Questions and Answers - Health Services Amendment (Splitting of Murrumbidgee Local Health District) Bill 2025

Who is proposing to split the Murrumbidgee Local Health District (MLHD)?

The Health Services Amendment (Splitting of the Murrumbidgee Local Health District) Bill 2025 is a private member’s bill introduced to Parliament by an individual member of parliament (MP).

Another Bill to split Hunter New England Local Health District has also been proposed.

It is not a NSW Government or NSW Health initiative and is not supported by the Murrumbidgee Local Health District.

Who will make the decision?

The Bill was referred to the NSW Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services (NSW) for inquiry and reporting. The Committee will start activity for this inquiry in late 2025 following work on its inquiry into the Health Services Amendment (Splitting of the Hunter New England Health District) Bill 2025.

For a Bill to become law it must be debated and agreed in Parliament and changes made to legislation.

How are Local Health District’s (LHDs) managed?

The NSW Ministry of Health has the role of ‘system manager’ in relation to NSW public hospitals and LHDs are required to operate in accordance with the Health Services Act 1997.

Under section 122 of the Act, LHDs are subject to the governance, oversight and control of the Secretary, NSW Health. The Secretary, NSW Health may also determine the role, functions and activities of hospitals and services controlled by a local health district and, for that purpose, give any necessary directions to the LHD.

LHDs have a Board of Directors, appointed by the Minister for Health. Chief Executives are appointed by the Board and NSW Health Secretary.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/about/nswhealth/Pages/structure.aspx

Does the Murrumbidgee Local Health District support the bill?

The Murrumbidgee Local Health District (MLHD) opposes the Bill. The split must be based on evidence – service delivery, workforce data, patient outcomes, and financial modelling. Evidence shows splitting the District would cost more, deliver less, and put services at risk.

The Special Commission of Inquiry into Healthcare Funding reviewed the NSW public healthcare system in 2023-2025 and did not recommend splitting existing Local Health Districts.

Splitting the district would not solve the workforce problems. Instead, it would fragment staffing, reduce flexibility, and make it harder to recruit and retain health professionals.

All MLHD hospitals are linked as part of clinical networks. Splitting these would disrupt referral pathways, lead to duplication of corporate services, increase costs, destabilise the workforce, delay access to care, and compromise health outcomes – particularly for those already facing health inequities.

Would a new District need to duplicate governance and corporate functions?

Yes - costs to replicate existing corporate services will run into the tens of millions of dollars, taking money away from patient care to create a bureaucracy.

There are no additional funds. The current budget for MLHD would be split between the two Districts. It would also undermine the support for smaller, fixed cost hospitals and services in rural towns.

Messages from doctors in the Western region

“I appreciate and respect the strong local leadership and community advocacy underway in Griffith to secure better health services and facilities for the region. However, based on my understanding, dividing MLHD would likely create additional layers of bureaucracy, reduce strategic leverage in advocacy, and ultimately hinder—rather than help—the very improvements the community is seeking.

No doubt, we should fight to strengthen service delivery, investment, and engagement around Griffith, not to fragment the structure in a way that risks weakening capacity and diluting influence.”

“I am yet to be convinced of how creating another behemoth administrative monolith will be of benefit to what really matters - the patient.

Patients do not need another set of ratified protocols, another pharmacy committee, another ethics board or executive branch to syphon taxpayers' health care dollars away from the intended use.

If there are practical upgrades to be made to the service in this region then I'd rather they be done under the current administrative architecture and spend the money saved on things that actually benefit our patients; more and better supported staff, more local surgeries, better equipment. Let us find and fund solutions based on the unique geo-demographic challenges of our patient's care needs rather than bickering about who's in charge.”

Would a split address workforce shortages?

While there is a view that the challenges in delivering healthcare in the region are due to how resources are allocated or where decisions are made, the biggest issue impacting our ability to deliver the health services required is workforce.

Workforce shortages are a national issue, not solved by a split. Creating a small health district would fragment staffing, reduce flexibility, and make it harder to recruit and retain health professionals.

A split would impact established education, training and career pathways with universities, TAFE and training partners.

We are losing applicants now – nurses and doctors are advising they don’t want to work in a disrupted or split LHD.

How many communities are included in the proposed split from MLHD?

Whilst Griffith Base Hospital has been the focus, the proposed Western Riverina Local Health District would impact health services in 14 communities, and includes District Hospitals, Multipurpose Services and Community Health Centres.

Splitting the district risks disrupting referral pathways, including cross border arrangements and services delivered in partnership with Victorian hospitals.

Is Murrumbidgee Local Health District too big?

MLHD balances local autonomy with district-wide support. Facility and service managers have delegated authority for day-to-day decisions including recruitment, rosters, service delivery and operational management. This allows services to be locally led and responsive to the community needs.

A single, integrated structure delivers economies of scale, allowing business functions such as governance, workforce, technology, public health and finance to be shared efficiently, so that the largest possible share of funding goes into delivering frontline health services for our communities.

Why are there parts of Griffith Base Hospital that are not open yet?

The Griffith region’s new Base Hospital has been designed for growth, and purpose-built to meet the region’s health needs for the next several decades. The hospital’s design reflects best practice in health infrastructure – building capacity ahead of need. The infrastructure allows future expansion of beds and services as population and demand increase.

Staged Commissioning has always been the plan. Not all beds can be opened on Day 1 – services will scale up progressively in line with demand and available workforce.

New services being commissioned now include additional operating theatre and surgery (including orthopaedic), additional beds in the emergency department and staff accommodation.

MLHD and NSW Health remain committed to strengthening services in the Western Riverina

• Splitting MLHD risks destabilising services without addressing the real issues: workforce shortages, infrastructure gaps and population complexity.
• The focus should be on strengthening the existing integrated model, building on the systems, partnerships and workforce programs already in place.
• MLHD remains committed to working with clinicians and communities to deliver sustainable, high-quality, locally responsive care across the Western Riverina.