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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2192 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Stanhope made a comment about the budget running amok, and he made a comment in the same sort of language about waiting lists. No, the budget is not running amok. There was a prediction that we would have a $10m operating loss. That does look like it will now come in, as we put in the budget, at around a $5m overrun. That is not good enough and we will still seek to deal with something like that. It is interesting that just today Dr McLaren has released his report saying that the hospital is not overfunded. Of course, we have three or four other indicators that it is overfunded. I think the critical issue is that we are not trying to cut the budget at the hospital. We are saying, "Live within the budget you have". Even if Dr McLaren's figures are right and the costs are the same as for the rest of Australia, we would say that we are still not changing the budget. We want to make sure people take responsibility within their budget, and that is why we are going through those issues in the rectification plan.

Mr Stanhope raised the issue of hepatitis C. Let me once again say to members that the Chief Health Officer will be delighted to brief you at any time on the hepatitis C program. Some issues are confidential because of the way the negotiation has occurred. Our original plan, as Mr Stanhope correctly pointed out, was to ensure that the hepatitis C issue was dealt with on a legislative basis. That ran into a number of problems, not the least of which was a requirement by the Federal Government. For them to put money in, we had to meet certain criteria. On reviewing those, we slightly changed the process that we used. We still proceeded down the path of going through $200,000 for the people with hepatitis C who have haemophilia. Under most circumstances, these people would not have been likely to receive any compensation, but we thought compensation was appropriate. For the other people, the negotiations are going on in a similar way to negotiations in other parts of Australia to ensure that we get a fair outcome. Part of the difficulty with the legislative approach is that it would have removed some of people's rights. We feel that we now have a better solution. Once again I would be happy to offer members a briefing from the Chief Health Officer on that matter should they wish that at any time.

Mr Stanhope raised recommendation 34 about the rights of people with mental illness to be considered. The reason this recommendation was not accepted is that the recommendation wanted this to be considered prior to the implementation of the proposed changes to the public housing policy. The changes to public housing policy are going ahead. Recommendation 63 states:

I understand that the Assembly is considering that. It has gone to the committee. Will we delay these issues in terms of mental health? I think we now have the opportunity for the committee to consider these issues of mental health when they are looking at those things, and I would be very happy for them to report back and give me further ideas. Of course, we are interested in ensuring that people with mental health issues are dealt with appropriately in relation to public housing. I think most of us, especially if we have been to visit, recognise that they are looked after particularly well in relation to public housing. In many cases I am sure there is a possibility we can do better.

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