Page 1149 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that debate. I also hope that other groups who are interested in this will look to this report, use it and consider it in terms of their recommendations.
Going to the key recommendations which Mr Doszpot has already referred to, the committee—and this is the committee as a whole—did not support a third hospital or super hospital being constructed at TCH. We heard from a number of witnesses around workforce issues, and this needs to be taken into account. I think it was a fairly consistent view that it would be very difficult for the ACT to accommodate three acute hospitals. That has come through, as I said, from a number of witnesses. That was a recommendation of the committee as a whole, as was the recommendation that TCH not become a super hospital.
One of the issues when the committee went there involved the construction that is going on at that site. When we had the Minister for Health there—I will refer to her as both the Minister for Health and the Treasurer—we discussed some of the difficulties that have come about while running a hospital and having construction going ahead. That was noted when we went to TCH around the emergency department. The staff had quite a lot of issues to deal with, but I think they have done a wonderful job—as we noted—in terms of continuing to provide services while there is construction going on. That was one of the things we considered in terms of TCH becoming a super hospital. We also noted that there are other services that will need to be provided there in future and that it is not just about being an acute public hospital. That needs to be considered.
As Mr Doszpot has noted, he has dissented from recommendation 7 of the report. Both Ms Porter and I supported recommendation 7, which was that the ACT government proceed with developing a fully networked and specialised hospital system as proposed by options D and E in the government’s discussion paper which was released on 25 February. This is very much, again, about having a fully networked hospital. As I said earlier, if we look at this in terms of what is going to be in the best interests of the ACT community in the future, we believe this is the option which will be in the best interests of the community. We have received quite a bit of information and we have heard from a number of witnesses. When we look at that, options D and E are the best options in terms of what is going to best meet the health needs of the ACT community.
Option D is about a new hospital, with Calvary as a specialist subacute hospital. As to option E, the Health Care Consumers Association of the ACT, in particular, raised as an option having Calvary as the acute hospital and a new subacute on the north of Canberra. One thing which I think the committee as a whole has recognised is that, whichever option is pursued, it will involve Calvary. One of the recommendations we also made was that if there is disagreement—if this is actually pursued and an agreement cannot be reached—that a third party be brought in to negotiate that agreement.
However, we recognise that, whatever option is pursued, Calvary will be a part of that. Whether it is through option D—being a specialist subacute facility or service—or whether it is going to be the main acute hospital in the north of Canberra, Calvary will have a role in whatever is pursued. Even if we do construct a new hospital on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video