Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Health Care (Country Health Guarantee) Amendment Bill HEALTH CARE (COUNTRY HEALTH GUARANTEE) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:24): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Health Care Act 2008. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:25): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is similar in form to one that this council passed in the previous parliament, and I am hopeful that support will continue for this bill from the Legislative Council and, ultimately, through the House of Assembly. It is similar, with one significant change. I will not go back through my second reading speech and summary from last time. I know my colleagues have plenty of work to do, but they can have a look at that. I just want to highlight that it still ties in with the comments I made during the debate and the support I received from colleagues in our house prior to the last election. This bill is, as I said, similar, but it has one significant change. I have referred in previous debate on the predecessor to this bill, the government's country health guarantee. To refresh honourable members' memories and for the benefit of those who are new to this place, in July 2008, in response to country protests about version 1 of the Rann government's country health plan, the Premier and the health minister secured a front-page story in The Advertiser with a big headline 'Premier CPR'. The guarantee recorded in that article stated that no country hospital will close; no reduction in emergency services; and country health services will be increased. They were the three key guarantees. In response to this (and being a little once bitten twice shy about guarantees given by governments) I asked the government to legislate that guarantee. This council did, but the government, with its numbers in the lower house, did not. However, we have another opportunity to get the government to put its press release into a proper guarantee. What have we seen since the last election when the Legislative Council passed this bill? I will describe it in three words: Keith, Moonta and Ardrossan. That has just been the start. In reviewing the bill between parliaments it has become clear that we need, for the sake of clarity, to stipulate that funding cuts to community hospitals are a closure issue that breaches the Premier's and the health minister's guarantee. I will call them country community hospitals in this contribution. In the bill they are called country private hospitals, and we cannot get a change of name on that, because it is terminology set in the Health Care Act. We do not want to tamper with the terminology, but I know that the country community hospitals we visited to do not want to be misrepresented as being like private hospitals in the cities. They are community based and community funded and, in many cases, are dependent on significant government contribution to their budgets. The July 2008 country health guarantee by the Rann government was not ambiguous. I highlight that the Rann government said that no country hospital would close and there would be no reduction in emergency services. A former member of parliament (whom I will not name) asked me, 'Why include country community hospitals if the government doesn't control their fate?' Well, we have seen subsequently that in the cases of Keith, Moonta and Ardrossan, that the government does. The consultation has been done backwards, as is sadly often the case with this government, with an announcement on budget day 2010, after the leaking of the razor gang report a day or two beforehand. This bill prescribes a consultation process with the community before cuts can occur, just as must occur under the wording of the previous bill retained in this bill if the government wants to close hospitals or reduce emergency services in a region. Even if honourable members disagree with me that the July 2008 Rann government guarantee does not extend to country community hospitals (or country private hospitals if you prefer), why should there not be a mandated community consultation process when significant funding cuts occur from government? We seem to have lost the intent of community consultation over the last several years, and I believe it is now time to bring it back and, indeed, put it into legislation with the most important and fundamental services like country health. Many colleagues would be familiar with the previous debate, as I have said, and for those who are not I am happy to provide a further briefing. I look forward to this bill, with this significant tweaking to cover the country community hospital issue, being supported in this place and then, I hope, the government finally signing the guarantee it made in the media to country South Australians for the preservation and expansion of their health services. I particularly hope that will be the case because at the moment the country health guarantee in the press release is nothing but a press release with no guarantee, and that is why we are now receiving a 'Save our hospital. You can help with a pledge' form. The people of Keith are sending pledges out to the South Australian community to try to keep their hospital open. The situation is outrageous, it is unacceptable, and we need to be governing for the whole state and the way to do that is to put the guarantee from the Premier and the Minister for Health into law so that people have continuity of health services in the country as well as in the city. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.