Page 496 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
it was a case of Johnny-come-lately. I did not see a comment from Mrs Burke for about a week after the Productivity Commission report came out. We had it analysed the moment it arrived and made public comment, but she says my figures were wrong in terms of the waiting list for elective surgery. This 2008 report on government services was released on 31 January this year, so we are talking about four or five weeks ago. The data probably is 18 months old, and the minister tells us that things are getting better now. But for Mrs Burke to say it is all wrong and incorrect suggests that she is either not on top of the game or is just simply in the business of scoring a few points. I will look forward to her correcting that on the record, just like Mr Pratt apologised for being at Jim Murphy’s dinner at his local branch the other night. There is nothing wrong with apologising for mistakes you make, and I am sure Mrs Burke can do the same.
In terms of the issue of the size of hospital, Dr Foskey spoke about that and she spoke about the time lines. I would like to see time lines spelled out. The minister’s amendment does not trouble me unduly. I can understand the sensitivity about putting in a comment about our emergency and elective surgery times being the worst in the country, but her amendment does acknowledge that data which is in the report. It is a fair comment that we are at record levels of elective surgery. There are improvements in the emergency department waiting times, but we are a long way from perfect. I am glad that the other elements of the motion, particularly the last section about reporting here with proper time lines, is accepted. I hope that the minister will give action to that resolution and actually present us with a timetable and a more detailed report. I understood from her remarks that that would happen.
As I said, Dr Foskey spoke on the size of hospitals. Hospitals are a bit like schools—nobody really likes to be in a school that has a massive number of pupils where the sense of the individual is lost. The bottom line is that the cost of running of hospitals is such that small hospitals are economically disastrous. I hear the issue about infection control. That is not an easy problem to deal with, but small, boutique hospitals are not a good idea. I grew up in Tasmania and at every election a new hospital would be opened in a country town. We saw one they tried to preserve in the last federal election, but all around Tasmania are these hospitals which are probably equipped to do little more than put a bandaid on anything. But they won votes in those communities.
With the capital cost of health care, the salaries involved and the difficulty in attracting skilled people, multiple hospital locations make no sense in a city of this size. Where you can drive from one end of the city to the other, I am afraid having small, boutique hospitals does not make much sense, unless you are looking for the pampering that might come with some form of hospital confinement for non-major matters. That certainly should not be the responsibility of the taxpayer. I know the government has ruled out a third hospital, and I think that is smart. That is about the extent of my comments on that. I will leave it at that point, Mr Speaker.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .