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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 770 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

If you have a look carefully at the Auditor-General's report, you will find that what Labor has said in this house just does not stack up. But that is not surprising, because they have a new leader this week - there will be another one next week perhaps - and because it was probably somebody else who wrote their speeches. It was probably George Wason or someone from the CFMEU. I do not know. Only they know that. But what they should have done was give that person a copy of the report to read so that they might have been able to make some sustainable arguments in this place.

But let us go on to the Auditor-General's conclusion on the point. The Auditor-General, in his analysis, has highlighted that the 1991-92 activity data was used. Mr Berry came in here and said that it was not used. The Auditor-General highlighted the fact that the 1991 activity data was used to estimate savings in the model. Mr Berry should have known that, because he used the same model when he was Minister for Health. He should be censured for misleading people. It has happened to him before, and this house voted on it. He did not read the Auditor-General's report, which contradicted what he says. So, I am more inclined to believe the Auditor-General, Mr Speaker, when he highlighted the fact that the 1991-92 activity data was used to estimate savings in the model.

The model, therefore, fails to take into account the considerable changes to activity since 1991-92. If the Auditor-General acknowledges that the 1991-92 data was used, and it is now 1996 - and Mr Berry should know that - it means that the model fails to take into account the considerable changes to activity since 1991-92. I dare say that the pendulum, as far as activity changes are concerned, has swung very widely since the Carnell Government took office, because we on this side of the house have the guts to realise that we have a problem and we have to fix it. It might take time; but we have to fix it, because we think of the future. We do not languish in the past; we think of the future. It is something that perhaps Mr Whitecross, now that he is the new leader, should think about from time to time.

As you know, Mr Speaker, VMO costs for public patients are met directly by the hospital. The VMOs' bills for patients with private health insurance are paid for by the health insurance companies and Medicare. As an indication of the growth in public separations, in 1991-92 there were 26,227 public separations at Woden Valley Hospital compared to 32,252 in 1994-95. The Auditor-General, of course, did not take that into account, because he acknowledged that 1991-92 data was used. Largely as a result of this growth, VMOs' costs paid by Woden Valley Hospital increased by $2.5m from $9m. Mrs Carnell outlined the fact that there was $1.8m in extra payments, backdated because the contract that Mr Berry presided over and that Mr Connolly presided over did not have a limit of 60 days in which to present a bill. That has been fixed now by this Government, so that is not going to be happening again.

On that basis, it appears to me that poor advice was given to Mrs Carnell, Mr Connolly, Mr Berry and Mr Humphries. That is perhaps languishing in the past, which is what I said members opposite should not do. We will not do it either. As you know, this Government has made changes to personnel at Woden Valley Hospital and in the health area. We will continue to make those changes, as necessary, to make sure that the data and the information provided to this Assembly and its Ministers are first class. I think, if we do look into the future, that is what you will see happen, Mr Speaker.

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