<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2017-10-19" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="7983" />
  <endPage num="8091" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital Gynaecological Services</name>
      <text id="2017101925d68124ded848cb80000410">
        <heading>Royal Adelaide Hospital Gynaecological Services</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="3489" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-10-19">
            <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital Gynaecological Services</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-10-19T15:09:42" />
        <text id="2017101925d68124ded848cb80000411">
          <timeStamp time="2017-10-19T15:09:42" />
          <by role="member" id="3489">The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:09):</by>  A further supplementary then: I take the minister at face value that there is no reduction in quality and capability of gynaecological services at the new RAH as against the old RAH. Why then was this patient, an acute care patient in a serious condition, transferred to the Flinders Medical Centre, or is he saying that his department hasn't even advised him, without giving away any confidentiality? We are not about breaching confidentiality here. We are about getting to the bottom of the truth on this. Has he been advised by his department that they did have this patient transferred to the FMC?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="5084" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-10-19">
            <name>Royal Adelaide Hospital Gynaecological Services</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-10-19T15:10:25" />
        <text id="2017101925d68124ded848cb80000412">
          <timeStamp time="2017-10-19T15:10:25" />
          <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (15:10):</by>  Just to be clear regarding the first supplementary that the honourable member asked, what I am saying is that my original answer was not intended to, nor did it, provide an analysis on the existing gynaecological services that are being provided at both The QEH and the NRAH in comparison to what was the case at the old RAH. That wasn't my intention, and that was not what I was saying. Again, I am not able to go into the details of specific cases.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>