❓ Ms Mitchell questions the Minister for Health on how the record health budget will be used, given previous opposition criticisms. The Minister details budget management, staffing changes, and increased funding for ambulance and child healthcare services.
AnsweredQoN 278Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE BUDGET 2010–11 — HEALTH FUNDING
I refer to the record increase in funding for the state’s health budget by the Liberal–National government. Despite the success of this government in improving the health system so far, members opposite continue to oppose initiatives such as the retention of Royal Perth Hospital and the excellent four-hour rule initiative. Can the minister please inform the house what this year’s record health budget will be used for? Dr K.D. HAMES
I refer to the record increase in funding for the state’s health budget by the Liberal–National government. Despite the success of this government in improving the health system so far, members opposite continue to oppose initiatives such as the retention of Royal Perth Hospital and the excellent four-hour rule initiative. Can the minister please inform the house what this year’s record health budget will be used for? Dr K.D. HAMES
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. Even though I could not hear it exactly because of the interjections, I do have a fair idea of what it was about. It was about our excellent health budget. In the lead-up to the budget I noticed in the newspaper that the Australian Medical Association had called for at least a six per cent increase in the health budget, so I have to admit I was somewhat surprised at its adverse comments when we got a 6.7 per cent increase. Much more important than the 6.7 per cent increase is what happened before we got that 6.7 per cent increase. Members are aware that when we came to government we had rampant growth in the health budget. The year before we came to power there was a 12 per cent growth in health expenditure, and in our first year we were unable to contain that rampant growth of, again, 12 per cent. The Department of Health set itself the task of making sure that it trimmed significantly that overgrowth in Health’s expenditure. As much as we like to have money in Health, it is not possible for an agency that takes a quarter of the total state budget expenditure to grow at that rate. Because we have such a large percentage, what happens is that every per cent we go up—just about—we consume another government department that would have that as its total expenditure. We cannot afford to grow at a rate greater than the state government income, and therefore greater than the state government percentage of expenditure. But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I thank the member for the question. Even though I could not hear it exactly because of the interjections, I do have a fair idea of what it was about. It was about our excellent health budget. In the lead-up to the budget I noticed in the newspaper that the Australian Medical Association had called for at least a six per cent increase in the health budget, so I have to admit I was somewhat surprised at its adverse comments when we got a 6.7 per cent increase. Much more important than the 6.7 per cent increase is what happened before we got that 6.7 per cent increase. Members are aware that when we came to government we had rampant growth in the health budget. The year before we came to power there was a 12 per cent growth in health expenditure, and in our first year we were unable to contain that rampant growth of, again, 12 per cent. The Department of Health set itself the task of making sure that it trimmed significantly that overgrowth in Health’s expenditure. As much as we like to have money in Health, it is not possible for an agency that takes a quarter of the total state budget expenditure to grow at that rate. Because we have such a large percentage, what happens is that every per cent we go up—just about—we consume another government department that would have that as its total expenditure. We cannot afford to grow at a rate greater than the state government income, and therefore greater than the state government percentage of expenditure. But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
I thank the member for the question. Even though I could not hear it exactly because of the interjections, I do have a fair idea of what it was about. It was about our excellent health budget. In the lead-up to the budget I noticed in the newspaper that the Australian Medical Association had called for at least a six per cent increase in the health budget, so I have to admit I was somewhat surprised at its adverse comments when we got a 6.7 per cent increase. Much more important than the 6.7 per cent increase is what happened before we got that 6.7 per cent increase. Members are aware that when we came to government we had rampant growth in the health budget. The year before we came to power there was a 12 per cent growth in health expenditure, and in our first year we were unable to contain that rampant growth of, again, 12 per cent. The Department of Health set itself the task of making sure that it trimmed significantly that overgrowth in Health’s expenditure. As much as we like to have money in Health, it is not possible for an agency that takes a quarter of the total state budget expenditure to grow at that rate. Because we have such a large percentage, what happens is that every per cent we go up—just about—we consume another government department that would have that as its total expenditure. We cannot afford to grow at a rate greater than the state government income, and therefore greater than the state government percentage of expenditure. But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
Much more important than the 6.7 per cent increase is what happened before we got that 6.7 per cent increase. Members are aware that when we came to government we had rampant growth in the health budget. The year before we came to power there was a 12 per cent growth in health expenditure, and in our first year we were unable to contain that rampant growth of, again, 12 per cent. The Department of Health set itself the task of making sure that it trimmed significantly that overgrowth in Health’s expenditure. As much as we like to have money in Health, it is not possible for an agency that takes a quarter of the total state budget expenditure to grow at that rate. Because we have such a large percentage, what happens is that every per cent we go up—just about—we consume another government department that would have that as its total expenditure. We cannot afford to grow at a rate greater than the state government income, and therefore greater than the state government percentage of expenditure. But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I thank the member for the question. Even though I could not hear it exactly because of the interjections, I do have a fair idea of what it was about. It was about our excellent health budget. In the lead-up to the budget I noticed in the newspaper that the Australian Medical Association had called for at least a six per cent increase in the health budget, so I have to admit I was somewhat surprised at its adverse comments when we got a 6.7 per cent increase. Much more important than the 6.7 per cent increase is what happened before we got that 6.7 per cent increase. Members are aware that when we came to government we had rampant growth in the health budget. The year before we came to power there was a 12 per cent growth in health expenditure, and in our first year we were unable to contain that rampant growth of, again, 12 per cent. The Department of Health set itself the task of making sure that it trimmed significantly that overgrowth in Health’s expenditure. As much as we like to have money in Health, it is not possible for an agency that takes a quarter of the total state budget expenditure to grow at that rate. Because we have such a large percentage, what happens is that every per cent we go up—just about—we consume another government department that would have that as its total expenditure. We cannot afford to grow at a rate greater than the state government income, and therefore greater than the state government percentage of expenditure. But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
I thank the member for the question. Even though I could not hear it exactly because of the interjections, I do have a fair idea of what it was about. It was about our excellent health budget. In the lead-up to the budget I noticed in the newspaper that the Australian Medical Association had called for at least a six per cent increase in the health budget, so I have to admit I was somewhat surprised at its adverse comments when we got a 6.7 per cent increase. Much more important than the 6.7 per cent increase is what happened before we got that 6.7 per cent increase. Members are aware that when we came to government we had rampant growth in the health budget. The year before we came to power there was a 12 per cent growth in health expenditure, and in our first year we were unable to contain that rampant growth of, again, 12 per cent. The Department of Health set itself the task of making sure that it trimmed significantly that overgrowth in Health’s expenditure. As much as we like to have money in Health, it is not possible for an agency that takes a quarter of the total state budget expenditure to grow at that rate. Because we have such a large percentage, what happens is that every per cent we go up—just about—we consume another government department that would have that as its total expenditure. We cannot afford to grow at a rate greater than the state government income, and therefore greater than the state government percentage of expenditure. But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
Much more important than the 6.7 per cent increase is what happened before we got that 6.7 per cent increase. Members are aware that when we came to government we had rampant growth in the health budget. The year before we came to power there was a 12 per cent growth in health expenditure, and in our first year we were unable to contain that rampant growth of, again, 12 per cent. The Department of Health set itself the task of making sure that it trimmed significantly that overgrowth in Health’s expenditure. As much as we like to have money in Health, it is not possible for an agency that takes a quarter of the total state budget expenditure to grow at that rate. Because we have such a large percentage, what happens is that every per cent we go up—just about—we consume another government department that would have that as its total expenditure. We cannot afford to grow at a rate greater than the state government income, and therefore greater than the state government percentage of expenditure. But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
But what I did find, on coming into government, was that we had chronic underfunding of overruns of spending within the health department. The year before we came to office, the Department of Health expended $40 million that was not budgeted for. It spent that $40 million, which took that money out of our reserves. In our first year of government, the Department of Health expended $70 million that was not budgeted for. In our first budget allocation, we had to pay $70 million of expenditure from the previous year. It was my priority this year to achieve a stable and certain health budget. In last year’s budget, through the midyear review, we got an additional $210 million that allowed us to catch up to the lack of previous expenditure so that, in effect, we started from a zero base. This budget has grown by 10 per cent, not 6.7 per cent, because all of that past lack of expenditure is now back to zero. How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
How will we keep the health budget in line and stop it from exploding in the future? We will make sure that we bring in the activity-based funding that makes hospitals much more accountable for the money that they expend. That is what some of the other states do and that is what is required by all the states under the national health review. We had committed to bringing that in anyway, prior to our discussions with Mr Rudd. That will make a lot of difference to the certainty of the budget. Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
Another thing that we did was to look at our staffing levels. The reason for the huge growth in expenditure was the growth in staffing levels beyond what we could afford to pay. In the past year, we have increased our front-line staffing by nearly 700 additional staff, most of whom are nurses. How have we kept our growth figures from growing at the previous rate? It is because we got rid of 395 backroom staff, largely from Royal Street. We now have 395 fewer administrators sitting in the back room at Royal Street while we have 700 additional front-line staff. That makes a huge difference to the sustainability of the health budget. It allows us to fund the extras that we need to make the health system work better. I refer in particular to the huge increase in funding for the ambulance service. We provided an additional $150 million for the ambulance service across the state, in addition to the nearly $50 million allocation for child healthcare services. I had the great pleasure of being with some of our staff when announcing the extra $50 million for child healthcare services the other day. I was particularly pleased with the comment of one of the paediatricians who was there. I will not name him because I have not asked his permission to do so. He said, “For us in the child development service, a dedicated group of health professionals, dedicated to children and families with developmental difficulties, this represents the most significant improvement in our funding for some 20 years.” I repeat: the most significant improvement in our funding for 20 years. Having control of the health budget and locking it away with certainty and giving consideration to the future activity growth means that we can have stable and certain budgets and still be able to fund the crucial extras that we want to have to make our health system the best in Australia.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.