HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Supply Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 June 2018.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:35): As other members have previously indicated, the Supply Bill is needed to appropriate the $6.6 billion so that the government and its departments can continue to function until the Appropriation Bill is assented to. Obviously, I am supportive of ensuring that government departments and services continue to be provided; however, I would be interested to see how much of this is actually needed and whether there is room to trim the fat.

I have been advocating for many years for an operational audit whereby the chief executive or minister undertakes an audit of government departments and agencies to look at what they do, what they really need to do, the most efficient way to do this and whether it is performed in the most effective location, how many staff they need to do it, and how that compares to how the departments are set up at the moment. I understand there is some scepticism in getting chief executives to justify their own staffing arrangements and that there should be an external audit undertaken of the Public Service. In my discussions with the government, I have not had either of these options provided as a suggestion, and I flag that I will be moving my bill for an operational audit in coming weeks for the third time.

Compulsory acquisition of land is one area where I believe that efficiencies could be achieved. Whilst I understand that due process needs to be followed, I have encountered many cases where taxpayers would have been better off if DPTI and Crown law had used an ounce of common sense with dispossessed owners rather than stubbornly sticking to the rigid process. This often resulted in protracted negotiations between lawyers, with lawyers' fees ultimately being paid by the taxpayer. Extended negotiations have already had a detrimental effect on the mental and sometimes physical health of owners.

In my experience, those who have dealt with compulsory acquisition in recent years have observed no sense of urgency by the government. For DPTI staff and Crown law, they think nothing of dragging a matter out for as long as they like, as they have nothing to lose. At the end of the day, they go home to their family and they are simply doing a job, but in my opinion not particularly well. However, for owners, it is living with the constant uncertainty of where they will live as they do not know what they will be able to afford. This is often coupled with the withdrawal of funding for temporary accommodation, which imparts additional stress to owners.

I remember in 2005 I had a conversation with then minister Patrick Conlon and I stated that I would have no issues if the government were to compulsorily acquire my property, as I had faith in the process and those tasked with acquisition. Sadly, I can no longer say this as I have witnessed firsthand the nightmare that this has become for many owners. The process has become so bad that there are many valuers and lawyers who now refuse to take on work if it relates to compulsory acquisition. It speaks volumes when you have professionals in the private sector refusing to accept more work because they do not need the hassle of dealing with DPTI and Crown law. There is definite and urgent room for improvement here.

I understand the government intends to repeal the current Natural Resources Management Act. Whilst I am supportive of conserving our natural resources, the current NRM Act is a failed experiment. If a cost-benefit analysis were to be conducted on the undertakings of natural resources management boards, I would expect the outcomes to be negative for the taxpayer and owners of land resources. This is one area which could be improved upon, and I look forward to working with the minister and having a look at the new bill.

In recent weeks, the issue of waste has featured prominently in the news due to China's decision to lower the threshold for contaminated recycling material they will accept. The government has announced a $12 million support package for councils to help deal with this issue. Whilst this is a good start, I hope it is not just money for a bandaid solution. There is opportunity for South Australia to establish economically viable recycling facilities to process not only our own waste but potentially waste from around the nation, too. Solutions should be long term and incorporate a circular economy.

The European Commission recently issued a good practice and guidance policy for Public Procurement for a Circular Economy. Essentially, green public procurement is defined as a process whereby public authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their lifecycle when compared to goods, services and works with the same primary function that would otherwise be procured. It would be good to see the government introduce a similar public procurement policy in this state. Such a policy could increase manufacturing opportunities whilst also reducing the amount of waste going to landfill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (15:40): I rise to support the Supply Bill and, in doing so, I seek the customary indulgence of the chamber, and indeed of you, sir, to be able to range very broadly across areas of government expenditure or, as I will come to very briefly shortly, non-expenditure. I would like to begin by reflecting on what a strange start to a term of government we have just witnessed in the last several weeks.

After 16 years in opposition—16 years that any decent political party would have spent developing policies and a vision for our state—the Liberal Party finally find themselves on the Treasury benches, and what have we had so far? Not a lot, I would say. There are not a lot of fresh ideas. There is certainly not a lot of vision. It seems there is no agenda for reform from this government. There has been indecision and, dare I say, confusion all around. It is as if the new government did not actually expect to be back in charge of the Treasury benches at all until 2036 and therefore had no well-developed plans for implementation or putting to the parliament in these short few weeks since the election.

Indeed, we had the Minister for Trade and Tourism in this place, in response to a question about Rex Airlines' announcement that they would reduce their weekly service between Adelaide and Mount Gambier by five times per week, say that he could not even recall who he had met at Rex Airlines or whether he had put to them any concerns about the matter, fobbing it off to a minister in another place.

I am pretty sure we will see very shortly that, in fact, the government is having severe difficulties in adhering to their 100-day plan, a plan they promised South Australians in the lead-up to the election. When the Treasurer was asked in this place whether he would deliver on the Liberal government's promise to introduce legislation to remove restrictions on shop trading hours within the first 100 days, he could not even assure the chamber of that.

From the Hansard, I think he said, 'Whether it's exactly 100 days or maybe 102 days or maybe 103 days, we will certainly be there within 100 days approximately.' I do not remember seeing the word 'approximately' all through the Liberal Party's 100-day plan or what they took to the election, but that is what we have now. We have approximations, we have failings and there does not seem to be a lot of concern on the government benches that they are actually not living up to the promises they made to the people of South Australia.

As you know, sir, action is eloquence, and what have we seen? A rough and ready approach and certainly not a lot of eloquence. After 16 years, I was sure that the Liberal Party would come into this place with a raging agenda and want to implement that agenda immediately and crack on with it, but that is not what we have seen. I make no comments about the value of that agenda; I am pretty sure it would not have been a good one. It would have been a Liberal agenda and, in essence, that would not have been a good one. It would have been more neoliberal drivel that we have seen from the federal government.

In a couple of policy areas already we have seen this government roll over to the federal government to have their tummy tickled. They have rolled over and not stood up for the state and the interests of South Australia, which was as we prophesied, particularly lately in terms of the River Murray. We believe the state deserves so much better.

It only took a few short months for the Treasurer to drop the state budget into deficit. When the last government left office, I understand there was a projected $12 million surplus, and now the Treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, says it will be impossible to maintain a state budget surplus for the current financial year. We will wait and see, when the budget is brought down, how he manages to do that and turn a surplus into a deficit, but clearly there will be a plan to do that, and that is what we have been proffered by the incoming government.

We have seen attack after attack on the public sector, with chief executives sacked. Just last week, we saw multiple members of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission lose their positions. All this while the Minister for Child Protection is apparently off playing golf on weekdays, telling parliament that the game was for charity and then having to come back and correct the record and apologise for misleading the other place.

Then there was the bizarre story, in terms of their government's law and order strategy, of sending the STAR Force into kids' parties. Then we had the member for Wright receiving weird emails from the member for Gibson, the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, about doughnuts and where and when he could go to give doughnuts to those hardworking emergency service workers in our state. As I said, I did not expect much but I did not think it would be this bad. It is the first few weeks of an incoming government and what do they have to show for it?

It is this bad because there is no policy direction being delivered from this government to the people of South Australia. There is a massive void that is being filled with ministers doing odd things and not being accountable to this parliament for them. They have no direction at all and I think that is concerning for our state. When the opposition highlighted the concerns of residents—for example, the release of convicted paedophile Colin Humphrys—the Attorney-General said it was a stunt to introduce legislation to the house, to the other place, tightening parole laws. Then, 24 hours later, the government introduced exactly that legislation.

While it is comforting to know that the government can see a good idea and will take it for their own and pick up Labor's suggestion in this instance, why on earth does it take the Labor opposition to nudge this government into action when they could clearly have seen this coming because the warnings were out there, and yet they were absolutely inactive? This is a government that is reacting, not leading.

It is as if we have a tired, washed-out 16-year government now. This government is acting like it is a government out of ideas, out of energy and out of time—and it has only been three months. It seems longer, I know. What were they doing in years past in opposition, planning for the eventuality of coming into the Treasury benches? It certainly has not been preparing policies to introduce into parliament and certainly probably not preparing policies to advance the interests of the state and what is good for South Australians.

There is, of course, a plan to back in behind Coles and Woolworths and take a sledgehammer to independent traders and independent grocers by trying to deregulate shop trading hours. We have heard about that today. Is it no wonder that independent retailers and businesses owned and operated by South Australians are outraged by this behaviour? South Australians absolutely deserve better from their government. Our state has a very proud legacy of bold and visionary leadership because that is what a state like South Australia needs to stand out against other states in the commonwealth, to attract our fair share of jobs and investment here. We need that bold and visionary leadership.

South Australians know that it is not in the stars to hold our destiny but it is in ourselves to make that destiny manifest. It is only with leadership, it is only with the state government working with the state's industries, unions, workers, independent traders and small retailers, our small businesses and our farming sector that we can make this state a success story. Under the leadership of Jay Weatherill, and Mike Rann before him, we had this strong vision.

Every single day we worked to transform this state and our fantastic capital city. It is amazing to look back at photos and articles about Adelaide from 2002. You would be hard-pressed to work out where Peel Street was in 2002. It is now buzzing with around a dozen small bars, filled even on cold winter nights, and it is all because of a Labor government and a progressive attorney-general who listened to what people and businesses wanted and acted on it. Labor upgraded Adelaide Oval and brought footy back into the CBD, flooding our restaurants and hotels with business.

The new Royal Adelaide Hospital, SAHMRI and significant investments by our university sector have reinvigorated North Terrace. Labor upgraded every major hospital in South Australia, investing in new emergency rooms, wards, palliative care services and community mental health services. Labor committed to signing a treaty—a first in the country—with First Nations who have called South Australia home for 50,000 years, something that this government has now abandoned, while other states are now following the former Labor government's lead in this important public policy agenda.

The previous government reformed laws affecting LGBTIQ people, removing gender discrimination from the statute books and establishing gender equity targets across government. Now, all we see from this government is their abandoning the Safe Schools education program, which absolutely saved the lives of people in our schools.

It should be remembered that we have achieved gender parity on government boards, something that has been a long time coming, something that I hope will continue under this government, but it will take work and the initial signs have not been good. We need a government that will stand up for South Australia, not a government that will sack multiple women chief executives and continue to talk about merit-based selection while passing over talented women in place of the yes men of the Liberal Party.

We transformed public transport infrastructure, spending more on new services and upgrades than has any previous government in our state's history. Labor extended and electrified the Noarlunga train line to Seaford. We committed to the Port Adelaide rail spur, extending the Tonsley line to Flinders, and expanding our tram network—another thing that has stalled under this government.

We began upgrading the north-south corridor, with the Gallipoli Underpass, the South Road Superway, the Torrens to Torrens and Darlington upgrades. We have invested in new bike paths and walking trails and nature play spaces and, when it was appropriate, we stood up to the federal government, whether it was led by prime minister Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott or Turnbull, and secured the infrastructure funding necessary to keep our state growing.

When the federal budget was released in May this year we saw just how important it was to have a state government that would stand up for South Australia. The state and federal Liberal governments spent days talking about a $1.8 billion infrastructure investment, but when the budget came out what did South Australia get? It turns out that all that glitters in the media is not indeed gold. Only $162 million—not even 10 per cent—of the much discussed $1.8 billion was committed to South Australia over the forward estimates to 2021-22.

What this means is quite simple: a weak Liberal state government did not stand up to a bad federal government, so now none of these major projects, including the South Road-Regency Road intersection upgrade and the Joy Baluch Bridge, are scheduled to be completed by 2021-22.

The RAA, the Civil Contractors Federation, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy and the Freight Council have all come out against the federal budget. The Freight Council executive officer said that this year's federal budget is all smoke and mirrors and delivers none of the promise of the pre-budget announcement. That is not the Labor Party—that is a respected industry player. Not good enough for our state!

Contrast this lack of leadership with what the previous government did: the Weatherill government's leadership, for example, on renewable energy—leadership that will be remembered for decades to come. We came to government in 2002 when renewable energy was a novel idea. Sixteen years later we left government with just shy of 50 per cent of South Australia's electricity generated from renewable sources.

This did not happen by accident. It happened because we set bold and ambitious policy targets for renewable energy, backed by science and economics—not common sense but actual evidence and modelling—and we developed a comprehensive economy-wide framework to support this emerging industry, which employs South Australians.

As a result, we saw an investment of over $7 billion in the renewable energy industry, thousands of new high-tech and high-paying jobs for South Australians, and international publicity and recognition of our leadership on the global stage that you just cannot buy, because of our leadership in this area. From the world's largest grid-connected battery to delivering solar thermal in Port Augusta, South Australians can be incredibly proud of the big role we have played as a state in demonstrating that an electricity grid driven by renewable energy is not just viable, it is the way of the future and it will be cheaper.

So, Mr President, when you contrast the achievements of the previous Labor government, as I am sure you do in your mind from time to time, with the inaction and the indecision of the new government, you just cannot help but be embarrassed for them—certainly I cannot, sir, and I am sure you would not share those views with anyone in this chamber.

Unfortunately, it is the people of South Australia who will suffer from their incompetence, their lack of vision and their lack of leadership. For the sake of our state, for the sake of South Australia's jobs and our prosperity, I hope this changes. We will do our part to keep the government honest.

We will do our part to remind them that common sense is good but evidence is better, and economic modelling is a necessity if you are going to make major changes to this state, and you need to have those changes based on the best available evidence so that you can reflect on how you might mitigate some of the negative impacts of these changes. We do not seem to have that yet from this government because I do not think they actually believe in governing.

The Marshall Liberal government has no plan, no vision and no agenda. I hope that changes soon. I hope that in the forthcoming budget we will see policy decisions taken to improve our state that are backed by evidence and not backed by wishful thinking.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:55): I rise to speak in support of the Supply Bill 2018. The passage of supply enables the provision of essential government services up until the next budget is delivered, which, of course, will be the first one from the incoming Liberal government. This bill once enacted will ensure in the interim that the government can access the necessary funds, around $6.6 billion, to support its budget requirements in the immediate term and to pay the wages of our public servants in fundamental areas such as education, public health, transport and infrastructure.

It is now that the reality should surely be settling upon each minister in this government. How are they going to fund the services they have promised while delivering on their so-called 'minimalist government' agenda of tax cuts, yet still deliver a budget in the black? This government is baking the magic pudding. Time will tell how this pudding comes out of the oven and what taste it will leave in the mouths of South Australians!

We already know that the Treasurer will not deliver a budget surplus in his first budget, yet he will be the beneficiary of what was reported in May to be $500 million in extra GST money from the commonwealth next financial year compared to this financial year. In any case, on budget day, 4 September, we will get a true indication of where this government's priorities lie and what path the Treasurer lays to ensure that the state does return to the black very quickly.

Aside from the financial position of the budget, I want to take this opportunity to share a few of the initiatives that Labor progressed right up until very recently, during our time in government, with much of the funding coming from the privatisation of the Motor Accident Commission and the Lands Titles Office. Of course, now that the Liberals are in government they will be attempting to take the credit for these initiatives, whilst having publicly opposed the sale of MAC and the LTO during their time in opposition. This is duplicity of the highest order.

The first area of public service I would like to focus on is education. Labor made record investments into schools over its 16 years in government. Labor more than doubled our state's investment in public schools since 2002, investing more than $3.3 billion in schools and early years' infrastructure during that time. On this side of the chamber we believe in high-quality public education for all South Australian children and young people.

In more recent times, the then Weatherill government locked in $692 million under its Building Better Schools program, directly funded through the sale of the LTO. Ninety-one schools and 67,000 students were the direct beneficiaries of this funding.

The investment aims to provide contemporary learning environments for students to learn the skills they will need in the jobs of tomorrow. This is particularly important as the need for skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is growing. In practice, this means the establishment of modern and flexible spaces for learning, which encourage students to be curious, use their imagination, be innovative, develop leadership skills and work well in groups. These are all vital skills for the jobs of the future.

Work was already underway on this prior to the election. It is my understanding that broad scoping plans and drawings for schools to sign off on were to be finalised around this time in early 2018. Given that the program will be completed over six years and the start of construction at each school will be staged across the program, it will be interesting to see how the new government accounts for this in their first budget.

It has already been indicated by the now Minister for Education, the Hon. John Gardner, when speaking to InDaily for an article published on 20 April this year, that year 7 students will be shifted into public schools statewide within four years. In that article, the minister further outlined that:

Most of our secondary schools were in receipt of funds targeted by the previous government to critical needs… if there’s opportunity to re-scope some of that work it could go to classroom space that people would be looking for in the Year 7-9 Middle Years program.

In short, those funds that the minister is talking about are the $692 million from the Building Better Schools Program, funded by the LTO sale.

The minister wants to repurpose Labor's investment prior to the election to fund his commitments to roll year 7 out into South Australian high schools. I am very interested to know how this will be applied on the ground in our local communities because, whilst the Liberal Party always loved to claim that Labor pork-barrelled its infrastructure spending when in government, the reality is that these 91 schools are spread all across the state. I am sure there will be pressure from Liberal MPs in the other place, particularly the incoming ones, for the exact amount of money that has been allocated to their schools to continue to be maintained. I know our MPs in the other place will fight for their communities.

