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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2474 ..

and that there have been other positions vacated and not filled. It could well be that the reduction in use is due to a reduction in capacity.

I have seen a copy of the draft service plan for ACT rehabilitation services dated August 2002. I understand that further work has been done but is not yet complete. However, this draft plan uses the model of care in Victoria—that is, increased use of support in the community, which I understand to mean support in a person’s own home—but, even so, it predicts that there will be an increase in need for rehabilitation beds in the ACT; that is, it would be surprising on this basis if the drop in use relates to a drop in actual need.

The draft plan on page 14 projects that 34 additional rehabilitation beds will be required in 2006 and 37 additional beds in 2011. I have not read the report carefully yet, because there just has not been time, but I am aware that this may not be the most up to date analysis. But I am concerned that the plans for removing RILU—effectively disbanding it—are proceeding without proper analysis and consideration. It is not enough for the minister to say, as he effectively has said in his proposed amendments to Mr Smyth’s amendment, that we should trust him and that “any plans to relocate rehabilitation services to other areas will only occur after formal consultation is completed with consumers, carers, staff and other stakeholders, including the NRMA Road Safety Trust”.

My difficulty in accepting this is that there is already apparently a determination to use the RILU space for the new transitional care service. The arguments given so far have been that, if we pass this motion calling on the minister to retain RILU in its current location, then we will debunk the arrangement with the Commonwealth for the transitional care unit. That says to me that the decision to shift RILU in favour of the new transitional care facility has already been made. I think that, at the very least, this should be halted until the Assembly has a chance to discuss the need for RILU, along with full information. So I am supporting Mr Smyth’s motion and not the government’s amendment.

I have sympathy with paragraph (b), which notes the importance of the transitional care facility currently being developed for the future of the ACT health system. I agree that this is important; however, I do not agree that it means it should replace another facility, which certainly, according to anecdotal evidence, is also extremely important. Ward 12B is in the hospital; it is run by ACT Health. RILU is not in the hospital; it is run by Community Care.

RILU is another step for people once they do not need the medical care but need to learn how to use the new equipment and how to live in a normal home environment with the changes that have happened to their bodies. This is about people who have had a stroke, brain injury or amputation. It is not the same as the hospital setting, nor is it the same as going home with support. There is a level of skill and confidence that should be developed first. Without this kind of step, you will end up with more accidents once people go home, and re-admissions to hospital.

Mr Smyth has read out testimonials and so on, so I will not do that, but, in supporting his motion, I am saying that, firstly, another location for the transitional facility must be found and the key ingredients are that it is homelike and, secondly, that until and unless there is convincing evidence of a change in need rather than some problems within the

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