Contents
-
Commencement
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
-
Bills
-
-
Address in Reply
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Ministerial Statement
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Parliamentary Committees
-
-
Question Time
-
-
Grievance Debate
-
-
Address in Reply
-
-
Ministerial Statement
-
-
Address in Reply
-
-
Bills
-
Health Budget
The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (14:31): Can the Minister for Health guarantee that no health service will be negatively impacted by the South Australian Labor government's proposed $1,000 million cuts to the health budget across the forward estimates?
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health.
The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Health Industries) (14:31): I am very happy the member for Davenport should ask this question, because the Hon. Rob Lucas has been going around telling anyone who will listen that the state government has planned $1 billion worth of cuts to health. He cites evidence given by the chief executive of the Department of Health to the Budget and Finance Committee.
I have checked the relevant Hansard from the Budget and Finance Committee, and the chief executive officer of the Department of Health says no such thing. The Hon. Mr Lucas has pulled the figures out of thin air. He has completely made it up—completely made it up—as is his wont. The Hon. Mr Lucas will peddle any nonsense to anyone who will listen. It is complete and utter nonsense, and I am happy to refer members opposite.
The member for Davenport should know better. He has known the Hon. Mr Lucas for a long time. They are friends and colleagues. They were architects of the most recent election campaign. The member for Davenport should know better than to listen to and take the advice of the Hon. Mr Lucas, or believe any word—any word—that comes out of the mouth of the Hon. Mr Lucas.
The SPEAKER: Before I grant a supplementary question, I call the members for Stuart and Hartley to order. The member for Stuart's offence was a couple of questions back, in case he was wondering. The member for Mount Gambier is warned a second and final time, and it would not be good to be such a new member and to be removed from the house so soon—unless, of course, that is the reputation he wishes to have. There is a supplementary question from the member for Davenport.