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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4150 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

There are other issues of concern as well. The committee concluded that having some additional beds may be justified, but was not convinced that these beds need to be provided in a new hospital. It was not convinced that Canberra requires the number of additional private beds proposed. The decision by the Government to proceed with the proposal was taken without proper consideration of its impact on the existing two private hospitals and flies in the face of the proper process of consultation which should have occurred, given the likely dramatic effect on existing private hospital business. That is the truth of it.

The Government and public health authorities need adequate data to ensure that limited health resources are allocated effectively. The committee is convinced that there is only inadequate data available to ACT health authorities on bed needs, and in particular the effect of an additional 100 private beds. In fact, this was an ideological decision based on a non-existent policy, or a policy that was made up on the run. The committee noted that one justification for the provision of additional private beds was to attract private patients away from the public sector. I have mentioned that. It was said that the extra capacity so created in the public sector would enable a reduction in waiting times for elective surgery. If you look at the experience of St George Hospital, it will not happen. Something like one a month transferred from the hospital. So bad is the business that they have taken out the liaison officer who was put there to attract patients to private hospitals. That theory looks as though it could be a dud one as well.

The employment prospects become the most laughable. Yes, there will be some construction jobs for the period of the construction of the hospital, but that is about where it ends. As resources are shifted around in the system to make room for the new private hospital, hospitals like the John James Memorial Hospital will have fewer jobs. The estimates of jobs in the future are very rubbery; there is absolutely no doubt about that. The Government has made a grave mistake, has misled the community, has misled this Assembly and should apologise.

Mr Humphries: Move a motion of censure, Wayne.

MR BERRY: I would not be able to get it through the Independents and the Greens. They are too busy protecting you. Unquestionably, the decision was one that was not well thought through.

I mentioned that the Government would not provide copies of documents. The second recommendation from the committee was that the Legislative Assembly request the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to examine the principle of commercial-in-confidence. I think that is a good recommendation and should be followed through. The third recommendation was that the Attorney-General request the Government Solicitor to examine the contract and other agreements, to ensure they comply with trade practices legislation. I note that the Government member who has issued a dissenting report disagrees with that. The fact of the matter is that just convincing the Government is not good enough anymore; nobody believes them. The community have to be satisfied that this matter is examined and a public statement made to ensure that it does comply with trade practices legislation.

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