HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M. Parnell:

That this council—

1. Notes:

(a) the review of non-hospital based services currently underway in the SA Department of Health, including the report prepared by internal consultant, Warren McCann, released on 3 December 2012;

(b) the recommendations of the report to significantly reduce community health and health promotion programs within SA Health and the wider community;

(c) the implications, if the recommendations are accepted, to services such as the Shopfront Youth Health Service in Salisbury that has been providing services since 1983;

(d) that these cuts will inevitably lead to reductions in services and programs targeting the most disadvantaged in our society, as it is these South Australians who make the most use of community-based primary healthcare services;

(e) that slashing community health and health promotion programs as a means to reduce government health spending is counterproductive because the whole point of these programs is to prevent ill-health and reduce demand in hospital services where the real growth on costs is occurring;

(f) the risk that these vital services and programs are being caught up in a cost-shifting battle between the state and federal governments; and

2. Calls on the government to reject the recommendations contained in the McCann report into non-hospital based services and ensure continued SA Health funding for vital preventative health and health promotion services and programs.

(Continued from 6 February 2013.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:07): I rise to speak to this motion moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell. Can I indicate at the outset that there are some aspects of the motion the Liberal Party would support but that there are some aspects that I believe in the end the Liberal Party cannot support. Just as a matter of background, it is every member's right to call his or her particular motion to a vote. The honourable member has followed due protocol in indicating that he wishes this matter to be voted upon today, and we will certainly respect that.

I do put on the record, however, that I put in a request to the Hon. Mr Parnell as to whether it would be possible to delay a vote until the next sitting week of parliament to allow my and our party's further consideration of some of the matters to which I will refer in my contribution this evening. I respect and accept that the Hon. Mr Parnell took a different view and that he would like to see a vote.

I indicated that, if it did go to a vote tonight, because we had not had the opportunity of further consideration the Liberal Party would not be in a position to support the motion, as he has currently drafted it, this evening. What I did highlight to him was that in our consideration we were looking to see whether, by way of agreement, we might be able to come to some common ground with the Hon. Mr Parnell to indicate those areas of his motion that we support and those areas that at this stage we are not in a position to support. Again, in saying all that I make no criticism of the Hon. Mr Parnell; I just outline the context and background to a consideration of what is a complicated matter.

The Hon. Mr Parnell does the parliament a service by moving this motion and opening it up for public debate because considerable concern has been expressed by a number of the groups and programs impacted by the government's decision on this particular matter. It is appropriate that this debate follows immediately from the debate that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has promoted in terms of the appalling nature of the state's finances and the mess that this Jay Weatherill government has got South Australia into in terms of big debt—$14 billion—but, just as importantly and just as worryingly, the big annual deficit of $1.2 billion a year that we are looking at at the moment. So we are currently adding to our state debt to the tune of $1.2 billion a year.

I am not going to spend tonight on this particular debate. We will have the opportunity during debates on other issues to go through the appalling financial management of the Jay Weatherill Labor government. Indeed, we know that you are a very strong supporter of the Premier, Mr President, and we know of the close friendship that you have with him on many issues. You and he sing from the same hymn sheet on many issues, or most issues. I am sure that that is the case and I am sure that it would be the case in relation to this particular issue as well.

However, the appalling management of the Jay Weatherill Labor government has meant, sadly, that the Premier and his ministers are now trying to start the difficult process of trying to sort out the problem. Sadly, as a result of that, many innocent parties will be impacted and affected and programs and projects will be cut. We might be very critical of the Jay Weatherill Labor government's priorities and the fact that the government can find $7 million for a wellbeing initiative—for an institute of wellbeing, for retreats on Kangaroo Island to look at the science of imagination—and money for all sorts of psychobabble that happens to interest it but, at the same time, lots of important programs and projects are being thrown overboard. They are being jettisoned, they are being slashed, they are being cut by the Jay Weatherill Labor government. That is the context in which we are looking at this particular debate.

The Premier asked his internal consultant—someone who is being paid an aggregate of $350,000 or $360,000 a year, half of the time as an internal consultant and half of the time as the Commissioner for Public Employment—to do a hatchet job on this review of non-hospital-based services. So Mr Warren McCann was asked to do the hatchet job on non-hospital-based services.

I will be delighted to hear the government representative's response this evening on this, but my information is that Mr McCann conducted a review of 235 individual services that fell within the review's scope in the space of eight weeks. That is an extraordinary effort. Just imagine—he was able to look at 235 individual services that fell within this particular program and he was able to make judgements about their efficiency and effectiveness and he was able to make judgements as to what should happen to all 235 individual services within his purview.

With the greatest of respect to the Jay Weatherill Labor government and with due respect to Mr McCann, I think that is palpable nonsense. There is no way that anybody, acting as he was with, as I understand it, a very small number of staff, in the eight-week period was able to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of 235 individual services. At the end of it, we have what we have and the government has moved down a path of implementing recommendations. The Hon. Mr Parnell may be in a position to know they did go through what is laughingly called their consultation period or discussion period, but all the information available to me is that decisions have been taken left, right and centre to implement virtually all, if not all, of the recommendations of the McCann review.

One of the dilemmas for someone in my position as an incoming shadow minister for health is that I do not have the background knowledge—at least as at six weeks ago, whenever it was—of any of the 235 individual programs. I am not in a position to make judgements about the efficiency and effectiveness of those 235 individual programs. If I can draw on my experience in government and in parliament, my view would be that a number of those 235 programs would be fantastic—they will be very efficient and effective—and there will be a number of those programs which probably are moderately successful or of average quality and, speaking frankly, there will be some programs which are not worth funding.

It is the harsh reality—and it may not be the view that the Hon. Mr Parnell adopts, because his recommendation is that all the recommendations of McCann be rejected—but it is my experience that some programs that departments and governments fund are unsuccessful. They ain't worth the money that's going into them.

The Hon. Mr Darley, often, in the Budget and Finance Committee says to chief executives, 'Have you actually sat back, gone back to first principles and looked at an efficiency and effectiveness, or a line by line budget review of what it is that you do?' The import of what he is saying to the chief executives is that sometimes you have to go back and look at all your programs and sometimes you have to make difficult decisions; and you continue to fund the ones that are effective but there are some programs that you have to say no to.

My experience is that effective governments and effective ministers have to go through that difficult process. You cannot say yes to everybody. You cannot just assume that every program is the most successful program that has ever been invented. There are some programs that are not.

The problem that I have with this, in terms of the way the government and the minister has handled it, is the process because, as I said, I do not accept that there has been a proper appraisal of the 235 individual services that are going to be impacted by the McCann review and the government's decisions. The dilemma for me, as one member of this chamber, is that I cannot tell you which of the 235 are the terrific ones and which of the 235 ain't worth funding.

I have received glowing endorsements and I have seen material on a number of the programs. I am sure a lot of the members have. The Community Foodies program and the Start Right Eat Right program certainly have attracted support and there has been media and community criticism of their potential defunding. But there have been some other programs in regional areas which have not attracted metropolitan media coverage which I understand are potentially going to be impacted and which local regional members of the House of Assembly have said to me they believe are effective and efficient programs as well. The reality is simply that this government seems to have adopted a broadbrush approach: 'That's it. McCann has done the hatchet job for us. We are now going to use that as the device to move ahead to defund virtually all (or all) of the programs.'

The dilemma is in some of the clauses of the motion moved the Hon. Mr Parnell. Some of those I agree with 100 per cent; on some of them I am sure with some amendment we could come to some agreement. The problem I have is, in essence, the doing clause (clause 2), the action clause, which reads 'calls on the government to reject the recommendations'. I, and we the Liberal Party, are just not in a position to reject the recommendations contained in the report. As I said before and I will repeat it, my experience is that some of these programs are possibly (or probably) not going to be effective, and the sad reality is they may well have to be defunded at some stage and in some process, and the efficient and effective ones should be allowed to continue.

The current process is not going to allow for that and sadly it would appear that, unless the government listens to the concern being expressed, potentially some excellent programs may well be jettisoned by this government as part of a process to try to correct the budget mess that they have created over 10 or 11 years.

The final general point I make is, as has been outlined to me by some of the stakeholder groups—and I am talking now about the AMA and others that I have spoken to on a range of issues in my initial briefings—that part of the argument the state government and Warren McCann have used in this is that there is a COAG agreement that primary health care is to be the responsibility of the federal government and hospitals and the related issues are to be the responsibility of the state government.

Part of the argument that I understand the government is pushing is that many, if not all, of these programs are clearly primary healthcare programs. The Hon. Mr Parnell rightly makes the point that if you spend money on efficient and effective primary healthcare programs and preventative healthcare programs, you may well save yourself money in the medium to long term. I think that is a statement of fact, it is accepted by most stakeholders, and I certainly do not dispute that. I accept that argument and I suspect the government probably does, too.

However, I think their argument is, 'Well, the agreement is that we have to find our bucks for the hospitals and related matters. The feds said they would fund primary health care.' That may or may not be the case because, again, I am just not in a position—and I will be interested to hear the government's representative on this matter address that issue in his or her contribution this evening. But even if that is the case, and let's assume that it is the case, the concern I have with this process again from the Jay Weatherill Labor government is that the process they have adopted is that, even if that is correct, it is essentially to say, 'This is the situation and, bang, as of 30 June or soon afterwards, we are throwing a particular program out the window, even if it is a good program.'

Even if the federal government has not accepted that it should pick up funding for it, they are going to potentially throw it out the window and say, 'This is a primary healthcare program and the federal government should pick it up,' rather than if it is a good program, negotiating with the federal government a transition over a period of time to allow state government funding to be weaned off and federal government funding to be weaned on and the effective programs being allowed to continue. As to the ineffective programs, the federal government may well say, 'You haven't convinced us this is effective. We are not going to pick it up. It will be defunded and that is it.'

I think that, if the Jay Weatherill Labor government had been prepared to adopt that sort of a process, it would have been a much more defensible process, and it would have been harder for some in the groups to argue and to campaign against. At least they would have been given, first, an opportunity to argue the case of their efficiency and effectiveness, and there would have been an opportunity for the federal government to consider whether it would be prepared to take up funding. If that did not occur, the program would be closed down eventually anyway.

That to me would have been a more defensible process and one that I think a good government and a good minister would have followed but, sadly, we have neither. We have the Jay Weatherill Labor government, and we have minister Snelling, who has come straight out of Treasury with obviously not much feel for the effectiveness of some of these programs.

For the reasons I have outlined, if the vote was not to have been taken tonight, we would have certainly have moved amendments and, if the Hon. Mr Parnell was happy with those amendments, an amended motion might have passed. If he was unhappy with those amendments, the decision would have then been in the hands of the majority in the chamber. Again, I say that I make no criticism of the Hon. Mr Parnell that he insists on having a vote on this issue tonight. Given that that is the circumstance, we are not in a position to support the motion as he has drafted it and will therefore be voting no.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:27): As the other member of the Greens in this chamber, it will come as no surprise to members that I will be supporting the motion put before us by the Hon. Mark Parnell.

I was one of those who attended the McCann of Worms event held at the University of South Australia. I believe that, just a few days into his new role, minister Snelling, to his credit, did turn up to face the music. Certainly, he indicated not only that he was willing to listen to the people who were there that night but also to take seriously the review of these proposals, as suggested by Mr McCann. Of course, the previous minister, John Hill, was the one who instituted the review of the so-called non-hospital services, and it is that I want to focus on first.

The McCann of Worms forum was incredibly well attended, from a diversity of stakeholder groups—the Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the South Australian Council of Social Services, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia—and dozens of others, including Professor Baum, who emceed that event. Indeed, we saw the work firsthand of the Community Foodies who were inspirational in the work they are doing in preventative and health promotion work.

By assuming that non-hospital services should be reviewed in their totality, and in their diversity, it makes a false assumption that somehow hospital services and non-hospital services are not intertwined in terms of their effectiveness. In terms of looking at cutting costs and trimming budgets, the focus on preventing hospitalisation is, indeed, too narrow in its understanding of preventative health. Prevention is, of course, better than cure, it is much more pleasant than cure and it is often a lot cheaper than cure. When a report that looks into non-hospital services does not actually take into account the costs that these particular services are already making across the health budget, then that report itself is indeed flawed, the assumptions that it is based on, and it is indeed set up to fail its own test.

The review also undermines the state's bid for two of its strategic priorities to be met, that of Safe Communities, Healthy Neighbourhoods and Every Chance For Every Child. The idea of targeting primary health care and health promotion flies in the face of the best wisdom that we have on health in the 21st century. The World Health Organisation has called for more, not less, investment in primary health care and indeed, the World Health Organisation director general has said:

Decades of experience tell us that primary health care produces better outcomes, at lower costs, and with higher user satisfaction... It can prevent much of the disease burden and it also can prevent people with minor complaints from flooding hospital emergency wards.

Certainly my colleague, the Hon. Mark Parnell, in introducing this motion noted that the intent of this review is to find cost savings; yet, if implemented, the most likely outcome of these recommendations will indeed be an increase in costs. He pointed to renal dialysis in particular and, indeed, just one year of a South Australian not being on renal dialysis would save the health system upwards of $70,000. While HIV is not under the watch of this particular proposal, I understand that the budget for the AIDS Council is dwarfed by the cost of one case of HIV being diagnosed in a year, yet the preventative work being done clearly is saving us substantial amounts into the future and also creating better lives. As I say, prevention is not only better than cure; it is a lot more pleasant.

The Greens understand that the health budget is under pressure. We understand that the state budget is under pressure. We do seriously question, however, this particular review, and the way that it was undertaken. I will not labour the point too much, but the Hon. Rob Lucas touched on it when he noted that this review was undertaken in eight weeks and involved such a large number and diversity of agencies and services.

In my conversations with those who were subject to the review and indeed are slated for the cuts, they did not even know what the purpose of the review was to be. They informed me that, had they been told, they would have provided different information. They would have provided information that went to show that they were meeting their targets and how they were, in fact, an effective and positive and budget-saving initiative. Yet, they were not informed and adequately appraised of what the purpose of this review was and so they felt they had not been given the true opportunity to have provided that information and quite rightly were angry about that. I can understand their anger.

What we are also missing in this debate and why this motion is indeed quite urgent is that we are losing people in this workforce because of the difficulties and the stresses and the strains that we are putting them under with the razor gang's axe hanging over their head. Who would not be looking for alternative employment if you knew that you were probably going to lose your job? You would be looking to get out while the going was good and that reduces morale and it leads to a talent and an expertise drain in the area. As I say, had the review actually looked at the ways that these programs were operating in terms of whether they were meeting their outcomes and whether the long-term benefits were well outweighed by the short-term costs, then I would have more faith in this review.

Of course, I would agree that not all programs should run forever and certainly there are programs that are effective for a time and then should rightly be ended, replaced or adapted, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are also talking about a suggestion that the federal government will pick up the pieces here, but we are doing it in such a way that we do not know that that is certain, and we are leaving this part of the health sector in the lurch on that and not giving that certainty. We cannot presume to know what the federal government will do here, we cannot presume to know that people will not leave these particular agencies and services and take with them the corporate memory they have and the networks they have built up. We will lose all that, and those costs have certainly not been calculated in this particular review.

I think that the way the review has been undertaken has led to ill will in the community, and will lead to ill health in our community as well. It has been a short-sighted approach, which stands in contrast to the rhetoric of this government.

I spoke earlier this evening about the importance of sport. In the same way that grassroots sport is incredibly important and creates health, it in fact saves the health budget far more than it costs it. Again, we have spent an enormous amount of money on projects such as the South Road Superway—which I call the Superwaste—and I would certainly like to see the 'Superwaste' not proceeded with, as well as the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

It has been pointed out to me that Women's Health Statewide, one of the agencies that has been heavily slashed as part of the budget savings measures over past times, looks out over the construction site that is the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. They can see where the money has gone that used to fund their coworkers and the programs that provided such essential services for the women of South Australia. With that, I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (20:37): I rise to give the government's response to the motion. In November 2012, Mr Warren McCann, from the Office of Public Employment and Review, completed a report entitled, 'Review of Non-Hospital Based Services'. The purpose of the review was to look at the performance and outcomes of 235 individual non-hospital based services across metropolitan local health networks for efficiency and effectiveness opportunities, as well as achieving savings.

The review follows the Hospital Budget Performance and Remediation Review of hospital services within metropolitan local health networks. This is the first review of its kind for non-hospital based services, and is of particular importance, given the ageing population, increasing demand, cost of providing health services and increasing rates of preventable chronic disease. The review is also timely because of the expectation that the commonwealth's role (consistent with the 2011 National Health Reform Agreement) will increase progressively in the funding and provision of non-hospital based services, and because of new initiatives such as Medicare Locals.

The review presents an opportunity for SA Health to shape non-hospital based services in light of modern models of care and clinical practice in the context of the emergent state/commonwealth primary healthcare parameters. The review focuses on the alignment of the services and service categories to the key policy objectives of SA Health: namely, chronic disease management, hospital avoidance and population health. If these criteria were satisfied, the review also considered whether there were opportunities for reconfiguring services to achieve savings, and whether the services were supported by evidence or performance or outcomes.

SA Health completed a public consultation on 4 February 2013, and consideration is being given to the recommendations and feedback received to determine future services for youth primary health, health promotion, children's primary health, women's primary health and Aboriginal workforce initiatives. Review recommendations and feedback received related to the above services are being considered by SA Health with reference to a range of factors, such as targeted population, site locations in areas of need, access and equity, priority focus of services, transition arrangements, and other providers of services.

SA Health will consider the feedback and present the proposed way forward in relation to these services. It is SA Health's intention to ensure that appropriate services are provided to the vulnerable population groups across metropolitan Adelaide. Primary prevention and the provision of these services will be considered in the context of the development of regional public health plans under the Public Health Act 2011. Review recommendations and feedback received related to the aforementioned services are being considered by SA Health to ensure the provision of safe, high quality and affordable health care now and into the future.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (20:40): I would like to briefly put on the record my strong support for the Hon. Mr Mark Parnell's motion regarding the McCann review of non-hospital based services. Non-hospital based services and primary health care are essential to the wellbeing of all South Australians. Suggestions that cuts be made to this area will have a negative impact on the most vulnerable in our community, including those with disabilities, those on low and fixed incomes, and our elderly citizens and young families, just to name a few.

This Labor government spouts a good deal of rhetoric about being best at this and that in the healthcare system, such as waiting times for some innocuous procedure. However, what experts convey to us time after time is that spending on preventative and primary health care is essential to creating healthy—and even vibrant—members of our communities (and I thought I would just chuck that in there one more time for good measure, in case we have not heard it enough lately). Cutting programs does not help this, to say the least.

The McCann report does not provide recommendations based on evidence from public health professionals; instead, it is about cutting dollars from essential services that keep our citizens healthy. If this government wants to save money, it should perhaps look at all the non-essential items that it splashes cash around for, such as footbridges, ovals and corporate welfare. I have certainly not been the only member in this place vehemently opposed to projects such as those.

Cutting health services that are used by children, young people, women and the elderly is not only bad practice from a social justice perspective, it is unjust and unsound economic practice. Spending $10 million on consultant fees for a footbridge in the context of potentially cutting these services is not just economics; it is not fair economics.

Bells and whistles are not what this state needs, nor what it can afford right now. What we need are basic services: public transport that turns up on time, for example, and is accessible to all; disability support that can guarantee someone living with dying parents, for example, a place to live; and a justice system that can protect our most vulnerable citizens. Since we do not have any of those things, we certainly cannot afford any of the luxury items I have just mentioned.

So, let's quit with the miserly scrimping on health, community, disability, transport and education systems and instead cut the millions being spent—or rather wasted—on luxury items. I commend this motion to the chamber.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:43): In summing up, I would like to thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent and my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks for their support, and I also thank the Hon. Rob Lucas and the Hon. Russell Wortley for their contributions. I do acknowledge that the Hon. Rob Lucas canvassed with me whether we could postpone this for a little while but, as I think he acknowledged himself, and certainly my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks did, events are moving rapidly and we are seeing people exiting the sector even now, people who are fearful that their jobs will not last much longer. I think it is something that we need to deal with quickly.

I note that had the Liberal Party had more time, they might have had a more nuanced response, but I do not think it is that difficult. I think we can actually reject the recommendations contained in the McCann report because it was based on such a flawed process. As the Hon. Kelly Vincent has just pointed out, it was not based on an assessment from public health professionals, so I think we can throw out these recommendations. That is not to say that every program that has ever been devised must have a continuous longevity, that it must always be with us. Of course there needs to be room to modify programs but let us do it based on evidence; let us not do it based on a simple, cost-cutting exercise.

I want to make three points in summing up. The first point is that it is, I believe, naive and irresponsible to slash health promotion programs with the expectation that the costs will automatically be picked up by the federal government. A number of speakers have mentioned that there is an expectation that the federal government will increasingly fund primary health care. I think it is naive because I cannot see it happening either at all or to the extent that members appear to be confident that it will.

I am particularly anxious that if the result of the next federal election is that Mr Abbott becomes prime minister, we know from things that the Liberals have been saying at the federal level that they are very likely to withdraw funding from that sector themselves. I draw members' attention to the article in The Australian on 14 March this year under the heading 'Coalition will abolish all Medicare Locals'—an article written by Sean Parnell. As far as I know, he is no relation and I have never met him.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: If it turns out that we are related then I will bring a personal explanation back to the chamber, but I do not believe I have ever met Sean Parnell. However, he has written this article and the first sentence reads:

A coalition government would run the rule over primary healthcare, abolishing Medicare Locals in favour of new links between GPs and public hospitals as part of efforts to redirect hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Without going through the whole of that article, the Liberal opposition health spokesperson, Peter Dutton, is talking about slashing 3,000 jobs, most of which, of course, are frontline jobs. The government quite rightly points out that these are not 3,000 people sitting at desks doing no work; they are in fact frontline health professionals.

Having found this article from just six days ago, there were similar reports as far back as November last year. I note that crikey.dot.com published an article under the heading 'Coalition plans to hack into Medicare Locals unwinds reform'. So I think it is naive for us to expect that we can simply cut these programs in South Australia and expect the feds to pick them up.

It is also naive to expect that local councils will pick it up. Certainly local councils are keen to do much more in health but they do not have the resources and they do not have the capacity at present to pick up the pieces of what would be left behind if the McCann recommendations were implemented.

The second thing I would say is that the McCann review is simply one part of a larger series of announced and soon-to-be announced cutbacks in community health. I know from people contacting me in the sector that, in some ways, this is the tip of the iceberg. I do not want to rehash all the arguments about the state of the health budget, the fact that it will totally consume the entire state budget if things are not changed, but the way to change it is not to cut these types of programs, especially based on this flawed assessment process.

It has been described to me that the current razor gang that is going through the health department is 'McCann on steroids' and that the razor gang is decimating expertise that has been built up over decades in an area in which South Australia was world renowned and that what are being affected are projects that were designed to reduce long-term health costs.

Also under attack is work that is being done by Country Health, and that will obviously hit country people comparatively harder because they already have lower access to services. There is a hardworking, highly effective network of health workers right across Australia in places such as Mount Barker, Kingscote, Gawler, Clare, Port Pirie, Murray Bridge, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln, the Riverland, Mount Gambier, Victor Harbor and Whyalla. There are many nervous country health workers and at least 40 people that I am aware of within the health promotion area who are very worried about their futures.

The third thing I would say by way of summing up is that these cuts will hit vulnerable people the hardest because real, genuine and successful projects are being cut now. There are three examples that I would refer to. One of them is a program out of Lonsdale, which is a safe communities project that has been highly successful in reducing industrial eye injuries. Eye injuries occur in significant numbers, they are expensive to treat, they have an enormous impact on skilled workers, and they are also preventable. It seems ludicrous to argue that there is any sense in slashing a preventative program like this because of hospital blowouts. Saving eye injuries, and preventing them from occurring in the first place, is far cheaper than cure, as my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks pointed out.

Another program out of Playford Council is a community outreach diabetes program, working with those who are reluctant to engage with health services. There is out of Seaford a project which links vulnerable, old and lonely people in the southern suburbs. There is a number of other projects as well—and I will just give you a few more—that are recommended for cutting. There are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services, such as the Aboriginal Family Clinic, and the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, and these are set to receive cutbacks or to be defunded when their COAG funding ceases in June this year.

There are also non-government organisations that provide important primary health and preventative services such as SHine SA, which have already had budget cuts. The South Australian Community Health Research Unit's contract is set to be cut, and there is an imminent loss of positions in the central SA Health primary health and health promotion area. So, it is real and it is happening now and, therefore, I was keen, notwithstanding that some members might have appreciated a bit more time, if members want to bring back alternative motions, we can debate this again. It is too important to just let go for now.

The final thing I would say is to invite all members to the steps of parliament tomorrow morning, Thursday 21 March at 11am, where there will be a rally in support of the Community Foodies program, and this rally is designed to send a clear message to the government that, in the words of the flyer, we say 'No' to de-funding Community Foodies. That is at 11am tomorrow. I will certainly be there, and I would urge all other honourable members to come along as well and hear firsthand what the impacts will be, of what are fairly miserly penny-pinching moves, on real projects that help real people in the community. So, with those words I commend the motion to the house.

Motion negatived.

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