Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 319 ..

MR MOORE: I will take the part of the question about the exact number on notice, but I am aware of the Grants Commission report, the Productivity Commission reports, the Booz Allen report, the Renfrey report and Mr Andersen's report. There is also a series of reports on particular areas in the hospital. Mr Hargreaves, I would like you to clarify whether you want to know only about reports such as the one on the investigation into the intensive care unit, for example, or whether you also want to know about every small report that a particular manager has organised - and there must be hundreds of them. I think, if I am right in understanding that, you are talking about the overall reports that look at the financial circumstances, the budget circumstances, of the hospital. I am happy to provide you with the exact details of those.

We know that all those reports have indicated that the hospital is significantly overfunded compared to Australian standards. The reason why that is significant is that that is how we are funded. That is what the Grants Commission looks at. That is how we wind up getting our funds back through the Grants Commission, as you would well know. That is why it is a critical issue.

But it is a further critical issue for us in Canberra, because we know that a fair proportion of people who go to our hospitals are from the surrounding region. At the moment, for each person who comes to us, for each unit of service, for each cost-weighted separation, we get 110 per cent of the Australian value. That will go down to 105 per cent and then to 100 per cent. So there are reasons for us to want to push to change the situation in the budget. I am very pleased that the indication from this Assembly yesterday, after a long debate, was that I need to keep my hand strongly on the tiller.

Mr Berry: No, it was not.

Mr Stanhope: That is a very artful interpretation.

MR MOORE: Labor may forget that this Assembly removed from the motion they put out that I was not to meddle. I have to keep a strong hand on it. I have to tell you that what that means, as far as I am concerned, is that, having gone through those reports, I will make sure that as priority one we continue providing the best possible service we can. And to whom? As I said in "Setting the Agenda", to the patient. There is nothing interfering in that.

Priority 2 is making sure that we can do that as far as possible within budget. If our hospital budget runs at 110 per cent, then this Government will make a decision that that may be the appropriate level because we can see why we are spending the extra money - to get better customer service. But when we cannot see that we are spending the money to get better customer service we will look very carefully at those reports to give us ideas on how to change the culture of the hospital. We will continue to do it using the sort of process that Mr Rayment is using and that, interestingly enough, Mr Quinlan described, although very tongue in cheek, yesterday in his speech. It is the sort of process that is being used by the other Ted, Ted Rayment, at the hospital. It is something that, generally, is delegated to the hospital. On the very specific issue, I will provide this Assembly with the names of particular consultancies to do with broad budget issues.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .