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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2884 ..

MR SMYTH: I realise that it is not compulsory, but I know that this is an important issue and it would be negligent of me not do so. I will go back to the document. I refer to the section "Waiting list management" on page 9 of the document entitled "ACT Labor's plan for rebuilding the ACT health service". It reads:

The effective performance of existing operating theatres (mainly through changes in work practices) can provide increased throughput within existing resources.

Labor believes that there are efficiencies to be gained within the system, and that we can do better within existing resources.

The question is: when will that happen? The answer is: not in the lifetime of this government, because it was explained to the Estimates Committee that that involved changing nurses rosters. There are inefficiencies in the system and there are benefits to be gained, but that would involve a cooperative approach between management and the nursing staff so that all of the theatres could be used far more effectively.

When grilled or asked about that by the Estimates Committee, staff from the hospital admitted that they could not achieve this promise without changing the nurses rosters. That is curious, Mr Speaker, because the opportunity to change the nurses rosters and gain these efficiencies was there just after the election. What did we do with it? Nothing. We did not take that opportunity.

The government betrayed us on this promise because it was not willing to negotiate with the nurses. The nurses got a pay rise, which we think was a wonderful thing, but what did the public get? Did it get some extra efficiency? Did it get to Labor keeping its promise that it would get the extra efficiencies? The answer is no. What we have is a system whereby you have removed the controls, you have stopped seeking to gain efficiencies and you have not funded places such as Calvary Hospital enough to ensure that they could maintain the 7.5 per cent throughput that you expected, you knew was coming. When quizzed by the Estimates Committee, the part-time Health Minister said, "We knew that there would be some pain, but people have got to cop that."

Further down, on pages 10 of 12 of the document about rebuilding the health system, we can see surely one of the most mean-spirited decisions in health budget records. The document refers to the Howard government, but the "you'll have to cop the pain" comment from the part-time Health Minister may well go down as one of the most mean-spirited decisions in health budget records.

Mr Speaker, we have to get back in control of the hospital. Part of that solution may be to have a fifth minister because, clearly, the current Health Minister is just not up to the job. When these allegations are raised against the current Health Minister and he is confronted with the truth of what he has done, he says in his defence, "But we have put more money into mental health and we have put more money into disability services than you have."

Mr Speaker, I have a little challenge for the part-time Health Minister. Over the last four years we had a 42 per cent growth in health funding. I wonder whether we will see a 42 per cent growth in funding in the next four years for disability services. I suspect the answer will be no, but the challenge is there. We will see whether the minister rises to it. The minister makes much of the $1.25 million-maybe it is $1.35 million-extra this

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