Page 3062 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Medicare for private midwifery. We are concerned that there seems to be a resistance to promoting this service and what other views may be influencing this position. Both myself and Ms Hunter will follow this issue closely.
With regards to nursing services, the Greens are very pleased to see the funding of a prostate cancer support nurse. I know that the prostate cancer support group has been lobbying for this for some time. I am very pleased to see that this service will now be available to them. The Parkinson’s support group are also very pleased to see a Parkinson’s support nurse funded in this budget. Many Canberra patients have had to make trips to Sydney for treatment. Hopefully this is a good step towards seeing them get the service that they need locally. These actions may only make up a small amount of funding but they mean a great deal to the patients and can make a huge difference in helping them get timely advice for their illnesses.
The Greens do welcome advancements on the new capital region cancer service and recognise the help that this will provide to a number of interstate patients. We are concerned, however, about the low number of people with a terminal illness such as cancer who are able to remain at home. Despite about 80 percent of patients preferring this option, a far smaller number are able to, due to the availability of community health services. We note that the palliative care strategy is to be renewed and released next year. This is something we have raised in the past and the Greens will be hoping to see some positive and significant advancements through this review.
The issue of Calvary hospital is one that the Greens raised through estimates. This issue was in relation to Calvary Health Care being technically insolvent at the end of the 2009-10 financial year. The technical insolvency relates to whether Calvary or the ACT government is responsible for a number of employee entitlements. Many people I believe would assume that Calvary was responsible. I look forward to the government providing an update on the outcome of the negotiations in this matter.
On the new acute hospital and the proposed subacute facility, the issue of role delineation and clarification about what services will be provided and where is an issue which still requires an outcome. The Greens would hope not to see certain services ruled out at the subacute facility, such as the possibility of having a birth centre. We would hope to see evidence-based decisions made on the location of services along with input from the community and key organisations such as the Health Care Consumers Association.
As I have stated before, I do believe it is important that residents in the north of Canberra have the full range of services available to them. I do not believe it is adequate or appropriate to state that someone can get into a car and drive across town to the Canberra Hospital to access other services. With Calvary now being the proposed site for the major acute hospital in north Canberra, basic services that are available to residents in the south of Canberra should also be available at that site.
If these services such as reproductive services, which include basics such as access to contraception and other services such as IVF, cannot be provided at Calvary due to the ethos of that organisation, then they should be provided on the Calvary site in another suitable location or at the new subacute facility. This is something both the government and Calvary should agree to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video