Page 3651 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 21 November 2007

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


In closing, our inquiries show that the doctors, through the AMA, support public hospital boards, but the nurses, through the Australian Nursing Federation, do not. Consumer reps are not swinging either way; they just want to be sure that their voices are heard, and they do feel confident that they are being heard at this point. I am interested to know which ACT health advocates and representatives the ACT Liberals have talked to in preparing this bill and how the Liberals considered and ameliorated, accepted or rejected the various concerns that each group expressed.

MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (4.14): I will make a reasonably brief contribution to this debate. The Chief Minister indicated we should show some proof that boards work. Mr Speaker, having been in the Assembly, like you, effectively since day one, we have seen various things. We have seen a board—and the Chief Minister selectively quoted from the Canberra Times in 1992 about it—which was abolished, and also reinstated in the early days of the Carnell government. Of course, it was then got rid of in 2002, and Mrs Burke seeks to bring it back.

I think the proof is in the pudding. We have gone from a system where we were regularly about third on any of the indicators that hospitals are judged on to now, sadly, a system where it is last or second last. We have seen, in the last six years, the length of time that people have to wait in accident and emergency jump from two hours, which was pretty well constant throughout the eighties and nineties, to eight hours. Of course, we have also seen higher numbers on waiting lists, just to name a couple of things. So I don’t think you can tell me that, by having a board, there is any less efficiency; far from it. When we had boards, we seemed to have much greater efficiency.

I think that what Mrs Burke is stating really does speak for itself, and the facts on health are on the table. I will close, because I only wanted to make a brief contribution to this debate, by saying that it is a difficult portfolio. Consequently, throughout the history of this Assembly, since the ACT has had responsibility for health, there have been issues, problems and concerns. There have been further appropriations in relation to health. It is not an easy portfolio for any minister or any government to deal with.

There has always been that criticism, except for a period of time not long after the last board was put in place. In the period from about 1995 to 1998, there were not that many significant issues coming across in a political way. That either means that, as an Assembly, the government, the opposition and crossbench members were not across it or, what is much more likely, the system actually was not travelling too badly. A lot can be said for efficiency in a system caused by a board. There is a lot of strength in it, as Mrs Burke said. It is a proposal put forward by my party, not only because it happens to coincide with something that the federal government is looking to do as well but because, quite simply, with the track record of the ACT, it is something that has actually worked, and worked a lot better than what we have at present.

MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (4.17), in reply: I thank members for their contribution. It is a pity that we have such a blinkered view about returning to something that may be a way of helping systemic management issues in our hospital. Members on this side of the house who spoke have pointed that out. I thank members for their comments.


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