HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Health Care (Privatisation of Health Services) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (10:59): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Health Care Act 2008. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to move the Health Care (Privatisation of Health Services) Amendment Bill and note the support of my crossbench colleagues. This bill amends the Health Care Act by inserting a new section 94, which prohibits the privatisation of an asset or service of a public provider of a health service without the approval of parliament.

A public provider of a health service is defined broadly to include incorporated hospitals—which includes hospitals in each of the local health networks established across the state—the SA Ambulance Service, SA Pathology and any other public sector agency under the Public Sector Act that provides health services in South Australia. The bill also consequentially ensures that the dissolution of an incorporated hospital or the transfer of any assets of an incorporated hospital to a private party may not occur without parliamentary consent.

I first brought forward these amendments to the government's now lapsed Health Care (Governance) (No 2) Amendment Bill in the house last year and at the same time was talking about introducing universal emergency ambulance cover as a separate but related initiative, a vital component of an integrated public health system. I did so because of my concern that changes the government was pursuing would lead to the normalisation of privatisation in our health system.

We knew at that time that SA Pathology was already reeling from the effects of the first round of cuts and was under threat of privatisation. We could all clearly see the potential for more, similar privatisations as we cast our eyes across comparable threats on the agenda of the last Liberal government and now on this one's. No-one condones duplication or waste, but I put it to the house that there is very little fat to excise. Comparing SA Pathology with interstate services, we are not comparing like with like.

I am as delighted as anyone else that SA Pathology, which has shown outstanding commitment and dedication to the South Australian community in the course of this current pandemic, has been spared imminent privatisation by fiat of the Premier for now. If this pandemic has shown us anything, it is that the sickness of one of us is a concern for all of us. Testing has been our secret weapon, and SA Pathology has proved itself to be, as the Premier and health minister have publicly stated, 'an organisation of international standing'. The leadership and foresight of SA Pathology's senior staff made this possible and gave front-line and lab staff the opportunity to show their mettle.

As we have watched this virus overwhelm nations around the world, it is clear that a strong public health system is best placed and most capable of gearing up to meet a challenge of this scale. Protecting our community from future health crises requires our health system to be protected from future privatisation threats. The constant threat of privatisation to the provision and delivery of a universal health service and secure health workers' jobs has to stop. Over 30,000 health workers are employed in the state's public health system, including some 800 in SA Pathology, and all work hard to keep South Australians safe under normal circumstances and especially now in the face of the current pandemic.

It is heartening to see that the Premier recognises the importance of our publicly owned pathology service and indeed congratulates them on their outstanding work, but the threat of privatisation does remain. Staff throughout our health system deserve more than a pat on the back. They deserve to know that their work is valued and their jobs will remain after this crisis to deliver the essential care South Australians deserve and expect and be ready to step up again whenever necessary. Merely extending the deadline for SA Pathology to meet budget cuts is no comfort to workers on the front line and gives room for any future government to consider privatisation.

I am also concerned that, with the privatisation of SA Pathology off the agenda for now, attention will turn to privatisation of other parts of our health system. KordaMentha have merely paused their activities. I am not sure what they have actually paused, and no-one really is sure why their contract had to be extended. Have SA Health staff not yet been brought up to speed? So I introduce this bill today, a bill that has the support of representatives of SA Pathology staff and staff employed more widely within our health sector. I want to particularly acknowledge and thank the PSA and the ANMF for their public support of this bill today.

To turn briefly to the operation of the bill, it is important to know the definition of privatisation is drafted in fairly broad language, to include any disposal or transfer of ownership or control of public health system assets or services outside government. There are, however, exceptions built into this legislation for minor leases and minor contracts, such as the kiosk at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, being leases of five years or less, with contracts having the added safeguard of having a total worth of $5 million or less. The other is disposal of an asset defined as minor, being an asset worth $5 million or less, allowing for the disposal of things like equipment. All of these exceptions have room for regulatory change.

These are practical and reasonable measures which, given the government's decision not to proceed with the privatisation of SA Pathology, would give the South Australian community surety of process beyond the tenure of this government. As many would know, I have always opposed privatisation of our health system, starting with the ill-conceived privatisation of Modbury Hospital's administration decades ago. In the midst of this pandemic, a period when we all have to pull together, it is long past time we made our health system immune to privatisation threats. South Australians are proud of our health system and expect our government to keep it strong and able to keep us all safe and well. I seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This clause is formal.

2—Amendment provisions

This clause is formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Health Care Act 2008

3—Amendment of section 29—Incorporation

This clause amends section 29 of the Health Care Act 2008 to provide that a proclamation of the Governor to dissolve an incorporated hospital, or to transfer the assets of an incorporated hospital to a person or body that is not an agency or instrumentality of the Crown, must not be made without the approval of Parliament given by resolution of the Houses.

4—Insertion of section 94

This clause inserts a new section providing that, from the date of commencement of the section, no asset or service owned, controlled or under the responsibility of a public provider of health services may be privatised without the approval of Parliament given by resolution of the Houses.

A public provider of a health service is defined to mean an incorporated hospital, the SA Ambulance Service, SA Pathology or any public sector agency within the meaning of the Public Sector Act 2009 that provides health services in South Australia.

To privatise an asset or service means to sell or transfer ownership or control of, or responsibility for, an asset or service to a health service provider that is not a public provider of a health service.

However, to privatise does not include the granting of a designated contract or a minor lease or the sale, transfer or disposal of a minor asset.

A designated contract means a contract for the provision of health services to a public provider with a value of $5 million or less (or such greater amount as may be specified by regulation).

A minor lease means a lease of property owned or controlled by a public provider that is granted for a period of 5 years or less (or such greater period as may be specified by regulation) and has a value of $5 million or less (or such greater amount as may be specified by regulation).

A minor asset means an asset owned or controlled by a public provider that has a value of $5 million or less (or such greater amount as may be specified by regulation).

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT