HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOUNT GAMBIER HOSPITAL HYDROTHERAPY POOL FUND BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 February 2009. Page 1190.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:12): This is somewhat different to the legislation that we usually address in this council. Nevertheless, the thrust of this bill is simple enough: it proposes to allow donations that were made for a hydrotherapy pool in Mount Gambier to be returned after the appeal was aborted due to a lack of funds. The bill also requires the health advisory council to consult with the Mount Gambier community and recommend a project to put any remaining moneys towards the funding. However, the final determination will be made by Country Health SA.

It is possible that up to $170,000 could be given back to identifiable donors, which would leave $130,000 able to be allocated. Members have touched upon these issues in their speeches in the other place and also in this chamber, and I note the contribution of and amendments proposed by the Hon. John Darley. However, I would like to bring another angle to this debate: is it still possible that there can be a hydrotherapy pool in Mount Gambier?

As members are aware, the appeal, which attracted widespread support more than eight years ago, fell through when the Mount Gambier Hospital announced that it could not afford to install and operate a large hydrotherapy pool. It is my understanding that the government has no current plan for the establishment of such a pool at Mount Gambier.

My office was informed by a spokesperson from the health department that it was not seen as a priority and that the benefits of a pool were outweighed by the exorbitant cost of building and maintaining it and, as such, the community had accepted that the idea had been shelved. I decided that I would look into the matter further just to make sure.

I was interested to read an article in the local paper, The Border Watch, dated 9 December 2008 entitled 'Hydrotherapy pool push revived' which asserted that the Mount Gambier community's RSL had reignited a push for a hydrotherapy pool to be built. A phone call to the RSL's executive officer, Jock Chambers, confirmed that more than 2,000 members were supportive of the continued lobbying of the government for a pool and that, following a meeting last November, a submission had been made for the Mount Gambier Hospital's newly established health advisory council to consider.

It seems to me that the government has been trying to act as though demand for the pool had subsided simply because it does not want to spend the money on maintaining it. An RSL member with whom my office spoke disputed the government's claim that a pool would cost too much to maintain and operate, although he said that an issue had been the health department's committing itself to ongoing maintenance costs and also the reluctance on the part of the hospital administration to get behind the project. RSL State Vice-President Peter Coulson said that he was in the process of getting a reliable quote, and that he was totally convinced that Mount Gambier could purchase and maintain a slightly smaller pool than the one at Griffith Rehabilitation Centre at Hove, which he said cost about $12,000 to $15,000 a year to maintain, and that is excluding heating.

The Chairman of the Community Advisory Committee also said that he was a strong advocate for a hydrotherapy pool and that the committee had voted twice in favour of one. He said that, while the government said that the ongoing costs would be ludicrous and had been estimated at around $150,000 per year, he believed they had not been correctly evaluated. He said that the pool did not need to be massive and that maintenance costs could be offset by others, such as local physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons hiring the pool, as he had previously seen work well in Western Australia.

He said that he could name many people who could benefit from it, such as those recuperating from strokes and those with back and leg injuries who were trying to make do with normal pools. Although the lower house has already passed this bill to have the $300,000 returned to the community, clearly there is still strong demand for this facility in Mount Gambier. Let us keep in mind that $300,000 was donated by locals for its construction—no small feat for a city of fewer than 24,000 people (according to the 2006 census). Let me just say that I am certainly not in favour of the government holding onto this money which really belongs to the Mount Gambier community. I just think that, as such a large amount of money was donated for the purpose of building a hydrotherapy pool, if it is feasible and the demand for such a facility still exists, should not our priority be making it a reality?

Of course, this would take a 'can do' attitude, which the Leader of the Opposition in the other place often tells us this government just does not have. An RSL member pointed out to me that South Australian towns smaller than Mount Gambier (such as Naracoorte) have hydrotherapy pools, as do many over the border. He said that the health and wellbeing of the older population in particular would greatly benefit from such a facility. Hydrotherapy is most often used to treat musculoskeletal disorders, such as arthritis. Like many regional areas, Mount Gambier has quite an ageing population. Indeed, I am told that the biggest residential building complex is the retirement village, and the renewed push for a pool has been instigated by the RSL.

It would also benefit those recovering from accidents at work, such as those on WorkCover, or sporting injuries, for example. Patients suffering burns, spinal cord injuries and spasticity would also greatly benefit from a hydrotherapy pool. In response to this renewed push, my office met with the RSL's State Vice-President Mr Peter Coulson, Grant King of the Mount Gambier Health Advisory Council and Tony Donohue a local pool manufacturer. Mr Donohue provided a quote on the supply and installation of a 10.5 metre Southern Cross Compass pool. The total cost, including GST, was just under $65,000. This included things such as a solar pump and sensor, dual pump and filtration, vantage in-floor cleaning, and so on.

Mr Donohue also advised that in South Australia automatic dosing units are mandatory and that the approximate cost of this would be around $4,500—and this is outside work. The cost of installing a chair with no water connection was $13,520, with UV sanitisation approximately $3,000 to $5,000 depending on the approximate pool working load. All up, Mr Donohue estimated that capital for the pool would not exceed $100,000. I am told that the government's main issue is with the ongoing costs. My office contacted Country Health SA to request a copy of the operating costs of the Naracoorte hydrotherapy pool, but unfortunately I am yet to receive this information. I do hope that this has not been stalled so as to let this bill pass unhindered in the meantime.

At this meeting my office was provided with some information on Griffith Rehabilitation Hospital's hydrotherapy pool. It is 13 x 6 metres in size with a depth of between 900 centimetres and 1.5 metres. The pool's capacity is 93,600 litres, which is slightly larger than what has been proposed by Mr Donohue. Annual system operating costs, excluding heating, were around $15,000. Unfortunately, I was unable to be provided with the costs for electricity or gas, which undoubtedly will comprise a very significant percentage of the running costs.

However, I ask the minister to consider whether this small pool could be achieved within the funds available considering that the significant solar-power system would offset the electrical operating costs. As for location, the Mount Gambier Hospital was seen by those at the meeting as the preferred site but not the only option. Of course, the cost of building works would need to be considered. The RSL estimated that about $50,000 would be required for this. I believe that there is something for the government and Country Health SA at least to consider here, and I wanted to draw this matter to the attention of this council. As I said, many stakeholders have informed my office that the original costs were vastly overstated, particularly with the smaller size pool.

It is possible that the project could still be feasible without being a drain on government finances. In addition, as a major regional centre, I think that Mount Gambier deserves such a pool. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about regional hubs, world-class facilities, super hospitals, and so on. Under the government's Country Health Care Plan, Mount Gambier was designated as a major hub, and therefore I believe it should have such facilities. After all, they are common, very common, in Adelaide. Why should Mount Gambier residents be treated as second-class citizens? If the government is serious about the health of the state's second largest city (as one local member told me), it needs to put its money where its mouth is. Another said that he was convinced that there is a need and that the government's plan should reinforce that.

I believe the government's refusal to provide a hydrotherapy pool in Mount Gambier is further proof that the country health plan is solely about savings and not services. It is not as though the residents at Mount Gambier are asking to be world leaders. When smaller country hospitals such as Naracoorte offer hydrotherapy, it seems ridiculous that the super hospital in Mount Gambier will not. So, my message to members is that I believe we should listen to the demands of Mount Gambier residents and have a hydrotherapy pool there if it is feasible, and that should be the ultimate goal. However, if I am wrong and the costs are simply too high, I will be happy to humbly apologise and support the intention of the bill.

It is an interesting point that the RSL and the Australian Hotels Association have indicated that they would prefer money to go to local charities and not to another hospital project. Is this indicative of the disillusionment in respect of this process? Mr Acting President, I table documents relating to quotes for this project, so that other members can access that information.

I commend this bill to the council. First and foremost, we should be considering whether this is a possibility and it is just a lack of will that is preventing it. The benefits of hydrotherapy are well-known and appreciated, well documented and proven and, as a medical treatment, can bring a great deal of benefit and faster healing to many people who suffer injuries. So, I ask members to consider this point of view.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (17:24): I rise to briefly contribute to the second reading of the Mount Gambier Hospital Hydrotherapy Pool Fund Bill and to make a couple of points. I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Ann Bressington in her contribution a moment ago that it is a great pity that the hydrotherapy pool project at Mount Gambier seems to have been abandoned at a time when other hospitals in this state have hydrotherapy pools and are using them and finding them effective.

I recall some years ago visiting the Jamestown Hospital, which wanted a hydrotherapy system installed. The hospital received no support on that occasion from the health department. It raised funds locally and was able to purchase a pool that had been used as part of the Sydney Olympics. That is an example of a small community getting behind its hospital and installing a facility that locals would use, notwithstanding the fact that the central bureaucracy did not wish to support it. So, it is a pity that the moves to establish a hydrotherapy pool at Mount Gambier had to be abandoned, because the community, by its support to the extent of a quarter of a million dollars, clearly wanted one. However, the project was simply not funded, and that is regrettable.

The second point I would make is that as a matter of principle it is right that those who make charitable donations for a purpose which fails ought have an opportunity to have their money refunded to them, and that is something that ought to be reinforced and is a central feature of this bill. It is all very well to say in relation to some appeals that the individual amounts donated were so small that the cost of refunding the money outweighs the funds themselves; but, when people establish a fund, they have to bear in mind that, if a fund does not succeed, those who established it should be responsible for returning, or at least offering to return, the money to those who made the donations. Very often people will say, 'I do not want the money back. I have given it and I am happy to see it used for some similar purpose'. However, if they do not say that, they ought to have their money returned.

The third point I would make is that I think it is regrettable that this has taken as long as it has to reach this stage. This money has been sitting there for years. It has not been appropriately used. When it was clear to those in control of this scheme that it was not going to work, the process of return ought to have been embarked upon immediately.

Indeed, I think in cases such as this consideration ought be given to making it a term of the original appeal that if the money is not able to be used for the intended purpose within a specified period it will be returned to the persons making the donation if they have indicated on their donation form that that is their wish. When hospitals and other organisations are undertaking appeals of this kind, I think it would be appropriate for them to indicate that, if the money cannot be used for the intended purpose within a specified time, it will be returned.

We insist, for example, in relation to lotteries, raffles and the like that there be an end date by which the raffle has to be held and the prizes distributed. You cannot go on extending until such time as you have raised sufficient money. You actually have to meet your commitment. I think it is regrettable that, in cases such as this, a similar sort of scheme does not apply. Indeed, I ask the minister to indicate whether any information is available to show whether such a scheme would be practicable.

I commend the Hon. John Darley for proposing amendments to ensure that the Commissioners of Charitable Funds, under the Public Charities Funds Act, fulfil the function that is truly theirs under our law. I am glad to see that the Mount Gambier and Districts Health Advisory Council Inc. will be the body to be consulted in relation to the disposition of the balance of any funds that are not refunded.

I notice that the Hon. John Darley has this day placed on file four pages of amendments; I gather they are not of great significance. Frankly, I have not had an opportunity to study them in detail. I gather that it is not intended to take the bill through the committee stage today; I think that is good, because members ought have the opportunity to examine the amendments proposed before they are discussed in detail.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (17:31): By way of concluding remarks, I thank the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Robert Lawson and the Hon. Stephen Wade for their contribution.

The government's bill achieves the primary purpose of enabling the funds held by the Commissioners of Charitable Funds for the failed hydrotherapy pool to be used for an alternative purpose that is acceptable to the local community. The bill provides for the Mount Gambier and Districts Health Advisory Council and Country Health SA to be responsible for developing an alternative proposal for the use of the funds and for the Mount Gambier and Districts Health Advisory Council to be responsible for the consultation process. It therefore ensures that the community are informed and part of the decision-making process.

The bill prevents Country Health SA from using the money for a purpose that is not generally acceptable to the local community, and it requires Country Health SA to return donations, with interest, to those who request it, subject to some verification that they are legitimate donors. The bill has all the principles in the legislation that are required to ensure a satisfactory outcome for this issue. Crucially, the bill before the council is supported by the Mount Gambier and Districts Health Advisory Council.

The government believes that it is not the appropriate role of the Commissioners of Charitable Funds to be involved in the process of community consultation and the development of an alternative proposal. For this reason, and because health advisory councils do not as yet have deductible gift recipient status, under the bill the money is to be transferred to Country Health SA, where it can be properly held until an alternative proposal is agreed to. The Commissioners of Charitable Funds support the bill as it is tabled in the council, since it will resolve the situation for the Mount Gambier Hospital.

The government accepts that the amendments to the bill before the council would achieve the same outcome for the community in and around Mount Gambier in terms of consultation on a proposal and the return of donations. Again, the Commissioners of Charitable Funds support these amendments because of their wish to resolve the situation. The government thanks the commissioners for their flexibility in this matter.

Again, in order to try to finalise this issue, the amendments are supported by the Mount Gambier and Districts Health Advisory Council. The government, too, is keen for the matter to be resolved and, because the amendments are in keeping with the principles of the Health Care Act, the government accepts the amendments before the council.

The government would like to correct a matter put before the council by the Hon. John Darley, that is, that Country Health SA was incompetent or negligent in failing to obtain deductible gift recipient status endorsement by the Australian Taxation Office of the health advisory councils. In 2008, the Department of Health asked the Australian Taxation Office to consider the deductible gift recipient status of health advisory councils. The department was only recently advised that the Taxation Office's senior tax counsel is currently looking at this matter. The Australian Taxation Office is yet to make a ruling.

In relation to the proposal put forward by the Hon. Ann Bressington, namely, that it is still possible that an alternative cheaper pool could be built under this bill, the honourable member may well be right. It may be the case, and it may be the course of action the local community choose to take. The consultation process, which will be undertaken following the passing of the bill, will allow the community to determine the type of project on which they choose to spend the remainder of their funds. It is up to the local community to determine whether they want a smaller version of the pool, if the cost is within the funds available, or some other alternative.

The original project could not be implemented due to the fact that the finances could not be raised. The donations have been offered for return, and the government has given a commitment in relation to this matter. Therefore, the amount of funds available will only be known once the original donors have confirmed whether or not they require a refund of their donation. So, we do not know how much will be in the fund to spend on an alternative proposal, and we need to go through that process before we know what will be left in the kitty, so to speak. This amount will obviously have a bearing on the alternative proposal that can be implemented. As I said, the Hon. Ann Bressington's proposal may well be the viable alternative the local community choose. So, it is the government's intention that the incorporated health advisory councils be endorsed to have deductible gift recipient status. With those comments I look forward to the committee stage and, if I have not answered all questions, I am happy to do so then.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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