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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2482 ..

The minister also mentioned that this budget sets aside $6 million for the sub-acute rehabilitation facility. As I said, that will take some time to build. In the meantime we have to ensure that we are looking after those patients. They are not going to be turned out on the street or returned to their homes without any adequate support, which is what you are trying to put out there, Mr Smyth. I am sorry, but you are wrong.

The minister made the comment—and this goes back to what Mr Hargreaves was saying about not micro-managing—that judgments need to be made as to how to manage and free up health facilities. That is what this government is trying to do. It is trying to manage the health system responsibly. People do not like change—there are no two ways about that. I believe that Mr Smyth is taking advantage of the fact that people do not like change. As I said at the beginning, RILU provides a good service. Nobody doubts that and nobody doubts the dedication of the nursing staff in either location, but we should not be focusing on the location for rehabilitation. We can provide this service in another area. I think it is totally wrong for the Assembly to tie the minister’s hands in such a way. I support Mr Corbell in what he has said and urge the Assembly to vote against the original motion.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning): I seek leave to speak to my amendment.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I just wanted to clarify for members a number of points so that they can be very clear in their minds what the amendment addresses and hopefully seek to reassure members before they make, I think, a very significant decision on the basis of very poor advice and in fact, I would argue, very poor information generally.

The amendment, first of all, makes very clear that the government is committed to continuing the current level of provision of rehabilitation services in the territory. There will be no reduction in the level of rehabilitation beds; there will be no reduction in access to those services; and, indeed, as I have outlined in my earlier speech, there will be an enhancement, particularly of community-based services through community health centres at Phillip and on the northside. So the government is maintaining the existing level of service provision.

I would also ask members to keep in mind that in the medium term, that is, in the next one to two years, there will be established a new transitional care facility which will provide 40 new rehabilitation beds, along with psycho-geriatric services and a range of other facilities. These facilities will then become the key rehabilitation facility in the ACT. There is a multi-million dollar facility being planned for construction in the next financial year at the Calvary public hospital campus. This is the heart of the issue.

Ms Tucker and other members have said, “We do not want to see this service disappear.” Well, rehabilitation services are not disappearing; rehabilitation services are being maintained. They may be delivered in a different setting but they are being maintained, and that is the key issue. But what really upsets me is the assertion by some members of this place that the transitional care facility can go somewhere else. On what basis do members make that assertion? On what basis do they know that?

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