Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

OCKERBY GARDENS HELIPAD BILL 1999 (No. 79)

Second Reading

Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

The purpose of this bill is to limit the provisions of Part 4 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993. The act, as it stands, would otherwise prevent effective consideration of the planning scheme processes associated with a proposal to construct an emergency medical evacuation helipad in Ockerby Gardens, Launceston. Ockerby Gardens is the site of the former Charles Street Cemetery and is managed by the Launceston City Council.

The Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 imposes conditions on the use of former cemeteries. Essentially these provisions require former cemeteries to be maintained as burial grounds or to be laid out as a public park or garden for use as a place of quiet recreation. Competitive games or sports are not to be conducted on such land. Ockerby Gardens has been laid out and maintained as public gardens by the Launceston City Council and used for the purposes of quiet recreation, in accordance with the act.

The need for this legislation arose when the Launceston General Hospital made application to the Launceston City Council for a planning scheme amendment which would allow consideration of an application to build an emergency medical evacuation helipad in Ockerby Gardens. Ockerby Gardens is zoned public recreation within the Launceston City Council Planning Scheme and the intended use as a helipad necessitates an amendment to the planning scheme. The council was aware that the gardens are the site of a former cemetery and sought legal advice as to their ability to consider the proposed use as an amendment to the planning scheme. That advice cautioned the council that such an amendment to the planning scheme would be ultra vires the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993. Consequently, the council was effectively prevented from utilising the proper land use planning process to consider the proposed planning scheme amendment. The Launceston City Council has asked the Government to remove this impediment to the normal planning process and, in doing so, indicated that it supports the building of the helipad in Ockerby Gardens.

A public meeting held at the Launceston General Hospital did not object to the medical need for the helipad, and petitions bearing over 550 signatures received by the Attorney-General have demonstrated wider community support for it to be built adjacent to the Launceston General Hospital. The Government has decided, therefore, to introduce this bill to limit the provisions of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 which might otherwise prevent due process under the planning system. I wish to emphasise that these amendments do not over-ride the planning system. The bill merely limits identified legislative impediments which would otherwise prevent due consideration of the proposal under the land use planning system. The provisions of the bill relate only to Ockerby Gardens and there will not be any unintended consequences for any other park or garden in Tasmania which is also the site of a former cemetery.

Helicopters have been used to transport casualties to the Launceston General Hospital for a number of years. However, there are difficulties with all alternative landing sites. They require ambulance transport to the hospital with attendant reduction in standard of patient care and additional resourcing implications for emergency services, especially during major incidents. The proposed helipad will improve operating conditions for medical and emergency service personnel. Ambulance Service personnel, doctors involved in medical retrievals, LGH staff and helicopter pilots have all indicated support for the project. Delays to construction of this potentially life-saving facility span some six years and have already gone on too long.

As I have mentioned previously, I wish to emphasise that this bill does not override the provisions for the land use planning system. Rather, it enables the consultation and independent evaluation processes provided by the land use planning system to be applied to this proposal. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr MADILL (Bass) - Mr Speaker, let me say at the outset that the Opposition supports very strongly indeed the development of a helipad facility for the Launceston General Hospital.

This has been a matter that has been discussed for a long time, as the Premier rightly points out. He mentioned six years, I think; it has been talked about before then. I am sure it was talked about when the original proposal for the new general hospital was first put forward and unfortunately in the construction of that hospital there was no provision made and, as various additions to the hospital have gone ahead over the years, no specific provision for this facility has been made.
So the first thing I want to do is make it very clear to the House, to the Government and to anyone else that we recognise the great need for an emergency helicopter landing facility adjacent to the Launceston General Hospital. This is almost a basic standard facility for modern, major hospitals in our community today, particularly a hospital of the size of the Launceston General Hospital that is set up specifically to deal with major trauma.

Having said that, there are some important questions that I believe the Premier needs to answer in relationship to this bill. The need is very clear for several reasons. Firstly, if there is a major disaster, even if it is relatively close to Launceston, say, and the obvious thing that springs to mind if there is going to be a major disaster where there are a large number of seriously injured people, the airport of course is the place we hope it will not happen - we hope and pray it never happens - but if it does then the emergency services, the ambulance and the Launceston General Hospital are likely to be faced with a very large number of very seriously injured people who need to be got into that hospital as quickly as possible.

There are two problems that immediately arise in that situation in Launceston, and this applies to any major disaster anywhere. If it is one of your major functions such as Agfest or anything like that, if there are a large number of people seriously injured, then the same argument will apply. Firstly, there are a finite number of ambulances available in Launceston at any given time and every one of those is needed on site with their trained personnel and the capacity to move these people as quickly as possible. If you have a situation, as is now, where the emergency helicopter has to land a considerable distance from the hospital, you have to put another ambulance in that transfer situation that takes those people away; it means not only additional time but additional difficulties in moving that person out of the helicopter into the ambulance and off to the hospital. So it is less than optimal use of these very highly trained personnel and very important emergency equipment on site and transporting at the time.

There is not any question at all that the Launceston General Hospital requires an emergency medical helipad facility close by so that it will free-up that ambulance and, secondly, it will shorten the time so that on site a decision can be made whereby the most seriously injured can be most rapidly transported to the in-patient emergency care in the most efficient and quickest possible time. So there is no doubt that this is a badly needed facility in the north associated with the Launceston General Hospital and there is no lack of support ; there is in fact total support from this side for the establishment of this. But, as I said, there are questions that I think need to be answered.

While, as the Premier rightly said, there has been a considerable amount of public support expressed already in the form of petitions - I think the Attorney-General told me that he had an additional petition over and above the one that was mentioned when this second reading speech was drawn up - there has been additional support expressed since then. But there have also been people who have some concerns and have asked some questions and therefore I would ask those questions now of the Premier -

Mrs Jackson - Yes, we're waiting.

Dr MADILL - That is, if the Minister for Health can stop silly interjections. If she wants to have a silly argument over a serious subject like this it is fairly typical of her but in the meantime - the first question -

Mr Green - Do you want me to play da-da-da-taha - now ask the question.

Dr MADILL - You think it is all a joke. You think it is a lot of silly stuff. You are not really concerned about the concerns of people up there.

Mrs Jackson - Well, ask the question.

Mr Jim Bacon - You're a doctor, you know it's a good idea.

Dr MADILL - You see. Of course it is a good idea. For heaven's sake, you are a queer lot over there; you really are a queer lot. Here I have just explained to you why it is such a good idea and now you are criticising me, for heaven's sake.

Mr Jim Bacon - We could have it through by six o'clock. If it's so urgent we could get it through.

Dr MADILL - For heaven's sake.

Mr Rundle - They're never satisfied, Frank.

Dr MADILL - No, they are not. But anyway, I will go on regardless because I am here to ask for some answers, not listen to stupid interjections.

Mr Jim Bacon - Well, I will give them when I hear a question.

Dr MADILL - The first thing is: what are the alternative sites? That is the first question. It has been put forward that there are a range of alternative sites -

Mr Jim Bacon - Which one do you support?

Dr MADILL - and I would like the Premier to be able to stand up here and tell us that all of these alternative sites have in fact been examined and the reasons why they are appropriate or not. For instance, it has been suggested by several people that one of the adjacent streets be used. This is done in other places. I understand in other cities with large hospitals they in fact have done this. They have cordoned off major streets and used them in those situations and of course it has been suggested that Charles Street, which is relatively level, and Franklin Street, which is not - and I presume that would be a consideration - could be used in an emergency situation. Members need to remember that we are talking about a facility that is not going to be used seven days a week. It is probably and hopefully going to be used very irregularly, only occasionally, and therefore it is a sensible question, I believe, that these people are asking: why could not provision be made to cordon off a street and allow the helicopter to land there?

The second one is: why not the roof of the existing hospital? Well, my information on that - but I will be interested to hear what the Premier says - is that the hospital was not built such that, well, it would probably take the weight of a helicopter but it would not take it, certainly if it landed heavily or by any chance there was an accident and the thing crashed there - it would pose big risks. And the other thing I am told - and I note the Premier is nodding - is that in the case of emergency if you have a helipad on a building you have to have a facility that ensures that there is no fuel spill that can run down beyond that pad because of course that would pose an enormous risk to people below.

Mr Jim Bacon - So that is the roof out.

Dr MADILL - I seek further information on this.

The other one of course that has been talked about for a long time is the old Launceston General Hospital site because this is sitting there and I would be very interested to hear what is the latest situation as far as the fate of the old Launceston General Hospital site and whether or not in redeveloping that, if indeed a redevelopment is going to go ahead, it would be a satisfactory alternative site.

Mrs Jackson - How would you get them from there across to the hospital - by ambulance? You will have to do it by ambulance.

Dr MADILL - No -

Mrs Jackson - Yes, you would. You're not allowed to take a patient over a public street. You should know that. You can't do that.

Dr MADILL - It was not the situation when there was that walkway across from the old hospital to the new hospital. That was the situation in an emergency, who knows?

Mrs Jackson - You can't do it. It's against the law.

Dr MADILL - I am saying to you that this is one of the things that has been put forward and if that indeed is the reason it is the end of the argument - that is the sort of information we need. This is the sort of thing that I thought would be in the second reading speech because, firstly, I asked the Attorney-General, who I incorrectly thought had carriage of this, if he would provide extra information to this side of the House; that we had concerns about it. Unfortunately that has not been forthcoming. These are the sorts of things that concerned people in and around the Launceston General Hospital; people who have a genuine concern have put forward to us, and the role of the Opposition surely is to represent their concerns.

The second big concern is: will it disturb grave sites? We have not seen any planned proposal. To what depth will this construction go? From what I am told it will overlay grave sites, but is that the only disturbance that there will be? What in fact are the details of the proposal, because again these are questions that people are asking, and I can say to them I think -

Mr Jim Bacon - That's why we are doing the amendments, so the council can have the full planning approval process and everyone can have their say -

Mr Hidding - Yes, but that's not how it works, Jim, in planning. If you go for a rezone, they've got to ask you what it is for, what is the building going to look like.

Mr Green - What does a helipad look like?

