Page 568 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and will continue to do so regardless of the ownership arrangements. Changing the ownership of the hospital will not improve that health service one iota.
To illustrate my point, I refer to the following exchange in the chamber between myself and Ms Gallagher on 17 June 2009 during debate on Calvary and Clare Holland House. I said:
… we are struggling to find any record of the decisions that have led to a point where it looks as though a deal is going to be signed on something that is going to have such a huge impact on the future of Canberra and on our budget.
Ms Gallagher said:
It is going to have no impact on the future of Canberra, you fool.
I replied:
It is going to have no impact?
Ms Gallagher responded:
No impact. Nothing will change for the people of Canberra.
If, in Ms Gallagher’s own view, nothing will change for the people of Canberra, why was she so keen to push the proposal through and spend $77 million dollars for no impact? If there was any evidence that health outcomes would be improved or that our hospital would be any more efficient or effective as a result of the proposal, why was that evidence not presented? The Treasury analysis and the government’s consultation papers failed to provide any evidence that that would be the case.
The simplistic argument that our hospital system would be less complicated and more effective if Calvary was owned by ACT Health was not made out. This point was made in the Canberra Times editorial of 5 October. I quote:
… if there are public benefits to having Calvary brought under a public roof, it must be said that it is highly doubtful that there will be many benefits, or any savings, by bringing it under one management with Canberra Hospital … More likely than not, however, Calvary will continue best if managed separately … All too often amalgamation leads to more, not less bureaucracy, stifles rather than allows innovation, and restricts rather than increases opportunity. If that is a consequence of the takeover, it will have been a bad thing.
The next motion before us today, dealing with current concerns of the Canberra Hospital, illustrates that point clearly.
Given that the minister admitted that there would be no health improvements, the next question is: were there financial benefits to the deal? The answer is no. The fact is that $77 million worth of cash would need to be borrowed or taken from government savings in order to own an asset that is already providing a public health service. This would have resulted in an opportunity cost of the same amount.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video