Page 1329 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Certainly, there were some interesting negotiations over the development of the amendment. I am a little bit disappointed about the way that occurred. It is not about who takes the credit for this; it is about essentially getting the process done. We already know who we can blame in terms of our GP numbers and the results we are getting at the moment. So the fact that we are moving forward—and I understand that the crossbench will also be supporting this—in a tripartisan way to get a GP inquiry going is good news.
The terms of reference have actually been expanded by the government backbench, so there is acceptance that there is a problem, and also that primary health care encompasses more than just GPs. I do acknowledge that there are other elements and we need to look at the broader scope. Certainly, given the problems we have had recently with the number of closures of GP clinics, it is probably the most significant element of that. But I certainly appreciate that it needs to be looked at in a holistic fashion and I welcome the expansion of the terms of reference.
The other issue that has been put forward, which I believe comes more from the crossbench than from the government backbench, is about the issue of GPs being included on the agenda for the health ministers conference. I support that; I do not have any objection to it. I note that a report based on that will come back to the Assembly in September, so I look forward to seeing that report.
In the terms of reference for the inquiry I would have used the language “should include” rather than “may include”. I find that a bit wishy-washy in this amendment, but I accept that the committee will understand exactly what the issues are that need to be addressed. I have great faith in Mr Doszpot, the chair of that committee, who has been involved in this debate, to take that forward. So I welcome the amendment and the opposition will be supporting it.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.23): I would like to speak briefly on this issue. I thank Mr Hanson for initially bringing this motion forward. I think it is critically important that we as an Assembly continue to look at this issue and continue to look for ways to arrest the shortage of GPs that we are experiencing in the ACT, and that we have been experiencing for some time.
In the end, it is one of those things—the question of credit that Mr Hanson touched on. There are a lot of people who want to claim credit, but in the end the important thing will be that this will be properly examined. We are very hopeful that the committee process can actually come up with some good solutions.
Clearly, we have a problem; we have an issue. When we look at the recent closures in Belconnen and last year’s closure in Wanniassa, we know that small GP clinics are being bought up or that the doctors are moving on. I have spoken with doctors recently who talk about some of the incentive payments that they are being offered to join some of the big providers. I have heard numbers as high as a $750,000 sign-on. I do not know if that is correct, but that is what is being talked about. That is pretty hard for a lot of doctors to resist, I imagine. These are some of the tough economic realities that we face in dealing with this issue. It is by no means an easy issue. There will be no easy solution that will solve our GP shortage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .