Rudd responded in classic bureaucrat-speak, asserting that “the funding that we've provided already, the 50% increase in the grants to the hospitals of the States, is the equivalent of 5,750 hospital beds”.

 

That might be so Mr Rudd, but where’s the evidence that even one actual real bed has been created?

 

Patients can’t sleep on an “equivalent bed” that exists only in the accounting world – they actually need the real thing.

 

This is a classic example of how bureaucratic aims and actual outcomes are often wildly divergent. 

 

It’s reminiscent of the classic Yes Minister episode where the Minister visits the most efficient hospital in Britain, only to find it has no actual patients. “Yes, but that’s what makes it so efficient Minister” asserts the process-driven public servant. 

 

No one questions the Rudd Government’s ability to create a new policy, and for that policy to be articulated with effective political spin so as to give the impression of a “monumental change”. 

 

No one questions the Rudd Government’s ability to spend taxpayer funds on grandiose ideas.

 

But what should be questioned is their ability to actually deliver real, tangible outcomes that represent value for taxpayer funds. 

 

And no where is that more vital than in our public hospital system.

 

Rudd’s hospital plan, as far as I can tell, creates a new large bureaucracy and changes the funding mix from 40% Federal, 60% State to a 60% Federal, 40% State mix. It’s hard to see how this will improve accountability, let alone “end the blame game”.

 

And while there is not an extra dollar in health funding until 2014 in Rudd’s plan, when the responsibility of increased funding does fall to the Commonwealth, the question must be asked – will we get value for money?

 

Will we see the desperately needed extra hospital beds, doctors and nurses, or will it be more about political outcomes?

 

The Australian people have a right to be sceptical about Labor’s ability to deliver.

 

Who would have thought that a seemingly simple Government program to give away free home insulation could be so mismanaged as to result in 4 deaths, scores of houses catching fire, thousands of homes under safety threat and endless stories of rorting and rip-off?

 

Speaking of which, the $16 billion funding for school halls is a debacle of growing proportions. Some estimates predict that the Government will receive only about $7 billion worth of building works for their $16 billion. Not surprising considering they paid more than 10 times commercial rates for some buildings. 

 

So that’s $9 billion of taxpayers’ money utterly wasted. Gone. Ostensibly it’ll be in the ledger as an investment in “Education” – but there is absolutely nothing to show for it.

 

I wonder how many real hospital beds (as opposed to Mr Rudd’s “equivalent” ones) could have been purchased with that wasted $9 billion.

 

If Labor can’t run a program to give away free pink batts, and they can’t run a cost-effective program to build school buildings, then why should you trust Labor to deliver a practical over-haul of the public hospital system?

 

It’s a fair question - one that should be legitimately asked without being met with faux indignation and accusations of “negativity”.

 

Mr Rudd’s own bureaucrat-speak about “equivalent” hospital beds confirms that he is more interested in what figures can be presented by the bean-counters, rather than the number of patients actually being treated and the quality of the care they receive.

 

But that’s no surprise – the Rudd Government has been a triumph of spin over substance. Why should this new “latest, greatest, monumental” policy be any different?