Motions

Repatriation General Hospital

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:30): I move:

That this house—

(a) notes that more than 119,000 people have signed petitions opposing the closure of the Repatriation General Hospital, more than 88,000 of which have ben tabled in this house; and

(b) urges the government to heed the call of the petitioners and the veterans on the steps by reversing its decision to close the Repat.

Haven't the veterans done a great job? They were camped out on the steps of this parliament to make their point, their very important point, that the government of South Australia is doing the wrong thing by the veteran community and, of course, the wrong thing by the people of South Australia with its decision to close the Repatriation General Hospital. Now this is a hospital which is due for closure as soon as July next year. This is a very poor decision and we again implore the government to think over this decision that it has made in haste as part of its Transforming Health—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, out of order.

Mr MARSHALL: —debacle. I am very concerned about health in this state. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital will be opening some time later this year; we are not sure when. Of course, it was already meant to be handed over to the people of South Australia this quarter for trials ahead of an opening in April this year. That is not going to happen; that timeframe is gone; that ship has sailed.

Then it was going to be the middle of the year and now it is going to be the end of the year, if you believe what the government is telling the people of South Australia about the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. One thing we do know is that there is going to be an enormous annual payment to the consortia which has built and will operate the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. That figure is in the order of $400 million per year.

When we look at the health budget going forward, there is no massive uplift by $400 million per year over and above the health inflation index here in South Australia, so it gives us a very clear indication of what the government is really trying to do with regard to Transforming Health. They are going to cut beds, and they are going to cut services here in South Australia to pay for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The minister has come into this place on numerous occasions and said that he would like us to get back to the national average in terms of the number of hospital beds per head of population. On our calculations that is a diminution of hospital beds in South Australia of 840 beds; 840 beds are going to be cut across South Australia as part of the Transforming Health agenda.

We already know that the government has form in this area and they have announced the closure of three hospitals: the Hampstead Rehabilitation Hospital; St Margaret's Convalescent Hospital; and, of course, what we are here to talk about today which is the Repatriation General Hospital.

I think this government has had a long-term agenda to close this hospital. Let's not forget that we had some work which was done and handed down by the Sustainable Budget Commission in August 2010. This Sustainable Budget Commission report, which was handed down after the 2010 general election here in South Australia, recommended to the state government to close the Repat Hospital, so it has been on their agenda for a long period of time.

But let me tell you some of the comments made by this government and their spokespersons at the time about the continuity of service on the Daw Park campus. The first quote that I would like to read is from the former premier of South Australia, the Hon. Mike Rann, who said, and I quote:

The Repat Hospital is here to stay. The Repat Hospital will never, ever be closed by a Labor government.

Never, ever be closed by a Labor government. The Hon. John Hill, and I believe him to be an honourable man, said the suggestion was 'ridiculous' and that 'it's not something that's going to be done by the government.' When it was raised in the Sustainable Budget Commission, John Hill came out and said it was ridiculous and not going to happen. Let's have a look at what minister Snelling had to say in July 2013:

SA Health is dedicated to maintaining the same high level of care that veterans and the local community have come to expect from the Repatriation General Hospital, both now and into the future. The Repatriation General Hospital will continue to specialise in the care of older people and veterans, providing high quality care from the acute stages through to palliative care. It will continue to play a vital role in South Australia's health care system.

That was July 2013, before the state election in March 2014. I suppose the people of South Australia felt pretty reassured that the Repatriation General Hospital was going to continue. You listen to those comments. We had the comments of the former premier that it was never going to close under a Labor government. The former health minister, who at the time was the health minister, said it was ridiculous to suggest that it would close. Jack Snelling himself said that this is going to continue and it is going to continue going forward. Fast forward to the election. What did they say after the election? They maintained their position after the election. On 28 August 2014, the acting minister for health, the Hon. Susan Close, said:

I can assure you that SA Health and the Repatriation General Hospital are dedicated to maintaining the same high level of care the local community have come to expect from this hospital. The Repatriation General Hospital Veteran's Service Guarantee will be upheld and the Repatriation General Hospital will continue to specialise in the care of older people and veterans, providing high quality of care from the acute stages through to palliative care. It will continue to play a critical role in South Australia's health care system.

In November 2014, the minister said that the draft decisions on hospital cuts would be released in December. Everybody waited with bated breath. We were concerned about a cut to our hospitals in South Australia, but then we had a little thing called a by-election. We had the Fisher by-election which was held on 13 December, so instead of announcing the decision regarding the Repatriation General Hospital in December as it was promised, it was pushed off to be announced in January of the following year.

In January 2015 staff were told that there would be an announcement on the future of the Repat on Thursday 15 January. Staff were told to look for new jobs. Staff requests for holidays from March were not being processed. The Davenport by-election was held on 31 January 2015. I am convinced that the delayed announcement of the decision to close the Repat was only because of political opportunism to keep the decision out of the state election in 2014 and out of the public gaze of the two by-elections which were held in December 2014 and January 2015.

What a disgraceful decision this actually was. The people of South Australia love the Repatriation General Hospital. Let me say this: this is not just a hospital for veterans. It has an enormous amount of facilities for all South Australians, especially those in the southern suburbs, and that is why all members in this parliament should be fighting every single day to keep this important facility open.

The current hospital in its current format has 250 hospital beds, and they are not all dedicated to veterans as there are 170,000 outpatient attendances at that hospital each and every year. We continually ask the minister: where are these outpatient services going to be provided? To this point in time we have no understanding whatsoever from this government as to where these services are going? All we know is that services are going to be cut. We do not know where they are going to be provided going forward.

We know that there are in excess of 2,000 transfers from the Flinders Medical Centre each year. What is going to happen when the Repat closes? It is going to further block up the beds which are at the Flinders Medical Centre which are at a regular rate now completely overflowing. We know there is a huge amount of elective surgery done on this site. In fact, Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will be interested to know that 25 per cent of the state's orthopaedic elective surgery is done on this site. Moreover, more than 25 per cent of the state's urological elective surgery is performed on this site each and every year. There is no plan made clear by this government as to where this work is actually going to occur and this is what makes us very concerned about the future of health care in South Australia.

It is not just elective surgery, outpatients and veteran services, there are other services provided on this site which the government either has not told us where it is going to be performed going forward or has said it is going to replicate existing facilities less than one kilometre down the road. Is this a prudent use of the finite state resources that we have in South Australia? I say, no. When you have a look at the facilities there for orthotics and prosthetics, that is going to go. When you have a look at the rehab facilities—I mean, some of the rehab facilities there are absolutely state-of-the-art. The commonwealth and state governments have invested tens of millions of dollars in recent years to build up facilities at that site only to, essentially, turn it over to the wrecking ball or sell it off to developers and then rebuild them down the road.

I am particularly concerned about the government's decision to relocate the Daw House Hospice. You cannot tell me that the same level of care is going to be provided on the fifth floor of a major teaching hospital as you would get at the Daw House Hospice, which is, quite frankly, a pathfinder in terms of palliative care in Australia. Opened in 1988, it is a facility that every single South Australian should be absolutely proud of. It was started by Professor Maddocks, who, by the way, was made the Senior Australian of the Year—nationally, not here in South Australia—recognised for his contribution to palliative care.

It is a backwards step to put this hospice into an institutional environment like a major teaching hospital. I love the fact that somebody who might be visiting a patient who might be in their final days can pull up out the front of a single storey building, walk in, visit their loved one and have a quality experience with them. Is it the same experience to drive into a multilevel car park, get your ticket, navigate your way through a major teaching hospital and then into an institutional setting? It is absolutely suboptimal and, if nothing else, I implore the government to keep the Daw House Hospice continuing on that site and also the outreach services which are organised from that particular place.

The government is hurtling down the path towards the sale of this site. The state Liberals are calling on the Weatherill government to immediately update the South Australian public and, in particular, the veteran community on the expression of interest process for the Repat Hospital site. On 24 December 2015, the day after expression of interest submissions closed, The Advertiser revealed that the RSL SA had lodged a bid as part of a consortium of veteran parties interested in buying the Daw Park site. While no other organisations have been publicly indicated or have publicly indicated their interest in the site, other rumoured bidders include: ACH, Healthscope and the Flinders University—all worthy organisations.

The state Liberals understand that at least one bid includes provision for a private hospital on this site. Last year, the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith, Minister for Veterans' Affairs and acting health minister at the time, promised that the veteran community and the public would 'have the opportunity to have their say' on the proposals outlined in the expression of interest submissions; this is what he made clear to the people of South Australia. The state Liberals are calling on the health minister to answer the following key questions:

Aside from the RSL bid, how many other expression of interest submissions has the government received?

Which organisations have put in a bid for the site or are part of a broader consortium?

How many of the submissions proposed establishing a private hospital on the Daw Park site?

Can the proposals be mixed and matched and, if so, how will this work?

When will the government begin its promised consultation on the expression of interest (EoI) with the community and what form will the consultation take?

Will South Australia Health be consulting separately with the veterans' community on the proposals and, if so, how will this happen and within what time frame?

Is the government considering broadening the EoI process to look at the opportunity to retain SA Health services on the Daw Park site, in particular the PTSD centre as recommended by a cross-party select committee of the Legislative Council?

Deputy Speaker, this is a very important site. Augustinus Krikke and the veterans worked very hard in arduous conditions to collect those signatures. I implore the government to take note of the will of the people of South Australia and do everything it can to keep this important facility open for future generations.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:45): I thank the leader for his contribution. I hope he stays in the chamber for the rest of the debate. Can I express on behalf of the government—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I highlight the convention that all members are always here and that their comings and goings from the chamber should not be noted or speculated upon.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, sir. On behalf of the government, can I note our respect for all petitions and all petitioners and particularly this group of petitioners and say that we take all of these petitions very seriously. I think that every South Australian would have a stake in the future of our health system and would want it to provide the best possible health outcomes given the resources we have available to us.

Of course, this petition was raised in the context of what can only be described as a sort of hysterical scare campaign from those opposite where quite a deal of misinformation, often directed at very vulnerable people, was deployed with a view to securing a political rather than a health outcome. The first responsibility we all have as legislators is to deliver the best possible health care and health outcomes to our constituents, and this petition, but particularly the comments made by the mover of the petition, would have more credibility and carry more weight if the mover had a plan to secure our health for the years going forward as an alternative to that proposed by the government.

The first time I heard about government plans to close the Repat was in the Liberal government during the period 1997 to 2001 of which I was a member. It came forward from the then health minister in the context of a choice given to the then Liberal Party room about whether to close or privatise Modbury or whether to close the Repat. I can say that, as the newly elected member for Waite, I was quite concerned about it at the time—

Ms Chapman: You're not now!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —because there were a lot more veterans using the hospital at the time. Over 50 per cent of them were veterans.

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is called to order.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Now about 7 per cent or 8 per cent of the patients are veterans. It is a far different figure. However, as a local member and I am sure every local member in this chamber would like to have a hospital in their electorate. I was very concerned about it. The Liberal government actually considered closing it. There was a feisty debate and, in the end, the decision was made to effectively close Modbury and it was privatised.

So, the Liberal Party itself understood at the time that there was a need for reform and to outsource or privatise. Its choice was Modbury. The government's choice in the current circumstances has been to make changes elsewhere and that is impacting on the Repat. That is the first point. And I just say that if the Liberals were in government they would be facing the challenges that the government is facing.

That gets me to the context and that is to underpin the point made eloquently by the Premier yesterday when he reminded the house of the $80 billion worth of cuts to health and education that have been inflicted on the states by the Coalition government in Canberra—figures that are repeated by premiers across the state, including the Liberal governments. I refer them to the Auditor-General's Report, again pointed to by the Premier yesterday, where the Auditor-General has confirmed that the total value of cuts to health in South Australia is $655 million. The brutal truth that the leader does not want to address is that funding for health has been cut and health costs are spiralling out of control. I ask the leader: what would he do to secure health outcomes for South Australians? What would be his plan?

Mr Marshall: They're not spiralling out of control.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: He says they are not spiralling out of control. I suggest he get advice on that from the AMA—

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —from the Nurses Federation and from the experts who understand—

The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Mitchell.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —the costs of the health system. If he thinks that the costs of health are not going up, he would be the only person in Australia who thinks so. Ask any professional commentator; the costs of health are the biggest risk—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the leader to order.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —to state and federal budgets across the nation.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: This has been a national debate.

The SPEAKER: I warn the leader.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The leader appears to be missing from that debate. He appears to have no answers. How states will handle health care is a key issue. During World War II, the commonwealth took the taxing powers away from the states in the face of a world war: a crisis. Those taxing powers were never given back. I remember having a conversation with Liberal health ministers federal and state some years ago when I was reminded that the commonwealth does not run a single hospital, a single police station, a single fire station or a single school; it does not run a single prison. The states run all of those things and have to fund them, but the commonwealth gets all the money.

When the leader can explain to the house how he plans to address this crisis, his comments will have greater credibility and carriage. I have recently reviewed the Liberal Party's health policy prior to the last election, and it is a very empty few pages. My understanding is it was never formally announced. It was a series of little announcements during the campaign. It was pretty pathetic.

Mr Tarzia: You supported it.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Actually, the brilliant contribution by the member for Norwood, who is about to have a lesson in history, might come back to bite him, because there is another motion coming, the substance of which I will not address.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Sorry, the member for Hartley, I beg your pardon. There is no member for Norwood anymore, and I am sure—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —there won't be in its current guise after the next election.

The SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is warned.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I just make the point that I was the shadow health minister for some time, and I might say a pretty effective one. Just ask members on this side.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is called to order, as is the member for Hammond.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I handed that responsibility over to the Leader of the Opposition, whereupon the issues tended to vanish away. I will talk more about that. I would have talked more about that on 14 April, because I note there is another motion on the paper which attacks me. It is from the leader. Of course, he has moved it when he knows we have a trade mission to China, so I will not be here.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I would say, if he has any political courage—

The SPEAKER: The minister will be seated.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Let's see if you wish to make your point of order after I have ruled. The minister will not impute improper motives to the leader.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir. The minister, in describing himself as being on a trade mission on that day, does so knowing that he has not sought a pair and also the opposition, when moving that motion last year, could not have known that he was going to seek a pair that he has still not sought. In doing so, he therefore reflects on his absence from the chamber when he is without leave.

The SPEAKER: Strictly, the member for Morialta ought to go out under the sessional order, because that was not a point of order, although it contained some interesting information. The minister is called to order and so is the member for Morialta. This chamber may be substantially unoccupied when question time convenes.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you for your guidance and wise counsel, Mr Speaker. I would simply point out to the member for Hartley that, somehow or other, from the time I stopped being shadow health minister and the leader became shadow health minister, things dropped off the pace to the extent that the nurses' federation came out during the election and condemned the leader for having no health policy. We finished up going into an election where the Liberal Party was roundly criticised by all the key stakeholders for standing for nothing on health, and that gets me back to the point—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: That gets me back to the point, and I cannot wait until the next motions, because I am going to go over, step by step, what the leader did and did not do when he was shadow health minister. I am going to go over, step by step, the advice I gave him on health policy which—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

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

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Sorry?

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

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: He is being terrible, sir.

The SPEAKER: Not your good self.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you for your protection, sir. He is being woeful. I will explain step by step to members opposite just how the leader and the Liberal Party failed on health in the 12 months leading up to the election and why the policy they took to the election was so pathetic.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I might even share with you—

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

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I will share with you some emails I sent to the leader personally telling him what he needed to do to sort it out, and I will explain—

Mr Gardner: More dodgy documents.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: No; ask the member for Unley about dodgy documents. He is the one who hands them over, member for Morialta.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I do hope this a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: Yes, sir—

The SPEAKER: Because I am listening—

Mr GARDNER: —he is imputing improper motive onto another member of the house.

The SPEAKER: Which member?

Mr GARDNER: The member for Unley.

The SPEAKER: That the member for Unley brought the dodgy documents to the House of Assembly is a matter of historical record.

Mr GARDNER: Nevertheless, improper motive.

The SPEAKER: The minister.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I get back to the point, and I will start to conclude, because I am looking forward to the next motions. I say to the leader: have the political courage to move the next motion so that I am here, because I am dying to participate in it. Secondly—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: First of all, before the point of order, I now warn the minister for imputing improper motives.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, sir, I must have got carried away in the moment. But I would say to the leader just one thing: could you consider this national debate about health policy and how it will be funded? Could you come up with a single idea on health reform, a single contribution about what you would do other than the flaky nonsense that has been put about so that the people who signed this petition could have a remote understanding about what you might do—

The SPEAKER: The minister will not make a display.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: It is quite clear that you have no idea what to do, therefore your opposition to the Repat has no credibility whatsoever—

Mr KNOLL: Point of order, sir.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —because you have no plan for health. None whatsoever. How does that help the state?

The SPEAKER: Alas, the minister's time has expired. I believe that the member for Schubert had a point of order.

Mr KNOLL: The minister was failing to address his remarks through the Chair, sir.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I uphold the point of order. The member for Finniss.

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:58): I do not intend to follow that—

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

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, sir. I do not intend to follow that 10 minutes of absolute verbal diarrhoea. I would like to get back to the substance of the motion that the leader has moved. That concerns the veterans and consumers of the Repatriation Hospital at Daw Park. That is the issue: it is not what the fool of a member for Waite has said. The issue is to do with the multitude of veterans, the multitude of community members who are going to have to completely rejig their lives over the potential closure or the future closure of the Repatriation Hospital. That is what the issue is.

I have plenty of veterans in my community—around 700, as I understand, in my electorate—who are frequent consumers of the Repatriation Hospital. In fact, very recently I was visiting one Vietnam veteran in Ward 17 who was in tears over the impending closure of that facility. That is what it is all about. It is about the people who use the facility: it is not about silly fools who want to come in here and make political points.

I uphold very strongly the leader's motion on this matter. I constantly have conversations with and get communication from people in my electorate who use the Repat very regularly and who want the Repat to stay there. It would appear that the Repat is not going to stay there. It is going to go and we are going to have whatever the government comes up with.

The government of the day has the right to do that; however, the government of the day has to live by its actions and I suggest that the members for Elder, Ashford, Waite and a few others are going to be looking pretty nervously at what happens at the next election in relation to the Repatriation Hospital. It is a nightmare for people who use that hospital and it is a nightmare for staff. The staff, as I understand it, were allegedly told some time ago that the place was closing before we knew what was going on.

When something works and works well and when it was given to the state by the feds—even though parts of it are antiquated, parts of it are fairly modern—it is indeed a facility that South Australians take great pride in. They talk about going to the Repat: 'I've got to go to the Repat today,' or 'I've got to go to the Repat next week.' They hold it dear to their hearts. They actually own the Repat, not the government: the people of South Australia own the Repat. The government may own the land on which it is built, but they do not own the Repat. It is a sad day for this state. I refer to the actions that took place out the front of this building for week after week after week, through all sorts of inclement weather conditions—

Mr Whetstone: 160 days.

Mr PENGILLY: For 160 days, those veterans and their supporters stayed out there, 24 hours a day, collecting signatures. What a magnificent effort that was. I know there are members on the other side who, though they could not say anything, were quietly supportive of what was going on. That is politics and they are stuck with that, but they are going to be stuck with the impact of what is happening down there in March 2018 as well. There will be no moving away from that. There will be some regular reminders, I dare say, when that campaign cranks up properly in 2018.

Going back to the leader's motion that this house notes that more than 119,000 people have signed petitions opposing the closure of the Repat, more than 88,000 of which have been tabled in the house, it is amazing. This is after the Minister for Health said that if we could show a petition with over 13,000 signatures, he would have to take notice. Well, they took a lot of notice, didn't they? They just got on and announced that it is closing: that is how much notice they took. This state government treated the people of South Australia and the veterans and community users of that facility with absolute arrogance and absolute contempt, as they have done on other occasions. It is an absolute disgrace.

There are members in this place who are passionate about their hospitals. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know your passion for the Modbury Hospital and you have done an outstanding job there over the years. I have two hospitals in my electorate that I am passionate about as well. We have, in my view, an incompetent country health department that is wreaking havoc and I need to say more about that at another time.

These hospitals are part of South Australia's institution and the Repat is a wonderful place. When I was involved in veterans' affairs some years ago, I talked very regularly to people who worked in the hospital and were part of the hospital, and now I actually deal far more often and more commonly with the veterans.

I am going to ring up my South Coast Veterans' president when I walk out of this chamber and tell him what has transpired today. They meet this afternoon. The South Coast Vets always meet on a Thursday afternoon for a coffee and a chat and to talk things through. There are 15, 20 or 30 and they get out into the community. Similarly, the RSL, particularly in Victor Harbor, is very strong on the Repat. They know what is what and they talk to one another.

If you think that just by shutting the Repat and promising this and promising that you are going to blindside the veterans and the community users of the Repat, you have got another thing coming. It is a stupid and foolish move. The diatribe that came from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs this morning was an embarrassment to the government and to those who have supported him in the past.

Unfortunately, time will tell what happens; but I think it was a disgraceful detraction from the purpose of the motion of the leader, which is a very good motion and should be supported by the house. We will wait and see what the government does on this; they will probably try to bury it. It is a sad day when what transpired this morning came from the minister. I wholeheartedly hope that the house supports the motion put up by the leader this morning.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (12:05): I rise today in support of the motion put forward by our leader:

That this house—

(a) notes that more than 119,000 people have signed petitions opposing the closure of the Repatriation General Hospital, more than 88,000 of which have been tabled in this house; and

(b) urges the government to heed the call of the petitioners and the veterans on the steps by reversing its decision to close the Repat.

I worked very hard with a lot of other people in this place to collect those signatures; in fact, it was not that hard. We would go to shopping centres, and people would flock to us. They wanted to come to sign and they wanted to let the government know and more importantly listen to the fact that they did not want this facility to close. Alas, the government continues to turn a deaf ear on what is going on. The veterans were often talked about, and the veterans who slept on the steps for 160 days, as the member for Finniss before mentioned, were really revered by the people out there in supermarkets and in my community, and they were admired for the stand they took in trying to save the Repatriation Hospital.

Last October I tabled 1,000 more signatures for the petition, so it just kept going on and on, and people today, when we are at shopping centres, still come up and talk about it and say what a disgrace it is that this government is going to close the Repatriation Hospital. We know the services they provide, and that is what is talked about a lot—elective surgery, outpatients, urology—and where these patients will go is still very much in the air. The rehab facilities that are offered through the Repatriation Hospital are used and loved by all, and the facility is very much appreciated by the community, and they are very concerned about it moving on. Likewise, as the leader pointed out, the Daw Park Hospice is another service very much loved by a lot of people right around this state.

We know that in the past former premier Mike Rann said that the Repatriation Hospital would never close under a Labor government. We are hearing a lot of this rhetoric, and they are saying that it will never ever close, as the member for Finniss points out, yet it still did. John Hill, the health minister at the time, made the same comments, but now this Labor government is going back on its word and closing the hospital.

They are putting it under the guise of Transforming Health, and they are blaming the feds for a lot of it. Transforming Health seems to be 'closing health' from what I can see and from what people are saying to me when I am out on the streets. They are blaming the federal government for closing three hospitals, as we know, through Transforming Health: Hampstead, the Repatriation General Hospital (that we have talked about) and St Margaret's. They are playing the blame game with the feds, yet no other state is looking at closing hospitals and they are operating under the same federal scheme and budget as South Australia.

We also heard the member for Waite saying before that this government would listen to the people of South Australia, when clearly they have not. He also spoke about where monies would come from. It is a very notable point that the people of South Australia are really starting to see this and scratch their heads when they think about the $644 million blowout on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. That is something that could run the Repat Hospital for 30 years. The savings on the blowout that this government has had on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital—$644 million—is money right then and there that could run the Repat for 30 years. It is quite amazing when you look at it.

More alarming than this is Transforming Health becoming 'closing health'. We know that the Premier has been looking to the feds and blaming them, and he is looking for a cash grab. He is talking about a GST and needing more money, taking more money from South Australians, not to make a better tax system but to grab more money from South Australians. They have done it with the ESL. They continually take money out of the hip pockets of South Australians to prop up their mismanagement, and I talked about the mismanagement on the building of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital to the tune of $644 million. How do they get it back? It is increased taxes. It has hit South Australian families and people out there on the street. They take money from their hip pocket to cover up what they have so poorly mismanaged from the budget point of view.

So we look forward at Transforming Health and we fear that it is, in fact, closing health, and we look at the other hospitals as well. I know we have had to fight very hard to keep the Flinders neonatal intensive care unit intact and that took a lot of campaigning. The level six operation, of course, is very important to the people of that area and I know that my daughter is very grateful, and my family is very grateful on my daughter's behalf, that she had such great care when she went through the level six neonatal intensive care unit at Flinders. A big fight ensued and we are glad that the government listened and agreed to keep that open, because that was another part of the closing health operation that they were trying to impose on South Australia.

We can also talk about Noarlunga Hospital. A lot of people contact me about this. A lot of people talk to me about Noarlunga and the emergency department, which has been significantly downgraded. We know the government wanted to close the emergency department in Noarlunga but, again, there was people power and we had to fight very hard to make sure that stayed open, and we are glad that it has.

If we look at what the Premier said just the other day on radio, I think this is the big concern for all South Australians, again, as we work through the Transforming Health program the government talks about which is, in fact, proving to be closing health. The other day on radio the Premier was asked about whether or not hospitals will close, because it does not look like he will be able to increase the GST and increase extra taxes as he so desperately wants to do. He was asked whether he will close more hospitals and he said, 'Absolutely. That is certainly the prospect if we cannot get a response to the funding gap.'

The Premier is talking about closing more hospitals, and that has people in the south, especially people who use and rely on the Noarlunga Hospital, rather concerned. We know that the Premier has looked at downgrading and shutting down elements of the Noarlunga Hospital in the past and, after that comment that it is certainly a prospect that they will look at closing hospitals if they cannot find the funding gap, the people around the Noarlunga district and the southern end of Adelaide are very concerned about what might ensue with the Noarlunga Hospital, and they have every right to be concerned. The Premier has made no bones about the fact that he will look to cut hospital services, and that is incredibly alarming.

I have attended forums about the Noarlunga Hospital with the shadow minister for health and spoken to many people in my electorate about how important the Noarlunga Hospital is and the role it plays in their lives so we know we need to fight very hard to maintain these services in that area in light of what the Premier is saying he is wanting to do.

All in all, the Transforming Health policy that the government is talking about really is shaping as a closing health policy and there is big reason for people out there to be concerned. As I pointed out, we have seen what is happening with the Repatriation Hospital and we know the anger that has caused—and, again, across the board at Hampstead and St Margaret's. Closing hospitals in South Australia has people up in arms, the Repatriation Hospital more than any.

We look across the suburbs (I know it is happening in the north as well but I will speak more about the south where people in my community live and operate and need these services), and people are concerned that the Premier and the government is looking to close down these services. It is alarming and they have reason to be alarmed. The government must not do this.

We know in relation to the Repatriation Hospital, the number of people who signed. Again, I want to pay tribute, in closing, to the people and the veterans who sat on the steps and fought so very hard to keep this alive. They did a marvellous job. We call on the government, as the member for Waite said, to listen and hope that what they say is not just lip service. The government must listen and must act and save the Repatriation Hospital as the people of South Australia have asked.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:13): I, too, would very much like to support the motion that the member for Dunstan has put forward (the Leader of the South Australian Liberal Party). I think it was the responsible thing to do considering the landmark Repatriation Hospital that has been in operation for such a long time. It has been such an important health service for a wide range of people needing medical treatment but, particularly, our returned service people and the rehab that facility has provided for many years.

I note that the chapel is also a very well-used facility at the hospital. It has been regarded as a landmark or a trademark of what our service men and women have done for us and, in return this facility was put there, predominantly for them to be able to utilise. It was a sign of respect and what we are seeing from this current state government is a lack of respect. Yes, it is in need of an upgrade and it is in need of a maintenance schedule, but that is what hospitals are all about. The hospital is not at the point where it should be walked away from simply because the government are arrogant enough to say, 'We are going to close it.'

It has been promised by previous health ministers and premiers in South Australia under a Labor government that we will not close the Repatriation Hospital. This current Premier has decided to back his health minister to install a Transforming Health policy that simply has no regard for what the Repatriation Hospital has meant to many service people using that facility—and not just from the city. I think we need to understand that service people from all over the state utilise the Repatriation Hospital. It is a meeting centre for people, particularly when they are in rehab, and with many of them being aged, it really highlights that this place has a significant presence in the lives of returned service people.

The signing of the petition outside of Parliament House, I think is a feat that needs to be commended. I think it will go down in the history books. I know it was not the largest petition ever presented to the parliament, but the huge amount of time and commitment given by those returned servicemen was a testament to what they felt needed to be done to express their point of view regarding the continuation of the Repat Hospital.

Of the 119,000 who signed the petition opposing the closure, many were from my electorate of Chaffey. I have a very strong servicemen group in the Riverland and Mallee, and they are very proud of what they achieved to give Australians the democracy and freedom that we enjoy today. I think that is where most people feel let down by this government; that they have been prepared to say, 'Nup, we're closing it. We're going to put another facility elsewhere, even if it is hard to get to.'

It might be a modern facility but I think they are missing the mark. We have a hospital centre, a repatriation centre, that is for all South Australians, and I think we have seen that the impact of the closing of the Repat has been far more widespread than just a ripple effect here in Adelaide. A large amount of country residents who have utilised the services at the Repat are very disappointed. Many of them are getting together, and they have all signed petitions in many electorates. Many MPs have brought in petitions about the Repat closure but, funnily enough, not one government member has brought forward a petition about the closure of the Repat—not one. What is going on?

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: It might be a joke to you over there that it is closing and that you have not presented the feeling of your constituents, but I bet that there are constituents in every electorate in South Australia who are furious that the Repat is being closed, and yet no government members have come to this house and presented a petition. I know that people are squealing over there but I think what I have just said is a very true reflection of what has occurred.

I have met a lot of people who have either spent time in the Repat or who have a family member or a friend who has, and they are devastated at the proposed closure. There is no doubt South Australians want the hospital to remain open, yet we have Premier Weatherill and his Labor government arrogantly snubbing their nose at communities right across the state for the hospital support, proceeding with the devastating cuts to the health system.

There are many facts that will be uncovered along the way. I know that the shadow minister for health, the Hon. Stephen Wade in another place, has done an outstanding job in representing the people who utilise the Repat hospital, people who utilise all of the health facilities, here in South Australia in trying to uncover what is really going on within Transforming Health, and its so-called transparency. It is about giving people the information that they rightly deserve about the impacts on what Transforming Health will mean to them. The closure of the Repat is going to have significant far reaching impacts, and I think that the shadow health minister has done an outstanding job. He has been fully engaged with the people who are standing up for the hospital, he has been fully engaged with the doctors, the nurses, the people who are working behind the scenes. He is the sort of shadow minister who will make a very good health minister, mark my words.

The closure of the Repat will be devastating to families and veterans; it is the only dedicated veterans' hospital in the state and it is an elective surgery hub for southern Adelaide. As to the representation that the veterans gave on the steps of Parliament House, I think it was a true reflection of what that hospital meant to every person who used it.

Obviously, the government is not listening. The petition was put to this place and it was a significant petition. I wonder whether those people who signed that petition have had some form of a response from the government. I know that every person who signed the petition has had some form of communication in one way, shape or form from the opposition, and I think rightfully so. I think those people have registered their anger, they have registered their concern about what is happening at the Repat hospital, because it is a significant centrepiece to our health system.

Now, 90 per cent of the Repat patients are community patients and the closure of the Repat is going to have a negative and long-term impact on the health of many small communities. We are seeing that the government appears to be going on with the closure of the hospital, or their de-funding of that hospital, without Premier Weatherill and his government broadening the current expressions of interest process, which closed in December, and using it to bring together partners who potentially can maintain the services at the Repat.

I want to acknowledge the many Riverland and Mallee people who have a connection with the Repat. I think it is significant that they have had their concerns tabled on a petition. Before my time runs out I want to reflect on the local member at the Repat, the state government's veterans' affairs minister. His disgraceful performance—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind you that you are on two warnings, and I do not think the Speaker would be very happy at the line you are taking. You are reflecting on another member, and I think—

Mr WHETSTONE: His disgraceful—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to be mindful of reflecting on another member.

Mr WHETSTONE: —performance—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on two warnings, so I know you will—

Mr WHETSTONE: And I am losing my time while I am—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you may as well stop.

Mr WHETSTONE: He did not reflect on the Repat—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may as well stop.

Mr WHETSTONE: —one little bit this morning other than attacking the opposition. This is just testament to a bad local member.

Time expired.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:24): I rise to support the motion that this house notes that more than 121,000 people have signed petitions opposing the closure of the Repatriation General Hospital and urges the government to heed the renewed calls of the people of South Australia and the veterans of our state for the Repat to be retained, not closed, to ease the pressure on our crowded hospital system. On 21 February 2016, the Repat celebrates 74 years of specialising in the health care of South Australia's older people and veterans. This is what is at stake: high quality outpatient services. Each year the Repat provides more than 136,000 outpatient consultations, that is more than 2,600 South Australians each week. The clinics treat conditions like heart disease, sleep disorders and arthritis.

The AMA of South Australia highlighted the critical importance of these services in its response to the Labor government's decision to close the Repat. The AMA has argued that instead of closing the hospital, the government should build on its outpatient strength so it becomes an ambulatory care centre of excellence. The AMA of South Australia supports this solution for those many patients who would benefit from avoided hospital admissions and reduced length of stay once admitted.

The Repat has state-of-the-art facilities. Over the last decade, $40 million has been spent updating and expanding the facilities at the Repat, including $6 million for the 4^th Generation Rehabilitation Clinics and $10 million to rebuild Ward 18 (the Repat's mental health facility for older South Australians) and $20 million for a new state-of-the-art rehabilitation service with 20 new subacute beds and improved rehabilitation services.

Ward 17 is a centre of excellence in the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder. It provides inpatient care in a 24-bed ward, with more than 7,600 outpatient consultations per year. One in five of its inpatients are community patients, such as police and emergency services personnel. For many of Ward 17's clients, the gardens and outdoor areas at the Repat are important for their recovery and wellbeing. The quality of the service provided is built on the skill and commitment of the staff and the culture they foster.

The government wants to separate elective surgery from emergency surgery to promote better health outcomes for patients. The Repat already focuses on elective surgery. More than 80 per cent of surgery done at the Repat is elective, compared with an average of 54 per cent in other metropolitan hospitals. The Repat is accessible with ample parking and ground level access points. This is particularly important for older people and for people with mobility issues. These people benefit from the fact that most of the hospital's services are a short, ground level walk from the car park.

It is a campus for care and rehabilitation. The Repat is a low-rise campus in a garden setting that supports the recuperation and rehabilitation of its patients, both short term and long term. The buildings are mostly single storey and are spread over a 14-hectare site. With almost every ward separated by a garden or courtyard, the Repat has been dubbed 'a hospital in a park'. The Memorial Chapel with its magnificent stained glass windows is another place for quiet reflection and contemplation. The gardens and campus-style layout provide a therapeutic environment conducive to recovery and rehabilitation. One of the most visited outdoor areas is the Peace Garden. It includes a hedge grown from rosemary cuttings that a digger brought back from Gallipoli.

The Daw House Hospice provides palliative care in a comfortable, non-hospital setting. It is also a base for care in the home and for world-class palliative care training and research. The Council of the Ageing of South Australia has advised the government that the palliative care services delivered by the Repat Hospital 'are highly valued by our stakeholders' and said that it was 'deeply concerned' that the government was not devoting enough attention to the services within the Transforming Health process. The proposal to move the hospice also runs the risk that specialist teams built up over decades may disband rather than be shunted from site to site.

The Repat is a hub for training and research, it is a teaching hospital and a major site for clinical placements for Flinders University students. Researchers based at the Repat have attracted more than $75 million in research funding. Over the past 40 years, thousands of students undertaking medical, nursing, social work, allied health and other health-focused studies have completed part of their training at the Repat, including around 2,000 medical practitioners. A quarter of Flinders University medical students spend time at the Repat. The university's Vice Chancellor, Colin Stirling, has said that the university would need to consider how the closure of the Repat would affect its capacity to deliver outstanding medical and health research and to meet the education demands of the future health professional workforce.

The Repat patients speak highly of the care, quality and commitment of the hospital staff. The teams at the Repat have forged a great culture which is treasured by many South Australians, especially veterans. Twenty per cent of the Repat's admissions are veterans; on average that is 10 times the level of veteran admissions to South Australia's other public hospitals.

The Repat is needed. The 250-bed Repat Hospital is a vital component of Adelaide's hospital network—an engine room for elective surgery, rehabilitation and ambulatory care. For example, a quarter of all orthopaedic and neurological elective surgery performed in Adelaide is done at the Repat. The Repat is centrally located. It is only four kilometres from the Flinders Medical Centre and less than eight kilometres from the Royal Adelaide Hospital. It has good public transport connections to both these hospitals.

The Australian Medical Association of South Australia highlighted the critical importance of these services in its response to the Labor government's decision to close the Repat. The sheer size of the petition highlights how connected South Australians are to the hospital. Many have either used the hospital or have had family members receive treatment at the facility or have trained at the Repat.

Under Labor's cuts patients will have to wait longer and travel further for medical care. Under Labor's plan the number of general hospital beds in the southern region of Adelaide will drop by 22 per cent. Major metropolitan hospitals are already stretched to the brink and are not in a position to cope with the additional demand if the Repat closes.

We urge the government to listen to the will of the people and to heed the wishes of the 121,000 people who signed the petition calling on this government to save the Repat. I call on this Labor government to stand by its word not to close the Repat as stated by former premier the Hon. Mike Rann and the former health minister the Hon. John Hill.

This facility was gifted to the state government by the federal government for the people of South Australia, not to be sold off. The state Liberals strongly oppose the closure of the Repat and will continue to fight until this decision is reversed.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:31): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I rise to support the motion of our leader:

That this house—

(a) notes that more than 119,000 people have signed petitions opposing the closure of the Repatriation General Hospital, more than 88,000 of which have been tabled in the house; and

(b) urges the government to heed the call of the petitioners and the veterans on the steps by reversing its decision to close the Repat.

I do really want to pay tribute to Augustinus Krikke and his mates who stuck it out on the steps. They defied all means of getting rid of them. They set up camp, and businesses along North Terrace and elsewhere looked after them. They offered them food. I know that a lot people walking past offered them food and support.

I can recall going to a breakfast one morning and hearing a story about the great success of Golden North and its ice-cream, so I brought back some Giant Twins for the boys. It might have been a bit early at 9 o'clock but I think they enjoyed them very much anyway.

These people show what it is really like to have loved their country and served their country and what they wanted to do for their fellow men and women who have served this state and this great nation; and also for their support for the many regular citizens who use the services of the Repat.

It is disappointing when going to a briefing to hear from the current health minister, minister Snelling, that one of his reasons for wanting to shift the Repat into central Adelaide is to get it closer to veterans. Well, I can assure the minister that not all the veterans live in Northern Adelaide or Edinburgh. Just because we have a battalion stationed there now, veterans come from not just all over Adelaide—it may come as a surprise to the Labor Party—but all over South Australia.

Wherever they have come from they have given great service for this state and this nation, and far too many have paid the ultimate sacrifice and we have far too many suffering PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). They have paid a huge price and we owe these people a significant debt. You could not put in monetary terms the losses that many of these people have faced, not only with their mental injuries or their physical injuries but what a lot of these people have lost in regard to losing whole families and partners because of the service they endured and the things that happened. A lot of us could barely imagine the situations that these people have been placed in.

My brother served for 23 years. He did a couple of tours. He served in Rwanda, which was upgraded to full military service (it was United Nations service) and he also served in Iraq. He appears to be alright; you never know when things could change, but he certainly appears fine.

Notwithstanding that, the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital has been and is a real icon of excellence for the veterans and civilians that use the premises, gifted to the state by the commonwealth, and in no way, shape or form has the commonwealth ever wished for that land to be on-sold. We note that former premier Rann and former health minister the Hon. John Hill both said it will never ever happen. It is a bit like our current Premier saying there will never ever be a rise in the GST. It seems to be a common thread with the Labor Party in this state: 'never ever' becomes very much a lie when things get turned around. The people in this state need to realise that: when they hear 'never ever' from the Labor Party, never to believe it, because this looks like it is going to happen.

It is a great tragedy for this state, and people need to look far further forward than just their complete mismanagement of the state's finances for the past 14 years. If the state's finances had not been so mismanaged for the past 14 years, they would not have to be making such ridiculous decisions as selling the Repatriation Hospital at Daw Park. There were years in the early 2000s before I came in here and even from when I was here in 2006 when there were hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of unbudgeted GST money that flowed from Canberra into this state—unbudgeted—all blown up, all gone, all Labor's folly, just gone with the wind.

Here we see, just like the forests, the MAC, the lotteries—I just make the point that especially the lotteries and the forests were money-making ventures, yet we see the Labor Party in this state sell ventures that actually make money, because they think there is a risk because they have no idea how to manage businesses—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Newland—

Mr PEDERICK: Chuck him out, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —will make a contribution rather than interject. It can be your turn next, if you wish.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your protection.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I throw myself in front of danger where you're concerned, member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, ma'am, and I always do respect your strong support when I am on my feet, because sometimes I do need that valuable protection, and I appreciate you taking the bullet. What I will say is that the Labor Party are so afraid of running profit-making businesses that actually were putting money into the coffers of this state. The forests, for instance, were $43 million on average, although I have heard the Canadian superannuation firms turned that into $75 million annually, so you can understand how perhaps private operators can turn a far bigger profit.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Newland is called to order.

Mr PEDERICK: We hear some distant bleating from the other side trying to defend their case, but it is an absolute disgrace. The lotteries—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Newland is warned for the first time.

Mr PEDERICK: Chuck him out, ma'am. The Labor government just keeps selling off items, one by one, until there will be nothing left. In fact, the former member for Port Adelaide, the former treasurer Kevin Foley, actually tried to sell a building and he did not own the land under it.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PEDERICK: Someone had to inform him that it was not his to sell. This is a real tragedy for this state, and I think the government really need to have a good look at themselves. As I said, many people have used the services at Daw Park. I have used them in the past and I have found the staff extremely good to work with. They are extremely well-caring people, throughout the nurses and doctors and all the staff there.

In fact, I had a very interesting conversation about EPAS, the electronic patient record system, and the fact that well over $100 million—and probably heading to $200 million-plus by now—has been wasted on this electronic system which is going into the botched new Royal Adelaide Hospital which I note does not have the room to have paper files and shows how much of a debacle is happening in the so-called Transforming Health policy in the state.

We have a hospital where the opening is being put off by months and months, and I will be surprised if that hospital even opens this year. There are already a great number of faults being picked up from what I am told out there in the real world by people who work in these situations, whereby some people who get diagnosed by a doctor and who happen to be on their bed in their room will not be able to get through the door back into the hospital because it is not wide enough for a bed. They will have to be put back onto a barouche and trolleyed through. When a figure of up to $2.3 billion to $2.4 billion and rising has gone into the hospital, which I must say is an overspend that would have built the Adelaide Oval all over again, it is disgraceful.

With the mismanagement of this project, we also see water pipes leaking and water flowing right throughout the building, so what hope do we have for health in this state when we have facilities closed? And some of these facilities out at Daw Park have not been opened for many years at all—but oh no, we will just trash them and run the bulldozer through them and be done with it, and forget about the veterans and the good citizens of this state who have used the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital for many years. As for the local member, the member for Waite, I did not hear one cogent argument from him this morning about anything to do with the hospital. In fact, he was just trying to give us his version of history which I do not believe many people would agree with.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (12:41): I also rise today to support the motion:

That this house—

(a) notes that more than 119,000 people have signed petitions opposing the closure of the Repat General Hospital, more than 88,000 of which have been tabled in this house; and

(b) urges the government to heed the call of the petitioners and the veterans on the steps by reversing its decision to close the Repat.

As we have heard this morning from the arrogance of one of the government ministers, this government has, quite frankly, more front than John Martins. It is absolutely disgraceful.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no such thing.

Mr TARZIA: It is absolutely disgraceful that 119,000 people—yes, I do remember John Martins, Deputy Speaker—119,000 people—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I did not ask you to recall John Martins.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: I just told you it doesn't exist anymore.

Mr TARZIA: It doesn't exist anymore, member for Newland—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet.

Mr TARZIA: —and neither does the credibility of the state government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now I know the Speaker is listening, and he is going to be heartily disappointed in the behaviour here. Standing order 131 means no-one speaks over the top of anyone else. I would remind members that we do need to listen to the member for Hartley's contribution.

Mr TARZIA: My part in this was small; however, I managed to gather probably just over 1,000 signatures in my time by going out into my community and talking to people, talking to the veterans and their families, and engaging their thoughts on this matter. I did this at the Glynde RSL, the Magill RSL, the Kensington Park RSL and the Payneham RSL; and it was quite clear very early in our campaign that this was a huge issue, not only at Daw Park and in the vicinity of that area, but across the state, because for many families, past and present, this is more than just a hospital. Even I had a relative who was treated at this hospital, and so many South Australians have been treated at this hospital not only after their time at war, but are also being treated for other conditions. It is certainly more than a hospital.

What this government is doing is ripping the soul out of South Australians. This government has no credibility when it stands here and says that it is now going to demolish the Repat—sell the Repat—after saying to the people of South Australia before the election that it was not going to do so. It has absolutely no credibility and it is an absolute disgrace.

Given the choice to stand with the veterans or stand with the Labor government, I stand with the veterans. I have no doubt that, if the state government follows through on this disgraceful plan to demolish this site, it will come back to bite them hard. I stand with the veterans of this state, I stand with the families of the veterans of this state and I stand with the other over 100,000 people who signed this petition. It is the height of arrogance for this government to ignore such a large pool of people in this state on any matter, let alone this one.

Twelve months ago, as part of what have certainly been controversial health cut plans, the state Labor government announced that the iconic Repat Hospital would be closed, in addition to three emergency departments being downgraded and cuts being made to metropolitan hospitals. The government must start honouring its promises.

We know that the closure of the Repat would see, amongst other things, the loss of what is significant expertise not only in veterans' health but also in ageing health. I know a number of people who have, for example, diabetes treatment at that hospital. In terms of the delivery of post-traumatic stress disorder services in Ward 17, the current plan of the government to rebuild Ward 17 at Glenside is certainly a downgrade of the services that are currently offered.

We know that 90 per cent of Repat patients are community patients, just like my uncle, just like some of the families of veterans—people who choose to go to the site. The closure of the Repat would certainly have negative serious and long-term impacts for the health of the community. What we need are more beds, not fewer beds. What we need is for health service professionals to be treated better, not worse. What we need is more funding, not less. What we need is a government that takes these matters seriously.

The new Royal Adelaide Hospital, as my colleague alluded to earlier, has been riddled with problems before the doors are even open—computer glitches, staffing issues and so on. Nurses are being approached at the current Royal Adelaide Hospital and are being asked to work ridiculous hours, longer than they otherwise should. The unions know this; the nurses know this; it is common knowledge.

It is all because of Transforming Health. What is this monster called Transforming Health? The member for Waite, I believe, in an earlier radio interview made the admission that this is not about efficiency in health services: it is about money. All this is about is money for this government. They will go to whatever lengths it takes to cut hospitals.

No hospital is safe under this government; that has been shown now. How can you trust a government that says it is not going to shut down the Repat and then does? It is absolutely disgraceful. There have been no announcements on the future location of various Repat specialist services. Take, for example, orthopaedics, ophthalmology, urology, rheumatology as well as sleep disorders, respirology and diabetes.

Closing the Repat would actually mean abandoning over $40 million—$46 million, in fact—of capital works at the hospital in the last 13 years. It is absolutely ludicrous that a building would have $46 million of capital works added to it and then you would close it down after 13 years. We know that the Australian Medical Association's recent public hospital report card showed that South Australia is 10 per cent worse than the national average on the key indicators of emergency department waiting times. I commend the motion to the house and I ask the government to reverse this disgraceful decision to close the Repat Hospital.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:49): I just rise very briefly to oppose the motion, one of a number of ridiculous motions brought before the house by the members opposite—no surprise there. Partly the burden of opposition—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hartley is called to order.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —is that you expose yourself to ridiculousness, and we are seeing that, of course. Today we had—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is warned for the first time.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: They had a few examples. Just recently the member for Hartley, the new member for MacKillop just saying the same speech over—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —and over again. Just a few little changes here, but which can be neatly summarised as 'Labor, bad; Liberal, good'. That is essentially his argument in any motion that comes before the house, and it is no different here, we have not seen anything new. We had the new Bernie Sanders, the member for Hammond, advocating government control of the means and mode of production, essentially, that the government should own profit-making businesses—

Mr Hughes interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Giles!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The new socialists—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —on the other side of the house, ma'am—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is warned for the second time.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The new socialists over there—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —are neatly forgetting their own record—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No reflections.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —whilst in government, neatly forgetting their own record of privatisation. The TAB sold for less than one year's revenue—sold for less than one year's revenue. It immediately turned into a $400 million profit; it might have been a $200 million—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —profit making enterprise, and somehow that is a bad thing, according to the Liberal Party. The private ownership of business is somehow evil now, according to the member for Hammond, so maybe he will be voting for Bernie, if he is a US citizen. Maybe he might be on Bernie's team advocating, standing there in the caucus in Bernie's corner—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Yes, holding up the placards at the rallies. Maybe we are seeing the insidious fellow travellers insinuating themselves into the Liberal Party. Let's not forget the substance of the motion and let's not forget that the only 6 per cent of veterans use the Repat, given that most of them have gold cards, which is a far better way to thank them for their service, allowing them to use the hospital that best serves their needs either in terms of geographical location or services offered. Let's also remember that none of the services currently at the Repat will be lost to the system; in fact, many of them will be vastly improved, not the least of which will be Ward 17 being made more available to more veterans because it will be in a better geographic location. With that, I oppose this motion, and the government will be opposing this motion. I commend our position of opposition to the house.

Motion negatived.