❓ Mr Board questions the Health Minister about funding cuts and Commonwealth contributions to WA's health budget. The Minister deflects, highlighting the increasing burden on the state due to decreasing Commonwealth contributions.
AnsweredQoN 1110Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to his media statement dated 31 August 2003 about health funding, and I quote - “We have copped a bad deal from the Federal Government and we will immediately look at where we will be forced to reduce services. We simply have less money than we have had before. I ask - (1) Can the minister confirm figures obtained in the Legislative Council that, in its health budget handed down in May, the Government had factored in a $733.9 million contribution from the Commonwealth under the Australian Health Care Agreement, this money being in addition to the Medicare Agreement, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and aged care agreements? (2) Can the minister further confirm that the Government will receive from the Commonwealth under that agreement $731.34 million, and, in addition, commonwealth funding for a number of special projects? (3) Will the State of Western Australia receive this year a greater amount of funding from the Commonwealth than it did last year for the health portfolio? (4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(1) Can the minister confirm figures obtained in the Legislative Council that, in its health budget handed down in May, the Government had factored in a $733.9 million contribution from the Commonwealth under the Australian Health Care Agreement, this money being in addition to the Medicare Agreement, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and aged care agreements? (2) Can the minister further confirm that the Government will receive from the Commonwealth under that agreement $731.34 million, and, in addition, commonwealth funding for a number of special projects? (3) Will the State of Western Australia receive this year a greater amount of funding from the Commonwealth than it did last year for the health portfolio? (4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(2) Can the minister further confirm that the Government will receive from the Commonwealth under that agreement $731.34 million, and, in addition, commonwealth funding for a number of special projects? (3) Will the State of Western Australia receive this year a greater amount of funding from the Commonwealth than it did last year for the health portfolio? (4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(3) Will the State of Western Australia receive this year a greater amount of funding from the Commonwealth than it did last year for the health portfolio? (4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
[See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(1) Can the minister confirm figures obtained in the Legislative Council that, in its health budget handed down in May, the Government had factored in a $733.9 million contribution from the Commonwealth under the Australian Health Care Agreement, this money being in addition to the Medicare Agreement, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and aged care agreements? (2) Can the minister further confirm that the Government will receive from the Commonwealth under that agreement $731.34 million, and, in addition, commonwealth funding for a number of special projects? (3) Will the State of Western Australia receive this year a greater amount of funding from the Commonwealth than it did last year for the health portfolio? (4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(2) Can the minister further confirm that the Government will receive from the Commonwealth under that agreement $731.34 million, and, in addition, commonwealth funding for a number of special projects? (3) Will the State of Western Australia receive this year a greater amount of funding from the Commonwealth than it did last year for the health portfolio? (4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(3) Will the State of Western Australia receive this year a greater amount of funding from the Commonwealth than it did last year for the health portfolio? (4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(4) Will the minister now admit that his cuts to the health portfolio have nothing to do with commonwealth funding? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
(1)-(4) An article in this morning’s The West Australian headed “States shell out bigger share of hospital costs” draws attention to the fact that each of the States is bearing an increasing burden of health care costs. I also have available a document that provides the relevant Western Australian figures dealing with that difficult issue. The document contains two sets of figures. The second set, which is headed “Public Hospital Funding”, comes from the source that has already been referred to; namely, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. During the period 1998-99 to 2000-01 - which is the period for which the most recent figures are available - the Commonwealth’s contribution to the cost of running our public hospital system fell from 48.9 per cent to 47.2 per cent. At the same time, the State Government’s contribution rose from 51.1 per cent to 52.8 per cent. That shows clearly that the Commonwealth Government has increasingly been transferring onto State Governments the cost of running the public hospital system. That document puts in some context the claim by the federal Minister for Health, Kay Patterson, that the States should match the Commonwealth’s increased spending on public hospitals. That just goes to show what a shallow and thoughtless proposition that was, because not only in Western Australia but throughout the nation the States are making an increased contribution towards the cost of public hospital care. I table that document. [See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
[See paper No 1523.] Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have also asked the Department of Health of Western Australia to extract the longer term figures on the total cost of health provision, including the non-hospital areas, so that we can see whether there has been a change in the weight or burden of health funding by the Department of Health. The document that I have tabled also shows that in 1997-98 the Commonwealth contributed 30.5 per cent of the total cost of health provision through the Department of Health; by comparison, in the same year the State Government contributed 69.5 per cent. If we track it through to the end of the new Health Care Agreement, which was signed only two months ago, the Commonwealth’s total contribution will fall to 28.7 per cent and the State’s contribution will rise to 71.3 per cent. The figures that I have tabled demonstrate clearly that increasingly the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities. Every member of the House has heard me say before - and they know it - that in the forthcoming Health Care Agreement, Western Australia will have $110 million less over five years than if the previous agreement had been rolled over. That cut is reflected in the figures that have been presented in this place. Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr B.K. Masters: So, is funding going up or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member opposite said “so”. The Opposition must learn that if the Commonwealth is providing $110 million less, there will be $110 million worth of fewer services. Members opposite can live in cloud-cuckoo-land for as long as they like, but a $110 million funding cut by the Commonwealth to Western Australia’s public health system will result in $110 million worth of fewer services that we are capable of providing. That funding cut must be viewed against a backdrop of a falling commonwealth contribution to the health care of Western Australians. Governments cannot continue to spend money they do not have. Do members know what happens if they do? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
The SPEAKER: I call to order for the first time the members for Vasse and Darling Range. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Do members opposite know what happens when Governments continue to spend money they do not have? They end up with deficits. They jeopardise the AAA credit rating. I ask members opposite to please learn a basic economic lesson: they cannot spend money they do not have. They should go back to the simplicity of their own household budgets. What would happen if they kept spending $110 million that had been taken out of their budget? They would be bankrupt. That is where they are headed. Unfortunately, we were left with no option but to take the action we have because of the tight budgetary conditions superimposed on us by a reducing contribution from the Commonwealth, followed by a cut of $110 million in its contribution to the running of our public hospitals.
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.