Page 1872 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
for treating people in emergency departments, with slightly less than 60 per cent of patients seen on time.
If you go to this year’s budget paper 4 and check to see if things have improved, as the minister will no doubt claim they have, you will find that they have not. Remember that there are five categories in the emergency department. Last year at 30 June, 100 per cent of resuscitation cases—ie, “Treat me or I die”—were seen on time. That is a good outcome. When you get to emergency cases, at 30 June last year it was 70 per cent and we have an improvement this year to 80 per cent. So there is a good one there for the government as well.
Last year we had 50 per cent of cases in the “urgent” category seen on time. The estimated outcome at 30 June this year is 41 per cent, an 18 per cent decline on urgent cases; on semi-urgent, last year 52 per cent of people were seen on time, this year the estimated outcome is 42 per cent, another 20 per cent decline; last year 83 per cent of non-urgent cases were seen on time; and this year it has again declined, with an expected outcome of 81 per cent.
This is an indicator of—and I hope the minister is listening—a system that is declining. Five years of Labor government, $6 million in cash thrown at it when they started, three health ministers, hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at it since then, and numerous reviews, but it still gets worse. It declines. In real terms, compared to your own figures, it is getting worse. For Mr Gentleman to stand up here and say how much more effective the system is is just a joke. The government, he said, would put in the AIP. Yes, the AIP; that was going to fix things, another groovy little acronym. But when you look at the real indicator on the AIP you find that it declines as well.
Strategic indicator No 3 from the 2005-06 budget says that, in 2004-05, 98 per cent of acute beds were occupied overnight, so all you have to do is reduce that so you have room for emergency cases, clearing the bed block. The target for 2005-06 was in fact 95 per cent but the outcome is 96 per cent, so it is not getting better. You cannot reach your target.
If we look at the long-term target, it is still set at 90 per cent and the target for the coming year is 93 per cent. So how are we going to shave that off? We will throw some more money at it, but the problem is the lack of beds. The minister made the claim in question time—and she is good at this; she makes claims that are not supported—that she had answered my question of where were the 100 extra acute care beds that are required. You said, “We have answered you, we have given you your 106 beds. We have done better than you asked for.” You have not. You have 20 acute care beds in this budget and 20 next year if you can deliver—that is only 40—and you have some 66 non-acute beds.
It is acute beds that count in this circumstance. That is the problem. You want to fudge the figures. You have been sitting next to Mr Corbell too long, twisting, weaving and spinning—right?—to make it suit what you are doing. The problems just go on because this government thinks that money is commitment.
Efficiency, supporting the staff, looking after people, changing the system, getting rid of the bureaucratic nature, making sure it is effective when the Canberran who needs that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .