Health Budget

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:34): As a supplementary to the Premier, can the Premier outline to the house which hospitals the government is currently considering closing?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (15:34): Mr Speaker, the member, obviously, subtly misrepresents my answer in his question. Of course, our first objective is to hold this federal government to account for the cut. That is why, tomorrow, we will be convening a further forum of those stakeholders who have been adversely affected by the cuts. Our hospital workers, our teachers, their representatives, their professional associations and national bodies will be convening in Adelaide for us to recommence this campaign.

We have tried the constructive way with this federal government. We have tried to offer constructive solutions. We haven't just gone to them with a problem that is their cut. We have accepted that they have massive revenue challenges. We have tried to open up possible lines of inquiry for a solution. They don't want that. For some reason they are incapable of entering that dialogue with us, so we must now increase the pressure on them so that they pay a political price for this cut, because we are simply not going to bear it. We are not going to bear it here without asking and shifting the responsibility for this cut to where it precisely belongs.

What taking responsibility means is speaking honestly to the people of this state and the nation about what the challenges are, not misleading them, not slipping and sliding depending on what political fashion or mood takes you, wherever those opposite see the political opportunity. If those opposite had any degree of candour and honesty with the people of South Australia they would accept this basic fact. If they were sitting over here they would be advancing—

Mr PISONI: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Points of order are better made by members with clean hands.

Mr PISONI: By continually referring to 'those opposite' the Premier is engaging in debate.

The SPEAKER: No; in fact, referring to members opposite is an old, old parliamentary custom. I do not uphold the point of order. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Can I say, Mr Speaker, an honest way of approaching this debate would be that anyone sitting on this side of the chamber would be engaging in the sorts of changes that we are promoting through Transforming Health to seek efficiencies, to seek the very efficiencies that the Leader of the Opposition says that we should be making in the system. Anyone sitting on this side of the chamber would be exploring, in partnership with clinicians, improvements in quality which gain efficiencies in the system. If those opposite were honest with themselves, if they were sitting here they would be doing the same thing that we are doing—they would be. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If you, for a moment, put aside your political caps and asked yourself, if you were sitting here you would be seeking the same—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You would be. This is why nobody actually believes them, Mr Speaker, because they are not prepared to speak honestly and with candour to the people of South Australia.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: the Premier is certainly debating the substance of the question now.

The SPEAKER: Well, he is, but he has been provoked by a wall of sound from members on my left—is that okay, member for Unley? So, I warn for the second and final time the leader, the member for Kavel and the member for Morialta. I warn for the first time the members for Unley, Hammond and Finniss, and I call to order the member for Davenport. Is the Premier finished?

Mr Pengilly: I reckon he is.

The SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is warned for the second and final time.