Page 950 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
impacts of this report are and what the report really says? The only clear data in the speech by the minister is that corporate, community health, mental health and the Canberra Hospital met all 14 mandatory accreditation criteria at the required minimum level of moderate achievement.
Ms Gallagher: And next paragraph? Can you read out the next paragraph?
MR SMYTH: Just let me finish, minister, and I will get to the next program. I would have thought, given the level of funding that our hospital receives—and you have to remember that we spend more per capita on health than any other jurisdiction in this country—that to have 14 criteria at the minimum level of moderate achievement would tell me that there is something fundamentally wrong in the way this government is going about delivering the health system.
In the next paragraph the minister says, “ACT Health was also awarded a rating of extensive achievement against 12 mandatory criteria” and that that is a great thing to get. If she is going to crow about the extensive achievement against 12 mandatory criteria, I think it is fair enough that we have a look at which 12 that was achieved in. But I think it is also important that we know which 14 mandatory criteria only got criteria assessment at the minimum level. For the money we spend, for the youth of our system—and let us face it: the major infrastructure here is less than 40 years old—I believe it should be achieving much more than this.
It is great that there were no high priority recommendations and that is a step forward, because when the last reports came in there were criteria under which we did have high priority recommendations. So there has been some movement, and that is a good thing. There you go, minister. I want you to note that I have just said that that is a good thing, given that you seem to forget all the times that I praise the system when something goes right. For us to not have any high priority recommendations is an endorsement of the professionalism and the dedication of the staff, particularly in the hospital, and the way they go about their job under the adverse circumstances in which they operate.
The question is: why can’t we have all of the mandatory accreditation criteria at the extensive achievement? That is the question. We spend more, we have got the newest health system, we have got the youngest population, we have got the fittest population and we have got the healthiest population in the country. Against those criteria you would think that we would achieve at a much higher level than we have over the last six years under the Stanhope Labor government.
I know the minister has inherited a lot of the flaws in the system from the first Labor health minister, Mr Stanhope, who picked up the ball, ran from the scrum half, quickly realised that he was about to be hit by the forwards and did a flick pass to Mr Corbell very, very quickly, and that Mr Corbell displayed absolutely no interest in health as a portfolio. And I note that currently the government is attempting to eradicate any legacy that Mr Corbell might have left in the health portfolio, particularly in the area of mental health where we are yet to see, more than two years after the announcement, anything concrete occurring with the mental health precinct.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .