Page 4471 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COE: What we want to see is for a successful model of operation to be given the opportunity to continue, if that is what is best.
Ms Gallagher: They’ve got one there now that is making money for them.
MR COE: But we will only know that—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Mr Coe, one minute. Ms Gallagher, please let us hear Mr Coe in silence.
MR COE: We will only know that if we are provided with good independent advice from the Auditor-General, because the government certainly is not providing that advice, so that we can make a clear decision.
The argument that the minister is pushing is a thinly veiled attempt at an expansion of government at the expense of private initiative and private enterprise, and in this case at the expense of good healthcare outcomes in the territory as well. So many areas of government service provision can be enhanced or improved by the presence of non-government providers, and healthcare is no exception.
It is interesting that the Greens are not supporting this motion, because motion No 4 on the notice paper here today is about the benefits of non-government housing providers. So the Greens think there is a place for the non-government sector in housing, but they do not think there is a place for non-government providers in healthcare.
Ms Bresnan: Yes, we do. Have you heard us talk about mental health?
MR COE: So what is the difference here? If they were serious about spending taxpayers’ money wisely, if they were serious about the healthcare of Canberrans, they would seek information from the expert advice that would be provided by the Auditor-General.
The Canberra Liberals are not alone in expressing significant concern about this proposed sale. A long list of people, including the Catholic archbishop, medical figures and staff, and members of the community, have raised concerns. One person that Mrs Dunne already spoke about whose concerns I too will raise is Andrew Podger. He is a former secretary of the commonwealth department of health and in the Canberra Times of Thursday, 14 May 2009 he was described as “one of the most thoughtful commentators on our health services”. He believes that, instead of pre-empting major reforms being considered to health funding by the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, keeping the current arrangements under which Calvary operates would have benefits that include greater efficiencies, diversity and choice. He takes a reality check on the situation and, as Mrs Dunne said, on page 4 of the Public Sector Informant of 5 May 2009, suggests:
But this is really playing accounting mirrors, because either way the ACT Government (with federal help) will continue to meet the costs of the hospital’s public patient services. Moreover, the underlying liabilities will be lower if the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .