Page 2672 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I respond briefly to this suggestion that Dr Foskey makes that we are, in fact, in competition with the commonwealth and that this will have dire consequences on our capacity to recruit. I do not agree with that. I do not believe we are, for the vast majority of our employees, in competition with the commonwealth at all. It is not correct to suggest that we are and to say, “The states are different; the states could move to a 9 per cent government contribution because they are not in competition.” Sixty-five per cent of all commonwealth public servants work in the states. Only 35 per cent of the commonwealth’s public service is located within the ACT. Sixty-five per cent is located in Sydney, in Melbourne, in Perth, in Adelaide and in Hobart. Sixty-five per cent of the commonwealth public service is in competition with the states and the territories in the capital cities of Australia where they deliver their government services.
I do not intend to respond to the nonsense which Mr Smyth contributed to the debate, other than once again to ponder out aloud, “How is it that the Liberal Party persisted for as long as they did with this leader?” To the extent that I ever have moments of self-doubt, the self-doubt that I often reflect on is: how come our record margin at the last election was not greater than it was? I am sure you ponder that, too, Mr Mulcahy.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.10—ACT Health, $592,119,000 (net cost of outputs), $18,198,000 (capital injection) and $4,865,000 (payments on behalf of the territory), totalling $615,182,000.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (5.14): I ponder how remarkably well we did considering the resources we as a party have compared to those from the trade union movement. But let us move to the most significant issue in many respects in the minds of most Canberrans, and that is the management of health and healthcare in this territory. It is quite extraordinary that, despite the additional appropriations in funding to ACT Health compared to last year, we cannot be sure that this extra money will be spent in a way that will either maximise the benefits to the ACT health system or improve its efficiency.
This is because the Stanhope government has proven time and time again that they do not possess the right approach to achieve meaningful progress or reform in key areas such as health. The estimates process revealed plenty to reinforce this. Ms Gallagher’s relative unfamiliarity with the new portfolio did not excuse the significant deficiencies that had existed within the department way before she became Minister for Health.
A few of these deficiencies were readily conceded by Dr Tony Sherbon, chief executive of ACT Health, now in the process of leaving, if he has not left already—of his own volition, I hasten to add—who said:
It is fair to say that we do not meet category 2 (surgery within 90 days) and 3 (surgery within 12 months) wait times ... As the minister said, category 2 is largely a problem with neurosurgical patients … In category 3 we will be looking at ENT, ophthalmology, orthopaedics and, to a lesser extent, gynaecology.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .