Page 5222 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
private organisations but will continue to work with the west Belconnen co-op to support this model. The government also noted negotiations surrounding the national health reform plan and the influence this may have on primary healthcare services.
The type of response that the Greens would rather have seen is the government being open to providing similar support to other community groups that have demonstrated the interest and potential capacity to embark on such a venture. Given that the COAG reform may take some time and may not change much, we would have hoped that the government would not put things on hold until such time as those final decisions have been made.
The Greens agree that there is a need for more primary healthcare services in both the south of Tuggeranong and in Gungahlin. We are well aware of the good work that has been undertaken by the community group doctors4tuggeranong. This small movement so far has the support of the Tuggeranong Community Council and has interest from a senior medical student. Local residents who support the venture say they do so because they do not believe they currently have adequate access to a GP with whom they can form an ongoing relationship, book appointments, and obtain access to bulk-billing.
The health committee stated in its primary healthcare report that it does not favour the model of smaller medical centres over the larger ones run by corporate bodies, mainly because there were different advantages to both models. The larger medical centres are good for acute and episodic care, but smaller medical centres can provide closer relationships and continuity of care, an important element for those people with complex and chronic health conditions.
In the case of Gungahlin, however, while we recognise that a co-op could provide great benefit to the community, it does depend a great deal on the local community getting together and setting up a team of people to further this endeavour. There is not one there yet, but let us just hope that a committed team of locals can form to push such a proposal along.
Going to paragraph (4), the Greens’ amendment seeks to replicate the recommendation that was made by the health committee in that the government should provide information and support. We have proposed this amendment because we wanted to be sure that any co-op venture was based on movement within a community and was owned by the community rather than being pushed by the government. This is important because, if there is not enough social capital to sustain such a movement, any health co-op is less likely to be successful.
I understand the Canberra Liberals are keen to have a clause in paragraph (4) of the motion that requests that the government seek out community groups that could take on the challenge of setting up a co-op. I think that goes against the principle of social inertia that we wish to recognise. We can, of course, tell the doctors4tuggeranong about the conversation we have had here today and what has been passed in the chamber. We can also tell the Gungahlin Community Council about it. But I think it would be inappropriate for us to go beyond that point and try and make the government create the movement to create these groups.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video