SHINE SA

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (14:25): I would like to suggest that the minister consider answering the second part of my original question, and that was: does he not have any views or concerns about the opinions expressed by clinicians that his cuts to funding to SHINE, resulting in the closing of centres and a reduction in services, will mean there will be an increase in STIs and unplanned pregnancies?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:25): I would remind the honourable member that the program in relation to sexually transmitted infections and bloodborne viruses is actually to six organisations.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: So why have you picked on SHINE? Why have you cut theirs more than everybody else's?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hunter, you have an opportunity to ask another supplementary.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Four times as heavy a cut.

The PRESIDENT: Please restrain yourself, the Hon. Mr Hunter.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Four times as heavy a cut to SHINE. What have you got against them?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hunter, you have asked your question, allow him to answer.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that all of the six organisations funded under the program experienced cuts between efficiencies—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hunter, allow the minister to answer. Leader of the Opposition, restrain yourself as well.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I don't know what figures the honourable member is referring to because I am certainly not advised that that is the case. I am advised that the cuts were between 5 and 9 per cent. These efficiencies are being asked right across the program and in that sense, even if you are at the upper end, 9.5 per cent is less than double, if you like, in terms of the ratio. In terms of factuality—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the opposition benches! I cannot hear the minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The member's assertion was that there was a dramatically higher cut for SHINE SA than other participants in the program, but this is not true. Labor reduced funding by 5 per cent to SHINE. Obviously, Labor felt that SHINE SA could make efficiencies. When we have a situation where we have the CALHN overspend at $300 million a year—that's 30 times, the overspend in CALHN alone is 30 times our annual spend in this program. So you have to say, Labor wants to continue with gay abandon the budget inefficiencies of CALHN and then expecting that there won't be any action to reduce inefficiencies.

The reality is that we expect all of the health system to work more efficiently. That includes our non-government partners, that includes SHINE. We are not getting the same pushback from other partners that we are from SHINE SA. There is demonstrable evidence that they can increase their revenue, they can become more efficient. We expect that of SHINE, we expect that of all of our partners.