House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Hospital Funding HOSPITAL FUNDING Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Norwood Leader of the Opposition HOSPITAL FUNDING Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is to the Premier. Why is it that, following a public campaign run by the Victorian Liberal government, Victorian hospitals will claw back $107 million of federal Labor's health funds, while South Australia has run no campaign on this, and so will claw back nothing? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Minister for State Development Minister for the Public Sector Minister for the Arts HOSPITAL FUNDING The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:10): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think he has been buying some of the propaganda that's been sent across the border by the Premier of Victoria. My advice is that they receive no such benefit, and, in fact, the net position for the Victorian government is that it doesn't improve materially at all as a consequence of the changes made. Remember what actually was at the heart of this: there was a dispute that arose between the Victorian government and the commonwealth government, essentially, about this question of funding in relation to hospitals. The essence of the dispute is that the Victorian government was slashing and burning in its hospital sector, just as those opposite would do if they ever got in the treasury benches. So, what they— The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing order 98—debate. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: It may have been debate. The Premier, no debate. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, sir. What occurred is that they sought to blame the federal government or provide some cover for the fact that they were slashing and burning their state public sector and the health sector by seeking to shift responsibility to the federal government. So, a massive dispute has arisen in that particular area, as I understand it, that the net effect on Victoria and indeed the commonwealth would be budget neutral in the first instance. However, over time, there might be a fiscal equalisation effect which could be adverse to Victoria's share of the GST, given that it is receiving a greater share of hospital funding, which impacts on GST share calculations and also a reduced share of the reward payments, which are excluded from GST share calculations. I think what we are seeing there is a bit of petty politics that we are likely to see in this period leading up to the federal election, as all of the Liberal states on the eastern seaboard seek to pile into the commonwealth and try and camouflage their cuts to their state public sector by seeking to shift responsibility to the commonwealth. So, don't get sucked into it; it's just a game that's being played by the Eastern States.