Page 3341 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have referred to the evidence in the AIHW reports, but there is more. The State of our public hospitals report for 2007 gives rankings in a range of areas. In six out of the nine categories of performance measure, the ACT is sitting at seven or eight. In the category of public hospital beds, number per 1,000 weighted population, the ACT is ranked at seven. In the category of elective surgery, percentage of people seen within the recommended time, the ACT is ranked at seven. In the category of elective surgery, percentage of admissions that waited longer than one year, the ACT is ranked at eight. In the category elective surgery, median waiting time, the ACT is ranked at eight. In the category emergency department, percentage seen within the recommended time, the ACT is ranked at eight. In the category emergency department, median waiting time, the ACT is ranked at eight.
Mr Corbell has the temerity to stand up in this place and say that things are fine and why should we be looking into it. The evidence stands and it speaks for itself. Clearly, there is a need for a comprehensive, transparent and thorough examination of the administration of ACT public health to determine the failings that are leading to these poor outcomes. How many people have to suffer and be disadvantaged and complain before this government takes it seriously? I said yesterday that research I have seen has indicated that it is the number one single issue of concern for the people of Canberra. Either the people of Canberra have all got it wrong or this government is seriously out of touch with the issues that do trouble our constituents.
We have had the federal government demonstrating some leadership in this area. They have had to bail out state and territory hospitals in the past, which should not really be necessary, but the Australian government has expressed a desire to support the establishment of local hospital boards that will actually represent the views of the community and ensure that the health bureaucracy allows doctors to operate. It would not just be a committee or a board made up of doctors. That is not what Mrs Burke advocated. A serious construction that has no validity has been put on Mrs Burke’s remarks. The fact of the matter is that you cannot say to the doctors, “We don’t want you to have any knowledge of or involvement in the administration of a hospital. You get out there and treat patients.”
What happens when the doctors find they do not have sufficient nurses rostered on or they do not have sufficient resources or there are not enough doctors available to cover things? They are meant to just cop that, just ignore the issues and be told, “Well, you’re nothing to do with administration, doctor. You get out there and treat them.” What a ridiculous thing to say to people, many of whom have had 14 or 15 years specialist training, that they cannot make a contribution to the management of administration. Of course they can.
Dr Capolingua, the new President of the Australian Medical Association—and I might say that she is an impressive president—has advocated the concept of local boards. It is something that has been in existence in the past in Australia. Dr Capolingua has said that there are examples of that currently in Victoria and that local hospital boards bring management, accountability and responsibility right back to the community. The AMA president is not saying this to keep herself amused. There are good, valid reasons for this. She has identified that local hospital boards are a management issue. In a media interview she states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .