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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2337 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

When you look at the costs that go with all of these changes which are being proposed by Mrs Carnell, you have to consider also the lost promises such as the cardio-thoracic unit. Mrs Carnell was the greatest advocate and campaigner for a cardio-thoracic unit for all of the people who have to go to Sydney to receive treatment. (Extension of time granted) In Labor's time we said that it was going to be a difficult issue. I still do not resile from that fact. Much planning and consideration had to be given to the issue to ensure that a high-quality service would be given, but Mrs Carnell ignored all of that and went to the electorate in the ACT saying that it would happen under the Liberals. She is backing off at a million miles an hour now because she has been confronted with the same facts as confronted the ACT before the election and is having some difficulty dealing with them without paying for them.

Mrs Carnell: You promised one as well. Were you not telling the truth?

MR BERRY: Mrs Carnell is the one who backed off. She cannot afford the election promise and will not go on with it.

Mr Whitecross: She is trying to blame New South Wales.

MR BERRY: That is right; she is trying to blame New South Wales for the fact that she cannot go ahead with her cardio-thoracic unit. Apparently, it is Mr Refshauge's fault that Mrs Carnell cannot go ahead with her cardio-thoracic unit. What about the 50 beds? Is it Mr Refshauge's fault that she cannot go ahead with the 50 beds, too? Probably it is his fault. These promises slip off the agenda very quickly, but still Mrs Carnell can develop some trappings for the system which are designed to prevent government involvement in our health system. Mr Speaker, government involvement in our health system is a fact of life and it will remain so.

Mrs Carnell has placed a lot of faith in the purchaser-provider split model which she is working so furiously for to treat all the ills of our administration here in the ACT. Essentially, that means that the purchaser decides on a package of money, and the provider has to deliver the services and, if they cannot, that is too bad. Putting in place these artificial layers of administration will not get you off the hook on those matters. Why waste the money? This new statutory authority will not - - -

Debate interrupted.

MR SPEAKER: It being 5.00 pm, I propose the question:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

Mr Humphries: I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

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