Page 1646 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is an important issue in making a decision about further beds. It is something that Mr Berry clearly took into account when he was Minister, and I think it needs to be taken into account by the current Health Minister. It cannot be just a free-for-all where we say "Away you go" if somebody wants to run a private hospital and they can come up with the good ideas. Private hospitals, effectively, can rip off the system so that the public hospital system can no longer deliver the service that we have come to expect in Canberra and that the people of Canberra expect. That is the difficult part of the decision. That is what must be taken into account with particular care in dealing with this issue. The motion does congratulate the Minister on his backflip in this area. Inasmuch as it does that, Madam Speaker, I am prepared to support the motion.
MR LAMONT: (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11:53): I move the following amendment:
Omit all words after "Assembly", substitute "welcomes the decision by the Government in approving the opening of new private hospital beds at John James Hospital and welcomes the signal that the Government will continue to provide a socially just outcome for users of health services in the ACT".
Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the comments that have been passed here this morning, I believed that it was appropriate that we address the two essential elements of Mrs Carnell's proposal. The first one is that it is acknowledged that, for the reasons that have been outlined in the debate, the private health beds have been made available. The second is that in talking about the provision of health services we need to talk not just about the dollar cost but also about a socially just outcome for health users.
Mrs Carnell: But your amendment says "continue".
MR LAMONT: That could be, as you would suggest, through greater attention in the private health system or, as Mr Moore has suggested, through proper attention to the public health system or, as Mr Connolly has acknowledged, through a combination of those where necessary. I think that the most appropriate way for this Assembly to indicate that it is adopting a new approach would be to support the terms of my amendment. I do not think the terminology of my amendment shows the political bias of words such as "backflip". If I may draw on the words of Mr Moore just now, I think that all members of this Assembly are interested in seeing a health system that provides socially just outcomes for the users. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.54): Madam Speaker, I oppose the amendment put forward by Mr Lamont. Mr Lamont seems to be saying that there is agreement and balance in the Government's approach; that there has been a consistent approach by the Government; that there is no question of any backflip; that this is simply a welcome development whose time is due, or something of that nature. I have to say that I think that he has put a very brave face on what has been clearly a major infraction within the Government which has caused the Government considerable difficulties.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .