❓ Mr. Jones asks about the impact of the record health investment. The Minister responds by defending the government's health spending record, contrasting it with the opposition's and highlighting specific projects and endorsements.
AnsweredQoN 304Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE BUDGET 2023–24 — HEALTH
304. Mr H.T. JONES to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's record $11.8 billion investment in Western Australia's
health system.
(1) Can the
minister advise the house what this record investment, including an additional
$2.7 billion in last week's budget, means for WA's public
health and mental health system?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether she is aware of anyone who does not support
this record level of investment?
304. Mr H.T. JONES to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's record $11.8 billion investment in Western Australia's
health system.
(1) Can the
minister advise the house what this record investment, including an additional
$2.7 billion in last week's budget, means for WA's public
health and mental health system?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether she is aware of anyone who does not support
this record level of investment?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the
member for his question.
(1)–(2)
It is ironic that we have heard the Leader of the Liberal Party, who has not
put forward one single practical policy idea in the health portfolio for the
last three years, accusing the government of spin. In this place she has
frequently made references to so-called cuts to our health system when every
single McGowan government budget has delivered an increase in health
expenditure. Since coming to office, the health budget has increased by 33.4 per cent and the mental health budget by
57.3 per cent. That is the reality of the funding for health and mental
health under this government. In fact, this year's budget commits a record
$2.7 billion in additional spending to health and mental health, and it
includes—for the member for Darling Range, in that electorate—an
additional $36.3 million for the Byford health hub, bringing the total for that project to $42.4 million. It will
be a really important health hub in those outer suburbs that will provide a range of primary care, community, specialist and other services for
people closer to home.
The spending in this budget
includes a significant uplift in core public hospital services, which the
Australian Medical Association welcomed, saying it would go a long way to
improving our health system. The AMA is not one for giving out compliments
lightly. For the Leader of the Liberal Party to claim that somehow this massive
injection of extra funds for core services is spin shows that she fundamentally
misunderstands the health budget and where the money goes—she just does
not understand. In fact, her ignorance was proudly on display over the weekend
in an op-ed that she penned in The West Australian , which claimed health
was not a priority for the McGowan government because only six per cent of our
infrastructure spend was on health while 35 per cent was on transport. That is
an incredibly simplistic approach that equates two portfolios with entirely
different spending profiles. The majority of health spending goes on wages for
doctors, nurses, highly trained specialists, allied health staff and support
staff—people who run our hospitals. The transport budget is skewed
towards asset investment and has fundamentally been so for many governments.
Let us just make some comparisons.
In the last budget of the Barnett government, 2016–17, the overall
infrastructure spend for the state was $22.9 billion. That is a fraction of
this government's spend on state infrastructure. In health it was only
$1 billion, which was only four per cent of the infrastructure spend, whilst rail and road spending was 34 per cent.
That is 34 per cent versus 35 per cent. When we use absolute figures, it
looks even worse for the Liberals and Nationals WA. The $1 billion commitment
to health infrastructure by that former government, a fraction of what this
government has, was less than half of what we have committed to infrastructure
in this budget. We have not only put on 547 beds, the equivalent of a tertiary hospital, but also committed to an
additional 600 beds, the equivalent of another tertiary hospital , in the
forward estimates. In raw bed numbers that is two tertiary hospitals'
worth of beds. Again, that is something the AMA has welcomed.
Hospitals take a long time to plan
and commission. In fact, a major hospital takes around 10 years, so if we are
doing any catch-up, it is due to the lack of planning and commissioning that
was done by the former government. That is what we are playing catch-up on. The
former government's final budget was an
absolutely clear indication that it did not support a significant spend on
health infrastructure. We do not need spin because our numbers speak for
themselves. The next time the Leader of the Liberal Party wants to throw that
term around, she might want to look at the facts or she will continue to find
herself spinning into irrelevance.
member for his question.
(1)–(2)
It is ironic that we have heard the Leader of the Liberal Party, who has not
put forward one single practical policy idea in the health portfolio for the
last three years, accusing the government of spin. In this place she has
frequently made references to so-called cuts to our health system when every
single McGowan government budget has delivered an increase in health
expenditure. Since coming to office, the health budget has increased by 33.4 per cent and the mental health budget by
57.3 per cent. That is the reality of the funding for health and mental
health under this government. In fact, this year's budget commits a record
$2.7 billion in additional spending to health and mental health, and it
includes—for the member for Darling Range, in that electorate—an
additional $36.3 million for the Byford health hub, bringing the total for that project to $42.4 million. It will
be a really important health hub in those outer suburbs that will provide a range of primary care, community, specialist and other services for
people closer to home.
The spending in this budget
includes a significant uplift in core public hospital services, which the
Australian Medical Association welcomed, saying it would go a long way to
improving our health system. The AMA is not one for giving out compliments
lightly. For the Leader of the Liberal Party to claim that somehow this massive
injection of extra funds for core services is spin shows that she fundamentally
misunderstands the health budget and where the money goes—she just does
not understand. In fact, her ignorance was proudly on display over the weekend
in an op-ed that she penned in The West Australian , which claimed health
was not a priority for the McGowan government because only six per cent of our
infrastructure spend was on health while 35 per cent was on transport. That is
an incredibly simplistic approach that equates two portfolios with entirely
different spending profiles. The majority of health spending goes on wages for
doctors, nurses, highly trained specialists, allied health staff and support
staff—people who run our hospitals. The transport budget is skewed
towards asset investment and has fundamentally been so for many governments.
Let us just make some comparisons.
In the last budget of the Barnett government, 2016–17, the overall
infrastructure spend for the state was $22.9 billion. That is a fraction of
this government's spend on state infrastructure. In health it was only
$1 billion, which was only four per cent of the infrastructure spend, whilst rail and road spending was 34 per cent.
That is 34 per cent versus 35 per cent. When we use absolute figures, it
looks even worse for the Liberals and Nationals WA. The $1 billion commitment
to health infrastructure by that former government, a fraction of what this
government has, was less than half of what we have committed to infrastructure
in this budget. We have not only put on 547 beds, the equivalent of a tertiary hospital, but also committed to an
additional 600 beds, the equivalent of another tertiary hospital , in the
forward estimates. In raw bed numbers that is two tertiary hospitals'
worth of beds. Again, that is something the AMA has welcomed.
Hospitals take a long time to plan
and commission. In fact, a major hospital takes around 10 years, so if we are
doing any catch-up, it is due to the lack of planning and commissioning that
was done by the former government. That is what we are playing catch-up on. The
former government's final budget was an
absolutely clear indication that it did not support a significant spend on
health infrastructure. We do not need spin because our numbers speak for
themselves. The next time the Leader of the Liberal Party wants to throw that
term around, she might want to look at the facts or she will continue to find
herself spinning into irrelevance.
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.