❓ Opposition questions the Health Minister about potential cuts to mental health programs, citing broken election promises and the impact on vulnerable communities. The Minister deflects, blaming federal funding cuts and declining program usage.
AnsweredQoN 1034Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to this Government’s statement in its mental health election policy that it is “vital that sufficient resources are provided” and that Labor would provide “stronger support for families and carers”. (1) Will the minister provide a guarantee that - (a) organisations receiving government funding for mental health programs will be classed as providing core essential services; (b) there will be no further cuts to current mental health programs in the light of the recent scrapping of the family early intervention program; and (c) the Government will honour its election promise to provide an additional $10 million for mental health and immediately stop the scaling back of programs? (2) Will removing services from one of the highly vulnerable sections of our community be the most memorable achievement of the member’s term as minister? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the National Party for that question. (1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
(1) Will the minister provide a guarantee that - (a) organisations receiving government funding for mental health programs will be classed as providing core essential services; (b) there will be no further cuts to current mental health programs in the light of the recent scrapping of the family early intervention program; and (c) the Government will honour its election promise to provide an additional $10 million for mental health and immediately stop the scaling back of programs? (2) Will removing services from one of the highly vulnerable sections of our community be the most memorable achievement of the member’s term as minister? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the Leader of the National Party for that question. (1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
(b) there will be no further cuts to current mental health programs in the light of the recent scrapping of the family early intervention program; and (c) the Government will honour its election promise to provide an additional $10 million for mental health and immediately stop the scaling back of programs?
(c) the Government will honour its election promise to provide an additional $10 million for mental health and immediately stop the scaling back of programs?
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the Leader of the National Party for that question. (1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
I thank the Leader of the National Party for that question. (1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
(1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
(1) Will the minister provide a guarantee that - (a) organisations receiving government funding for mental health programs will be classed as providing core essential services; (b) there will be no further cuts to current mental health programs in the light of the recent scrapping of the family early intervention program; and (c) the Government will honour its election promise to provide an additional $10 million for mental health and immediately stop the scaling back of programs? (2) Will removing services from one of the highly vulnerable sections of our community be the most memorable achievement of the member’s term as minister? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the Leader of the National Party for that question. (1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
(b) there will be no further cuts to current mental health programs in the light of the recent scrapping of the family early intervention program; and (c) the Government will honour its election promise to provide an additional $10 million for mental health and immediately stop the scaling back of programs?
(c) the Government will honour its election promise to provide an additional $10 million for mental health and immediately stop the scaling back of programs?
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the Leader of the National Party for that question. (1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
I thank the Leader of the National Party for that question. (1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
(1)-(2) The health system in Western Australia is under financial pressure. In part, that is a result of the reduction in funding under the health care agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I am just making this point: the federal Government took $110 million out of its forward estimates published only four months ago. That was the basis upon which - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murdoch to order for the first time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The forward estimates from the Commonwealth were the basis upon which the budget in this State was planned. Since the federal Government published those figures, it has taken out $110 million over the next five years. To me, $110 million for Western Australia’s health system over a period of five years is an awfully large amount of money. Of course, the Government needs to make an adjustment so that it can continue to do those things that it can afford. In addition to that, the Government was under pressure with its own budget anyway. That financial pressure has now been compounded. The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
The member referred to the family early intervention program. It may be of interest to members to know that there has been a significant decline in the usage of that program. Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: There will be now. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let me give the member the figures. The family early intervention program activity declined from a peak of 4 576 occasions of service in 1999 to 1 907 in the last financial year. There has been an enormous decline in the usage of that service. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: Why? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Because there has not been the demand for or the take-up of it. When there are tight financial circumstances and demand declines over a period of just three years to one-third of what it was, surely that requires some intervention, or do we keep spending regardless of the demand, the take-up rate and the like? Frankly, it would be irresponsible in the extreme to continue doing that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Darling Range for the first time and the member for Murdoch for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will repeat those figures. There was a fall from 4 576 services to 1 907. The responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to continue to provide the service by incorporating it within an existing service that is provided to children over the age of five years. The family early intervention program was a service for children under the age of five years. A number of the 6.8 full-time equivalents will be transferred into the program for the over five-year-olds. Therefore, three-year-olds and four-year-olds will continue to receive the sorts of services they should through an existing program through the hospital. That is the recommendation that has been placed before me and I think it is an appropriate way to go. However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
However, I also make the comment that, because of the issues I have spoken about, and not only the Australian health care agreement, it is necessary to look constantly at whether we are getting value for the dollars that we spend in the health system. We need to be rigorous in doing that, and I intend to do exactly that. For example, we simply were not getting value for money out of the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, to which I have referred previously in this place, regardless of the financial improprieties associated with it, so I de-funded it. We will also look at other areas so that we can take the pressure off our tertiary hospitals, which are also facing acute budgetary issues, to ensure we can deliver on the core areas of health activity in this State. That must be the priority, not funding services for which take-up rates have fallen significantly in recent times.
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.