Page 3652 - Week 12 - Thursday, 13 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. On 19 May, Minister, you said:
The true position, Madam Speaker, is that we are spending $30m more than we should for the service we are getting.
Given that and given what you have said today, will you confirm to the house that in the next three years you will be looking for savings in the health system of the order of $25m?
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, we are always looking for more efficient ways of doing what we do, so that we can expand what we do. We have done it year after year in the most difficult budgetary circumstances faced by any Australian government. We have come up trumps time after time. You are asking the Canberra public not to accept this strategy, where the runs are on the board, and to adopt your nonsense of a commitment to slash expenditure on health.
We are not saying that we want to spend less on health. We are saying that we want to drive what we spend further. I do stand by the proposition that we are not spending what we spend as well as we could. I do stand by the proposition that there are savings to be achieved in the health system in efficiencies. That is why we are saying to all the unions that we need to sit around the table and work out more efficient ways of doing things. That is why we are saying to the doctors, effectively, the same thing, although at the moment we are awaiting arbitration on one key point of that. That is why I am saying to everybody in the system that there are efficiencies to be gained. We have identified - - -
Mr Humphries: How much are the savings, Terry? That is the question.
MR CONNOLLY: You are right; I have said that there is that $25m to $30m figure of efficiencies to get out of the system so that we can spend it on enhancing services, so that we can meet these increasing costs of health. We are saying that we will get that saving on what we do now, so that we can spend in other areas. You seem to think that the health budget will be static over three years and you can rip $30m out of it. Anybody who knows the system knows that that is nonsensical.
Mrs Carnell knows this. Pharmaceutical costs are skyrocketing in certain areas of health. Imaging costs are skyrocketing. Costs of pathology services are skyrocketing. You need to factor in all of these things so that you can drive more efficiencies in certain areas, to keep providing standards of service. If Mrs Carnell's policy, this simplistic nonsense, were adopted, we would have a collapse of the public health system. We will continue to try to drive efficiencies in health, as in education, as in urban services, as in housing, to continue to deliver services to this community effectively, and continue to deliver good bottom line budget outcomes, as we have done for five years out of six.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .