Transforming Health

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire:

That this council calls on the government to—

1. Stop the closure of the Repatriation General Hospital; and

2. Listen to the broader community regarding the Transforming Health changes.

(Continued from 3 June 2015.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:23): I rise on behalf of the Liberal team to support the motion of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. This is not the first motion in this parliament on the government's decision to close the Repat. On 26 February, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place (the Hon. Steven Marshall) moved:

That this house—

(a) reaffirms its commitment to the best possible standard of health care for veterans and war widows;

(b) acknowledges the care provided by the Repatriation General Hospital during the 73 years of its operation;

(c) recommits to the Repatriation General Hospital as a centre of excellence, maintaining its role as an acute care teaching institution with links to Flinders University; and

(d) opposes any moves to close the Repatriation General Hospital.

The Leader of the Opposition in the other place has also given notice of a motion to recognise the Repat petition. That motion states:

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 thank the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for bringing this matter before the council. This is a clear, straightforward motion which calls on the government to not close the Repatriation General Hospital and to listen to what the broader community is saying in relation to this and other aspects of its controversial Transforming Health plan. Hopefully, this will be the first motion to save the Repat that is passed by this parliament. There is no doubt that the Repat is an absolute South Australian icon.

The Repatriation General Hospital has played a critical role in the delivery of health services to veterans and the broader South Australian community for more than 70 years. Just five years ago, the Labor government recognised the depth of the South Australian community's respect for our veterans and their commitment to the Repat. In 2010, in response to the government's own Sustainable Budget Commission recommendation to close the Repat, the then premier Mike Rann quickly and clearly rejected that advice. In fact, the government gave the people of South Australia a cast-iron guarantee that the Repat hospital was 'here to stay', and that it would 'never, ever be closed by a Labor government'.

Jump forward to 2015, and the Weatherill government has walked away from that commitment. On 4 February 2015, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs announced the closure of the Repatriation General Hospital. How long is 'never, ever' for a Labor promise? About five years. 'Never, ever', as if it means nothing; as if the South Australian community can be treated as mugs.

Over the course of this year, as the community outcry has grown louder and louder, the government has tried in vain to cast people who oppose the closure of the Repat as people living in the past and being out of touch with the best way to deliver health services in the 21^st century. The government has been forced to spend millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars to try to convince a sceptical public that its ill-conceived and ill-consulted plan actually holds water.

The government is trying to persuade the people that it knows best, that it has thought this through and that, while it spends millions of dollars to replicate the Repat, somehow, out of all the health facilities in the world, the Repat was the only one that could not be renewed. Despite all of this effort and expense, the government has been unable to convince the people of South Australia that closing the Repat makes sense.

The people of South Australia understand that there are many good, solid reasons to save the Repat. One reason is the high-quality outpatient services that are delivered at the Repat. Last year, the Repat provided more than 136,000 outpatient consultations across a broad range of specialist clinics, including heart disease, sleep disorders and arthritis. That equates to more than 2,600 South Australians getting help as a Repat outpatient each week, week in, week out.

The Australian Medical Association argues that, instead of closing the hospital, the government should build on its strengths in outpatient services so that it becomes an ambulatory care centre of excellence. I quote in part what the AMA told the government:

The AMA(SA) does not believe the RGH should be closed…The [Repat]…has the basis for becoming an ambulatory care centre of excellence…With its flat terrain, multiple access points and recent investment for rehabilitation facilities as well as developed and coordinated ambulatory care medical services, it seems foolish to waste such a potential resource.

Another reason to save the Repat is the state-of-the-art facilities that exist on the hospital site. Yes, some parts of the hospital need to be rebuilt or refurbished, but many parts of the hospital are almost brand new. In fact, in recent years many tens of millions of dollars have been spent on building and redeveloping state-of-the-art facilities on the Repat site. These investments have included: $6 million for the new 4^th Generation Clinics; $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.

More recently, in partnership with Flinders University, the ACH Group and the federal government, the state government invested in a new $46 million ViTA centre on the Daw Park site. ViTA is a 120-bed facility and it only opened last year. While under the government's plan ViTA itself will remain, the closure of the Repat will mean we would lose the opportunities created by grouping a range of related services in one location.

The third reason for saving the Repat, and one I will return to later, is Ward 17. Ward 17 has been helping veterans young and old to recover from PTSD and a range of other mental health issues for over 50 years. It is a centre of excellence built around a team of health professionals that is second to none. Ward 17 provides inpatient care in a 24-bed ward and a supportive therapeutic environment for outpatients recovering from PTSD and a range of other mental health issues.

Last year, Ward 17 delivered more than 7,600 outpatient consultations. About 80 per cent of Ward 17's clients are veterans, serving members of the Defence Force and war widows. That said, one in five of its inpatient admissions are community clients. This includes emergency services personnel with PTSD and other South Australians with mental health issues.

For many of Ward 17's clients, the gardens and the outdoor areas of the Repat are vital for their recovery and wellbeing. Ward 17 also provides extensive teaching and training places and is highly sought after as an academic placement. From psychiatric registrars to social work trainees, Ward 17 is seen as a great learning environment. While the current buildings are indeed not fit for purpose, the quality of the service is built on the skill and commitment of the staff and the culture they foster. That quality and strength could be lost if the government closes the Repat and relocates Ward 17 to Glenside.

The amount of elective surgery undertaken at the Repat is another reason why it must be saved. A quarter of all orthopaedic and neurological elective surgery performed in Adelaide is done at the Repat. There are currently 240 beds at the Repat. Under the Weatherill government's proposals, if the Repat is closed, 55 rehabilitation beds will be added to the Flinders Medical Centre. That amounts to a net loss of more than 180 beds. That is a 22 per cent drop in the number of general hospital beds in the southern region.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Acute beds.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Indeed, the honourable member is right to point out that these are acute beds, beds which South Australians rely on when they are at their sickest point. The Australian Medical Association has warned that other hospitals do not have the capacity to absorb the extra workload because they are already overstretched. For example, waiting times for elective surgery at Noarlunga Hospital more than doubled in the four years to 2013.

The AMA considers that 'the reorganisation of elective surgery is likely to be problematic and disruptive, leading to increased delays in surgery'. The government's plan to disperse the Repat's specialist teams to other locations is simplistic, it risks the loss of what has been achieved and will most likely lead to significant increases in elective surgery waiting times.

As part of its Transforming Health plan, the government has been arguing that health services and outcomes will improve if emergency and elective surgery are separated. That is a credible argument, but it is also an argument why the Repat must not close. The Repat is already a specialist service for elective surgery: 83 per cent of Repat surgery is elective surgery compared with an average of 54 per cent in other metropolitan hospitals. The government wants to close the hospital with the highest proportion of elective surgery in Adelaide. It wants to close the hospital that is a paragon of the model that it espouses. It just does not make sense. In February, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons said this about the government's plan:

The closure of [the Repat] has significant implications for Urology and Orthopaedic services in the south. We emphasise that the current surgical service is a prime example of a service model which has successfully improved efficiency by separating elective and trauma surgery, consistent with the model espoused in Transforming Health. The dismantling of this service…will in all likelihood result in loss of expertise rather than a transfer.

The Australian Medical Association has also commented on the risks associated with losing the Repat's surgical focus. It states:

The proposal to amalgamate orthopaedic services at [Flinders Medical Centre] could lead to blended trauma and elective lists. This is seen by medical experts as a major precursor to increased infection rates for patients undergoing elective surgery and a backward step. It will also increase delays in receiving elective surgery as trauma patients take priority over the limited operating theatre time available.

The closure of the Repat, as I said, goes against the government's own rationale. The Daw House Hospice, and the palliative care services delivered from the Repat, is another reason to keep the Repat. For more than 25 years, the hospice has provided palliative care to terminally ill patients and their families in a quiet and comfortable non-hospital environment. Daw House also serves as a base for the provision of palliative care services out into the broader community through home-based services, grief counselling and the like.

These services support the delivery of world-class postgraduate palliative care training, in particular, through the nearby Flinders University. All of this will be at risk if the Weatherill government pushes ahead with its plan to close the Repat and relocate the hospice to the top floor of a building bang smack in the middle of Flinders Medical Centre, one of the busiest hospitals in the state. This brings me to the form and design of the Daw Park site.

The Repat is blessed with a low-rise campus in a garden setting that supports the recuperation and rehabilitation of its patients. This is another reason not to close the Repat. The Repat is an easy to access hospital that specialises in the care of older people and people with rehabilitation needs. Both of these groups are more prone to mobility issues and benefit from the fact that most of the Repat services are a short, ground-level walk from a car park. There are six car parks around the Repat campus which can be easily accessed through eight entry gates.

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 of these hospitals and to the city centre. Unlike other hospitals, where patients and visitors often get lost in a rabbit warren, it is easy to find your way around the Repat. The Weatherill government wants to rebuild many of the Repat facilities at the Flinders Medical Centre. People already find Flinders congested and confusing, and getting a car park close to the main building is often very difficult.

Given all of these solid reasons to save the Repat, and they are but a few, we can see that that reason has fuelled the passion of the community's opposition to the government's plan. It appears that the government has been caught unaware. It has underestimated the commitment of the South Australian community to the veterans and to the Repat that supports them.

Back in February, within weeks of the government announcement that it wanted to close the Repat, more than 13,000 people had signed an online petition to save the Repat. When this petition was brought to the attention of the health minister during question time in the other place on 12 February, he mocked and dismissed it as being an online petition and indicated that he would be prepared to take notice of the community's concern if 13,000 people signed a paper petition. So, the government—the minister—had thrown down the gauntlet.

Shortly afterwards, the fight to save the Repat went into overdrive. Marches and rallies were held more frequently, people kept raising the issue on talkback radio and in letters to the newspapers. Then, spontaneously, in one of the most extraordinary protests in our state's history, a band of veterans and their supporters set up camp on the steps of parliament. This group of veterans ended up camping out for 161 days, including every long day and night of what turned out to be one of the longest and most bitterly cold winters in living memory.

By the end of the protest, the number of people who had signed a Save the Repat petition had jumped from 13,000 to 120,000, with the bulk of those signatures (more than 88,000) being on hard copy paper petitions. The minister had taunted campaigners to collect 13,000 signatures on paper; in reply, Repat supporters collected more than six times this amount. It has been an amazing effort by hundreds but, in particular, I want to highlight the team on the steps.

One of the most humbling elements of my life as a parliamentarian is to witness the actions of the occasional strong, everyday Australian who never chose public life but who cares enough that they are compelled to act—people like Belinda Valentine and Augustinus Krikke and his team of Elvis, Gibbo, Ki, Gary and others. The team has had many faithful supporters: Ginny and John, Belita, Jan and many more.

Krikke and his team impressed me in a number of ways: their quiet determination, their steel-like persistence and their passionate commitment to the Repat services for all South Australians, not just veterans. But what impresses me most and even challenges me is their fundamental rock-solid belief in democracy. As I said, they did not choose public life but they cared enough to act.

They are playing their part, convinced that surely a democratic government will listen to the tens of thousands of South Australians who joined the campaign to save the Repat. Some may call their belief in democracy naive. Minister Snelling and the Weatherill government certainly have responded with a fixed stare which dismisses the community. The Weatherill government plays with new democracy gimmicks to try to avoid real community engagement. They suddenly refused to review the Repat decision.

For my part, I have much more confidence in Krikke's old democracy. The campaign to save the Repat grows and evolves. The Port Wakefield sculptures are being progressively rebranded; community petition stalls operating at country field days and metropolitan shopping centres continue to receive strong support; and Professor Warren Jones is acting as a lightning rod for health profession and community concern and is drawing out information that the government would rather we did not know.

It is eight months since the government announced its decision to close the Repat. In February the decision was regretted by the community; in October the decision is despised. Last week the government backflipped on its muddle-headed eye hospital proposal. Now it is time to announce that the Repat will stay open. I strongly support the motion and commend it to the house.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (21:41): I rise on behalf of the government to speak against this motion. Let me remind this house of the extensive discussions and engagement that the government has undertaken with regard to Transforming Health. From June 2014 the Clinical Advisory Committee worked together to develop quality principles and 284 clinical standards considered essential to provide a health system that meets the needs of South Australians.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Wait. From October 2014, the government released a discussion paper for wide consultation and held over 39 community events. It received more than 2,000 submissions, and over 5,000 community members and staff were involved in the consultation process. The government also held a Transforming Health summit in November 2014 which more than 600 people attended and agreed that transformation was needed to deliver the best quality health care, first time, every time.

Finally, in February this year the government released a proposal paper for feedback. Feedback received included submissions from staff and clinicians; the community; unions; consumer representative organisations; research, training and educational providers; and non-government organisations. I am keen to know whether any honourable members have used this opportunity to submit feedback about these reforms.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Yes.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: And whether honourable members got—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I did.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Very good of you, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire—and have any positive suggestions about how the state can make the health system better.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Keep the Repat open!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Maybe some honourable members opposite are too busy scaremongering and spreading misinformation to cause anxiety in the community. As you can see, the government has received a large amount of feedback and expert advice not only in formulating Transforming Health but also on the implementation and rollout of delivering Transforming Health. People elect governments to make decisive decisions.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Decisive decisions!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Correct. It has been two years since the government released the discussion paper for wide consultation on the health system in South Australia. The government—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member has the floor.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: The government has made its decision and now must get on with the job of making these changes so that people can adapt and be certain about the changes.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Sounds like Jack's office.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: No, no, no. The Repatriation General Hospital or the Repat—let me get back to the Repat—is a veterans' hospital. It was established in the 1940s by the commonwealth. The Repat was transferred to the South Australian government in 1995. The Repat was built to cater for veterans coming back from the wars of the last century. These days veterans come back from serving for Australia with different health needs than what would have been the case 70 years ago.

With any major decisions made by government of course you will have a certain percentage of the community against it—that is a fact. Any decision you make, you will have people for it, and against it, but that is just normal, but it is important at the end of the day to understand the government makes sound decisions after consulting with the public and stakeholders. So you have to make decisions after you make wide consultation with the public.

The government consulted extensively with the Veterans Advisory Council (VAC), which is made up of outstanding South Australians, before a decision to close the Repat was made. The VAC was established in April 2008 to promote the wellbeing of veterans and provide advice to the state government about matters concerning the veteran community.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: They camped out here for 156 days.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: So you are questioning the VAC's decision. The VAC is chaired by former Governor of South Australia, Sir Eric Neal AC, CVO, and comprises 16 members of the veteran community. Membership is finely balanced by experience, gender, service, rank, corps and conflict to create a body truly representative of the veteran community in South Australia. Sir Eric Neal is a person that I am sure is respected by all sides of this chamber.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: He is a very good man and that is why I am a bit surprised that some members here are questioning his judgement. I was very fortunate to have worked with Sir Eric Neal for a few years when I was an adviser to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. He is an honourable man and one of the purest people I have ever met.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: He is, and your government is dishonouring him.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: That is why he is so—

The PRESIDENT: Can the honourable member—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Sorry, Mr President, I am a bit frustrated.

The PRESIDENT: Yes I know you are frustrated but you are also very loud. Allow the member to finish.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: That is why he is so respected in our community. I take this opportunity to quote a transcript from a radio outlet on 15 May 2015, and I quote:

Veterans Advisory Council Chairman Sir Eric Neal says that most veterans use other public and private hospitals and not the Repat. He says that the Council has agreed its focus should be on ensuring the best available healthcare for veterans. He says while the PTSD treatment provided by the hospital is exceptional, other services are not up to standard.

The direct quote from Sir Eric Neal went like this, and I quote:

The real issue is that the veterans' community have spoken with their feet; nine out of ten veterans do not use the Repat Hospital, and these are the facts—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Nine out of 10, that is correct.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Statistics, statistics and damn lies.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire is questioning Sir Eric Neal here. He continued:

…and these are the facts that are really missing from the debate.

Another quote from Sir Eric Neal on the same transcript is as follows:

Ward 17 is a special case. As far as the rest of the Repat Hospital are concerned, putting it bluntly the veterans' view is that it's past its used-by date in terms of architecture, building construction, technology.

Those are quotes from Sir Eric Neal, one of the purest men I have ever met.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Shameful that you used him then.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Now the Hon. Stephen Wade is questioning Sir Eric Neal's excellent judgement as well.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: No, I am questioning your use of him politically.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: This is all in the public here. In an opinion piece, dated 1 May 2015, in a popular online newspaper in South Australia known as InDaily, Sir Eric Neal ran an article entitled 'Sir Eric Neal: Why I support Transforming Health'. He has put it in writing here. The article states:

The words 'We will remember them' and 'Lest we forget' have real meaning. 'Lest we forget' should, and must, not only relate to those who gave their lives, but also to those who were physically and emotionally wounded by their service and who require medical care, sometimes for the rest of their lives. It explains why the Veterans' Advisory Council is generally in support of the State Government's Transforming Health Plan, at the heart of which is to ensure that the best care is delivered first time, every time to all South Australians including veterans.

He continued:

This will involve the relocation of some, but not all, services currently provided at the Repatriation General Hospital to other hospitals. The Veterans' Advisory Council is more concerned that veterans receive the absolute best medical attention in the best location rather than seeking to preserve, in its entirety, a World War II facility that is outdated, even though for some it has emotional ties.

The government takes the advice from Sir Eric Neal and members of the VAC very seriously. These men and women have served our country honourably. Therefore, I urge honourable members to be sensible about this very issue and not to play politics with our veterans community.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: The government are.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: No. The veterans community deserves to be respected and they certainly deserve the best quality health care. I urge honourable members not to support this motion and not to play politics with this issue.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (21:53): I speak on behalf of Dignity for Disability in support of this motion and in so doing I want to for just a few minutes step away from the Repat as one example and talk about the process that has been undertaken in this Transforming Health proposal since February. I want to do that because unfortunately the protest over the decision is just one example of how this Transforming Health proposal has not been well received by the general community.

Other examples include the Flinders Medical Centre neonatal intensive care unit which was originally proposed for closure using data that would later prove to be wildly inaccurate. When this data was proved to be inaccurate regarding the number of babies who would be affected by this closure, the Minister for Health in the other place (Hon. Jack Snelling), then came out—I am paraphrasing here—and told the community not to worry about it because it would not happen for a number of years yet. Following further community protest, the decision was reversed.

There has also been a wide lack of clarity around how a number of the proposals will work in practice. A recent example is that of the apparent lack of a physical education unit once spinal injury support services are moved from Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I have been approached, as I understand the Hon. Mr Wade has also been approached, by Paraquad SA, the peak body in South Australia representing people with a spinal cord injury usually following a motor vehicle accident, who have told us that it seems to them from their reading of the plans that there will be no physical education unit once these services are moved to The QEH.

For the record, a physical education unit, to put it briefly, is basically a gym where people can go to use special equipment and get special professional support to regain muscle strength that they may have lost following, in this example, a motor vehicle accident, and also learn new skills, such as how to use a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, effectively.

Paraquad SA came to Dignity for Disability and said they were very concerned about the lack of a physical education unit under this move. The most obvious reason being that if people cannot get access to rehabilitation following an accident or injury through another means then they are going to have less independence which is likely, in turn, to translate to greater dependence on taxpayer dollars in the form of disability support.

Lo and behold, a government spokesperson comes out a few days later in the media to say that, not only will there be a physical education gym at The QEH under this move but there will be one on every ward. If this is true, Dignity for Disability says this is fantastic because we should, of course, not be losing any services but be providing something better if we are truly going to transform health. However, I am yet to see any proof, apart from this statement in the media, that this is, in fact, the case. So, I again, on behalf of Dignity for Disability, implore the government to provide clarity to the general community about how these measures and proposals will operate in practice.

Another example is the very evident lack of hydrotherapy pools currently in South Australia, particularly for people undergoing rehabilitation. Again, I was informed by Professor Dorothy Keefe on radio that we will, in fact, have more hydrotherapy pools under Transforming Health and, again, I say fantastic, but I need to see the proof. I need to be able to tell my constituents, who rely on things like physical education units and hydrotherapy pools to regain and maintain their independence, their strength and their lack of reliance on taxpayer dollars, that these services will be in place for them. I have yet to see the proof of that. So I again implore the government to provide clear, plain English explanations to the general community about how these new proposals will work in practice.

In listening to the Hon. Mr Ngo's contribution, I was interested that he asked members for feedback. He wanted to make sure that we had all submitted through the formal channels before getting up and making statements in the media and in this place about Transforming Health. I have double-checked and I am pleased that I can clarify with the Hon. Mr Ngo that Dignity for Disability certainly made a submission on Transforming Health back in February, but if he wants further feedback on how the government can save money in the health budget, I am happy to again put on record a number of proposals that Dignity for Disability has put forward in our time in parliament on exactly how to do that:

More support for people with chronic pain so that, where possible, they are able to work and contribute to the community, at the very least get out of bed and leave their homes.

For the health and disability budgets to work together to put in place holistic support for people who have acquired additional disability-related needs while in hospital and need support either through the form of disability support workers or handrails to be installed in their home in order for them to be able to return home. Rather than doing this, we have seen situations where people languish in hospital beds, racking up a hospital bill of $450,000 for one person, which I am sure I do not need to tell anyone here would be enough to build them a home to go home to.

Allow people with disabilities to have their support workers visit them in hospital so that they can at least get a shower during a hospital stay.

Appoint a mental health commissioner who has lived experience of mental health challenges and will communicate with families and individuals about what social supports will enable them to stay out of hospital by remaining connected to the community.

Provide more support for people with borderline personality disorder so that we do not lose 10 per cent of these community members through suicide and the economic and community contribution that they would be able to make by remaining with us.

Funding support for people with HIV through Positive Life.

Recognise epilepsy as a disability in South Australia and provide expedient access to neurologists so that people can get an adequate diagnosis so the epilepsy does not remain so uncontrolled that they are unable to work and contribute to the community.

There is one final suggestion—and there are many more that I could put on the record:

Work together with the federal government to reinstate funding to the Intensive Home Based Support Service (IHBSS), which supports people experiencing a mental health crisis in their home, and, as an evaluation shows, saves on average 10.3 days in hospital per consumer and therefore roughly $800 per day per person for a mental health-related stay in hospital.

Those are some suggestions on how the government could save money in the health budget, and I would certainly welcome their implementation. We have put them forward in our formal submission and we will continue to raise them in this place.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (22:02): I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I do not hold the Hon. Tung Ngo responsible for the government's message or response because he himself is a very good man, but I will hold, and I trust the parliament will hold, this government responsible for what is a deplorable, disgraceful and totally unsatisfactory situation when it comes to closing the Repatriation Hospital. They have done nothing to listen to the people. They are making a grave mistake for the future health needs of this state. Transforming Health is also a problem and that is why we need to look at that further.

I encourage all members to support this motion and condemn the government for what will be one of the worst decisions in the history of this parliament. As a member of this parliament for 20 years, I never thought I would have to move a motion in relation to a government, be it Liberal or Labor, closing the Repatriation General Hospital. It is an absolute disgrace and I condemn the government with all the energy I can muster.

Motion carried.