❓ Dr. Hames questions the Treasurer about nurse resignations, hospital overcrowding, and associated deaths, urging redirection of funds to nursing. The Treasurer acknowledges the issues, highlights the government's health reform program and increased funding, but doesn't directly address the specific details.
AnsweredQoN 141Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS - EXPENDITURE
Given the Treasurer’s statement earlier this year that the increase in health expenditure was excessive, I ask - (1) Is the Treasurer aware that 250 nurses have resigned in the past three months from Royal Perth Hospital, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Fremantle Hospital and Joondalup Private Hospital? (2) Is the Treasurer aware that our hospitals and emergency departments are severely overcrowded due to a lack of beds and a lack of nurses? (3) Is the Treasurer aware of research conducted by Dr Peter Sprivulis that shows that an estimated 120 deaths per annum are associated with overcrowding in metropolitan Perth hospitals? (4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER
Given the Treasurer’s statement earlier this year that the increase in health expenditure was excessive, I ask - (1) Is the Treasurer aware that 250 nurses have resigned in the past three months from Royal Perth Hospital, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Fremantle Hospital and Joondalup Private Hospital? (2) Is the Treasurer aware that our hospitals and emergency departments are severely overcrowded due to a lack of beds and a lack of nurses? (3) Is the Treasurer aware of research conducted by Dr Peter Sprivulis that shows that an estimated 120 deaths per annum are associated with overcrowding in metropolitan Perth hospitals? (4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(1) Is the Treasurer aware that 250 nurses have resigned in the past three months from Royal Perth Hospital, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Fremantle Hospital and Joondalup Private Hospital? (2) Is the Treasurer aware that our hospitals and emergency departments are severely overcrowded due to a lack of beds and a lack of nurses? (3) Is the Treasurer aware of research conducted by Dr Peter Sprivulis that shows that an estimated 120 deaths per annum are associated with overcrowding in metropolitan Perth hospitals? (4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(2) Is the Treasurer aware that our hospitals and emergency departments are severely overcrowded due to a lack of beds and a lack of nurses? (3) Is the Treasurer aware of research conducted by Dr Peter Sprivulis that shows that an estimated 120 deaths per annum are associated with overcrowding in metropolitan Perth hospitals? (4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(3) Is the Treasurer aware of research conducted by Dr Peter Sprivulis that shows that an estimated 120 deaths per annum are associated with overcrowding in metropolitan Perth hospitals? (4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(1) Is the Treasurer aware that 250 nurses have resigned in the past three months from Royal Perth Hospital, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Fremantle Hospital and Joondalup Private Hospital? (2) Is the Treasurer aware that our hospitals and emergency departments are severely overcrowded due to a lack of beds and a lack of nurses? (3) Is the Treasurer aware of research conducted by Dr Peter Sprivulis that shows that an estimated 120 deaths per annum are associated with overcrowding in metropolitan Perth hospitals? (4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(2) Is the Treasurer aware that our hospitals and emergency departments are severely overcrowded due to a lack of beds and a lack of nurses? (3) Is the Treasurer aware of research conducted by Dr Peter Sprivulis that shows that an estimated 120 deaths per annum are associated with overcrowding in metropolitan Perth hospitals? (4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(3) Is the Treasurer aware of research conducted by Dr Peter Sprivulis that shows that an estimated 120 deaths per annum are associated with overcrowding in metropolitan Perth hospitals? (4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(4) Will the Treasurer ensure that the excessive money going to bureaucratic fat cats will be redirected to the critical area of nursing? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
While we are on the subject of both good quality health services and support for our health services, I, too, welcome back the member for Southern River and wish him well. (1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
(1)-(4) The member, of course, should be aware of the government’s very vigorous and comprehensive program of health reform. Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
Dr K.D. Hames : It is capital infrastructure. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member has an inadequate understanding of the program of health reform if he thinks it involves only capital infrastructure. That is a very important, and very large, part of the program, in which $3.7 billion will be spent in about a decade. However, the other important part of the program is to get best quality services in a range of disease areas at a rate that is affordable and sustainable into the future. The program involves, on the one hand, $3.7 billion worth of expenditure for new hospitals and new facilities and, on the other hand, new practices, new arrangements and a 5.5 per cent rate of growth in expenses. In 10 years members of the public will have access to the quality of health services they expect and deserve, and the funding of those services will be sustainable. Of course, there will always be issues in the health service. There will always be concerns about the level of service because there is a tremendous rate of growth in demand for health services. The important question is: are we doing something about it? The answer is yes. This government has allocated a huge additional amount of money to the health service. It is spending more than $1 billion extra a year every year on the health service, compared with the amount spent when the Liberal Party was in office. When the member for Dawesville was a member of the cabinet, he was spending $1 billion a year less than this government is spending. Not only is it allocating the money, but also it has a reform program. As part of that reform program, we are employing additional nurses, changing practices and improving the ways in which hospitals work, so that we have not only good quality services, but also financially affordable and sustainable services. The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
The member raised a number of issues about particular details. I am not aware of all those details, but I will examine the issues raised by the member. The one thing I will say is that all members of this house should be concerned about the long-run trends in health expenditure. All members, no matter on which side of the Parliament they sit, have an interest in our health services being funded on a sustainable basis in the future. It is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which the opposition treats this issue that members interject in the manner that they do. When I spoke about my concern about the rate of growth and health expenses, I was not concerned about what I am proud of; namely, the additional money that this government has put into the system since it was elected in 2001. Rather, I spoke about the danger of the long-term trends being unsustainable without reform. However, we are a reform government and we have a reform program.
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.