Page 2731 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell: We are saying that it should be spent on primary health care, on health promotion.
MR CONNOLLY: Mrs Carnell, you would like to spend more of it on health promotion. So would I. I would like to spend treble what we spend on health promotion, or 10 times what we spend on health promotion; but, Mrs Carnell, if I did it within the existing health budget, I would be sacking doctors, sacking nurses and closing beds in order to pay for health promotion. I am not going to do that, and the public of Canberra would not want me to do that. Mrs Carnell, you really should sit down with Mr Kaine on a quiet day, have a bit of a discussion about public finance and get some simple concepts - - -
Mrs Carnell: We often do.
MR CONNOLLY: You have not learnt. Get some simple concepts, like the fact that there is a finite pool of money, not a bottomless pit. If you spend on health promotion more of the taxes raised by tobacco that currently go into the $270m that we are spending on health, you have less to spend on doctors or nurses or teachers or police officers. Unfortunately, public finance does not operate as a bottomless pit or a money tree.
Madam Speaker, in relation to the provision of private obstetrics beds, I was very disappointed to see the committee politicking on that, particularly the claim that the Department of Health had misled the committee. The Department of Health was asked to provide a break-up of how providing approvals for a certain number of beds in the private sector would mean a lower demand in the public sector, which would mean resources being diverted, and that was broken down in a degree of specificity. I said that that would save $1.1m, and that has been documented. I do not think anyone has disagreed with the way we went through that documentation. I said that that would be diverted into other areas of the hospital. I mentioned public antenatal procedures as one pressing need, but I said that we would divert it to other areas. That was not questioned at the time.
The committee came up with its own calculation and said, "Shock, horror! It is going to cost $4.2m to open the private facility at John James". As I said at the time, Mrs Carnell, the Government would be delighted. If you want to entertain a motion that we not open those facilities in order to save $4.2m, you move it. You may even find that the Government would support you on that. The doctors of Canberra were laughing - a somewhat embarrassed laugh, but laughing, nonetheless - when the Canberra Times reported this committee's claim that it would cost us $4m to open private beds. For three or four years you have been parroting on, saying that the Government should approve some private beds because it will result in some savings. As soon as we do it, you say that it is going to cost us $4m. Madam Speaker, it is no wonder that people who observe the medical scene in this town were having a chuckle.
MR MOORE (4.37): The Minister has raised the issue of the $4m. We are not talking about closing down the beds. The beds in one section are effectively transferred to another section of the hospital. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has not yet responded effectively to the committee's calculations. I was part of supporting this report and doing those calculations, and I am very comfortable that those calculations are correct. I had expected the Minister to say, "Yes, those calculations are correct and we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .