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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4229 ..

MRS BURKE (continuing):

Mr Deputy Speaker, this clearly shows that the government is still not doing enough to attract and retain nurses in the ACT. Yes, Mr Corbell is right: there is a nation-wide shortage of nurses. But what makes them want to work in New South Wales or Victoria as opposed to the ACT? Why isn't the territory a suitable option for them, Mr Corbell?

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! There is an audible conversation.

MRS BURKE: We see a $38 million blow-out in the Health budget-on page 207 of the Health Annual Report. The statement of financial performance shows that $38 million more than was budgeted was expended. The operating result for ACT Health for the year is a deficit of $19.8 million. Lo and behold, the minister has been caught out again. In trying to defend this blow-out, he says that the figure is really a $340,000 deficit. But this figure is nowhere to be found on the statement of financial performance.

I would suggest the Auditor-General signs off on the statement of financial performance, not the weasel words of the minister. The minister needs to come clean on the true state of the territory's Health finances, as at June 30 of 2003, and not keep quoting to this Assembly figures from 31 December 2002, which paint this unaudited, out-of-date and rosy picture.

There was a failure to spend funds on two capital works projects: a radiation oncology examination room and orthopaedic theatre refurbishment. Instead, we find out that some of those funds were spent on a $150,000 lounge. The minister has tried to pass this off as a "meeting room", but the annual report calls it a "lounge". The minister has a couple of excuses for this one. He says, "Read your annual report, Mr Smyth."We did read the annual report, Mr Corbell, and nowhere does it explain why these projects "did not proceed,"which was all that was written beside these programs in your annual report.

That is why we asked you. That is why the Liberals asked why the projects were downgraded in this year's budget to feasibility studies. Quite frankly, Minister, that excuse is appalling. If the funding for the radiation oncology examination room, some $80,000, and orthopaedic theatre refurbishment, some $250,000, was not necessary, why was it in the budget for capital works in the first place?

Is Mr Corbell seriously suggesting that it took a whole year to discover that these projects needed feasibility studies rather than immediate action? How long will Canberra patients now have to wait for these projects to be completed-one year, two years, five years? Why weren't the funds allocated to these two projects used to complete the feasibility studies in 2002-03, instead of being used to fund a $150,000 lounge? How long is it now going to take for more worthy projects than a lounge room, like a radiation oncology examination room and an orthopaedic theatre, to be completed?

Then there is the 1,389 reduction-and let's not forget this is against the budget target-in cost-weighted occasions of outpatient services. Also, only 59 per cent of women aged 50 to 69 were screened for breast cancer in 2002-03 against a budget target of 70 per cent. Ms MacDonald also alluded to breast screening in the ACT-that oncologists were not there. What is happening with the system? What is going on? If you are not meeting the targets-you set them-what is happening?

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