Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I will take just a couple of those questions quickly and make sure that I allow enough time for everyone to ask their questions. First, in response to the member for Bass’s comments: she will be pleased to know, in respect of the one billion extra dollars that have been provided to our state and territory governments to enhance hospital services after so much money was pulled out of the system, that I have just in the last week signed letters dealing with the distribution of that funding. Five hundred million dollars of that will be paid to the states and territories before 30 June this year, providing a very serious injection of funds, much needed in many of our public hospitals. More public information will be available on that following receipt of those letters by my colleagues and, of course, finalisation of the details. The second $500 million will be paid during the coming financial year as part of the specific-purpose payments, the healthcare agreements having been extended for another 12 months while we continue with our reform negotiations.

Since you raised it, I flag that, in that first tranche, of $150 million, for our elective surgery strategy, $8.1 million went to Tasmania. In the coming weeks, we are due to announce stage 2 of that funding, which will be provided to state and territory governments, not simply to help clear the people who have been waiting beyond the clinically recommended time but to improve processes and to have capital works undertaken that will ensure that there are improvements in throughput into the future. From recollection, Tasmania was seeking a significant amount of its money for purchasing extra equipment, which I am sure would be of benefit to the Launceston hospital as well as other hospitals around the country.

Negotiations have been continuing constructively between the Tasmanian government and my department about the integrated care centre. We want to make sure that the money from the Commonwealth is available at the earliest possible time, to ensure that this project can go ahead quickly. I do understand that there are some complications in making sure that the funding matches with the building requirements, and we will certainly keep you, as the local member, informed as those things develop.

I move to the questions asked by the member for Riverina. I know she has had an active interest in HIV policy for a long time, and it is a legitimate question that is being asked. I will have to take that one on notice. There are not specific budget measures that the government have taken, but we certainly intend to proceed with the previous commitments and we are making sure that a new and enhanced strategy will be able to hit its mark. We know, through some recent research, that it may be that we need to target our message about HIV to particular groups that are at risk in the community. I am getting some advice on making sure that the ongoing program will do that. If the member is happy for me to do so, I will take the question on notice to provide her with a more detailed response.

In respect of the extra medical graduates, the reason that you cannot find specific extra funding for that in the budget papers is that they are ongoing measures, and measures that have already been funded through previous budgets do not need to appear with a separate item number behind them. Again, if there is further information that you want, I am happy to give you a briefing from our department on that.

The ROVE project, which has provided assistance to general practitioners, has, at least on the surface, been quite a successful one. The member opposite would be aware that we are reviewing our whole range of rural health programs. We do not believe that there need to be 60-odd different programs, mostly with the same objective—of either attracting Australian graduates to work in rural areas or providing support to international graduates when they work there. The efficiency is dissipated across all the different programs, all with different eligibility requirements, all with different regional bases. None of them really are sensitive to the actual needs of the areas they should be sensitive to.

The tool that has been used, RRAMA,  has been rather blunt, and we are reviewing it. We are in a 12-month phase of making sure that we are assessing which programs have been successful, which can be combined and how we can be more attuned to the needs of the community. I am awaiting the final report on the review of ROVE, about which, I must say, anecdotally we have had very positive responses. We are inclined, of course, to make sure that we invest heavily in those that have been successful and do not continue to invest in those that have not hit their mark.

I hope that that gives the member some information that she was after. I am happy to get my department to provide a briefing on those two other issues where she would like some more detail.

See this speech in context