Page 1083 - Week 06 - Thursday, 27 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Prime Minister and Federal Treasurer have already abrogated that agreement by withholding $22.7m of our money this year, and we can only assume that this performance will be repeated next year. I would have no expectation of seeing any continuing Commonwealth assistance beyond 1990-91.
Despite the brave face put on it by the Chief Minister, I see little prospect of securing any of the $22.7m in this budget year either. But if, by chance, we should get any part of it, it perhaps should be committed to the capital vote to provide office accommodation for ACT public servants at less cost than is currently being incurred.
However, having acknowledged the situation, the Chief Minister's response falls short of what is necessary. Under the circumstances, adjustment of the order of only $10.5m, as reflected in the draft budget for this year, can be seen as nothing but a token gesture which merely defers the hard decision until next year when the issue must be faced and when the order of magnitude of the necessary adjustment may be even greater than it is currently estimated to be.
The ACT's treatment in this matter by the Commonwealth is even more reprehensible when one notes that the Prime Minister and Treasurer have already bestowed a gift of $48m on the recently elected Labor minority Government in Tasmania.
Turning to specific cost cutting proposals in education and health - operations identified by the Commonwealth Grants Commission as attracting expenditure significantly above standard - I am compelled to observe that the Government has not bitten the bullet. The reductions proposed are, in general terms, only nibbling around the edges of the problem.
The health delivery function is one in which major cost reductions could be achieved. We have the most expensive health system in Australia. Our administrative costs have been assessed as being close to 70 per cent above those experienced elsewhere, and the daily cost of maintaining a hospital bed is something like three times that experienced elsewhere in Australia. With a proposed budget of about $230m, there is scope for positive action from government. What the Government proposes, however, is to fiddle with minor cost items such as shift overlap, staff scheduling for elective surgery and ambulance financing.
These operations, of course, should be looked at, but to stop there and not look at the larger picture represents a cop-out on the part of the Government and results in a perpetuation of the resultant high tax burden on the Canberra community. This is a particularly urgent matter when the absolute lack of public confidence in our health delivery system is taken into account. A more effective, efficient and less costly health delivery system is an urgent necessity.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .