Page 5685 - Week 15 - Thursday, 10 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
care focus; on 4 November, the Canberra Hospital staff forum; on 12 November, the ACT Palliative Care Society. The consultation forums were advertised through public notices, the community noticeboard published in the Canberra Times, the ACT Health website, direct email to key stakeholders and the ACT government’s community engagement website.
The consultation period closed on 12 November 2009. However, at the request of the Palliative Care Society a further forum was conducted on 8 December 2009. The government is now compiling and considering all this feedback received before taking a final decision to move forward.
The feedback received during the consultation was generally supportive of the proposal to transfer ownership of Calvary hospital. Improvements in the integration of services resulting in better health outcomes is the most commonly expressed reason underpinning support for the proposal. Both the Health Care Consumers Association and the ACT branch of the ANF support improved integration of health service in the ACT. Calvary staff were also generally receptive to the proposal at the staff forum on 15 October.
Most of the comments I have received in opposition to the Calvary Public Hospital component relate to the payment of $68 million to Little Company of Mary Health Care. Many have expressed that it does not seem logical for the ACT government to use public money to purchase assets that Little Company of Mary Health Care did not fund.
The government has released its legal advice in this regard that was prepared by the ACT Government Solicitor. The advice ultimately concludes that for the purpose of the territory and Calvary agreeing for Calvary to give up its existing rights to occupy and use the land, building and assets comprising the public hospital, it is irrelevant that the commonwealth and the territory effectively provided the assets at no cost to Calvary. There have also been a number of workforce matters raised at the consultation sessions, which I have actively addressed with my consultations with stakeholders, such as the staff at Clare Holland House and Calvary Public Hospital.
Almost all of the concerns raised in relation to the proposal, however, relate to the transfer of ownership of the land and buildings at Clare Holland House. The primary points of contention have been that people feel that Clare Holland House is being used as a bargaining chip, that the sale would limit the integration of palliative care into the broader health system, that there could be a reduction in governance over palliative care in the ACT, that there may be a reduction in the level of competition in the palliative care arena, that the hospice would be used for activities other than public palliative care or could be onsold by Little Company of Mary Health Care, and that Little Company of Mary Health Care would influence admission criteria to the hospice.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Porter, a supplementary question?
MS PORTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, how are you working to address these concerns?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video