HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 November 2008. Page 884.)

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:03): I indicate that the introduction of this bill and the attempt to resolve this issue are welcomed by the opposition. The bill's objective is to allow donations which were made for a hydrotherapy pool for Mount Gambier to be returned, particularly in light of the circumstances that the development of the hydrotherapy pool plan has been aborted because insufficient overall moneys were raised. My recollection is that, although $270,769 was raised, it needed some $1 million in order to proceed for that purpose.

After returning donations to those who felt that, in light of the abortion of that plan, the donations should be returned, the second part is that it enables the Commissioners of Charitable Funds under the Public Charity Funds Act 1935 to identify an alternative purpose for the application of the remaining capital. In principle, the objectives of the act are to return funds to those who no longer wish to make a contribution and to identify another worthy objective for the funds that is meritorious.

The history of this matter, as the opposition understands it, is that the fundraising program was undertaken with a fundraising committee. I think the program was supported even by professional fundraisers. The objective of the exercise was to build a hydrotherapy pool in Mount Gambier for the benefit of the residents of Mount Gambier and its surrounds. My understanding is that, having considered various potential sites for such a facility, the Mount Gambier Hospital was selected. For those members who are not aware, the Mount Gambier Hospital is a very significant regional hospital in South Australia—probably the newest of country the hospitals in South Australia in the sense of a complete build—and, whilst it has had a bit of notoriety, the hospital has magnificent grounds, of which the local community in Mount Gambier is rightly proud.

The Mount Gambier Hospital having sufficient infrastructure and a significant number of people within the hospital community—that is, inpatients and outpatients—whom such a facility could assist, therefore, I am sure that it would not surprise any member that it was the ultimate choice of location in Mount Gambier for this facility.

It must be remembered that these moneys were raised by the residents of Mount Gambier for the people of Mount Gambier, not just those inpatients and outpatients of the hospital. In fact, these funds were raised for the broader community.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: This is totally wrong.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, just wait. This is the information that has been presented to us.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: This is totally wrong. I don't know why we are doing this.

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, other members have an opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I welcome those, as I am sure the minister would.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you wish to raise a point of order, you—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, minister!

Ms CHAPMAN: I just bring it to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am trying to make my contribution.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed, deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This was a meritorious objective. However, for the reasons we now know, it has not proceeded. Now, as I understand it, a number of discussions have taken place between some of the members of the original committee who were involved in establishing this fund and members of the hospital community, including employees and members of the hospital board (which has now been replaced by the Health Advisory Council). As I understand it, that advisory council is a body comprising not only members of the previous board (as has been the case in the transition for some hospital and health services in the country), but also others from local communities—a result of the new process of appointment by the minister after an election. So, we have a Health Advisory Council in place undertaking its role to advise government pursuant to the Health Care Bill and, in particular, to advise the minister on matters in the community.

In any event, this having been aborted, the funds, which are currently held by the Commissioners of Charitable Funds, are unable to be used other than to apply their interest. So, we have somewhat of a deadlock, or stalemate, as to how this is to be dealt with, and this legislation is designed to remedy that.

On the first matter of returning donations to donors who are identified and who seek the return of their donation, the opposition fully supports that. The process which the government proposes in this bill is that Country Health SA undertakes that process, presumably to advertise and invite people who want their money back, present receipts, or whatever is required, so that it can present to the commissioners a list of people and an amount of which they are to be refunded. That is an exercise which we accept be done by the government. The Commissioners of Charitable Funds do not have the resources and it is not within their current charter because it is not in their legislation to undertake that job, so we are quite happy to support the government's proposal in that regard.

The second matter is one which we are very concerned about, and on which the opposition has consulted widely, in the Mount Gambier community particularly, both to identify any resolutions that have been passed by their representatives through the Grant and Mount Gambier councils—and I have viewed those and identified their wishes on this matter—other members who had been involved in the initial establishment of the fundraising exercise, and members of the clinical and lay community in Mount Gambier.

Universally, of those who have either come to us or of which we have sought some advice from them as to their view, the opposition finds that the overwhelming position of the community is that it has the opportunity, as a community, to make a decision about what replacement program, exercise or equipment for which the balance of these funds should be used.

Probably until we know how many of the donors ask for their money back, we will not know exactly how much is available, but assuming for the moment that there is a significant portion of this money left which can be applied to a significant project—we are talking a quarter of a million dollar project that could follow for the benefit of the people of Mount Gambier—and they, overwhelmingly, want to have a say about how this is spent.

The government's proposal in this bill is for Country Health SA, which is now a body of the Department of Health, to undertake or call upon the Health Advisory Council for it to then undertake a consultation process in any terms it sees fit for its community, and then in consultation that Country Health SA makes a decision.

Implied in all of that is that Country Health SA is the vehicle upon which the Health Advisory Council, after its consultation and deliberations, works with to make that decision. That is implicit but it is not explicit. At the end of the day, the ultimate determinant of what is going to happen will be a decision by Country Health SA. That is the provision in this legislation.

So, in considering whether that is adequate, obviously the opposition has taken advice from parliamentary counsel, to be able to say, 'Well, does this reflect the local community having a decision? If you do not have this structure what else should you have?' The only other reasonable structure is if the Health Advisory Council is the ultimate determining body as to the decision making, and that, as is already proposed in this bill, it consult with the community and make a decision on behalf of the local community about how those funds are applied.

In the last few weeks, I have attended a number of country regions—I think one with the minister and a number of other meetings in country South Australia—in respect of the future of hospital services. Most often they have been in the presence of Mr Peter Blacker, a former member of this house, who has been appointed, along with a number of others, to a task force to review the Country Health Care Plan and to identify and ultimately settle upon a plan for future health services in regional and rural South Australia.

During that exercise, Mr Blacker told meeting after meeting that, having pulled the original Country Health Care Plan, and having, I suppose, seen the error of their ways reflected in the delivery of services, they should develop up their plan to identify what services they need. Mr Blacker then referred to the importance of working out future health services with none other than the health advisory councils. After all, that is what the Health Advisory Council is supposed to be there to do: identify what is important in the community and do those consultations.

Having identified the error of their ways under this sort of centrally controlled bureaucratic health care proposal, they have acknowledged—even in that important exercise—the importance of health advisory councils. So, it is the opposition's view—and we will be moving an amendment—that the Health Advisory Council in consultation with its community should be making the decision as to how the balance of these funds are to be applied: into what exercise, what program or what equipment for the benefit of people living in the Mount Gambier area. The hospital, as we understand it, is the ideal site for this.

What is quite extraordinary—even though the opposition is told that it is important to be consistent with the Health Care Act and the structure of governance—is the claim that the structure that is being presented to us is consistent with that. It is one thing to talk about the Health Care Act and the structure and management of health services in this state when we are talking about taxpayers' money, but it is another thing entirely when we are talking about a local community's effort to raise money for its own purpose. That is the distinguishing feature here.

We are not talking about who should make the decisions and who should control the money for health care services in South Australia. The Minister for Health, I am sure, would say, 'Well, that is entirely consistent with what we've got in the Health Care Act, because we now have a new structure of governance. I'm in control; the buck stops with me. My CEO employs everybody, and we make the decisions, and that's law.' That is to be noted. We do not agree with it, but we do not take issue with the fact that that is the case.

What we say here is that the $270,000-plus that has been raised by the community of Mount Gambier—individual groups, corporates and community fundraising—is not taxpayers' money. It is from the local community people, and they should have complete control over what program or what equipment replaces it. So, the opposition will be moving the amendment which has been tabled to support that initiative.

Some may say that it is a bit of a fine line. It may be that Country Health SA—the bureaucrats—in consultation with the Health Advisory Council has a completely free rein to find out what the local community wants and, when it comes back, it has to make a decision which is consistent with what most of the community wants—not what the Health Advisory says but, rather, in an assessment unrelated to that obligation it will provide that. Clause 5(3) provides:

Country Health SA must not implement a funds proposal under this act unless Country Health SA—

(a) having considered any submissions made under subsection (2) [the HAC consultation process] reasonably believes that the proposal is generally supported by the community in and around Mount Gambier; and

(b) considers that the part of the fund that is not returned to donors in accordance with this act is an amount sufficient for the implementation of the proposal.

In other words, there is enough money to do what they want to do. Obviously, if the local community says that it still wants a hydrotherapy pool or something that will cost $1 million, they cannot say, 'That's what we want so you cannot make a decision contrary to that. You tell them that's what we want, even though we have only one-quarter of the money.' Subsection 3(a) is important. It provides:

(a) having considered any submissions made under subsection (2) reasonably believes that the proposal is generally supported by the community in and around Mount Gambier...

How will Country Health SA decide that? It does not say that the decision has to be consistent with the recommendation from the Health Advisory Council. It says that, having received and considered those submissions—whatever they might be—it must be satisfied that it believes that the proposal is generally supported by the community. How does it know that? It has an obligation under this legislation, surely, to go out and do it itself in order to make a judgment about whether what it is getting from HAC as a recommendation is consistent with a determination, by someone undefined, that the proposal is generally supported by the community.

This proposal is a complete nonsense. Therefore, it is important that the Health Advisory Council—the people who have been nominated by local people and ultimately appointed by the minister—should be making this decision, not Country Health SA in consultation with HAC, having received its submission and then making a determination about whether it is consistent with what the people say. That is a shambles.

It is important that we give back to the people of Mount Gambier—the people who raised this money—the decision as to what will happen with the money. I indicate that we will be moving an amendment.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (16:23): I thank the opposition for its support in principle. I appeal to members opposite at this stage, for reasons I will make clear in a minute, that they do not proceed with their amendment at this time. If they feel we need to strengthen the words in relation to the proposal, we are prepared to do so between the houses. We believe the words (as set out) satisfy their requirements, to the extent that they can be satisfied.

I need to make it clear that the opposition does not understand the genesis of the appeal. I think the best way to do that is to table a document entitled 'Hydrotherapy Pool Appeal'. The document, signed by Ann Mulcahy, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Mount Gambier and District Health Services Inc., clearly establishes that it was the hospital from the outset that set out to raise this money, and used a subcommittee to do that on its behalf, and that Maureen Klintberg, who did a wonderful job and almost single-handedly was responsible for raising most of the nearly $300,000, began by being employed by the hospital to do that for a very modest amount of time, and then went on in her own time in an enormous voluntary capacity to continue raising those funds. What happened at the end of that period is that it became clear that—

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the flow of the minister, but he is tabling the document and it is not a statistical record and, therefore, is not able to be inserted into Hansard. I do not have any objection to that, even if the minister is allowed to do it, on the basis that—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, for the purposes of its being included in Hansard you want to table it, do you not? It is not a statistical record.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister may table a document, and it will not be included in Hansard. It is statistical matter only that can be included in Hansard.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is that all that is being done?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister is tabling a document. That is all that is being done, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I ask that I be shown a copy of it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the normal protocol.

Ms Chapman: Is there a copy?

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I can provide the member with one. The reason why I am tabling it is that, rather than delaying the house unreasonably, it is better that I table the document so that we can see going between the two houses the genesis of the whole matter and how it was set out, managed and authorised by the hospital board. It also quite clearly sets out the intent. I would be delighted if that could be made available to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do that simply because—

Ms Chapman: That was not available yesterday afternoon when I asked for it.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: It was not?

Ms Chapman: No.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: Did you ask for it?

Ms Chapman: Yes.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: You did not ask me.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is sufficient debate across the floor. The minister will make his address in reply.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: The only reason why I am tabling it now is because I became aware of a conversation that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had on South East Radio this morning. That was the first time that I became aware that she had not been well briefed, had not researched it and did not understand the whole thing. That is why I chose to simply—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: We all assumed—

Ms Chapman: Tell the truth.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader will withdraw that remark.

Ms CHAPMAN: Withdraw the remark of 'You tell the truth'? I decline to do so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the deputy leader is really aware that the implication is that the minister is lying, and that is not acceptable under parliamentary standing orders. So, the deputy leader needs to—

Ms CHAPMAN: I take issue with that, Madam Chair. In the history of this house, in the 35 years I have come in and out of this house to observe it—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —I have never known of a ruling that to call on someone to tell the truth is deemed to be unparliamentary. If that is the case, I am happy to accept it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will take her seat while I take advice. The advice is that this matter is unparliamentary. The deputy leader may not have come across it before, but that is the advice. So, I ask her to withdraw the remark. Also, interjections are out of order. So, just withdraw the remark and we can move on.

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure now whether you are asking me to do it because it was an interjection or it is unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am asking you because it is unparliamentary.

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