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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2487 ..

nurses properly in our community. So how can we expect more community nurses and an increase in nursing numbers when that debate is not yet finished?

The RILU is a good model and deserving of praise. If this government were committed to actually do all the things it has been talking about today, then it would be expanding the RILU. And there is actually a very legitimate argument that we need extra rehabilitation beds, not a reduction in the number of beds and a co-location with another unit.

There have been arguments put forward today in this debate about nursing home type patients and those requiring rehabilitation. And it was Mr Hargreaves who indicated that they need the same clinical treatment regime. So there should be no problem in co-locating them and providing that clinical treatment regime in the same space. I actually do have problems with that argument. We are talking about two different sets of issues here and people trying to get different types of care.

We are not having this debate today—but there is the opportunity to open up the debate—about young people in nursing homes. And that is where I see this debate actually going: we are going to say that that is okay, when actually it is not; we should be doing what we can to ensure that people are cared for appropriately in facilities that are appropriate for them.

There are also other arguments raised about the faith and decision making of officials in the department of health. I see it not as a question of faith or not having any confidence in the decision making of the officials in health, but I think that this plan is a response to artificial economic constraints being put on the department of health when that does not need to occur, when we could actually accommodate these transitional beds in another facility if the government were willing to consider that option. To have one service close or be moved so that another can take its place is not the best health care outcome.

I cannot support the government’s amendment because I think it is obvious that, if it is supported, we will not continue to have the same level of rehabilitation beds being provided to the community. I realise that there is an agreement with the NRMA that allows for review after five years of operation, but I cannot see that downgrading RILU is a positive outcome or the best outcome for the community and for health care in the ACT.

Question put:

That Mr Corbell’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

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