Community Health Services
20/03/2013
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.
