Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I note the interjection from the Leader of the National Party that it did not go to his electorate. This is a $560 million investment which went nationwide, to seats where this government has no representatives and is unlikely to obtain representatives in the future. It was based on a needs analysis in the health department. If you look at places like Bunbury, if you look at places like Tamworth, if you look at places we have located these regional cancer care centres, you see that these are important centres for the Australian population—and the one core value at work is that people in non-metro Australia should have access to decent cancer care. The overwhelming feedback from them is: why should we have to travel to our capital cities when we get diagnosed with one form of cancer or another? It is bad enough getting a cancer diagnosis. Having to rip up your family, go to the capital city for weeks, sometimes months, on end, to get even basic diagnostics or cancer treatment, is one of the reasons many people do not bother. Do you know what the terrible statistic is? And I say this to the Leader of the National Party: if you live in non-metro Australia, in regional and remote Australia, you are three times more likely to die within the first five years of your diagnosis of cancer than if you live in one of our capital cities. That is unjust. It is wrong. That is why the Minister for Health and Ageing announced a $560 million investment right across the country.

The first of the three points contained in the honourable member’s question went to the input into the definition of local hospital authority boundaries. That is an important matter when it comes to the proper allocation of resources to, for example, the Port Macquarie Base Hospital. I have been on the record already as saying that the area in which this hospital is currently located is too big. In our discussions with the New South Wales government they have concurred that these current areas are far too large to be sensitive to local health needs. That is why a fundamental reform will occur. When it comes to Port Macquarie Base Hospital, therefore, it is critical that the needs of that region become central to the local health authority which is constructed in that area. We will be reflecting that view to our friends in the New South Wales government when those delineation questions occur.

The second point he raised was about growth funding. It is a growth region. The reason we have introduced activity based funding is to make sure that the money flows to those hospitals which are actually delivering the services. When I spoke to his local health professionals up there they welcomed activity based funding because, rather than just being given an administrative grant once a year—they are out there working hard delivering a large number of elective surgery procedures and treating a whole lot of patients—the money will flow after the number of services they deliver. Therefore, the overall allocation of resources to that hospital would go up. Therefore, introducing activity based funding for the first time in New South Wales—and for the first time in every state except Victoria—will assist hospitals such as his at Port Macquarie get a proper investment of funds consistent with the delivery of services in those hospitals.

The third point is about immediate investment. I draw the honourable member’s attention to the $7.2 billion additional investment outlined in the Treasurer’s statement last night. This is investment in more hospital beds, more doctors and more nurses and the enhancement of elective surgery procedures and accident and emergency. In his particular hospital, noting the shortage of beds which exists, I am very mindful of the fact that New South Wales would have received an allocation of approximately, I think, one third of the 1,300 sub-acute beds which are fully funded in the budget. I would therefore strongly suggest to the honourable member that he make his representations very clearly known about the need for additional beds in his area, because I have spoken to his local health professionals and they know that their hospital—Port Macquarie Base Hospital—is at its limit.

The last thing I would say in response to the honourable member’s question is to do with a point referred to before by the Minister for Health and Ageing. It goes to the other arm of healthcare reform—that is, the reform of primary care. The health minister last night, to the derision of those opposite, announced details for the large-scale expansion of not just investments in GP superclinics but further investments in GP practices. Also, if you look carefully at the statement which has been put out on nurses you will see that we provide further investments into GPs and their local clinics to make it more financially possible for them to engage practice nurses in those clinics.

These are really important reforms for delivering GP related services on the ground. Again, the honourable member, I am sure, in consultation with his local GPs, will make a submission to the government—the health department—to make sure that proper funding flows on the basis of needs analysis across the country for the enhancement of GPs and GP related services, and we welcome his expression of interest in it. In fact, I would say to all members opposite: if you are facing problems and challenges in your electorates when it comes to GP services, you should take seriously what the Minister for Health and Ageing has put forward and get your submissions in from your local GPs so that we can enhance and roll out a much more flexible delivery of health care services for the entire Australian community.

See this speech in context