Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time SA Pathology SA Pathology The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council SA Pathology The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:17): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Health and Wellbeing a question regarding SA Pathology. Leave granted. The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I understand the government has set SA Pathology a savings target of $45 million to achieve by the financial year 2022. I further understand that, if efficiencies are not achieved, the government may consider privatising this service. My questions to the minister are: 1.	If pathology services are privatised, how will the government protect consumers from unreasonable price increases or loss of services? 2.	Will the government be responsible for setting the fees and charges of pathology services if privatisation occurs? The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council Minister for Health and Wellbeing The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:18): I thank the honourable member for his question and for his commitment to South Australian health services. To clarify the honourable member's question, the government has not said that SA Pathology will be privatised if efficiencies are not achieved. As part of the 2018-19 state budget, the Marshall Liberal government asked SA Pathology to find efficiencies, noting that, with the devolution of health governance to local boards, if efficiencies are not achieved then local boards could choose to seek alternative providers. It might be useful for the council to put this budget measure in its historical context. In 2014, the former Labor government commissioned Ernst and Young to review SA Pathology services. Their report, delivered in 2014, made a number of recommendations, including cutting 332 FTE from SA Pathology. There was also discussion at that time of privatising country pathology services. It took then minister Snelling until mid-February 2015 to rule out privatising country services. Labor in opposition accuses us of what they were considering doing in government. Projection does not make it true. Labor's hypocrisy does not define this government. But that's not the end of Labor's hypocrisy on SA Pathology. Following the Ernst and Young report, and without releasing any of the data underlying the review to staff or even management, Labor developed their efficiency improvement program, or EIP, in 2015. Under the EIP, Labor aimed to cut 200 FTE from SA Pathology and Labor began the consolidation of non-essential services. Staff and employee representative organisations were not engaged in this process. It was high-handed Labor top down, ignoring the wellbeing of the very workers they now claim to stand beside. In August 2017, then minister Snelling paused the EIP until after the 2018 state election. On 7 August 2017, Professionals Australia conceded that further job cuts might be necessary and agreed to work with the then Labor government to find those efficiencies. Sarah Andrews of Professionals Australia said at the time, and I quote: I think invariably when you introduce new technologies to the workforce, efficiencies can be gained, and we're happy to be part of the working party to oversee that process. In contrast with Labor, the Marshall Liberal government has not set out to privatise country practices. We have commissioned a review of SA Pathology services by PricewaterhouseCoopers. In contrast to Labor's Ernst and Young review, the Marshall Liberal government has committed to ensuring the data behind the review is released to staff and employee representative bodies. The PricewaterhouseCoopers review will inform the discussion about where efficiencies can be pursued within SA Pathology. Also in contrast to Labor, the Marshall Liberal government has sought to engage staff and employee representative bodies. So, in answer to the honourable member's question, the government has not decided to privatise SA Pathology. As I said, if efficiencies are not met, local boards will be free to seek alternative providers.