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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3620 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

that are stopping it and causing the two-year delay that Mr Hargreaves so eloquently pointed out.

My understanding is that, by the end of the year, it will be something akin to 300 beds that could be in operation for nursing home-type patients that are causing the bed block in the public hospital system. It is the planning minister who must stop sitting on his hands and actually make the planning system work, in this case to deliver for aged Canberrans and their families, so that we can then use acute beds for acute patients, not acute beds for nursing home patients. This would have a sixfold benefit in terms of cost to the efficiency of the health budget because, when those nursing home patients are in an acute bed, they are costing about $900 a day, when in fact they should be costing about $150 a day.

When Mr Hargreaves scored his own goal, he talked about people being in inappropriate locations and he is absolutely right. The minister has left them there-the former health minister, the Chief Minister, left them there for a year, and now Mr Corbell has for almost a year.

I wish to move two amendments and I might move the first amendment now. The first amendment omits the words "the major concessions won by"and replaces them with the words "the agreement reached by the Federal Government and". What it says there, you will find if you read it in context, is that the Assembly welcomes the agreement reached by the federal government and the ACT government in negotiations towards the 2003 to 2008 Australian health care agreements.

I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name, which reads:

(1) Paragraph (1)-omit "the major concessions won by the"and substitute "the agreement reached by the Federal Government and".

The purpose of this amendment is to make the statement accurate. We are very pleased with what the minister has been able to negotiate with the federal minister. We have said that. We think that these extra concessions, on top of the $58 million that the ACT has received from the federal government, are worth welcoming. That would be the first amendment.

I will foreshadow the second amendment, Mr Speaker. The second amendment goes to paragraph (3). I believe we should omit the statement that says "expresses dismay at the tactics of the Commonwealth Government". Negotiation is an interesting thing that we carry on in government and often incentives are put before people. Indeed, if the negotiation had not occurred, we would not have got the "major concessions"that are touted by Mr Hargreaves in his speech. I do not think expressing dismay at the tactics adds anything to the nature of the motion. It is about negotiations.

The states and the territories are probably going to negotiate long and hard, every round, on every issue, whether it be about housing, disability or funding public hospitals. I think maybe what we should be doing is praising the federal government for the $58 million extra that we received. I notice that, following Mr Corbell's lead, once he had signed up to the agreement, all the states and territories, after demonstrating their fit of pique by

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