HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOUNT GAMBIER HOSPITAL HYDROTHERAPY POOL FUND BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (16:41): I apologise for causing a delay to what I thought would simply be a brief matter. All I was attempting to do was to indicate that the genesis of the fund was the hospital, because I felt that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had suggested that the fund was a community fund at arm's length from the hospital. That is all I was attempting to do; I was not reflecting on the purpose of the fund. I believe I said 'the genesis of the fund'. All I was saying was that the fund originated from a decision of the board, which then set up the appeal, and I was describing the wonderful job that Maureen Klintberg had done in terms of raising that money.

I thought that was important, because there was a perception that this appeal committee was at arm's length from the hospital; it was not. It was set up by the hospital, which, I might add, at a later date made a decision that not enough money had been raised; therefore, it could not continue with the original purpose. I thought it was important that that was on the record.

The other thing I was saying was that we support what the deputy leader is saying in terms of it being the responsibility of the local Health Advisory Council to consult with the community and determine the best way to use that money. If the bill is not strong enough in that regard, I indicated that the government would be prepared to have another look at it between the houses. But, I then said that the amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition goes further than that and does something which is not possible.

My reading of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's amendment is that it now gives total responsibility to the Mount Gambier and District Health Service Advisory Council, which it cannot do because we cannot give the funds to that council, because it does not have a tax ruling and it does not have deducted gift receipt status. So, what we are trying to do is have the local body make the decision but then have a process where other funds can then legally be applied to that purpose.

What I was attempting to do was say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we are comfortable with her suggestion in relation to the decision being made locally and consultation occurring with the local community, but we do not have the power to then vest the money locally. So, we do need to leave that with Country Health SA. Even if she did gain support from her amendment, it would not be possible to do as the amendment suggests.

We are delighted that we have arrived at this point; we are delighted that we have the support of the opposition. We agree that it is time for this community now to make a decision about the best possible way within the hospital to use this money, hopefully, to achieve a similar end for the same client group that the hydrotherapy pool was originally attended for, so that we can say, then, to about half the donors who can be identified, 'Do you now wish that money to be used for that purpose, or do you want your money back with interest?'

We know that about half the money cannot be identified, and this bill now quarantines that money to the extent that it can be used for a purpose decided locally, and the process is set out in the bill. We know that, as to the other half, we can identify who the donors are, so this bill says to them, 'You now can have your money back with interest or we have another wonderful thing very similar to what you wanted to do in the first place. Would you now consider to use it for that purpose?'

I believe we have now established that it was the hospital board that set up the process originally. It set up the process to collect the money; it had to be spent in the hospital for a specific purpose. It was then established that it could not be spent for that specific purpose. We now think we have done as best as we possibly can in reflecting the intent of those who gave money but also in acknowledging that this has taken an inordinate length of time, and I have to accept some of the responsibility for this not being dealt with in a more timely manner. We acknowledge all that. We want closure.

I ask that the opposition accepts that it is our wish that the local HAC make the decision and that Country Health SA then distribute the money to them for that purpose. But the amendment as it stands is not possible because we actually cannot give them the money at the moment as I have already explained. With those comments, I thank the opposition for its support. I ask now whether they will reconsider going into committee to introduce the amendment at this time and whether they would be prepared to have a further discussion between houses so that we can establish whether or not we need to firm up the words to reflect our shared intention in terms of the decision-making process.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 3—

Line 2 [clause 5(1)]—

Delete 'Country Health SA' and substitute:

Mount Gambier and Districts Health Advisory Council Inc

Lines 3 and 4 [clause 5(1)]—

Delete 'in consultation with Mount Gambier and District Health Advisory Council Inc,'

Lines 7 and 8 [clause 5(2)]—

Delete 'and may make such submissions as Mount Gambier and District Health Advisory Council Inc thinks fit to Country Health SA following such consultation'

Lines 9 to 16 [clause 5(3)]—

Delete subclause (3)

I will not dwell on the matters I have raised during the contribution. I indicate that I am happy to speak only on my amendment No. 1 on the basis that all these are consequential. The objective of these amendments is to establish the Mount Gambier and Districts Health Advisory Council Inc. as the determining body of how the funds will be applied. The minister as raised in his reply his concern that, although the overall objective of this is supported, as a matter of facility, it is necessary for Country Health SA to receive the funds because it is not possible for the HAC in its constitution to be able to receive these funds.

We have already passed clause 4 which is the mechanism by which the funds are currently held under the Public Charities Funds Act by the commissioners. That fund is to be transferred to Country Health SA. Physically, with the passage of this bill, that money currently sitting in an account with the commissioners will transfer into an account with Country Health SA. So, the mechanism by which the funds can be received, facilitated and distributed has already been dealt with.

We do not disagree with their physically holding the money for this reason: we have already consented to their having the job of identifying the donors and returning the money. It is just a physical job they will do under the prescription of this legislation. But in respect of the proposed reuse, rather than Country Health SA developing a plan for the purposes of a replacement funds proposal with this consultation structure, we are saying that the application of these funds by Country Health SA, out of the bank account, will be under the direction of what is determined by the HAC. So, they do not ever need to see the money: they do not have to count it; they do not have to put it in a bank account. They have no power to do that; we are not asking for any power to do that. We are saying that they should be the body that determines this. That is the difference between the government's proposal and ours.

I thank the minister for indicating that, in principle, we are on the same side on this; that is, that there be local community consultation. The difference is fundamental, though; the difference is who makes the final decision. It is not an issue about who handles the money. Physically, that is fine. There are only two ways we can deal with this. One option is that we change the Public Charities Funds Act, and there are probably a whole lot of other things that we should do in respect of that act while we are there, so that we empower the commissioners to do what we are actually directing under this legislation.

We could have done that, and there may be a time—sooner, I would hope, than later—that we do in fact fix up that act. In the meantime, the government has chosen to deal with this particular issue—it is pressing, and we accept that; it needs to be dealt with—by using this mechanism. The mechanism of the bank accounts, who is going to handle it and who is going to write the cheques, will be with Country Health SA—no problem; we are happy to accept that.

This is fundamentally about the decision: who ultimately has the say? We are 100 miles apart on that. I do not think I can put any other reason for it, other than to mention it, now that this other document has been tabled by the minister, which I thank him for. I place on the record, though, that I had a briefing on this matter yesterday afternoon and, in respect of identifying—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Excuse me? In respect of identifying the genesis, as the minister describes, of this fund and the original party, which has since disbanded, for the purposes of identifying this earlier material, I asked for a copy of any document which would identify that, and it has not been produced at all, between yesterday afternoon and now—about the same time yesterday.

I would make the point that we are trying to cooperate on this, and to find a way through it, but for whatever reason this had not been provided. The first time we have seen it is when it has been tabled here this afternoon. It does in fact confirm, first, one of the things the minister said, and that is that it was the hospital board, now defunct, which was the vessel by which this thing was actually brought into fruition. We have no issue with that.

What we do say is that it had a much broader proposed application for the community of Mount Gambier, and therefore it ought to be the community of Mount Gambier via its only other representative body, which is the Health Advisory Council. As the spokesperson on behalf of the opposition, I investigated other possibilities. That is, if it is a community exercise, should we be going to the local council, for example, or both the local councils, and they appoint some kind of body, as they are the elected members of the community, rather than the Health Advisory Council, which is now a much less powerful body than the previous board?

The opposition felt that, as this was a project which was clearly intended to be at the hospital site and which was to be a facility that would have an important continuing relationship with health services, now under Country Health SA, the most appropriate body was the Health Advisory Council. This is not a complete body that is elected by its own local community. There are nominees from various aspects in the community from whom the minister ultimately appoints.

It is not the pure elected group that perhaps would be desirable but, notwithstanding that the Minister for Health is the person who appoints this board, we felt that, on balance, this was the best we could get in the circumstances as to the body that would be making that decision and, therefore, should be invited.

That is supported by the Mount Gambier council, a resolution of which I have viewed, and it is also supported by the Grant council which, for the benefit of members, is in the surround of the Mount Gambier township. For those reasons I present the amendment.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: The government indicates that it does not support the amendment, for two reasons. The first is in terms of where the funds are invested and the other is that it is not consistent with the Health Care Act 2008. The last thing we want to do is create a set of circumstances that would then, in effect, give us exactly the dilemma that we had last time, where we had some people wanting to use the money for a purpose that it could not be used for. So obviously, at the end of the day, there has to be some consultation between the advisory council and Country Health SA, which is responsible for spending the money to achieve the objective that was agreed to by the Mount Gambier District Health Advisory Council.

The bill, as it stands, does exactly what I believe the local community asked for. Certainly the council, the RSL, and the Mount Gambier District Health Advisory Council itself, support the amended bill. I do not believe that the shadow minister has even discussed this matter with the Mount Gambier District Health Advisory Council.

I spoke to the Chair this morning to check that they were aware of exactly where all this is up to, and he certainly indicated that this process had their full support. The money is where it should be, and the local community is involved. The final decision needs to be made by Country Health SA. It runs the hospital; it then has to expend the money to achieve the objective that is consistent with the consultation process of the local community. Obviously, the amendment does not do that. The amendment is not consistent with what we support and what I understand the Mount Gambier District Health Advisory Council, the councils, and the RSL support. I have not spoken to key donors myself, but I understand that they have also been involved in discussions.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (6 to 9) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (16:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I want to thank everybody who has worked very patiently through this difficult progress. Obviously, when we set up a bill for a particular intent and then we find we unwittingly do something at odds with that, it is very difficult to rectify it. In closing, I acknowledge that, in hindsight, we could have done it in a more timely way, but we are delighted to now be at this point. Finally, I believe that, once this matter is dealt with by the upper house, we will have closure on this matter for our community, which is very important to us all.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT