Page 1148 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Cross-charging arrangements were another issue raised. This goes to one of the recommendations in the report. This issue was raised in a report by the Auditor-General where it was identified that there were problems around cross-charging between Calvary public and Calvary private. The committee’s recommendation 4 notes that the government should report on the steps taken to rectify this. This is in light of evidence which we heard from both the Little Company of Mary and the government. They both noted that this has been resolved, but the committee believed it was important to know that this will not be an issue in future. It is particularly important for the community to know this is an issue which has been resolved, and that is why we have made recommendation 4.
A key issue for me—this is one which is outlined in the report and one which was discussed—is the availability of a full range of services to people in the north of Canberra. LCM policy is that reproductive services are not provided. I very much understand and acknowledge that this is due to the philosophy and the policies of LCM, a view I do not necessarily subscribe to. A view which was noted by a couple of witnesses was that people can get in their car and drive across town to get these services. I think it is important that when we are considering the future of health services and we look at the north of Canberra as being one of the fastest growing areas, they should have the full range of services available to them. I believe that this should be a part of the consideration of future health services.
One of the issues noted in the report relates to subacute services. This is an area of growing need for the Canberra population. It is very much about assisting people to return home and preventing them from being admitted to an acute setting if they do not need to be. This is one thing which obviously needs to be considered. In terms of the provision of services we are considering across the board and in other jurisdictions, subacute is a growing need in a growing area. It is one of those areas in the ACT which needs to be further developed, and that has been acknowledged.
Turning to the issue of a fully networked hospital, this is something which there was quite a bit of discussion about. The committee recommended that further information be supplied, which I believe is warranted in terms of giving information to the public, in terms of how a fully networked hospital can benefit people and the efficiencies you can gain from that. We know anecdotally what that can do. We know that when we look at other jurisdictions this is very much the way they are moving. This goes across communications technology and across procedures—the issue I outlined earlier about why having it is important.
I also note, as Mr Doszpot did, that community consultation is still occurring on the options paper and that other ideas will come out of this through submissions from other parties. I very much see this committee’s report as a contribution to the debate that is going on. I acknowledge, as we have in the report, that this consultation is still happening and that there will be things that come out of that. I think it is an important contribution to the debate. Obviously we had the terms of reference referred to us earlier and then the options paper came out. But, as I said, those issues are very much aligned. We have looked into them. We have heard from a number of witnesses. We have had submissions to the process. I believe this will be an important contribution to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video