Page 3060 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
When we look at the plan for Calvary—and we do not know exactly how much that is—we ask: what is the Calvary precinct going to look like in 10 years time? How are our aged care and things like Clare Holland House all going to work? That is what is lacking. That is what we are not being shown. Basically we are calling for the plan to be presented and to be told: “This is our coherent strategy. This is the plan. This is what you are investing in. This is why we are asking you to sign off on close to $1 billion, because this is what it is going to look like in that period.” I urge the minister to bring forward something like that.
When you are just asked to sign off on a plan year after year—I appreciate that the budget does show four years—there just is not the clarity in it that gives us confidence. When you are talking about vast amounts of money, you really have to have that plan for the future. This is why we have been rigorously pursuing these issues. I appreciate that the debate does get lively in here and allegations and counter-allegations are thrown across the floor, but we are talking about enormous amounts of money. We are talking about our future health system. I think it behoves us as an opposition to make sure that we get to the bottom of how that money is being spent, to make sure that every dollar we spend is being spent as efficiently as it can be.
The budget contains a one per cent efficiency dividend which is coming in not this year but in the three years following the budget. I look forward to seeing the detail. It is actually 19-point-something million dollars, but that is divided in the three years. It is about $7 million a year in the three outyears. We do not have guidance on where that is being targeted at the moment. We have an assurance from the minister that that will not affect front-line services. Obviously we will need to watch that to make sure that that is the case because whenever you try to spend money and save it at the same time it causes some issues. I note that some $122 million needs to be saved across various portfolios as a result of the federal budget and the response to that. I anticipate if there are any cuts in Health, if the one per cent is all we can squeeze, that does not affect front-line services. Therefore if some of that is important to Health, obviously it will start to cut services. I will keep my eye on that one. Just to confirm that, I quote:
I think it would be difficult to find savings in addition to that. I think one per cent is a fair thing to ask of Health. I think, in addition, it would be difficult to deliver savings that did not impact on front-line services.
That is something that we will keep an eye on. Another issue in terms of the savings concerns wage restraint. We know that we are struggling—we just talked about GPs—and our other front-line services are under pressure as well. There is enormous pressure on our nurses and other health professionals and, indeed, our administrative staff. In the ACT we are very lucky in that we are not facing some of the employment concerns that other jurisdictions have. My concern is we are all competing in a market together in Australia. We are getting nurses and other health professionals from overseas. If we do impose wage restraint—and I am not suggesting that we should not—we must make sure that, as we do that, we do not disable ourselves in the longer term. I saw this in the military when short-term requirements through budgetary pressures often meant that various trades were squeezed and cut when wage restraint was imposed. The implication of that was that it cost you far more in the long term.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .