Chief Public Health Officer

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:17): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Health and Wellbeing a question on the topic of the Chief Public Health Officer.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The council and the minister would no doubt be aware that Australia spends less than 2 per cent of our health budget on prevention; in contrast, Canada and New Zealand spend around 6 per cent. One in every two Australians have at least one prominent chronic condition. Chronic conditions such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes are largely preventable. More than one in three potentially preventable hospitalisations in Australia are linked to chronic disease.

There is also inequality in health, with people in lower socio-economic groups experiencing higher rates of illness and disability. If we are to make an impact on addressing the pressures facing our health system, now more than ever we need leadership and focus on prevention. I note that the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 establishes the position of Chief Public Health Officer. However, currently the position is held by the Chief Medical Officer rather than as a stand-alone position—both positions held by the same person in a merged position.

To this end, I note that the Public Health Association of Australia, in partnership with groups such as the South Australian Council of Social Services, the Australian Health Promotion Association, the Anti-Poverty Network of South Australia and the People's Health Movement, put together an election platform. The key ask of three asks was that whoever was in government establish a discrete full-time position of Chief Public Health Officer to enable this state leadership, with a mandate for prevention, health promotion and wellbeing.

My question to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing is: will he investigate the establishment of a stand-alone discrete full-time Chief Public Health Officer?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:19): The answer to the honourable member's question is no, I won't investigate it because the Marshall Liberal government is committed to doing it. We will do it. Let's remind the house why we are going to do it. We are going to do it because in 2011 the former Labor government had a McCann review, which basically they used as an excuse to step out of preventive health.

We had a massive disinvestment in preventative health services in this state, I believe to the long-term detriment. It's another reflection of the hospital-centric approach of the former Labor government, particularly over the last half of the 16 years they were in power. I completely agree with the honourable member: to achieve significant health gains you need to reduce the number of people living with preventable health conditions, and help people out of hospital when they need not be there in the first place. You need sustainable and comprehensive prevention and health promotion strategies.

That is why two of our largest and most substantial policies in the election campaign were focused on prevention: one that we call better prevention, which is about the comprehensive, shall we say, population-based prevention strategies, and the other is what we call targeted prevention, helping people who already have acquired a condition, for whatever reason, whether it be genetic and they were born with it or they acquired it, to work with them, to support them and stopping their condition progressing to an acute phase.

So, the better health policy had, as I said, a focus on individual and community action, education, screening, vaccines, research, monitoring, evaluation, public health regulation, leadership and coordination. It would be fair to say that they are the sorts of areas you would expect a chief public health officer to lead on. The honourable member is completely correct: not only did the former Labor government publish the McCann review, and took it as an opportunity to vacate the public health space, but demonstrated their lack of interest by basically abolishing the position.

Labor members might want to be pedantic with me and say, 'No, no, no, we didn't abolish it, we just tacked the title onto the bottom of the signature block.' I'm sorry, that didn't fool anybody. This was another demonstration of the former Labor government's determination to get out of primary and preventative health.

We in the Liberal Party take seriously our responsibilities for health outcomes but also for a health funding regime that is financially rational and sustainable. I believe we will only have sustainable public health services when we invest across the domains, and that includes preventative and public health. Not only did the former Labor government not manage the acute services, for example, the $776 million blowout on the NRAH project, but they couldn't manage primary health care services either.