Page 5170 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
facility.” I think that language is unfortunate, because there is not even a discussion about privatising the facility at Clare Holland House. Clare Holland House will continue to be a public palliative care service. It will continue to be 100 per cent government funded. For patients and families using Clare Holland House, if there were a change, if this transfer were to go ahead, there would be no change to the type of care or the quality of care that they currently receive.
Clare Holland House, I think everyone has acknowledged, was Canberra citizen of the year at one point in time. It is really, and I agree, the jewel in the crown of health care in the ACT. I do not get complaints on the quality of care or the type of care that is provided at Clare Holland House and I think the extent of the volunteer program and the commitment that is shown through the volunteer program are testimony to the strength of that service.
Both LCM Health Care and I have been in discussions with the Palliative Care Society on addressing a number of their concerns. The society is funded by ACT Health to provide the volunteer support service to patients receiving palliative care. That will not change. We will continue to do that under the terms of the current funding arrangement.
People of all faiths and backgrounds currently use Clare Holland House. There will be no change there. It is a multi-faith service. It always has been. Again, I have not received many complaints. I think I have received one complaint on a crucifix in a room, but that has been the extent of the complaints I have received over certainly the time that I have been Minister for Health.
In relation to some of the safeguards that have been sought, I think we have worked through a number of them but there are some other issues that have been put on the table which the government is currently considering. If there is any other capacity to address concerns from the community on the proposed transfer of ownership, it is on strengthening some of the safeguards that the community has called for. They are certainly things that I am in discussions with Little Company of Mary on. I do not think there is anything that we cannot address through negotiation and agreement, other than the transfer of the lease and, if it comes down to the transfer of the lease, that could be the thing that I cannot address the community concern on.
The facility is currently unleased. This proposal would require a lease to be created and for that lease to be granted to the Little Company of Mary Health Care. But the ownership and governance of it, of the service itself, would remain the same. I think the interesting thing that has arisen through the community consultation process is less about the lease and ownership of the building and more about issues that could have surfaced anyway, if we had not even been talking about the transfer of a building and a lease. They are issues on a long-term service level agreement. I have to say that my understanding is the contract has never been put out for tender but it has been rolled over time after time. I think that started under Michael Moore perhaps or maybe a little before that. But the issues that have arisen on the role of the Catholic healthcare provider in palliative care are issues that could have been issues last year or the year before or, indeed, back in 1994 when the arrangements commenced.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video