Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2407 ..

MR CONNOLLY (continuing):

We have no difficulties with the relocation of QEII from the city on the basis that that building is worn out, run down and quit e inappropriate. But we cannot find anywhere in the budget any indication that money has been set aside, or is intended to be set aside, for the replacement.

Mrs Carnell: Because we have not allocated capital works yet.

MR CONNOLLY: Mrs Carnell says it will be in the capital works program. I remain disturbed that there is nothing this year for any forward design work for that purpose built, stand-alone 13-bed facility. That will not be a cheap and simple facility, and I would have expected to see some forward design work.

There is fear in the community as to what this Government will do, because of some of the resources that are now becoming available in the maternity area, partly as a result of the Labor Government's decision to approve additional private beds in that area. We saw, in the last 12 months, the coming on stream of private maternity units at both John James and Calvary. Both of those units are operating quite successfully and are clearly meeting a demand in the community. Obviously, as a result, there is a lowering of the rate of demand in the maternity unit at Woden hospital. I saw in recent days that some of the prenatal services that we had been planning to bring on stream have in fact come on stream, and that is a positive development, Mrs Carnell, and is something that we support. The opening of the private maternity beds has eased the pressure on the maternity section at Woden.

But we would be very disturbed, as would the community, if the Government was planning to provide the services that are now at QEII - services which the independent review says must be provided at a stand-alone, purpose built facility - in the context of the current maternity unit at Woden hospital. Mrs Carnell shakes her head. I hope that means that is not her plan. But she must understand that the fact that she has identified a dollar revenue stream from the sale of QEII, and that there is no money identified for either the building of the facility or the predesign work, is a matter of grave concern in the community.

She expects to have her $8m in next year's budget. That is the way the three-year budget has been put together. There has been some criticism, and quite properly so, in the Estimates Committee's report about what a three-year budget is. I well recall putting a question very early on in the process to Treasury experts. I am sorry, they are no longer from Treasury; they are now from the office of financial something or another, but Treasury still makes sense to me. We said, "Are not these really just the traditional forward estimates dressed up with inflation adjustments and wage adjustments actually put in the line items rather than a separate pool?". The answer was, "Yes". So the three-year budget has been exposed as something of a sham.

However, nowhere in there is there any indication of where this replacement for QEII is going to come from; yet you expect to sell the current site in order to get your $8m revenue stream by 30 June of next year. Mrs Carnell, you must soon announce what your response is going to be to that review of maternity services. You must soon indicate your clear intention to build a stand-alone unit, and we would support you in that.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .