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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2910 ..

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Chief Minister in her capacity as Minister for Health. Chief Minister, in June this year, the Auditor-General brought down a damning report documenting the lack of control of salaried specialists' private practice at the Canberra Hospital. That report raised concerns that the recommendations of an internal audit - under Labor - conducted in 1994 had been largely ignored; that is, largely ignored by your Government. Between 1995 and 1997, almost nothing had been done to address the problems identified. The Auditor-General found then that there were inadequate controls in place to work out whether agreements were complied with, to evaluate what the real costs were or to establish what a cost-effective combination of VMOs and salaried specialists was. Yesterday, the Auditor-General handed down the next report, which identifies a large number of irregularities. One of the most damning findings was that made in relation to the 1996-97 enterprise bargaining agreement. The Auditor-General says:

It is the audit view that this one sided result from the negotiations between the Hospital management and the salaried specialists is another illustration of management's lack of ... control.

The message from the Auditor-General is that the situation is out of control, that taxpayers' money is being spent without proper accountability, and that the Carnell Government signed up to an agreement which extended perks to the highly paid but did nothing to try to establish control or accountability in one of the most expensive areas of our health system. In fact, the audit found that "only one undertaking which resembled a productivity gain was included in the EBA and this was in vague language".

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have only just come into the chamber, but the question has been going for all the time I have been here and presumably was going for some time before I arrived. There is a standing order about questions being succinct, and I doubt that a question of this length could be considered succinct.

Mr Whitecross: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: Mr Humphries was very self-righteous yesterday about frivolous points of order. I put it to you that that was a frivolous point of order.

MR SPEAKER: No. I must say that I have been listening. How much further do you have to go, Mr Berry?

MR BERRY: I could never equal their answers. Mr Speaker, that would be impossible. I am getting to the point.

MR SPEAKER: Please do.

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