Page 4434 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If we used this money for something else, what would happen? What about the other options? How would they play out? What are the costs of this decision? What are the benefits of this decision? What are the opportunity costs of this decision and what are the benefits of any other proposals? That work has not been done and it has been accepted holus-bolus. This motion is about saying, “If the government are not going to do this work, and they clearly have not, then let’s get the independent auditor to actually look at some of these issues and test some of the claims so that we can have some more information on which to make a decision.”
Why are the Labor Party and the Greens so afraid of analysis of this? Surely the process that we have going forward, where there is apparently open consultation, should involve this kind of analysis so that the community can look at it with all the cards on the table instead of just the dribs and drabs given to us by the government in relation to their justification.
A number of issues have been raised and they may well be resolvable issues. But they are issues that have been put out by a number of groups, and we are saying, “Make the case in detail. If you are going to have such a significant change, such a significant purchase, such a significant decision, you should be able to back it up with more analysis than we have seen.”
We know that Dr Paul Jones, the AMA’s ACT president, raised concerns. He said:
But I find it … hard to get my head around … $100 million—
which is now $77 million—
give it to the LCM, in order to spend $200 million … over a 10-year period—
on the Calvary site—
It is also … hard … to understand why you take a service which currently runs to budget and hand it over to … another service which regularly runs over budget and … says, “Please, sir, I want some more.”
That was in a statement to the estimates committee on 15 May. Dr Jones raised other concerns in relation to the delivery of services to north Canberra: “I have grave concerns about the ability of any government to give a reassurance going forward that services will not be gradually eroded. It seems to me no government would go to an election and say, ‘We are going to turn Calvary into a subacute and rehab centre but it is possible that over time services could be moved or downgraded gradually.’ This is certainly the concern being expressed by our members, not one of whom has expressed to me any enthusiasm for the deal.”
He is calling for more detail. He is raising notes of caution and we should listen to that. Mr Hanson has indeed been taking up these concerns. We saw the concerns expressed by Professor Peter Collignon, the President of the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation, in the Canberra Times on 1 October, saying, “We see no justification for the ACT taxpayers giving close to $100 million.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .