Page 3057 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 23 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that army of people that I was speaking of that has responsibility for our societal health status.
If we take the WHO definition into full account, we need to have healthy prisons in order to ensure that our detainees are coming back into the community in a state to resume a normal, law-abiding life. We need a role for our schools in providing healthy food choices and increased physical education goals. Of course, we need to take account of things like more age-friendly and heart-friendly cities being built into the very design of our suburbs.
The MPI before us talks about the need to get these priorities right, but how do we judge that? I believe that the best indicator is the health of our community overall. On a range of indicators, frankly, Canberra is doing pretty well. Yet we know that health and, in particular, the hospital system are struggling to cope with the demands.
On a purely financial analysis of the government’s prioritisation of health, there are a few details that might be worth adding to the debate. Just today, in fact, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released a report on health expenditure in Australia. Expenditure on health in Australia was estimated to be $147.4 billion in 2012-13, 1.5 per cent higher than in 2011-12. Yet interestingly, disappointingly, this represents the lowest growth since the mid-1980s. In 2012-13 governments provided $100.8 billion, or 68.3 per cent of total health expenditure. Whilst that sounds like a lot, government funding of health expenditure actually fell in real terms for the first time in over 10 years by 0.9 per cent, largely as a result of a decline in Australian government funding—so federal government funding—of 2.4 per cent.
The federal government could well do with a reminder of the importance of getting its healthcare priorities right, with the last budget slashing funding, raising fees, marginalising the aged and further compounding the vulnerability of those who are already vulnerable, who are already struggling to access vital health services that they need at a very basic level.
The senseless and counterintuitive Medicare levy is just one particularly onerous and burdensome health policy from a government that simply cannot seem to understand the real world lived experience of people in our community who need that basic support. Ongoing cuts to state and territory health budgets from the federal government have a particularly big impact on a small jurisdiction such as ours, particularly given the regional responsibilities that we have.
From an ACT Greens’ perspective, we believe in that old adage that prevention is better than the cure. We know that dollar-for-dollar investment in early intervention and prevention programs leads to reduced expenditure in the long term, and so does every health policy branch and researcher. We have seen this clearly illustrated in the harm reduction policy that provides needles and syringes to injecting drug users. For every $1 invested in NSPs, more than $4 was returned additional to the investment in healthcare cost savings in the short term over 10 years, and even greater returns are expected over longer term horizons. This is not a matter of conjecture; it is a matter of fact. I am sure we will have a chance to talk about this particular approach to chronic disease tomorrow.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video