HEALTH BUDGET

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:56): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the Department of Health's overspend for 2008-09 and details of the extra funds Health received in 2008-09 from cabinet approvals? The Under Treasurer told the Budget and Finance Committee on 30 June 2008:

Health have typically overspent their budget in recent years...There was an issue one year whether we showed it as an overspend in the last period before 30 June when cabinet appropriated more funds. So, technically, they did not overspend because they got the money.

The Under Treasurer confirmed to the Budget and Finance Committee on 27 July 2009 that the Department of Health overspent its 2008-09 budget and received extra funds totalling between $50 million and $100 million.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Federal/State Relations) (14:57): The overspending by the health department has been a feature not only for the seven years that we have been in office but also, I guess, the eight years of the previous government and, one would probably suggest, the best part of the 11 years of the previous government.

We call it an overspend, and that is technically the correct terminology, but it is not an overspend characterised by wilful or inappropriate spending, in the main; it is through the sheer demand levels that we have through our hospital system. One of the great problems confronting western societies, and particularly jurisdictions such as South Australia where our demographic is higher than the average age, is that health costs are rising anywhere between 9 and 11 per cent per year, compounding. I think in the last couple of years we have brought that down closer to 9 per cent, but this is a galloping figure.

When I went to COAG with the Premier, and all other premiers and treasurers to negotiate a new health care agreement, I, for one, was not satisfied that that was the best health agreement with the commonwealth that the states could have struck.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Pardon?

Mr Williams: Are you going to answer the question?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg will come to order.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am trying to give a considered response to an important question. Look at her—look at the face on her! She wants me to sit down. Does the deputy leader want me to sit down? Are you happy with my answer?

Mr Griffiths: I want to hear the rest of the answer.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, the deputy leader is happy with my answer. You are not deputy leader any more, Vickie.

Members interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I have a point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. The member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: I understand that standing orders say that members should be addressed by their electorate.

The SPEAKER: Yes, you are right.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order. I understand interjections are also out of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Interjections are out of order, as is responding.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The shadow finance minister, the deputy leader, is keen to hear my answer. I say to the member for Unley, give this guy a chance. Give him a break before you start to knife him—

Ms Chapman: I'm the member for Bragg.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The member for Bragg, give him a chance before you start to knife him; all right. Let him have a chance.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: All right; no, I am getting to that.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: They do not want to hear the answer. Do they want to hear it or not? I mean, what I am getting to is an explanation that the health care agreement that the states and the commonwealth signed, in my opinion, was not satisfactory. In fact, the Premier and I made that very clear both to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer at the time.

Mr Williams: Just tell us what the answer is.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will come to order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Will you just let me answer it and then make a judgment whether or not I have answered the question? I remember John Brumby hailing it as the greatest deal ever. I had a different opinion, because the demand in our health system at a state level is of such magnitude that it is at breaking point in the state's capacity to meet that demand. Previously, historically, the split had been 50:50. Under Howard, the split had gone to 60:40, so the state had to make up more of the demand. Minister, what would be it be now, do you think?

The Hon. J.D. Hill: About 60:40.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We are still about 60:40. Therefore, the states collectively are having to pick up a larger proportion of the health care cost than we had previously and it is difficult to manage.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg is warned.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I wish we had the capacity to control the number of people appearing in our emergency services, emergency wards, our elective surgery and our hospitals. I wish there was some magical way, but there is not. Sick people need to be treated.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop has already been warned.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am trying to put into context a very serious pressure—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: They can laugh all they like over there. I mean—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will have an answer for the member. I do not have it with me.

Mr Griffiths: Well, sit down.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I do not have the answer with me and I will—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop will come to order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.