There is little doubt that a new private hospital in Launceston is warranted.

The two Calvary hospitals are tired and in need of significant remodelling to suit community needs.

An unsolicited bid, from Calvary, is in advanced planning before the Coordinator-General's office, to co-locate a new hospital in Launceston.

This project appears to be the best opportunity we have to remedy some of the service delivery issues.

But if we don't have a broad understanding of existing and future needs, I fear we will fail to make the most of this opportunity.

The plan to merge St Luke and St Vincent's into the Adult Community Mental Health Services site, opposite the Launceston General Hospital on Frankland Street, makes geographic sense.

However, this site has a fairly small building footprint, certainly not one which could easily merge the facilities the two hospitals provide, without acquiring other parcels of land in the vicinity.

The development could be expanded beyond the existing title, to grow the health precinct, being cognizant of the important heritage homes on Balfour Street and the occupiers' amenity.

The matter of where ACMHS will be located must also be thoroughly investigated. The Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team, housed at the Frankland Street site, must be able to access the ED at the LGH quickly to alleviate suffering and waiting room congestion.

The new ACMHS facility should take into account best practise for community mental health support, understanding that one of every two Australians will experience mental ill-health during their lifetime.

There is a danger that UTAS and Calvary are acting in the dreaded and stifling, silos. As new courses are determined for UTAS, understanding of the requirements for health professionals, both in the private and public health systems should be taken into account.

The Tasmanian Health System has relied too heavily on costly locums, who fail to offer continuity of care for patients.

If research and lecturing opportunities could be offered to health professionals along with access to both private and public systems, we might find health professionals look more favourably on tenure in Launceston.

Admissions at the LGH have risen by 37 per cent in the five years to 2016-17 and with that has come bed-block, ambulance ramping and increase staff and patient stress.

With continued specialist shortages and threats to hospital training accreditation, the Launceston health ecosystem is in need of a reboot.

My biggest concern is that if the new hospital is wholly operated by a faith-based organisation, we continue to fail the needs of the entire population.

Assisted reproductive technology, sterilisation procedures and medical terminations should be offered in all hospitals.

In my opinion, these services must be performed in the new hospital, if not by Calvary, then by another provider.

This must be written into any agreement with the Tasmanian Government. Palliative care services will be included in this redevelopment and remembering that in order to serve the entire community, services must consider the secular community, as well as people of faith.

With a 60 per cent increase in palliative care services at the LGH from 2014-15 to 2016-17, it is clear that some of the congestion at the hospital could be alleviated by increased palliative care beds.

The case for a standalone facility has been knocked back by the current state government early in their first term and not reconsidered, leaving our community with very few options.

Finally, voluntary assisted dying legislation is due to be debated in the Tasmanian Parliament, in this term, and in my opinion, in every term until it is passed.

With Victoria leading the way, I believe, it is a matter of time before all states follow suit.

There is a clear community interest in having the right to choose the manner and time of our own deaths.

Any new health facility must have the capacity to adapt to those changes, without the barrier of rigid faith-based mission statements.