Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 14 Hansard (Wednesday, 7 December 2011) . . Page.. 5807 ..

say in how that money was spent and the range of services that was spent on. We believe that that would be best delivered through one manager of the healthcare system. However, the original goals of what we sought to do—that was to have an integrated and networked hospital system where our two public hospitals actually worked together—has been delivered through these agreements.

Calvary have had to give up the security of the older agreements that were written in a time where the pressures of modern healthcare delivery were not fully understood. So they have given up some of their protections. At the same time, the government has accepted that Calvary require certainty going forward.

So these agreements give us the flexibility we need. They set out a very clear process for engagement between the parties. They set out some very clear transparent arrangements around accounting for the public hospital services. They set out very clear arrangements around the resumption of private hospital beds within the public hospital setting to allow us to expand the public hospital presence on the north side of Canberra. They also outline an agreement for what is known as the Bruce healthcare precinct which will set out again the processes and procedures for the redevelopment of the Bruce precinct as we build new services and new facilities out there.

This does bring to conclusion some of those difficult negotiations but I think when I look back on what we wanted to achieve, we wanted better integration, we wanted more say about what was provided, we wanted modern agreements so that we were not relying on Calvary having agreements that were dating back to 1971. I think the benefits of these agreements will be clear to governments of all political persuasions for many, many years—indeed, for the duration that Calvary Health Care has the lease on the Bruce site.

MR SPEAKER: A supplementary, Mr Hargreaves.

MR HARGREAVES: I was having a little difficulty hearing the response. My supplementary to the Chief Minister and Minister for Health is: since the Calvary network agreement also includes a Bruce healthcare precinct deed, will you outline the major features of this agreement and how it improves on the current arrangements?

MS GALLAGHER: One of the challenges when we were looking at the redevelopment of the Calvary site was that the government did not own the land at that time and we still do not legally own the buildings on that land. If we are to invest hundreds of millions of capital expenditure into that site, this government believe that we should retain some ownership of those facilities. We did not want to see negotiations about price of land included in those discussions, and that would have been delivered through the sale of the hospital.

However, this is another area where Calvary healthcare have responded to some of the concerns of the government, and we have signed the Bruce healthcare precinct deed which, again, clearly outlines how we are going to redevelop the site at Bruce. Indeed, the first work is underway: a new car park for the Bruce site.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video