Page 3615 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
By allowing decisions on hospital issues to be made at the level of a board uniquely concerned with the running of the hospital, the distortion and delays that occur can be reduced. Moreover, by administering the system on a hospital by hospital basis, there is even more accountability over the performance of individual hospitals and their areas. It seems to me that we have a situation where ministers in this chamber continually look for excuses in the face of more and more damning evidence on the performance of ACT hospitals. What are needed in this area are a decentralisation of power and a return of decision-making power closer to those who are actually affected by the decisions, and that is what this bill proposes to do.
The position of the ACT government in opposing hospital boards is at odds with experts in the field. For example, on 2 October 2007, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, the recently elected President of the Australian Medical Association, threw her support behind the Australian government’s proposal. She speaks on behalf of a very large number of people involved in health care in this country, and I urge the minister to have regard to her perspective. She has stated:
… local hospital boards bring management accountability and responsibility right back to the community. It is a good idea.
She also clearly stated, for the benefit of the minister, that the proposal has the support of the Australian Medical Association. She went on to explain the advantages of individual hospital boards, and I hope the minister will listen to this. She stated:
Local boards mean that the Chair of that board can make direct representations to the Health Minister, make demands with regards to funding, the opening of beds, and the needs of that board—of that hospital, and I guess that might be uncomfortable for state Governments and State Health Ministers—
I would interpose and include territory governments and territory health ministers who do not want to hear bad news occasionally. This is an insightful statement into the nature of bureaucracy and management, one which recognises the importance of keeping control and decision making close to those affected by the decisions.
The bill would create a public hospital board for the ACT in order to place issues of public hospital management closer to the hospitals themselves. Mrs Burke’s bill proposes a board comprising nine members, including the chief executive, a visiting medical officer, a member of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, a medical educator, a member with substantial qualifications in financial management—that would be a novel area for the minister to have as a line of advice—a member with substantial qualifications in business, a member with substantial qualifications in law, a member of the Consumers Health Forum of Australia and a pastoral care worker.
The board would have a chair and deputy chair to administer the meetings of the board. The chief executive would not be eligible for the position of the chair. The composition of the board would ensure that a diverse range of medical and managerial skills would be available to the board and would be able to be brought to bear on the problems of ACT public hospitals, which are being identified nationally as not up to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .