining the heritage listing of the buildings that are currently listed.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, I just need to clarify with the Hon. Ms Lensink: your second amendment at this clause is consequential?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, that is my understanding.

The CHAIR: Thank you. The Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: As I was saying, my amendment would maintain the existing heritage listing of the buildings. Again, we have been concerned about the precedent that is established by removal of state heritage listing. Indeed, I note that this is the first time that we are potentially seeing governments bulldozing heritage listed buildings in this way.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I just indicate that the government will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Simms' amendment, for very similar reasons to, I think it was amendment No. 4 [Simms-1], in that it is argued that, in effect, this would make it impossible for the project to proceed.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: For the second time this evening, I will sully my reputation and agree with the Leader of the Government.

The CHAIR: We are going to split this amendment because the Hon. Ms Lensink has an amendment in between. The question I am going to put is that subclause (2), as proposed to be struck out, stand as printed.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Sorry, Chair, I need your guidance on my intention.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, you will vote no. We are only putting the question on subclause (2). You will vote no because the government will want subclause (2) to stay in the bill. The question is that subclause (2) stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Lensink, you have an amendment that fits in between the two parts of the Hon. Mr Simms' amendment, so would you like to move your amendment?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Lensink–1]—

Page 8, after line 25—Insert:

(2a) The Minister must ensure that any buildings comprised in the former mounted police barracks complex (being buildings that are removed from the South Australian Heritage Register under subsection (2)) that are dismantled are reconstructed at another suitable location.

This is the 'rebuild the barracks' amendment. I am assuming that the government will not support this amendment. Consistent with my previous remarks, we are flying blind in terms of the heritage assessment of these 10 structures at the site. The government knows which ones are in the best condition. We were advised in the briefing this morning that it was the view in the report that we are seeking to have publicised and get a copy of that none of the buildings would be suitable.

It is a bit difficult for the parliament and another reason why, quite frankly, this whole legislation rushed process is really unacceptable. If the government were minded to provide a bit of transparency about the condition of those buildings, that would be helpful. As I said, the former Marshall Liberal government undertook a process of rebuild for the Waite Gatehouse. If it is good enough for the Waite Gatehouse, it should be good enough for the barracks.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting this amendment. My advice is that the buildings that are on the barracks site are in such a poor state that it is not practicable or feasible to dismantle and reassemble.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. Indeed, I think the principle that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has outlined is an important one. It was good enough for the Waite Gatehouse, so why not apply the same principle? I think the Labor Party, when they were in opposition, were very critical of the way in which the Waite Gatehouse matter was dealt with, and rightly so.

It would be appropriate, then, to apply that same principle with respect to this building. If the Attorney has been given that advice, I would ask that he make that available to the chamber because I think all members of parliament have a right to see that and, indeed, the broader community that will be concerned about what this means for heritage protection.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his invitation. I do not have written advice or a copy of a written report. That is verbal advice I have received, but I am happy to go away after the conclusion of tonight's sitting and see what can be provided for the honourable member.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: When can that report be provided?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I am happy to go away after we finish tonight and see what can be provided and provide whatever I can for the honourable member.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 6

Noes 9

Majority 3

AYES

Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Simms, R.A. Wade, S.G.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Lee, J.S. Pnevmatikos, I. Hood, D.G.E.
Wortley, R.P. Centofanti, N.J. Pangallo, F.

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: We now come back to the Hon. Mr Simms' amendment. The question is that subclause (3), as proposed to be struck out, stand as printed. I am going to put it and, the Hon. Mr Simms, you and your supporters will be voting no.

Question agreed to; clause passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would like to revisit something I raised at clause 10. Clause 14 is a very simple clause. It states:

14—Certain fees etc not payable

No fees or charges are payable to The Corporation of the City of Adelaide in respect of the exercise of functions under this Act.

I have been told in briefings what this applies to, but I would like you to outline yet again, and then I will have a further question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that relates to a charge—the providence of wherever that charge originates from we will be finding out—of 35¢ per square metre, per day.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In answer to my question at clause 10, with regard to the words, 'No compensation is payable by the Minister, the relevant Minister or the Crown in connection with the operation of this section,' what is the section that is referred to in that clause 10 and does it have any impact or relevance to clause 14?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am sure the honourable member will let me know if I have misunderstood or have not answered the question properly, but my advice is the use of what we have previously discussed in clause 10 relates to clause 10 itself and what clause 10 proposes, whereas what is in clause 14 relates to the rest of the act. I think that is how I understood the question.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So to make it very clear: the provisions in clause 10—the relocation of certain SA Police facilities which provide that no compensation is payable—only apply to clause 10, and the fees, etc. not payable applies to the entire act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is my advice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you. What are the fees for?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My best advice is that it is understood that the fees would go into the general revenue for the council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am asking because I actually do not understand from the briefings that I have had how these fees come about. I have been told that they are 35¢ per square metre per day, but it has not been explained what they are for, why they need to be deemed not payable, and why they were related as well to the lack of compensation under clause 10, which was a specific area and about the movement of those barracks.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her questions, and they are indeed good questions. As I have said, we will go away and find out the historic basis for these. I suspect these have been something that have been around for a very, very long time and have some basis somewhere decades ago. But exactly what the basis for the fees is, and if they are applied for anything other than into the general revenue of council, I will also go away and find that out for the honourable member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My final question. If the Attorney could clarify whether there is any relation to EV—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: EV?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —electric vehicle charging within this clause, that would be helpful.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If this does not answer it, I am sure the honourable member will make it not the final question and ask me another one. There is intended to be electric vehicle charging capacity within the new hospital build. I do not know if that is what the honourable member was asking or if there was something else that needs answering.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Alright, this is the last question. I just want to know what the charge is for and why we are waiving the fees and why we are concerned that there will be compensation payable. I am actually happy that you have confined the compensation only to clause 10, because at least that does not apply to the entire act. That gives me small comfort, but some comfort.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This is quite an extraordinarily broad and extensive power on behalf of the government. I would appreciate if the minister could make some comments about what he anticipates the usage of it might be.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there are no regulations that are currently intended or contemplated, that this provides for unforeseen circumstances but, as the honourable member is aware, regulations would be a disallowable instrument that both chambers could have a say in in the future.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (18:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (18:16): I thank all honourable members for their contributions, particularly the Greens for their support for all our amendments. I wish to reiterate that this has been a pretty appalling process. This bill has been rushed through the house, there are unanswered questions on a range of fronts and the response from the government on all of these is, 'Trust us, we're from the government, course we do the right thing.' That gives absolutely no comfort to those people in the community who have concerns about this bill.

I am disappointed, particularly with SA-Best, that they did not support our amendments, which would not have slowed down this legislation in any way. The next time they come wailing to us about transparency, well, you know, I will just claim hypocrisy.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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