Page 5169 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
paragraph (3). I am happy, if it is the will of the Assembly, to write to the board of LCM Health Care advising them of the discussion in the Assembly today and, indeed, in relation to the amendment requesting the minister to table the report in the Assembly by 10 December. All of those elements the government is very comfortable with.
However, with respect to the paragraph where Ms Bresnan requests that the conditional link on the purchase of the hospital with the hospice be reconsidered, as a party to the proposal which we are consulting on at the moment, whilst we had put that position to Little Company of Mary as a party to the agreement—and the proposal is being consulted on—we feel bound by that proposal at this point in time. Supporting this motion would call that into question and that is not something that I am here to do today, because the government, whilst we have not made a final decision on the consultation and the feedback we have had from the consultation—and that may result in changes to elements of the proposal—have not finalised their position on that. But we are committed to the framework of the proposal as it stands.
I think a lot of issues have been raised on the proposed purchase of the hospital and the proposed sale of the hospice. I think, through the consultation process, there has been considerable willingness through the community for the government to take over ownership and management of the hospital. This is my feeling from the feedback I have received. There are individuals who have not put that to me in the consultation process. In relation to a number of discussions with key groups, their concerns on the hospital are not as significant as the concerns on the hospice. That has been raised as a result of the community consultation process.
It seems that Clare Holland House has really become the focus of community concern on the proposal rather than the hospital. I have to say that, whilst I always knew that there would be some concerns on the hospice, I underestimated the extent of those concerns and I certainly have been discussing them with the organisations over the last few months. My position has been: let us focus on what we can do to address those concerns within the framework of the proposal—and I think that has been LCM Health Care’s position as well—meet with groups, talk with groups, try to address the concerns that they have.
However, when we look at the proposal as it stands, I do not think the magnitude of the decision for Little Company of Mary Health Care to even consider removing themselves from ownership of the hospital can be underestimated. Part of that rationalisation in their own organisation has been on consolidating their role in palliative care. And it is central to Little Company of Mary’s philosophy; it is at the core of their mission; and it is something that they have been after for some time. Dating back a number of years in discussions with the government, palliative care, their role in palliative care, security in knowing that their role in palliative care will continue in the ACT has always been an area of discussion between Little Company of Mary and the government.
In relation to some of the concerns that have been raised, I note the flyer on the Clare Holland House meeting last Thursday, which I was unable to attend because I was in Adelaide, had the words—I do not have the flyer with me—“Don’t privatise our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video