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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2339 ..

MR BERRY: I trust he has listened to what I have said. It is not good enough to let the Liberals stew in their own juice. We have to take into consideration the impact these sorts of things will have on the ACT community and recognise that it is not just the political ends which have to be achieved here. We have to be concerned also about the sorts of services which are provided to the ACT community. I refer to a recent editorial in the Canberra Times. It is headed "Changes fool no-one". It is in relation to the structure which has been developed by Mrs Carnell. It starts off:

The obsession with the structure in the ACT health system continues. Last week the Government announced it would establish a new statutory health authority overseen by a board ...

It may well be slightly different from past structures but is still based on earlier models to separate the provider of services from the department.

The formal separation fools no-one. The health system is still the health system and the Government and minister are responsible for it and accountable to the people for it through the Assembly.

If, under the "new" model, the provider is not up to scratch, does the Government and department get a new provider?

No, says the Canberra Times, and they are right. Mr Speaker, I think the editorial has touched on many of the issues. I might add that I feel that in the past the Canberra Times may well have had a different view, but at least the Canberra Times have had the courage to change their view in the light of experience. They now recognise that there is something wrong with this return to yesterday. It is just a nonsense.

I raise one last issue. I refer to a letter to the Canberra Times in recent days. I am not quite sure which day it was. The letter is headed "WVH authority not a good idea" and is written by the chairman of the ACT Committee of the Australian Association of Surgeons, Dr Peter Hughes. Dr Hughes is not usually a supporter of mine on many issues, but he has a view about this system which I happen to agree with. In his letter, he says:

The Government would allocate a certain amount of money to the authority, then stand back from any complaints, saying "It's up to the authority to provide all hospital services". Any complaints to the authority would be met with the response, "We'd love to provide the service you request and with no significant waiting time, but the Government doesn't give us enough money".

That wraps it up. The Government would say, "We are doing our best. We have given them the money". The authority would say, "We are doing our best. They do not give us enough". There would be this toing-and-froing about who is the purchaser and who is the provider. It is just an artificial means to provide the Health Minister with a hiding place. Those sorts of hiding places should not be available in the democratic process here in the ACT.

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