Mr Hidding - Okay, wait till I -

Mr Jim Bacon - It's a spread bit of concrete with a big circle with a cross on it, I think.

Mr Hidding - And what are its foundations?

Mr Jim Bacon - Concrete.

Mr Hidding - How deep?

Dr MADILL - Be sensible. The average person does not know what a helipad construction is.

Mrs Jackson - Oh, if they watch ER on television they'd know.

Dr MADILL - The proposal is to put it where there are graves. There has been a lot of debate in this House in the last few days about Aboriginal sites and how we should respect those. I think it is fairly appropriate that these people -

Mr Patmore - So you oppose it?

Dr MADILL - Do not be silly! You did not hear what we said at the outset. We are asking questions and we think it is reasonable that those questions be answered.

Mr Patmore - Just come out and say you oppose it.

Dr MADILL - We are asking questions on behalf of people who have raised it. That is the job of Opposition in this place.

Mr Patmore - Do you support it or oppose it?

Dr MADILL - These are not unreasonable questions at all.

Mrs Jackson - You should know the answers, though.

Dr MADILL - These are not unreasonable, none of them. Every one of these is a sensible question and we expect a sensible answer instead of stupid interjections, quite frankly, and I am sure the Premier will give me a sensible answer, in contrast to his members and the nonsense they are carrying on with at the moment.

Mr Patmore - I'll give you a sensible answer too.

Dr MADILL - Mr Speaker, I am pleased to see a positive response from the Premier -

Mr Patmore - And the Attorney-General -

Mr Jim Bacon - And the Attorney.

Mr Patmore - who supports it strongly.

Dr MADILL - We know that there is going to have to - well, I presume, they say there is going to have to be a very old tree removed and some people have got a concern about that. But it is really a question of how much disturbance there is going to be to any existing graves. From the little bit I know about helipads, I would have thought you could have built one certainly without disturbing graves as such, but it would have to overlay them. The construction would have to be sympathetic. I think hopefully if it is possible to have grass growing on it or -

Mr Patmore - It's grassed over.

Dr MADILL - grassed over, or something like this, such that it will not look any different, or very little different to what is there now. It will still be predominantly, as the Premier said, a place of rest, a peaceful place, an undisturbed place for these people, and you can understand why people who have relatives buried there want these questions answered. These are not silly questions; these are serious questions. I have been approached by relatives, in fact by people by the same name as the gardens, to ask these questions. They support in principle, as we do, the establishment of this facility which is so much needed, just as I said at the outset, but they want some answers. I think that is quite reasonable and I hope that - well, I am quite certain, as I said, that the Premier will give us a far more sensible response than the interjections of his members at the moment.

Mr Patmore - No, I will be responding.

Dr MADILL - So, Mr Speaker, having raised those matters, as I said, let it be very clear that this House understands that we support the establishment of a helipad facility at Launceston General Hospital. It is long overdue and we must find a way to do this, but I think that we also must make sure that we can answer these questions that are seriously and sensibly put.

Mr Green - You're a great politician, Frank. You've gone right through that without saying you actually support it, which you really do.

Mr HIDDING (Lyons) - I want to make a contribution, but we have not gone into Committee yet, so we are not going to pass it tonight?

Mr Patmore - No, we're not.

Mr SPEAKER - The honourable Attorney-General.

Mr PATMORE (Attorney-General) - Mr Speaker, I thought there was a tradition in this House where the Opposition said whether they supported the bill or opposed it. Have you not made your mind up yet?

Mr Hidding - Well, when you ask questions you want answers.

Mr PATMORE - Well, do you support it or not, or have you not made your mind up?

Mr Hidding - We want some answers.

Mr PATMORE - Well, I will tell you what I support. I support the bill, strongly, as do the incredibly vast majority, and I am incredibly disappointed that you have not had the -

Dr Madill - Now don't misrepresent us.

Mr PATMORE - Well, do you support it or not?

Dr Madill - Don't misrepresent us. You get up and give your contribution.

Mrs Jackson - Do you support it, yes or no?

Mr PATMORE - Do you support the bill or not? I do. The Government does. We are all for it. So you are saying -

Dr Madill - You didn't provide the information required. Quite obviously you're there to play games here today. That's what you're about.

Mr PATMORE - You are saying you might support it? I want an answer. Do you support the bill or not?

Dr Madill - That's how serious you are about this - just to play games in this House rather than provide information. Disgraceful!

Mr PATMORE - How disgraceful! What an absolute shame! A doctor who should know the needs of the hurt and injured and he does not come out and support such a piece of legislation. Dear me! Absolute disgrace!

Mr Hidding - Fancy an opposition asking questions!

Mr PATMORE - And you - a person who represents rural people who are the ones who are going to make use of this facility and you do not support it.

Mr Hidding - Oh yes, I do.

Dr Madill - We just said we supported it.

Mr PATMORE - So you do. Thank you very much. Finally the Opposition supports the bill - hallelujah! Now we can get down to the reasonable answers -

Mr Hidding - We want some answers before we vote.

Mr PATMORE - So you support the bill but you would like some answers.

Mr Hidding - Yes, because that's our job on this side of the House.

Mr PATMORE - Fine, I will supply you the answers. The first thing is the alternative sites.

Mr Hidding - We represent all Tasmanians.

Mr PATMORE - Oh look, that is wonderful, so do we. Alternative sites - you already knew the answer to that.

Mr SPEAKER - Order. Are there any adjournment issues?

Resumed from 20 October 1999

Mr PATMORE (Bass - Attorney-General) - Mr Deputy Speaker, last week we had an agreement in relation to the bill but the Opposition had some questions. What I wanted to do today was deal very briefly with some of the questions that were raised by the Opposition and particularly the questions of alternative sites and the question of disturbance of grave sites at the site. I believe that the questions can best be answered by some quotes from a letter by Mr C. Merridew, the staff specialist in anaesthesia at the Launceston General Hospital, who is also director of the Tasmanian Medical Retrieval Service - he wrote a letter last year which dealt with some of the issues that were raised.

I will just read part of this letter. I do not think there is a need to go into great detail in relation to this but it does answer the questions that were raised by the Opposition. He states:

'Direct helicopter access to the LGH is crucial in the management of a multi-casualty incident anywhere in the Northern half of Tasmania.'

He states:

'The ability to deliver a substantial number of patients to the LGH by helicopter without the need for a road ambulance in Launceston avoids the unnecessary deaths and prolonged hospitalisation imposed upon the final evacuees from the incident by needing a road ambulance in Launceston. The approximate benefit of the proposal is of halving the death rate among patients with injuries survivable if treatment in good time by the use of the pad.

Relevant multiple-casualty incidents include transport accidents, industrial disasters, building collapse, bushfire, or civil mayhem, and can be expected to collectively occur about once every 10 - 15 years.

The pad has many less-absolute benefits, including reducing road traffic at the Department of Emergency Medicine entrance, allowing speedy transport from the LGH to an incident, and improving accessibility to the LGH for single casualties.'

He then answers some questions and he states why the use of a road ambulance in Launceston is of such importance. He states that there are several reasons as follows:

'For each helicopter using a landing site which requires a road ambulance, one road ambulance is excluded from any other use.

Each road ambulance thus employed is unavailable for any other purpose ...'

And he states:

'For an accident occurring say at Campbell Town in good weather in daylight with 20 casualties, the difference between requiring road ambulance use in Launceston between where the helicopter lands and the Hospital, and not requiring the ambulance, doubles the time at the scene for the final casualties to be evacuated.

The situation is more extreme the further away from Launceston the incident is located. At either St Helens or in the Cradle Mountain area the time spent at the scene by the last casualties to be removed becomes 16 hours if each helicopter landing in Launceston needs a road ambulance, instead of eight hours if no road ambulance is required at Launceston.'

He also talks about hypothermia and states:

'Hypothermia is an ever-present hazard for all people left in the elements in Tasmania throughout the year, except on some summertime days. It is always a problem at night, regardless of the season, and more extreme at winter. A patient with an eminently survivable injury, such as a broken leg, becomes increasingly likely to develop multiple organ failure, to require Intensive Care Unit admission, and/or to die, the longer left out in the elements. Left in the Tasmanian winter for 16 hours, most patients with a broken leg would die, and any survivors would spend days to weeks in the Intensive Care Unit.'

He also states:

'Additional lifting of each patient into and out of an ambulance, and on and off the ambulance stretcher are imposed upon each patient. Critically-ill patients are made worse by even such seemingly-small extra interface.'

Mr Speaker, he then goes on to answer other questions and question 14 is: will the graves be disturbed by placing the helipad site as proposed by the hospital? The answer he gives is, no:

'The reinforced concrete pad will sit on the ground above the graveyard, with soil filling in at the edges of the concrete so there is no step. The graves will be more secure, not less.'

As to the question: 'What about the restrictions in the relevant act of parliament relating to disused cemeteries being quiet places of quiet recreational use?', he states:

'The question appears to centre on what is meant by "quiet recreational use". In the expected annual use of the helipad site at a likely time-on-ground of less than five minutes per case, a maximum of about one hour of helicopter operation per year would be anticipated, apart from use in multiple casualty events once every 10 years or so.

On the other hand, the park undergoes lawn-mowing, say, 20 times a year, for presumably about two hours a time. In addition, trucks from time-to-time are driven onto the park or its paths, for the purpose of moving gardening and other apparatus, and for emptying rubbish bins. Assuming that the time per year of lawn-mowing and other maintenance activities is about 50 hours, during those 50 hours the park is not available for solely "quiet recreational use".

Does one hour of helicopter use per year constitute greater disruption to the park and possible contravention of the Act than do the 50 hours of park maintenance per year?'

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that is a very valid point that the staff specialist in anaesthesia refers to. I think he has quite clearly shown that, in fact, the helipad site will save lives.

I then refer the House to the report that was provided by the hospital. It was written in May 1998 and it was a proposal for a helipad to provide for aeronautical evacuation at Ockerby Gardens, Launceston. It states:

'The optimal site for helicopter landings in terms of hospital access would be on the North East corner of the Hospital adjacent to the Department of Emergency Medicine (Site 1). This would be at the intersection of Charles and Frankland Streets. However, with the existing power lines, a restricted approach path, vehicles likely to be parked in both streets and the need to close a major thoroughfare including the road ambulance access to the hospital, for the duration of helicopter operations, this site is impractical. Helicopter landings have been undertaken at the North West corner of the Hospital in and around the lower car park (Site 3) but there is considerable risk to the helicopter crew and the casualty and Hospital staff in the vicinity of the landing site. Operation from this site involve vertical landings and take off, as well as hovering slightly above ground level due to the slope of the ground and the inability to remove parked cars from the vicinity. This site and its resultant landing procedures is seen as compromising safety. Sites on the Northern side of the Hospital are considered unsatisfactory ...'

Mr Speaker, it then talks about the Ockerby Gardens site and states that the helipad at the recommended location will only occupy a small area, 100 square metres, of the gardens' approximately 14 000 square metres - that is, less than 1 per cent of the total area.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it states:

'Public access to and use of Ockerby Gardens will only be marginally affected by the helipad itself.'

It then refers to the heritage significance of the park. It states:

'No item listed in the Heritage Code of the Planning Scheme will be substantially affected. Ockerby Gardens is listed in the Code, but none of the key heritage values of the garden will be affected.

The gardens have undergone substantial changes in recent years including:

removal of fences
vegetation plantings
installation of play equipment
upgrading of pathways and accesses
construction of retaining walls.

A number of these have resulted in substantial changes to the character of the gardens presumably without significant impact on its heritage values. The proposed helipad will have less effect than most of the above changes. It will not affect any item listed as having heritage value and its refusal on these grounds would not be justified.'

I think that has in fact answered many of the questions that the Opposition have raised in that it will not disturb the grave sites; it is the only appropriate site by way of safety and, in fact, as put forward, the specialist in anaesthesia has quite clearly stated that this pad is in fact necessary for safety and will in fact save lives, no so much in the Launceston area where a road ambulance would be used, but in areas such as Campbell Town, St Helens, Cradle Mountain, those areas of rural Tasmania which will in fact mean a greater response time and lives being saved. So, Mr Speaker, of course, I fully support the bill.

Mr HIDDING (Lyons - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I think what we have seen just in this speech now from the Attorney-General is a good example of how this House can work properly on occasions, notwithstanding some of the bollocking we got last week when we asked some serious questions on this.

What actually happens on this side of the House, for those of you who have already forgotten in such a short period of time, is that we have to ask questions on behalf of people. Even if we have a view as to what those answers might be, they request us to ask these questions and so there was a long list of questions put forward by my colleague, the honourable Frank Madill, and placed on the record. There is probably a case here for second readings to be suspended for a period to actually allow the sort of answers that we just got to a range of questions that were put by my colleague; they were serious questions and we got serious answers, and I think they were very well answered indeed.

I would like to speak generally about the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that is to say that we agree with I think most of what that senior medical identity based at the Launceston General Hospital has to say about all of that and we always have. From my point of view I have been involved for some time in this issue of emergency medical services and the search and rescue helicopter, and I have been very aware of the necessity for not just a helipad at the LGH but also a network of helipads around Tasmania.

There is an offer here from a service club to build one for nothing and so that requires us, as a House, to think a little laterally to see if we cannot make that happen. In this case I agree very much with the previous speaker in saying that this helipad is not for the people of Launceston. The chances of a person who lives in Launceston actually having benefited from the helipad are less, even though they could be a passenger or a driver of a car on the way to Hobart and be in a dreadful accident and have to be transported that way, but it is more likely that people who live in the country of Tasmania in the northern half of the State will benefit from that helipad.
So what we are saying here to the people who live in the City of Launceston who are obviously very attached to the lovely tree that grows where the helipad needs to go is that there is an element of sacrifice here. There are people who say, 'No way in the world should that tree come down for a helipad' but there is an element of sacrifice and I do call upon anybody in Launceston with that view to think about the wider community out there in regional Tasmania who will without question benefit from this helipad.

I have been at some of the best helicopter operations in this nation and spent time in the operations and in the air, and I am very aware of this concept of the Golden Hour. I am not sure if that is what they call it around the world but certainly the Australian paramedics, these very brave people who go out in these helicopters call it the Golden Hour. If they are able to get to the accident and get those people in the operating theatre in the trauma unit within that one hour then the chances of that person surviving even horrendous injuries are very high indeed, if they can get them there in that hour. You cannot imagine a circumstance whereby in that Golden Hour, especially if it was marginal getting the chopper there in the first place, that parking the thing at Royal Park and transferring into an ambulance, trundling off to the hospital, out of the ambulance and into the trauma unit is going to do the patient one scrap of good. So when we have an opportunity to correct this situation we should take that opportunity and that is what is before us now.

There have been some views put about where the helicopter should go; there are a number of differing views out in the community quite rightly raised by my colleague, and that has been well answered I think by the Attorney-General, the member for Bass and somebody who has a long interest in the Launceston General Hospital including some of its broom cupboards.

The helicopter really can only land at that spot because that is where the helicopter pilots have looked at it and for lots of reasons, including windshear, including the updraft of wind in streets and wires and approach paths, it has been worked out that that is the only place for it to go. In an ideal world if you had millions of dollars you might strengthen the roof, you might put in a lift shaft to the roof, you might do all of these wonderful things, but we do not. There is no budget for this and we have a community organisation that is prepared to spend a small amount of money to make this happen.

We have asked behind the scenes if the Government has a copy of the plans for this helipad and that is because we have had people come to us who have relatives buried there - ancestors I suppose - because it was not that long ago people were being interred there at Ockerby Gardens. It seems to me that those people are genuinely concerned about whether any excavation is going to actually disturb those graves. I believe that would be an unconscionable act by any developer, any hospital, any council who wanted to build a helipad and any thought that for construction purposes you needed big piers to go under this to give it support, when you have graves in the area, I believe that is not something that ought to be contemplated.

We propose an amendment and in the Committee stage we will be proposing - in the absence of any plans, and we did ask the member for Bass, Mr Patmore, if he could show us some plans so we could develop a view on this that was consistent with the Government's but that was ignored -

Mr Jim Bacon - Because that's to go through the planning process; that's the whole point of it.

Mr HIDDING - That is right but if you actually researched the planning process a little better you would realise that in many cases where there is, for instance, a rezoning or a departure from a scheme there are sometimes conditions attached.

Mr Jim Bacon - And that may well happen during the planning process; all we're doing is allowing the planning process to happen.

Mr HIDDING - That is right except it is in the hands of this House to change the current scheme to allow a council to consider it. I believe that if it is in our hands to change the scheme to allow them to consider it then it is also in our hands to put one or two conditions on, and what I am proposing is a very small condition that perhaps would not have been necessary at all if the Government had shared with us any plans or any drawings for this helipad. Okay, I will not belabour the point about that -

Mr Llewellyn - Well, what condition are you putting on it?

Mr HIDDING - Simply a condition and if the Government has a view that it will not quite work or whatever, we are prepared to be educated about that. But it seems to us that the concerns of all those people - and there are many - who have signed petitions and things can be accommodated by a pad that does not require any excavation deeper than two feet or 600 mm. I would hope that nothing would be required but I know enough about construction to say that in order to give it some substance some formwork would be required and you would hope that a strip of concrete 600 mm deep would be enough to do that.

That is, to a degree, small comfort to those people who do not want anything there at all but we are saying to those people, 'Yes, we have considered your point of view. Our judgment is that there ought to be a helipad on that site, notwithstanding the fact that there is a tree there that needs to be cut down, notwithstanding the fact that there is a provision for quiet enjoyment of the property' - because that has been well answered by the Attorney-General. We want to give a little measure of comfort to these people, to say that nothing in this measure today will allow any council or any developer to sink piers down into the vicinity of graves in this area.

I suppose the Government is going to say, 'Of course they would not do that; that's a horrendous thought.' Well, the fact is that we have a duty to consider measures and amendments to measures that are wise and that do not allow certain things to happen. We believe on this side of the House that we would not be able to look these people in the eye, who came to us, if we did not attempt to amend this legislation to ensure that there was only a shallow beam dug in the earth to prop up this helipad, this very minor construction. I may be about to hear from the Government that only 300 mm is required but we are prepared to listen to whatever that might be and in the Committee stage we will seek to amend it if it is necessary.

There are many occasions where a council, for instance, has an area zoned as general commercial and there is an application to rezone it to, say, light industrial because a use is not allowed for a particular enterprise that is in mind there. A council or other planning body might look at that and say, 'Yes, we will allow that change from that to that as long as it's no bigger than x and no higher than y '. That is a perfectly normal condition to place on a rezoning application so therefore this is a perfectly normal proposition that we seek to put this down.

We recognise that the families of people who are buried there do consider that a helicopter on that site may disturb the quiet enjoyment of those gardens. I agree very much with what the Attorney-General has said; it is likely that it would be no more than an hour a year when you add it all together. But even if it was two or three hours a year, because I hope very much that the new helicopter that our Minister for Police is arranging for this State will have the capacity to be able to improve the emergency medical service to Tasmanians simply by its capacity. It is a bigger machine, it will be able to fly at night and through cloud and it will be able to go to the sites of accidents and pick up two or three patients at a time, not like now where it does one patient at a time. Recently at Pipers River someone very sick had to be left on the roadside while they took one in and came back and got the other. It is time it changed - and I am not putting pressure on the minister, I know he has his problems and I know he will sort it out, I have every confidence in him -

Mr Llewellyn - Tenders are closed now.

Mr HIDDING - Oh, are they, so you are about to announce something. Terrific.

Mr Llewellyn - No, not yet. I've got to assess it now.

Mr HIDDING - Good. We look forward to an announcement in -

Mr Jim Bacon - Moving along with due speed and due haste.

Mr HIDDING - That is right. We look forward to an announcement in due course but I have to say that with a machine that improves the ability to bring in injured people by probably a factor of three or four - yes, there is going to be more use of a helipad, you would think. But it still only gets up into the realm of an hour or two a year that you have this machine going whop, whop over this park.

