Page 1908 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
improves the standard of public transport, attracts drivers to the alternatives and reduces congestion. This is a fundamental and widely recognised precept of transport economics and one which we believe the government could be giving far greater consideration to if we want to avoid unnecessary expenses to government associated with road building and high emissions from congestion and to assist families who wish to save money while making responsible, sustainable transport choices.
It has been said in the media that the Health portfolio was a big winner through the budget. That statement is correct if you look at the amount of money going towards acute services. But the Greens question whether the health of our constituents will be better off in the long run. As our community ages and chronic disease and disability increase, we are expecting large increases in demand for health services.
Recent discussions between the state, territory and federal governments have essentially seen a shift of funding responsibility to the federal government. This move has been labelled as reform of our hospital system. But is it reform and is it what we really want? It appears governments are accepting of the levels of illness that will be presenting to hospitals. If we really want to achieve improvement in people’s quality of life and health status, we should be trying to decrease the demand that will be presenting to our hospitals. And we can only do this if we assist people in making healthier choices and make primary health care available when it is needed.
It is disappointing that two-thirds of the new money coming from the commonwealth to the ACT Health budget is for acute measures, and it does appear that state and territory governments are accepting this without making a case for improving preventive and primary care.
Unfortunately, the case for good policy does not always make for good politics. Political parties in government tend to favour measures that are highly visible to the voter. This comes to the detriment of those people suffering an illness that is less visible in presentation, such as mental illness, who require services delivered by people as compared to buildings and machines. The Greens would argue that we should be looking to evidence-based policy in response to health policy challenges.
Studies have shown that investing in preventive health pays off in the long term. A recent US study, Prevention for a healthier America, shows that for every dollar invested in proven community-based disease prevention programs such as increasing physical activity, improving nutrition and reducing smoking levels the return on investment over and above the cost of the program would be $5.60 within five years.
I note that last year a strategic review was conducted of the ACT health promotion grants program, but the review did not ask whether or not the government was investing the required amount in health promotion. The government needs to step back and take a look at the bigger picture if it is to provide vision and leadership to the community in addressing the health challenges our future population will present.
The Greens give significant priority to funding for mental health services and are disappointed that this budget does not provide a greater percentage of new health money to this area. I note there will be $1 million per year in new funds for this area,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video