Continuing with education, there is also the new $100 million Adelaide Botanic High School which, I understand, is due to be opened from term 1 next year. It will provide students from inner city suburbs with greater access to high-quality secondary learning. The school will start with year 8 and year 9 students initially, then growing to 1,250 students by 2021.

In government, Labor understood and will continue to recognise the importance of preparing our children and young people to work in the jobs of tomorrow by encouraging strong skills in science, technology, engineering and maths. That is why, in government, Labor invested $200 million to build state-of-the-art science and maths facilities in public schools and $200 million in low-interest loans for Catholic and independent school infrastructure.

The previous Labor government also invested the bulk of the $2 billion in proceeds from the MAC sale into the Highways Fund to fund critical road infrastructure.

All those projects, amongst many others, contributed to the record amount Labor had spent in government on infrastructure, something that the now Premier once bagged Labor for. According to Mr Marshall, we were creating a false economy. Then in last year's budget, he claimed we were not spending enough, even though Labor was still spending record amounts on infrastructure.

This infrastructure spending included the biggest ever investment in public transport and upgrades to every major hospital, as well as the development of a state-of-the-art health and biomedical precinct with the iconic SAHMRI. There is also SAHMRI 2 well on the way. There is, of course, the new Royal Adelaide Hospital that the Liberal Party sought to tarnish at every step of the way.

Also in the CBD, we have seen the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, the Riverbank precinct, the footbridge over the Torrens, the Adelaide Convention Centre and Festival Plaza, as well as the revitalisation of many of the city's laneways. It took Labor to duplicate the Southern Expressway, and complete the Goodwood Junction rail project, the train extensions, the Seaford railway electrification and extension, the Northern Expressway project and the extension of the O-Bahn into the Adelaide CBD.

It will be interesting to see how this Liberal government compares to Labor on infrastructure spending whilst in government. Early signals do not look that flash when you see them spruiking the completion of the north-south corridor even though little money has been set aside by the federal government.

One of the more interesting elements of the Supply Bill, in my mind, surrounds the ongoing funding of our health system, particularly our hospitals. I seek to address this issue further today, because there will be many supply bills after this one, and as a parliament we need to ensure that we can guarantee supply so that there is always the necessary funding available to keep our hospitals at world-class standards.

Because of Labor's time in government, South Australia has more nurses per capita than any other mainland state and the equal highest number of hospital beds per person in our public hospitals. In government, Labor committed more than $4 billion to upgrade every metropolitan public hospital and every major country hospital in South Australia. In recent times, there was $1.2 billion spent on all the major hospitals in our public health system to ensure they continued to be modern and cutting-edge.

This investment included $385 million to improve and upgrade facilities at Flinders Medical Centre, including a new neonatal unit and rehabilitation centre; $373.3 million to upgrade the Lyell McEwin Hospital, including a redeveloped and expanded emergency department; $153 million to upgrade Modbury Hospital, including improved emergency, medical and surgical services and a new purpose-built palliative care hospice; $36 million in Noarlunga hospital to improve services and infrastructure, including a new day surgery unit, new operating theatres and a new renal dialysis unit; and $250 million at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which includes a new emergency department, operating theatre and day surgery suite, as well as a new multistorey car park with 500 extra car parks.

The state Labor government built new ambulance stations in Adelaide's north-east at Oakden, and at Noarlunga, Mount Gambier and Seaford. There are still two new stations at Morphettville and Parafield to be opened. Labor also built a $12 million SA Ambulance Service rescue, retrieval and aviation base at Adelaide Airport to ensure quicker response times to people who are critically ill or injured.

In the last three years the Labor government refurbished our ambulance fleet, employed an additional 72 paramedics and support staff and implemented a $22 million program to replace manual stretchers with high-tech powered stretchers.

I am amazed that the current health minister has signed on to a national health reform deal that effectively duds this state out of $1 billion for our hospitals up until 2025. It is clear that this government was prepared to roll over backwards to keep their federal Liberal masters in Canberra happy. There should be no confusion on the recent history of hospital funding in Australia. In 2011, then Prime Minister Gillard locked in an agreement, which was supported by all states, which insured the federal government's share of hospital activity funding would rise to 50 per cent, with increases based on activity. At the time Ms Gillard stated:

...we will become an equal partner in the growth costs of hospitals, funding firstly 45 per cent of growth and ultimately moving to 50 per cent...What that means is that states and hospitals can reliably plan knowing that the Federal Government will be there and will be an equal partner in growth.

At the 2013 election Mr Abbott promised not to make a single cut to the existing hospital funding arrangement. We all know, of course, that he broke this promise, amongst many others, once he got into power. Then Prime Minister Abbott's horror 2014 budget locked in around $50 billion worth of cuts to hospital funding across the country over the preceding decade. Around $5.5 billion of those were attributed directly to South Australia.

Mr Abbott and the then treasurer Hockey were more than happy to lodge the $50 billion as savings on their budget's bottom line. I would have thought it was a bit hypocritical for the Liberals to suggest that the $50 billion were not cuts because they related to funding arrangements outside of the forward estimates; yet they were more than happy to reframe that very same money as savings in their budget. Mr Abbott's 2014 budget would prove to be his death knell; however, Mr Turnbull's offer has hardly gone close to re-establishing the funding agreed by every state with the commonwealth back in 2011.

This incoming state Liberal government has since signed off on this mediocre deal, which locks in only 45 per cent commonwealth funding of hospital activity, rather than the 50 per cent as stated by Labor, into the long term. This deal also caps growth in funding overall to 6.5 per cent—all of this is up until 2025. Ironically these are the exact same terms that Mr Turnbull offered in his interim deal up until 2020. Put simply, Mr Turnbull has found a South Australian health minister who will run to his every command.

When Mr Turnbull first outlined this compromise formula, back in 2016, which the then premier Mr Weatherill rightly refused to sign off on, it was attacked by the Australian Medical Association. Then South Australian president of the AMA, Dr Janice Fletcher, said the 2016 changes by Mr Turnbull were not enough and that:

The AMA remains concerned that restricting public hospital funding growth to CPI indexation and population growth would be inadequate in both the short and long term...

The critical point is what she says about the long term—what our state's health minister has locked South Australia into until 2025. Dr Fletcher continues:

This additional funding goes nowhere near meeting the long-term needs of the nation's public hospitals, however, and it falls dismally short of replacing the funding removed from the States in the 2014 Federal Budget.

The AMA was 100 per cent correct. While our Minister for Health is running around claiming he got an extra $1.5 billion for South Australian hospitals for 2020-25, the reality is that the state had more than $1 billion extra allocated during that period under the Gillard administration. That money has now been lost. In defending his decision to sign Prime Minister Turnbull's dud agreement, the Minister for Health, the Hon. Stephen Wade, stated:

We don't think the cap on growth is going impact on South Australia—in terms of hospital activity, we're a relatively low growth jurisdiction.

The 6.5 per cent the Minister for Health talks about is effectively a funding arrangement that only accounts for growth in commonwealth hospital funding through CPI and population growth. It is no surprise to me that Victoria and Queensland are still refusing to sign this agreement. This funding arrangement dismantles the former National Healthcare SPP growth factor, which was locked in by Ms Gillard in the 2011 budget.

This funding arrangement ensured that there was, firstly, a health-specific cost index: a five-year average of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare health price index. This is a more accurate measure of the efficient costs associated with running a hospital, as opposed to pure CPI. The second measure used was the growth in population estimates, weighted for hospital utilisation. This measurement is important for South Australia because, whilst we do not have the same growth in population as the Eastern States, our hospital utilisation rates would comparatively be a lot higher because of our ageing population.

The final measurement used was a technology factor, namely, the Productivity Commission-derived index of technology growth. This last point is particularly pertinent because the federal Liberal's funding model does not appear to account for the increasing cost of delivering new technology to hospitals.

What happens if the cost of technology rises at a greater rate than the 6.5 per cent that Mr Turnbull and the Hon. Mr Wade have just locked us into? Likewise, how does the Liberal funding formula account for the extra costs associated with an ageing population? South Australia is the state with the oldest population in Australia. If the health minister complains that there is no money left for health in the next 3½ or four years, the fault will lie with him for signing off on a dud deal for South Australia.

I will be interested to see how the funding of health and hospitals is progressed by this government. It was easy for them to make a host of accusations about Labor's purported wasteful spending in the sector. From September's budget we will get an idea of what the Liberal Party's plans are to fund our hospitals for the next four years. I will be keeping a very close eye on these developments. With that, I commend this bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks.

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