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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2027 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It is important that I not be specific to this particular case, although when people are on the front page of the paper one wonders where patient confidentiality starts and where it finishes. In the same way as care for a burns victim is best carried out at Westmead, the reality is that the care of Mr Bruce is carried out in Goulburn for the time being. Just as burns victims will be there for a temporary period while things are stabilised and treatment is appropriate, they will probably come back to Canberra Hospital, and it is the same in the particular case there.

I believe that the treatment that is being received in that case, although inconvenient for the family, is the best possible treatment. The way the case was treated by the Canberra Times was not, in my view, particularly good. That deals with the first part of the question. I am trying to be as brief as I can, Mr Stanhope.

The second part of your question was about our meeting with Mrs Bishop. The Chief Minister, because of his concern for aged care, the same as mine, was prepared to organise that meeting and to go with me. Because of his close relationship with the Liberal Party federally, we thought that would be a sensible approach. The focus was about age care. We put some proposals to Mrs Bishop to deal with it. As I said on TV last night, I think her response was very disappointing. I will continue to pursue the matter with as many people as I can. I have asked the department to continue to push vigorously the proposal we put to Mrs Bishop.

The proposal I put to Mrs Bishop was that there are already, within the benchmark set for the ACT, a number of nursing home beds that have been allocated but not yet filled because they have not been built. We could provide a temporary allocation of a number of beds, in this case 11, that would allow us to take some of the people out of the hospital and move them to where they are more appropriately treated in nursing homes. We asked whether she would be prepared to consider that. Her answer was no. We are looking at how we can put that proposal in a way that will be of more interest to the federal government so that we can ensure the best possible treatment for aged people here.

It is important for us to remember that we are responsible for hospital treatment. When it comes to aged care, that is a federal government responsibility. Whilst we will look after these people as best we can-when they are in the hospital we will treat them as appropriate clinically-it is still appropriate for us to remind the federal government that they have that fundamental responsibility of aged care, and that it is important that they do not cost shift on to us in the most expensive way of treatment, which is in a hospital, when somebody could be and should be in a nursing home

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, I think the fundamental responsibility for Mr Bruce's care is this community's, not the federal government.

MR SPEAKER: Order! No preamble, thank you.

MR STANHOPE: Would the minister confirm that he has just advised the Assembly that his advice is that the best clinical care or the best clinical outcome for Mr Bruce can be achieved by removing him from the ACT to Kenmore? Is that his advice-that in fact the best clinical outcomes will be achieved by sending Mr Bruce to Kenmore rather than treating him here in the ACT? Is the minister advising the Assembly that it is his advice that Mr Bruce's best interest is served by his separation from his wife of 46 years?

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