I have also spoken to people who have ancestors buried there who are not offended by that idea at all. I spoke to somebody who feels that if good, quick medical care is being provided by the fact of that being there then that is a good thing.

On this side of the House we support this legislation. We recognise there are to a degree winners and losers in this. There are some people who will not come with us all the way on this. We hope that by our amendment in Committee we may be able to take some of the sting out of that and we hope that this thing gets built pretty quickly.

Mrs JAMES (Bass) - I rise to support this bill. There is a very real problem particularly where there are multivictim accidents. I think those present may remember the multiple victim accident at the railway crossing at Conara not a great while ago which tied up just about every ambulance about the place. Time is critical in saving lives. I think helicopters at the moment use Royal Park but again this involves the use of an ambulance or more than one ambulance.
There is a very real problem where people were hoping that other sites could be found. This has not been possible, Mr Eric Bock offered his car park in Howick Street which is very close by but again it involved the use of an ambulance and time in these cases may very well save lives. Most of us here have received communication or some contact from people who have relatives buried in Ockerby Gardens. My aunt who is 93 informs me that I also have ancestors buried there. I am sure that they would wish to see lives saved even if they do have a slab of concrete over them. I do not think the dead are likely to hear helicopters and it is more about saving lives; you cannot bring back the dead.

I think that it is very important that this project goes ahead but at the same time it may be worthy of consideration that some special plaque is placed in the vicinity of the helipad which gives details of the people who are buried beneath the helipad. This may be of some consolation to know the contribution which has been made by their ancestors and I think it would be an ongoing tribute to the concessions which they will necessarily make if plans proceed as is intended. I am sure if I were beneath that concrete it would not be making the slightest bit of difference, and for any family whose people do happen to be there I think they can feel very grateful that they have been able to make that sort of contribution to saving lives.

Mrs Bladel - I wouldn't like to think of a helicopter landing on you, Gill.

Mrs SWAN (Lyons) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to just offer a few comments following some statements that I made on the adjournment several weeks ago about this particular matter, and it is a matter that is, I suppose, difficult for the Government to achieve a happy balance in. No-one argues the need for the helipad. It is quite obvious that there is a need for that to be proximate to the hospital. It is also quite obvious that it needs to be in a position which is safe so that the transition of patients into the hospital itself is achieved quickly and conveniently. Obviously, judging from the words of the Attorney-General, there has been consideration given to a number of sites, including the site on the corner of Franklin Street which I think was favoured by some aldermen in the Launceston City Council, as I recall, as being something that might have been appropriate for the use of a helicopter but it was seen that at that stage of course the overhead powerlines would need to be removed and there was indeed a problem with the closure of a street as a result of the use of that site. But notwithstanding there are a group of people in Launceston who feel very strongly indeed about the matter, and I guess that is the matter that the Government has had to balance in the consideration they have given to this bill.

However, we intend in Committee, as my colleagues indicated to you, to move an amendment which we hope will go some way to protect the interests of these people, because they have a feeling that these grave sites ought not to be disturbed, and I suppose if we are talking about matters, as we have been in recent times, to do with the recognition and sanctity, I suppose, of ancestors, whether they be black or white, then there is a special inference drawn from the work that was done with regard to Wybalenna just recently and the recognition that was given quite properly to that site as historic, as important to the Aboriginal community, and as a site that needed to be treated with respect, which we in the House all agreed was entirely appropriate. I think those in the general community would agree with us completely that it is appropriate that we have full recognition of the respect with which a community views a site such as a cemetery and ergo of course we made those arrangements with regard to Wybalenna which everybody was delighted with because it was, as I say, appropriate and right that the site needed to be recognised in that fashion.

But here is a site that is no less a site in many respects. It has graves - I think, in the order of about 350 - many of them having people buried there who have had long association in the past with the history of early Launceston and the setting up of Launceston. A great number of families still living in the city who have people buried in that cemetery, wish to accord them appropriate rights by respecting that site in perpetuity if possible, and of course the miscellaneous provisions in the Local Government Act made special recognition of that site in order to accord it due recognition, as we accord due recognition to all cemeteries around the State where they are marked out and understood to be there. This is something that we all recognise as a society to be appropriate.

Thus it is, of course, that the Government finds itself in the position where they have to balance what is quite clearly an important medical matter, where we have to get people to the hospital quickly and where the Attorney has already clearly pointed out that time can in fact be of the absolute essence because the number of hours taken roading people in by ambulance can of course be the difference between life and death, and that is something which none of us wish to see occur simply because we cannot supply an appropriate landing site for a helicopter. But notwithstanding that, there are the concerns, as I have earlier said, expressed by these people with respect to that site itself. As my colleagues has already said, we intend to move this amendment in order to do something to mitigate the use of this area as a helipad.

I know that when the people spoke with me originally they had a feeling that there may have been some potential to use the gardens simply as they were - that there might have been some chance to land a helicopter, much as I understand a helicopter is landed on the Domain and that it may not have been necessary to cover the area with anything at all. Now, of course, I am not aware of the construction requirements. It may well be and it has been indicated that there is a necessity to have a pad of concrete over the surface of the garden. Of course the Attorney has said that that area will be only a very small patch in the 14 000 square metres that is occupied by the gardens, but nonetheless it is still a matter of respect. He has given us argument with regard to the lawn-mowing hours and the transit of trucks over the gardens, but quite clearly that is not the same as a full-scale helicopter and the use of a helicopter doing something which is quite different from the use of the gardens as a recreational facility and that argument is a little hard to countenance.

Notwithstanding that, the view of the people is that if there were some protection for those graves, if in fact the pad were to sit on top of the grass and that it were not to intrude below the surface to any great degree so that the graves themselves were not disturbed - this is, I suppose, the essence of the argument. They have a very strong view indeed that those grave sites ought not to be disturbed - that is their feeling and as culturally we have recognised the significance of Wybalenna so we ought to be able to extend our argument to encompass those people who belong to the European background and recognise that there are many of them who have concerns in this regard, a no less proper argument to put and no less proper for the House to recognise when it looks at this particular development.

So in speaking to the issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, I simply say that I do recognise the feelings of those people involved. If we can in fact achieve a construction that protects those sites by not having any intrusion below the surface of the ground then that obviously would meet with their full approval and would accord the dignity to those graves that they wish to be accorded. Therefore I look forward to my colleague moving that amendment during the Committee stage.

In conclusion I simply understand the position the Government finds itself in. It is a balance between the need for medical security to be employed; that is obviously essential for those who are living, but it is also important for those who are living to accord due right and recognition to the people who are buried in this grave site and I would urge the Government when the amendment is brought forward to give very clear consideration to the importance that is being placed by those people on that site with regard to the issue of dignity and proper respect for their ancestors. I believe it is a very proper concern.

Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their comments and we have, I think, now established that the Opposition does support this legislation and I am grateful for that support.

The Attorney, I think, has answered all of the questions that were raised last week and I take by the nods of members opposite that that is so. Certainly, alternative sites have been considered in relation to this matter but none is as suitable in the view of the people who are the experts in this - that is, the medical people at the LGH, the ambulance service, the helicopter pilots - none is as suitable as this particular site. I assume the Attorney referred to it, but in fact, I saw a recent suggestion that either a new car park be built and we could land on top of that or we could land on top of some other building -

Mr Hidding - Well, we can do that when we build a new car park.

Mr JIM BACON - Yes - but in fact my advice is that a car park or hospital rooftop helipad has been ruled out by pilots on the basis that single engine aircraft are prohibited from landing on structures because of limited power reserves.

Dr Madill - Isn't the new helicopter going to be a twin engine?

Mr JIM BACON - Yes, certainly, a twin-engine rescue helicopter may well be available and that would overcome that. However I think both members opposite have made the point that in a serious incident it may well happen that other helicopters are brought in to assist and thereby negating the whole purpose of what we are doing because, yes, the twin-engine helicopter may be able to land somewhere but the others may not. There is, I think, in the view of everyone who has looked at this in some detail really no alternative site that has the same advantages as this site.

Can I say from the outset the Government does recognise that any site that has been used as a grave site will be of particular personal interest to people who have ancestors who are buried there - we accept that. But I would point out that it is some time since all the headstones were removed from Ockerby Gardens to Carr Villa, that in fact it is only a very small part of the former cemetery that is to be used for this helipad. I can certainly say that on all the available information from the LGH, from the service organisations, everyone in Launceston, there is no possibility of graves being disturbed whilst this helipad is being constructed.

But can I point out, because we will be opposing the amendment - not that I oppose some of the arguments that the member has put forward - but we will be opposing it because in fact the whole point of this legislation is to allow the normal planning process to be applied to this project and to proceed, remembering that it was the Launceston City Council that requested this amendment to be made to allow for them to deal with the application for the helipad. I am quite certain that one of the considerations that will be given to the planning application will be the question of the depth of the helipad.

I am assured that on all our advice - and we have tried to check again with the hospital - there would be no possibility of this involving excavation to anything like 600 millimetres, no possibility. I have some drawings here and they show all sorts of measurements except -

Dr Madill - The depth.

Mr JIM BACON - the depth. I am advised the reason for that is that if anything the pad will be built up rather than down and then will have sides sloping away. Most of the area will be the block paving that the grass will grow through again to further lessen the impact on the site. Just from the little knowledge I have about concrete and concrete being poured I would think it would be highly unlikely -

Mr Hidding - Or not being poured.

Mr JIM BACON - Or not being poured. I think it would be entirely of no purpose on a ten by ten concrete pad to have footings that are going down in any part of it to any depth much deeper than the pad itself because the whole purpose of the pad is to spread the weight of the helicopter on it. I am very confident and I can say with assurance that in fact there is no concern about graves being disturbed or about excavation to any significant depth at all. In fact as I understand it, it is basically a pad to be poured on the top of the ground as it currently is. As I have said attempts will be made to make sure that with the other sort of paving, the grass growing back, that there is as little disturbance to the site as possible.

I thank members for their comments and support. I take it that the Opposition does want to proceed with the amendments, so I now move that you leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to further consider the bill.

Bill read the second time.