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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2349 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

90 or 95 per cent of the services that the regional health authority wanted. There was a private hospital and there were a few private services around, but they were very small. He did not seem at all concerned about the fact that no contract had been signed, because there was not much that the regional health authority could do about it.

So, I emphasise the point that has been made in this Assembly today. Simply establishing a structure, putting that structure in place and saying, "We now have this system", does not mean that there will be any great change to it. The bureaucrat at the CHE pointed out that they had no effective competitor. They provided almost all the services. In fact, the regional health authority had little power to do much about it at all. So, the gloss rather went off the high claims that I had heard earlier. My view then started to change. I thought that maybe it was not quite as good as it sounded. But then, as the week went on, we were talking to groups who need those services - not those who provide them, but those who receive those services in a variety of ways. We found that they were not too impressed either. On the last day, the last group that we saw made the point, in talking about efficiencies, that there were rather more bureaucrats now in the background of the provision of health services than there were formerly. The aim had been to reduce the number of bureaucrats. Now there are more. Maybe that will change over time.

I think it was Mr Osborne who asked a little while ago, "Who is going to service this authority that we are establishing here?". There is necessarily more work being created as part of establishing that authority. So, I say, not because I regard myself as any expert after a week in New Zealand, but because this is what I heard - and it was, I think, very pertinent to this debate today - "Do not put your faith totally in any structures". You can never get past the importance of basic management; good, sound administration; and goodwill on the part of all in our hospitals to do their best for their patients and for meeting their financial targets. It is that basic management that is important. As to whether a new health authority and this whole structure are going to do much to change that, I would be very sceptical. I have one particular question that I would ask the Chief Minister to respond to as she replies in this debate: What happens to the present Health Advisory Council? Does that continue, or does that now fall away as a result of this new development which, it appears, is not far away?

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Minister for Health and Community Care) (5.49), in reply: It is with great pleasure that I stand before the Assembly to talk about this legislation, because it really is a very important piece of legislation for the future of health in this city. There are absolutely irrefutable arguments that show the necessity for Health and Community Care to change the way it is currently structured and for the establishment of a Health and Community Care Service statutory authority separate from the central office of the department. Mr Speaker, one of the things I find most interesting is that, if we had a perfect system right now or if we had a system that was working as well as systems anywhere else in Australia are working, you would say, "Why would you change?". But the fact is, Mr Speaker, we do not have that. All of the people who spoke today said, "We do not believe that this will work". They did not actually say what would work, but they suggested that this will not work.

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