Page 4436 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are a number of key points that I believe should be reiterated in this debate, because it seems that the Liberal Party just do not get it. They just do not understand that there are some fundamental issues here that they are clearly choosing to ignore. They are clearly choosing to disregard their responsibilities in this place to have a policy position, to state what it is they believe rather than to equivocate and to avoid the hard decision that they are going to be asked potentially to make in this place in the next couple of months.
The opposition propose effectively that the decision making on this matter should be refered to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General is an extremely capable public servant, but she is not elected to make decisions; indeed she is not elected at all. What Mr Hanson is proposing effectively is that the Auditor-General be asked to make a decision on whether or not this proposal should proceed. But it is not the Auditor-General who makes decisions about public policy in the ACT; it is the executive, and where necessary this place, when it comes to approval for funding and the making of legislation for the territory.
Less than two weeks ago of course the Minister for Health announced a six-week public consultation process on the issue of the potential transfer of Calvary and Clare Holland House. That process will finish in mid-November and that consultation process will properly inform the government’s decision making on this matter. The government have released a discussion paper, we have provided the community with a series of question and answer documents and we have released a full financial analysis prepared by the ACT Treasury on the proposed transfer.
This is the action of a government committed to an informed debate and to a debate that engages the community. The process provides the community with all of the information available to the government itself about the possible purchase of Calvary Public Hospital, including the implications of the transfer on health outcomes of the community and on the territory’s financial position. We believe that this process is a comprehensive one.
Of course, in addition to this, should the government take the final decision that it wishes to proceed with the purchase of Calvary public, there will be the need to present an appropriation bill to the Assembly and for that bill to be considered by the Assembly, including through, we would anticipate, the Select Committee on Estimates. This again will provide members of this place with the time that they need to scrutinise the government’s proposal, to examine officials through the Select Commitee on Estimates and then to reach a decision. That is a thorough process. That is a considered process.
The attempt to involve the Auditor-General in this debate is of real concern to the government because, as Ms Bresnan pointed out, it is contrary to the clear intentions of the Auditor-General Act. The Auditor-General Act 1996 provides that the Auditor-General is not subject to direction by the executive or any minister in the exercise of the functions of the Auditor-General. What the Liberal Party is saying is that it is all right for it to be not subject to direction as the act specifies in relation to the executive but that the Assembly can behave in whatever way it wants. Either the Auditor-General is an independent officer or she is not. Either the Auditor-General is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .