❓ Question regarding the WA government's response to the federal government's proposed health reforms, particularly concerning the potential impact on country hospitals. Premier Barnett expresses a willingness to cooperate on some aspects but voices strong concerns about handing over control of WA hospitals to the Commonwealth.
AnsweredQoN 43Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL REFORM PROPOSAL
As a representative of an electorate that is benefiting from the Liberal–National government’s focus on regional Western Australia, I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure that there are people in this place who would like a reasonable question time today, and some time in which to ask questions. There are those who do not seem to believe that that should be the case. I formally call the member for Girrawheen for the first time. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals of the federal government’s proposed health reform. Can the Premier please advise the house of the government’s response to this proposal? Mr C.J. BARNETT
As a representative of an electorate that is benefiting from the Liberal–National government’s focus on regional Western Australia, I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure that there are people in this place who would like a reasonable question time today, and some time in which to ask questions. There are those who do not seem to believe that that should be the case. I formally call the member for Girrawheen for the first time. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals of the federal government’s proposed health reform. Can the Premier please advise the house of the government’s response to this proposal? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure that there are people in this place who would like a reasonable question time today, and some time in which to ask questions. There are those who do not seem to believe that that should be the case. I formally call the member for Girrawheen for the first time. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals of the federal government’s proposed health reform. Can the Premier please advise the house of the government’s response to this proposal? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The SPEAKER : I am sure that there are people in this place who would like a reasonable question time today, and some time in which to ask questions. There are those who do not seem to believe that that should be the case. I formally call the member for Girrawheen for the first time. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals of the federal government’s proposed health reform. Can the Premier please advise the house of the government’s response to this proposal? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr V.A. CATANIA : I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals of the federal government’s proposed health reform. Can the Premier please advise the house of the government’s response to this proposal? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am sure that there are people in this place who would like a reasonable question time today, and some time in which to ask questions. There are those who do not seem to believe that that should be the case. I formally call the member for Girrawheen for the first time. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals of the federal government’s proposed health reform. Can the Premier please advise the house of the government’s response to this proposal? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The SPEAKER : I am sure that there are people in this place who would like a reasonable question time today, and some time in which to ask questions. There are those who do not seem to believe that that should be the case. I formally call the member for Girrawheen for the first time. Mr V.A. CATANIA : I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals of the federal government’s proposed health reform. Can the Premier please advise the house of the government’s response to this proposal? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr V.A. CATANIA : I am concerned by commentary about the potential effects on our country hospitals of the federal government’s proposed health reform. Can the Premier please advise the house of the government’s response to this proposal? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
I thank the member for North West for the question. At least we now have a question of some substance. As a country member, he, and I imagine other country members, would be very concerned about the implications of the federal Labor government’s proposals for health services in country areas, and particularly for the future of services provided by public hospitals in country areas. When the Prime Minister made his announcement last week, I stated that Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Several members interjected. Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr M.P. Murray : No more coffee with Kev! The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Collie–Wellington — A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
A government member: Preston. The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The SPEAKER : Murray–Preston—Collie–Preston! We will cover a range of sins here! I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
I formally call the member for Collie–Preston for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I made it very clear in my public comments and to the federal government that this state government would adopt a cooperative and constructive approach. In other words, I said that we would look at the issue on its merits. If there are to be any changes to our public hospitals, the test should be whether the change will improve patient care. If it can be demonstrated that a change will improve patient care, we are prepared to look at it on its merits. If, however, it threatens or undermines patient care, we are not; it is as simple as that. Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr R.H. Cook : Can I make an interjection? Can I ask what the Treasury advice is? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, you cannot. I would like to answer the question, and then I will take the interjection. There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
There are some aspects of this proposal that seem to have some merit. The idea of pooling some commonwealth and state funding into public hospitals so that a consistent agreed policy is applied has merit. That will hopefully overcome some of the gaps and reduce some of the duplication or overlap. The idea of activity-based funding—providing a certain amount of funding for knee or hip operations, or whatever else—also has merit. As the Minister for Health pointed out in his comments, activity-based funding already operates at Joondalup Health Campus and Peel Health Campus. We have some experience of this funding; it is also used well right across Victoria. Those medical reforms have merit and we are willing to cooperate on those. However, on the wider issues there are obviously concerns. I remind members that the people of Western Australia have, over decades, built, owned and operated the public hospitals of this state. Today they provide more than 60 per cent of the funding for our public hospitals. The commonwealth government is the minor player, contributing, by its own figures, 35 per cent across the nation. Let us put that in context: these are our hospitals, for which the government of the day and the Parliament have responsibility. I do not believe that they should simply be handed over to the commonwealth government. I would be interested to know what the Labor Party in Western Australia thinks. We on this side of the house are not prepared to hand over our hospitals to the commonwealth. So I will be waiting to see — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : We are not rushing members opposite. But I will be waiting to see whether Labor in Western Australia supports retaining hospitals that are owned, built and operated by Western Australians for Western Australians, or whether Labor in this state is going to hand over to the federal government control of our hospitals. That is what I want to know. The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The other aspect of this issue relates to the funding. It a sleight of hand for the commonwealth to take 30 per cent of the GST—the states’ revenue—keep it in the commonwealth, put it into the pool, and say, “We are now the major funder of our hospitals.” I think the Australian public is a bit smarter than to fall for a trick like that—indeed, it saw through it within a few hours. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : This state will look at this proposal for health on its merits. If we are convinced that there are strong health reasons for change, we will look at the funding implications. Indeed, I will be meeting with the federal Treasurer early tomorrow morning, and I guess we will hear some of what the commonwealth government intends on the financial side. We will treat this issue seriously. I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
I will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. If someone is seriously ill—gravely ill—or if someone has had a serious accident, where would that person want to be on this planet? If I were such a person, I would want to be in Australia, and I would be very happy to be in Western Australia. A person who is seriously ill or gravely injured will get the best quality health care in this state. Our system is not perfect. It makes mistakes. It has gaps. We recognise that. But to simply turn our health system on its head and hope it will be okay is not good enough. We are prepared to be convinced, but it will take strong argument and strong evidence that health care will be improved. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition detailing whether he is going to support Western Australian public hospitals or whether he is going to hand that over to his Labor mates in Canberra.
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.