Page 3950 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS BRESNAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the case of Calvary, the Greens’ argument about public health in public hands is proven by evidence provided through the Auditor-General’s report of 2008 and evidence provided through estimates, which are issues I will come back to.
There are two elements to the Calvary debate which we must discuss: who runs the hospital and who owns it? I am disappointed that Mr Hanson has failed to address half of this debate—that of management—as this is one of the reasons as to why public ownership would benefit the delivery of health services to the ACT community. The needs and interests of public health patients should come before those of the interests of private health corporations. We also should be looking at how services can best be delivered across our hospitals in a way which again is to provide the best service possible to the ACT community.
It is inappropriate for the public taxpayer, through the Calvary Public Hospital, to be subsidising the Calvary Private Hospital. The matter has been investigated and proven by the Auditor-General through a 2008 report. The report also refers to concerns where Calvary Private Hospital has disputed levels of repayment to the public purse. The 2008 report showed, for example, that whenever repayments were made, the ACT government had to settle for amounts less than which they were owed.
In the 2010-11 estimates hearings, the Greens asked the Minister for Health if these issues regarding cross-subsidisation had been resolved. The minister replied:
I know that the Little Company of Mary have done significant work to separate their private and public hospital functions, which is in line with the Auditor-General’s report and something we support. I guess the downside of it has been that it is impacting on their efficiency and their throughput in the hospital because they are having to run two different hospitals in the one hospital. Even if there was not cross-subsidisation, some of the efficiencies of running a joint list, for example, have gone … Everyone agrees that changes have to be there and we have to run separate facilities, very clearly, but it is having an actual impact on their outcomes.
These are core issues about how we seek to ensure that the public health dollar is used with efficiency and with transparency. I also find it difficult to understand why the Liberal Party is not considering the need to run services across our public hospitals in a streamlined and efficient manner. Issues such as human resources are significantly affected as well as those clinical services which have reached capacity at the Canberra Hospital. When TCH is at capacity, then Calvary Hospital should be providing services to patients to address these capacity issues.
To reflect on the history of this debate, the Greens did agree to the government’s proposal to purchase Calvary Public Hospital but not to the Little Company of Mary having a monopoly over palliative care and outright ownership of the hospice. We were put under significant pressure from all sides about whether or not to agree with the proposal that had been put forward by the ACT government and the Little Company of Mary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video