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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2939 ..

resuscitation, because if do not you meet 100 per cent the patient will be dead. Unfortunately, four jurisdictions do not, but New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory and the ACT all get 100 per cent.

That is the only category in which we get an equal top, Mr Speaker. For the emergency category, only 82 per cent of the patients were seen on time. We were beaten there by Victoria at 84 per cent. In the urgent category, we got 74 per cent and were beaten by Victoria at 76 per cent. In the semi-urgent category, we were beaten by Western Australia; we got 67 per cent and it got 68 per cent. In the non-urgent category, we were beaten by all the jurisdictions; we were dead last. We got 79 per cent. Even the Northern Territory managed to get 88 per cent. Tasmania beat us with 90 per cent, as did South Australia with 84 per cent, Western Australia with 87 per cent, Queensland with 80 per cent, Victoria with 85 per cent and New South Wales with 86 per cent. You need to look at the numbers to see where we are at. In that regard, our system used to be the best, but it certainly is not now.

Mr Speaker, if you look at the targets this year in output 1.1 for acute services you will find that the target for category 1 is still at 100 per cent, as it should be, for treatment immediately. For category 2, the target in 2003-04 was 80 per cent. The estimated outcome for that year is only 65 per cent. Category 2 is about treatment within 10 minutes, so one is talking about serious illness or injury, and the government has failed to meet the target by 15 per cent, despite all the additional funds that the government has put into the budget over the last couple of years.

For category 3, which is about treatment within 30 minutes, the target for this year was 75 per cent and the estimated outcome has declined to 65 per cent. For category 4, which is about treatment within the hour, a target of 85 per cent was set and the estimated outcome is 85 per cent. So we have a downgrading of all those targets except the one for category 4.

The government has set exactly the same targets for next year, not having reached the majority of them this year. I think there is some doubt as to the ability of this government to deliver against those. The government might take some solace from claiming to have the best system. The report of the AIHW is for last financial year, 2002-03. The financial year 2003-04, feeling the full effect of government reforms, is looking at this stage to be an absolute disaster.

Mr Speaker, we all know that in the first full year of this government elective surgery fell away dramatically because the government simply chose to cut the level of funding for surgery. It cut $3.5 million out of the budget for Calvary. The 14,000 operations in our last full year of government dipped to just over 10,000. This year, the government expects to get the number back up to close to 14,000. The waiting list has grown by 20 per cent because money was taken out of elective surgery and it is only just recovering.

Some other services have remained static over the year, but over those three years the total expenditure on health has risen from $480 million annually to $612 million—a staggering 27 per cent increase, far in excess of any increases in services.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

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