Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 February 2010) . . Page.. 162 ..

government should take, and those opinions may be very valid, but they are not policy decisions this government has taken. Mr Hanson’s question to me was that other people have disputed the Treasury analysis, and that is incorrect. Nobody has, and nobody has been able to, and nobody will, because the numbers hold up. There is a $145 million improved outcome on our budget.

Now, you go away and find someone who can dispute that and then we will send it off for independent peer review, as we have done with the Treasury analysis. And then, when you have got that, you come in here and then you say, “Yay, we have found someone who says the Treasury analysis is wrong,” because you have not found anyone yet.

Terence Dwyer, Professor Sinclair and Tony Harris have different opinions about positions the government should take. The government have stood here a number of times and said that we believe the public hospital should be owned by the public. That is the fundamental difference between all of that analysis—they are all opinions that say, “You don’t need to own it.” We are saying we think the people of the ACT should own their public hospital, and we think there are benefits to come from that. That is a difference of opinion, Mr Hanson, not incorrect Treasury analysis.

I am very sorry; you have got to go back and find from your experts someone who can dispute the figures, and you will not find anyone. Then you have to explain how the supposed economic rationalists of this city are ignoring the fact that the buy option was the best one for our budget. You go and explain to people where that $145 million should be taken from if we are to proceed with the status quo, because that is the reality. Every option costs money, but the best option in terms of our finances moving forward is the buy option. So you go and explain where you are going to find the difference in that money if you are happy to see the status quo remain.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, a supplementary question?

MR HANSON: I ask the Treasurer if she will confirm that she does consider Mr Harris an expert, and does she consider his analysis, which she tabled yesterday, to be wrong?

MS GALLAGHER: The analysis that Tony Harris provided—and I am not aware of the instructions that were given to him from the archbishop; this was work that was commissioned by the archbishop but the archbishop provided me with his analysis—

Mr Smyth: Oh, so it is an analysis?


Mr Smyth: So it is an analysis?

MS GALLAGHER: It has “analysis”, I think, from memory, on the top of the sheet. It says “analysis”, so that is what I will call it.

Mr Doszpot: The Chief Minister didn’t think so.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video