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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2347 ..

MR CORBELL

Mr Smyth makes a lot about the increase in mean waiting times for all categories in our hospitals. The test is, Mr Speaker: are we treating people within clinically appropriate times-the times determined nationally by the medical profession to be the times within which you should get treatment for particular types of surgery?

The reality is, Mr Speaker: for category one, we are well within the clinically appropriate time. But in relation, Mr Speaker, to category 2 and category 3: yes, we've got a problem, just like the previous government had a problem, just like the government before that had a problem. We are going to focus our resources on improving outcomes in category 2 and category 3. That's what the $2 million per annum is about; it is targeted at category 2 and category 3 patients-people needing orthopaedic treatment, people needing ophthalmology, people needing a whole range of other types of surgery. That's where it will be focused, Mr Speaker-on improving those categories.

Mr Smyth also made a lot about questions on notice. He said that the government hadn't answered all his questions on notice; it's outrageous, et cetera, et cetera. What he doesn't acknowledge of course is that at a drop-dead date-at 7 o'clock in the evening of the last day of Estimates Committee hearings, after the committee secretary had gone home-the opposition lobbed on the committee secretary's desk 60 questions for the health department. On drop-dead day, that's what they did. Is it any wonder that we're still following up those questions?

During the Estimates Committee processes themselves, they asked about 14 questions on notice; but come the last day, one minute to midnight, they lob 60 on the table. And that's very interesting, Mr Speaker. That is the reason why the government is a little bit slow in responding. Interestingly, the committee secretary advised that the timelines would not be strictly adhered to and wouldn't need to be in this case. But that of course ruins Mr Smyth's story, Mr Speaker, so he obviously doesn't mention that.

Some other points came up in the debate. There was some criticism that the government had stopped funding to the Hepatitis C Council. That is simply wrong, Mr Speaker. The reality is that all funding for the Hepatitis C Council comes from a Commonwealth initiative. The Commonwealth has confirmed funding for half of the Hepatitis C Council. So we've indicated to the Hepatitis C Council that half of the funding has been confirmed by the Commonwealth but the other half hasn't. So guess what, Mr Speaker? We can't advise the Hepatitis C Council that the other half is coming yet. We think it's coming; the Commonwealth has told us it's coming; but we can't guarantee it, Mr Speaker. So the criticism of the government in relation to hepatitis C is just wrong again, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I move on to two comments from Ms Tucker. I thank Ms Tucker for her comments in relation to the government's initiatives. There are two comments that I'd like to respond to. The first is in relation to bulk-billing.

Ms Tucker raises a very serious question of the availability and access to bulk-billing in the territory. Ms Tucker says that, whilst she acknowledges it's the Commonwealth's responsibility to address access to bulk-billing, at the end of the

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