Page 2176 - Week 06 - Thursday, 26 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Some of these initiatives were in the second appropriation, in particular the general practice campaign. It focused on trying to attract GPs to work in the ACT. It recognised that the ACT has the lowest number of GPs in Australia, as well as the lowest bulk-billing rates.
I have an issue with the Liberals’ pledge on the west Belconnen health cooperative, and that is that they are pledging it out of the health budget. The money we have pledged for the west Belconnen collective is from the community services budget. It is precisely because of the concerns that have been raised with me—
Mr Seselja: They have only been given half the money they need.
MS GALLAGHER: Quite valid concerns have been raised with me by doctors groups about the government subsidising, essentially, a private practice.
Mr Seselja: Why are you giving them $200,000 then?
MS GALLAGHER: The doctors said to me, “If we have mortgaged our houses to pay for our practices, why should the government then go through the health budget and fund it?” The government took note of that representation, but we still made the money available. We are the ones that have kept the west Belconnen project alive. We are the ones that have funded the feasibility. We are the ones that met with them and gave them the money. Every cent that they have requested from me, they have got, as well as a commitment from me, in writing, to fund the cooperative. That money is on the table; the cheque is signed and ready to go.
But it will be funded out of the community services budget, rather than the health budget, to avoid those concerns that the opposition are dismissing—concerns that have been raised with me by those doctors that have paid and are paying quite substantial costs to keep their practices going at a time like this. So those opposite cannot say that we are not supportive of the project. In fact, you have copied our commitment. You are just potentially paying for it out of a different part of the appropriation.
We committed to this in May last year, I believe, in a letter to the cooperative, and I agreed to every cent of the money they requested of me at that time. They were awaiting an outcome from the commonwealth under the regional partnerships fund. They wrote to me in the last week or so to say that they would like me to facilitate a meeting between us and the commonwealth government to see where that project and that analysis is up to, and I have agreed to do that.
So those opposite cannot sit there and say we are not supporting the cooperative. We are. I am just alerting you to the issues about funding your promises. Maybe it is a bit kind of me because it will cause enormous problems in general practitioner land. You can dismiss those as not valid, but this government is responsible for broad health issues and working with the existing primary health care sector and that actually is a legitimate issue. I accept Mr Seselja’s comments—
Opposition members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .