Page 1146 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
submission—the Australian Nursing Federation (ACT Branch), Mr Peter Lawler, Mr Paul Monagle, the Health Care Consumers Association, the ACT government, Dr Andrew Gordon, ACTCOSS, the Australian Medical Association, Dr Roger Lee and Dr James Riddell, Calvary Public Hospital.
The committee held four public hearings on 1 December, 22 December, 23 December and 16 March, the last being a recall of the Minister for Health and Treasurer in response to the late release of the discussion paper containing the five new options. The committee visited the Calvary Public Hospital on 15 December 2010 and the Canberra Hospital on 9 February 2011 and was provided with a comprehensive tour at both sites.
The committee made certain recommendations, including (1) improving the contractual relations between the Little Company of Mary Health Care—LCMHC—and the ACT government; (2) the ACT government detail the steps taken to address cross-charging arrangements between Calvary Public Hospital and Calvary Private Hospital; (3) enhancing Calvary Health Care reporting requirements to better inform the Assembly and the ACT community; (4) the provision of evidence from the ACT government demonstrating the efficiencies to be gained through a fully networked hospital system to better inform the Assembly and the ACT community when the government makes its final decision debate; and (5) consideration of a public-private partnership if the government proceeds with building a new hospital.
Of the five new options, the committee recommended against two pertaining to three acute hospitals for the ACT and transforming TCH into a super hospital. The majority of the committee recommended that the government proceed with the options to develop a fully networked and specialised hospital system.
The committee is grateful to all the participants who appeared before the committee and/or provided written submissions. I would also like to thank my fellow committee members, Ms Amanda Bresnan and Ms Mary Porter, for their contribution to this report. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the committee secretary, Ms Grace Concannon, for her much appreciated commitment and assistance and also the committee office administrative assistant, Ms Lydia Chung, for her invaluable assistance. I also thank both Ms Concannon and Ms Chung for their assistance in preparing the committee’s final report for tabling.
That is the conclusion of my tabling report on the Calvary Public Hospital options as chair of the Standing Committee on Health, Community and Social Services. Now I would like to present the following dissenting comments in my capacity as a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Community and Social Services.
I dissent from the committee decision on paragraph 7.9 and recommendation 7 which prescribe the government proceed with developing a fully networked and specialised hospital system as proposed by options D and E as the committee’s preferred options. Having reviewed the available evidence and analysis, I consider that it is appropriate that the committee recommend against option C, which would result in three acute hospitals, and option B, which would result in a super hospital at TCH. Both of these options would create complications that are clearly explained in the report and show a clear balance in their relative merits assessed by the committee towards the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video